• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not sure if this was posted yet.

NBC?Survey Monkey
Trump 35
Cruz 18
Rubio 13
Carson 9
Bush 6


Hillary 53
Bernie 36
Gov Abs McHottington 2

Hillary's support is also more firm than Bernies. She's leading by 61 points among AA, and behind only 2% with Whites (which is a problem for Bernie) She leads men by 6% among men and 24% among women.

*Edit: Holy shit at those demographics...only 2% Hispanic? That's just horrible...
 
Fuck.

Edit: Can a mod overturn his perm? Who will I discuss GoT now over PMs :( its ridiculous. Just last week I asked him to please stay unbanned until GoT premieres. Guess it really was too much to ask.

What will we do without his eternally optimistic projections on the release dates of GRRM's books.
 
Never thought I'd see the day that PD was permed. Which is odd, considering it seems like he's been banned two dozen times in just the few years I've been here. Guess someone else will have to start writing HillBama Erotica.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Batshit insane.

He's not wrong in one respect though - I do appreciate the sentiment that the pro-immigration side tends to be largely elites telling unskilled/low income laborers what's "best" for them in some ways. I really do appreciate that.

But its still shitty.

How true is it that illegal immigration (and not just immigration in general) drives down wages?
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I will never, ever, ever understand how anyone can argue against background checks on gun sales. It makes absolutely zero sense to me.

The second and third words of the 2nd Amendment are literally "well regulated."
 

johnsmith

remember me
This picture has the potential to kill what's left of Rubio's campaign.


A Vote for Marco Rubio Is a Vote for Men’s High-Heeled Booties
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/01/vote-for-marco-rubio-is-a-vote-for-boots.html

05-rubio-boots.w245.h368.2x.jpg
 

Marvie_3

Banned
I will never, ever, ever understand how anyone can argue against background checks on gun sales. It makes absolutely zero sense to me.

The second and third words of the 2nd Amendment are literally "well regulated."
Gun nuts tend to skip over that part.


Crazy that PD was perma'd.
 

Cerium

Member
Really good story from WaPo on how the other establishment Rs are blasting Christie to weaken him in NH. Still waiting for the inevitable Trump collapse, I guess....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?postshare=3511452030122875&tid=ss_tw

It's the establishment circular firing squad which has me feeling good about Trump's chances in NH. None of those clowns are going to drop out, and all of them think it's a must win. Waters will be bloody while Trump sails over them in his luxurious yacht.
 
Trump is spending in Iowa because if he does not do well the whole facade falls apart and this is over.

Trump is guaranteed top 2. Even top 3 is a stretch.

It's trivial to paint a near loss in Iowa at the feet of the same evangelicals who gave Huckabee and Santorum the win.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Steve Israel isn't running in NY-03. Cook PVI of EVEN, so this is going to be an expensive race.

Damn, just when my parents got redistricted into the NY-03, a small part of Queens got folded into it. That's another election I'm going to need to keep track of that I thought I could safely ignore.
 

Cerium

Member
Hillary is going to be at the top of the ticket. Expect a home state bounce.

Hillary is tight with the establishment here but I don't think the average voter has any great loyalty to her because she represented New York for a term. She was always seen as a carpetbagger, and her tenure here was just a stepping stone. If there's a bounce it'll be because it's a Presidential year.
 
.@HillaryClinton explains break from Democratic rivals on free college tuition. "I personally will not pay for Donald Trump's child"
This line she keeps repeating really isn't particularly good. Considering Trump's kids wouldn't be going to a public school.
 
Hypothetical question. Suppose Trump or some other Republican wins next year.

Who do the Democrats run in 2020 against the incumbent Republican president?
 

dramatis

Member
I wonder if they tested and analyzed the response to the "God-given potential" line.

I can't see why her campaign would have her use it unless it tested well.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I wonder if they tested and analyzed the response to the "God-given potential" line.

I can't see why her campaign would have her use it unless it tested well.

It probably does. That doesn't make it not dumb as fuck though. But I totally get why they use it.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Just watched Todd interview with Ben Ginsberg who wrote those 3 scenario on the R Nomination.

Ben: "Mathematically the earliest you are looking at the R Nominee is April." He's puts that happening at 40%. Todd mentioned that the establishment is basically conceding the early states to the conservatives hoping to bounce back beginning March 15th.

I actually did the Math on Hillary last year and found the same result. If she sweeps she won't mathematically get it until April 26th.
 
I mean, I love the woman....but that line. It just irks the living hell out of me. I hated it in 2008. When she trotted that old pony out again, I just gritted my teeth. My mom, a retired special education teacher, likes the line. When Hillary said it at one of the debates, she just kinda nodded and smiled. I'm thinking it must play well with someone, or she wouldn't keep using it.

On the other hand, she's always been an advocate for children, so it might just be something she's going to do regardless of how people feel about it.
 
What do you not like about that line? God?

On a good day I'm agnostic, on most days I'm an atheist. I'm not one of those people who get offended when people invoke religion in a positive manner, though. But it's just such a stupid line, really. If she said she wanted to create an education system that would help each child live up to their own unique potential, I'd like it better, I guess. I just don't like int on the whole.

It reminds me of one of those lines that people at my university use to pad the page length. I mark that shit out when I do peer reviews like no ones business.
 

Foffy

Banned
What do you not like about that line? God?

That word panders to ghosts and monarchy.

It is paradoxical to have a culture that believes in a monarchical Big Boss but believes democracy is the best form of government. The oddity of the human/American social ego, I suppose.

Never saw why people need to look beyond their images of themselves for wellbeing. You're almost promised to be pulling at strings.
 
That word panders to ghosts and monarchy.

It is paradoxical to have a culture that believes in a monarchical Big Boss but believes democracy is the best form of government. The oddity of the human/American social ego, I suppose.

Never saw why people need to look beyond their images of themselves for wellbeing. You're almost promised to be pulling at strings
.

I agree. I don't think I'm capable of being a religious person, or at least not dogmatic.
 

Jindrax

Member
Hi everyone first time posting here.
I wanted to ask a few questions to the Americans here.
I'm from Europe, Belgium more precisely. Here we have a healthcare system in place that that everyone pays for, so that everyone can have affordable healthcare.

I wanted to know if the outrage about implementing such a system is caused by the face that a lot of people are fundamentally against it? Or do you think it's more of a question of not wanting to pay for other people? Or afraid of change?

I'd just like to have an American point of view. Since it easy for us Europeans to point a finger and assume certain things but I'd rather have a conversation about it to understand what you guys actually think.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Hi everyone first time posting here.
I wanted to ask a few questions to the Americans here.
I'm from Europe, Belgium more precisely. Here we have a healthcare system in place that that everyone pays for, so that everyone can have affordable healthcare.

I wanted to know if the outrage about implementing such a system is caused by the face that a lot of people are fundamentally against it? Or do you think it's more of a question of not wanting to pay for other people? Or afraid of change?

I'd just like to have an American point of view. Since it easy for us Europeans to point a finger and assume certain things but I'd rather have a conversation about it to understand what you guys actually think.

Some people think its communism.
 
This picture has the potential to kill what's left of Rubio's campaign.


A Vote for Marco Rubio Is a Vote for Men’s High-Heeled Booties
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/01/vote-for-marco-rubio-is-a-vote-for-boots.html

05-rubio-boots.w245.h368.2x.jpg

According to Google, Marco Rubio is 5'10". Which isn't bad. Cruz is 5'8". Of course, Trump, Carson, and Jeb! are all 6'0" or over, so maybe he was feeling a little inadequate. Or maybe he wants to be RDJ, who is known to rock heeled shoes.

Also, that style of shoe is called a "Cuban heel". Which is either him repping his people, or letting us know his wrestling style.
 
Hi everyone first time posting here.
I wanted to ask a few questions to the Americans here.
I'm from Europe, Belgium more precisely. Here we have a healthcare system in place that that everyone pays for, so that everyone can have affordable healthcare.

I wanted to know if the outrage about implementing such a system is caused by the face that a lot of people are fundamentally against it? Or do you think it's more of a question of not wanting to pay for other people? Or afraid of change?

I'd just like to have an American point of view. Since it easy for us Europeans to point a finger and assume certain things but I'd rather have a conversation about it to understand what you guys actually think.
There are a fair few people who do not want to be responsible for other people and those people are usually branded as lazy, immoral, criminals , etc. but in reality I think they're just plain selfish
 

Foffy

Banned
I agree. I don't think I'm capable of being a religious person, or at least not dogmatic.

I hold the personal/"spiritual" view that if anything is true, it has to be an innate process in what we call reality. This means no "becoming" or acquiring things on a path, for it's already in the flow. At best, all we can do is be more mindful to, for lack of a better phrase, of what is. It's why I harp on nondualism a lot, for it's really the only compatible view of various philosophies that encompassess naturalism, which is later shared through the sciences.

Of course, this also means standing fully against various social norms that are unaccountable to this level of inquiry. It means disregarding the notion of a self, soul, or ego with free will, and this is a position almost universally held by people to be a real thing. This assumption creates a lot of suffering, both internally and socially.

This is also why I also am not happy with social measures that don't go the whole way. I'm of the view if we promote anything in society, it must blanket the natural world as compassionately as possible. It's why I call out the problems to labor and healthcare as their models promote conflict, not compassion. All or nothing kind of has to be the approach on those topics, for those in the have not category is simply unjustifiable no matter what argument can be made.

Hi everyone first time posting here.
I wanted to ask a few questions to the Americans here.
I'm from Europe, Belgium more precisely. Here we have a healthcare system in place that that everyone pays for, so that everyone can have affordable healthcare.

I wanted to know if the outrage about implementing such a system is caused by the face that a lot of people are fundamentally against it? Or do you think it's more of a question of not wanting to pay for other people? Or afraid of change?

I'd just like to have an American point of view. Since it easy for us Europeans to point a finger and assume certain things but I'd rather have a conversation about it to understand what you guys actually think.

It's a lot of things, friend, so I'll try and highlight a few of the views.

- People think socialism is innately inferior to free market capitalism
- People think for-profit companies work better than "for-control" government
- People think very dangerously in regards to individualism, for man is an island and all of that bullshit
- People assimilate to norms, so anything even promoting change, even better change, is met with fear
- People assume people are naturally inferior via the belief of Original Sin and the like, so one must prove to be a "worthy" member in society, as we inherit the idea everyone starts off in probation from religion

It's mostly a combination of that. Americans in particular are very high on the idea one exists in a bubble separate from the rest of society, let alone the cosmos, and uses this as a kind of character ranking in terms of social wellbeing. We very much look at our system of a have/have not social game to infer who is a worthy person, and who is a parasite. Social failings become character weaknesses, which only justifies the inequality.
 
Hi everyone first time posting here.
I wanted to ask a few questions to the Americans here.
I'm from Europe, Belgium more precisely. Here we have a healthcare system in place that that everyone pays for, so that everyone can have affordable healthcare.

I wanted to know if the outrage about implementing such a system is caused by the face that a lot of people are fundamentally against it? Or do you think it's more of a question of not wanting to pay for other people? Or afraid of change?

I'd just like to have an American point of view. Since it easy for us Europeans to point a finger and assume certain things but I'd rather have a conversation about it to understand what you guys actually think.

The arguments I've heard are:
1. You also pay higher taxes to afford it. Gas is more expensive than it is here. If we had the same rates you did, our economy would collapse.
2. It would stifle innovation. America has created more healthcare breakthroughs than any other nation because of our free market model.
3. It would create cramped hospitals where people wait for months or years to get surgery, and people die in emergency rooms because they can't get care quickly enough.
 
I agree. I don't think I'm capable of being a religious person, or at least not dogmatic.

The line is not for you then, but the average American who believes in god. I don't know it would it upset anyone considering that politicians and Obama use similar phrases, and considering they are Christians I don't see why it would be a bad thing.
 
Hi everyone first time posting here.
I wanted to ask a few questions to the Americans here.
I'm from Europe, Belgium more precisely. Here we have a healthcare system in place that that everyone pays for, so that everyone can have affordable healthcare.

I wanted to know if the outrage about implementing such a system is caused by the face that a lot of people are fundamentally against it? Or do you think it's more of a question of not wanting to pay for other people? Or afraid of change?

I'd just like to have an American point of view. Since it easy for us Europeans to point a finger and assume certain things but I'd rather have a conversation about it to understand what you guys actually think.

There's a deep seated distrust of government in the United States. I'm sure you've heard the jokes about how we love boot straps and all that jazz. There's this sense that individuals should be responsible for themselves. That increased government programs create increased dependency. There's also a disconnect between what Americans say we want and what that means. A lot of Americans say they want single payer, but they don't want the government involved. It's a disconnect that cannot be rationalized outside "gubbmint is bad." There's also resistance because of how much money our healthcare and insurance systems generate.They have a vested interest in making sure that they keep getting their money. We also have so many private companies that own different aspects of our health care system. There's no way that they could be nationalized a la the NHS.

The way I see it working would be to add a public option to the ACA. Use that as a foothold. Transition people from the Exchange plans to the Federal Plan. Let anyone be able to buy into it. That type of change could be possible if we had a decent majority. Jumping from what we have now to single payer is just something that won't happen. I have no problems with keeping that as the end goal, but I think we have to be realistic about where we are politically.
 

Jindrax

Member
wow ok some of these arguments are completely baffling to me.
Especially this one: It would create cramped hospitals where people wait for months or years to get surgery, and people die in emergency rooms because they can't get care quickly enough.

Now the media here tends to paint the picture that ALL Americans appear to think this way which I know is an exaggeration. But how widespread are these opinions? Definitely the majority?
And how big is the issue exactly? Are people upset about this on a daily basis? And Obamacare? This got implemented started 2016 if I understood it correctly? Are people still upset about this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom