• 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.
Yeah, Sanders is correct there. Bill is probably a disgusting creep, but Hillary shouldn't have to bear the brunt of Bill's shit.

He's referencing the past, but..what exactly caused this to be brought up? Was he asked about old controversy?

Because every media outlet in America is talking about Bill Clinton's rape and sexual misconduct charges because of Trump?
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
This is bullshit and why nobody outside of PoliGAF has the patience for most of you guys. Sanders said that Clinton's behaviour was a disgrace. I think this is both true and pretty uncontroversial. This isn't the same as calling Clinton himself a disgrace, and is not an attack on Clinton's character but a criticism of Clinton's action.

With genuine sincerity and well-meaningness meant here, get your heads the fuck out of your asses and stop being so snooty and deliberately making the worst of everything. Be the better campaign.

EDIT: Obviously not directed at ItWasMeantToBe19.
 

Iolo

Member
He's referencing the past, but..what exactly caused this to be brought up? Was he asked about old controversy?

The article omitted it was prompted by a question by a Sanders supporter asking whether Bill's past disqualified Hillary.
 

Holmes

Member
This is bullshit and why nobody outside of PoliGAF has the patience for most of you guys. Sanders said that Clinton's behaviour was a disgrace. I think this is both true and pretty uncontroversial. This isn't the same as calling Clinton himself a disgrace, and is not an attack on Clinton's character but a criticism of Clinton's action.

With genuine sincerity and well-meaningness meant here, get your heads the fuck out of your asses and stop being so snooty and deliberately making the worst of everything. Be the better campaign.

EDIT: Obviously not directed at ItWasMeantToBe19.
The Clinton campaign will be the better campaign because, just like Trump's attacks, they won't respond to it in any way most likely. But I do think saying "it's an attack on his actions, not his character" is a pretty weak argument.
 

Foffy

Banned
The article omitted it was prompted by a question by a Sanders supporter asking whether Bill's past disqualified Hillary.

He's kind of fucked if that was phrased in such a manner, no?

- Say Bill was good; get people to bury him for justifying affairs. Sexist pig.
- Say Bill was bad; get people to bury him for attacking Hillary indirectly. Sexist pig.
 

johnsmith

remember me
Not a big story, but just the fact that this is something that needs to be said out loud is hilarious. "yes, of course the republican national committee will fully support the republican presidential candidate"

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/reince-priebus-ted-cruz-trump-217489#ixzz3wfz9heqR
Priebus '100 percent' confident he can rally GOP behind Cruz or Trump

The head of the Republican National Committee promises that the Republican nominee will have his party’s full support — no matter who it is.
Responding to a question from Fox News’ Sean Hannity Thursday night, Reince Priebus said he was confident he could pull his party together even if Texas Sen. Ted Cruz or real estate mogul Donald Trump win the nomination.
 
I think the fact that Trump does 10 points worse than Rubio despite all of the attention he's gotten tells you about his potential support outside of the base.

A good point to think about, in the Gallup poll he has the most familiarity among Republicans and independents that lean Republican at 94%, no doubt it is around the same among everyone else. A lot of people known more about Bush and Trump than every other Republican candidate.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
He's kind of fucked if that was phrased in such a manner, no?

- Say Bill was good; get people to bury him for justifying affairs. Sexist pig.
- Say Bill was bad; get people to bury him for attacking Hillary indirectly. Sexist pig.

He could have just said the second part of the quote and that he wasn't going to be playing Trump's game. There was a way out.
 

Holmes

Member
He's kind of fucked if that was phrased in such a manner, no?

- Say Bill was good; get people to bury him for justifying affairs. Sexist pig.
- Say Bill was bad; get people to bury him for attacking Hillary indirectly. Sexist pig.
Third option: just say what he said afterwards, about the election being about policy difference between he and Hillary, not about making personal attacks.
 

Foffy

Banned
Third option: just say what he said afterwards, about the election being about policy difference between he and Hillary, not about making personal attacks.

But he didn't mention the past! Looking to avoid issues like all real politicians! Sexist pig? ;)
 

Iolo

Member
Third option: just say what he said afterwards, about the election being about policy difference between he and Hillary, not about making personal attacks.

I think that despite his intentions, Sanders is just not a great politician, which would be a giant liability in the general once the attacks and scrutiny ramp up. He's kind of skated so far.
 
This is bullshit and why nobody outside of PoliGAF has the patience for most of you guys. Sanders said that Clinton's behaviour was a disgrace. I think this is both true and pretty uncontroversial. This isn't the same as calling Clinton himself a disgrace, and is not an attack on Clinton's character but a criticism of Clinton's action.

With genuine sincerity and well-meaningness meant here, get your heads the fuck out of your asses and stop being so snooty and deliberately making the worst of everything. Be the better campaign.

EDIT: Obviously not directed at ItWasMeantToBe19.

It has nothing to do with that. What we have is a candidate who many don't see as a member of the party he wants to lead. He said that he thought it would be good for someone to primary a sitting Democratic president. He's said that the Democratic party is ideologically (or was it morally/) bankrupt. Regardless of how he feels about Bill Clinton's actions, Bill Clinton is still freaking insanely popular with the party. I'm not arguing if it's a deserved popularity or not. You don't build a coalition by attacking the popular members of your* party.

Plus, he's now on record as saying he thinks he can win Donald Trump supporters....and he picks up one of Donald Trump's talking points against Hillary? That shit doesn't go over people's heads. It's not a substantial thing, obviously, but it's an optics one. He is absolutely shit at this type of thing.

All he had to say (if he was asked) was "Bill Clinton's past is not relevant. I'm running against Hillary Clinton." Period. You don't get to say something snarky, and then pretend you're going to take the high ground.

That's like you asking me "Does this shirt make me look fat?" and I say "Just because that shirt makes you look like an elephant, and I think we'd all agree on that, doesn't mean that it makes you look fat."

* He's a member of the party until he's no longer running for the nomination.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
But he didn't mention the past! Looking to avoid issues like all real politicians! Sexist pig? ;)

There's no way not to read the first part of that quote as a hit, I couldn't have written a more perfect one if I tried. He throws the punch but makes it look like he didn't.
 

This part is pretty goddamn amazing:

Just five minutes later, a 60-year old local named Alvin Brown asked Cruz a somewhat scattered question about the origins of the Federal Reserve and the idea that a cabal was wrecking America from within.

"If you leave it to the Trilateral Commission, we’re going to have a one world government whether we like it or not, either by conquest or consent," he said. "And David Rockefeller also that said in his memoir -- he’s been working on plans for 40 years. What will you do from stopping these people from taking over our government?"

"It is a very good and very important question," Cruz said. "I would note that it connects to the earlier question about sharia law and international law. I’m proud to tell you I went up to the U.S. Supreme Court twice arguing that Republican president lacks the constitutional authority to give up U.S. sovereignty to any international tribunal. And the Supreme Court ruled 6-3, we won. They ruled, number one, neither the world court nor United Nations has any authority whatsoever in the U.S. justice system. And number two, no president, Democrat or Republican can give up republican sovereignty."

If most people got that question, they'd be stumped. You're dealing with a full-on conspiracy theorist there. Cruz absolutely crushes the answer without even needing to B.S. about anything. It's very impressive.
 
That article has been updated, and now links Berne's question/comments back to Trump. This is the kind of shit that he cannot do. Hillary's camp won't say shit about it, but this kind of stuff in a GE is stuff we couldn't allow.

I agree with someone who said he's not a good politician.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Holy shit South Carolina. Last year, a bill to fix our shitty roads was up in the legislature. It was set to pass, but failed because the Koch brothers bombed money at lawmakers.

http://www.free-times.com/news/how-the-koch-brothers-helped-kill-the-roads-bill

Now they are bringing it up again, and the guy who filibustered it before is bringing it up again saying it is going to pass now.

I assume these fuckers know they fucked up when nearly 400 roads were washed away with our flood back in October and some 50+ roads are still unusable. I wonder if the Cock's will show up this time?
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member

On this rare occasion, that wasn't aimed at you, although I think you have a similar problem where you are far too condescending towards the idea that Sanders support is defensible. I agree that it is entirely legitimate to criticize Sanders' criticism of Bill Clinton's actions as poor electoral calculus, as you did, although I disagree in the sense that I don't think this will hurt Sanders' chances. My pervious comment was directed specifically at Nazgul_hunter and Holmes, for these two ridiculous strawmen:

Sanders: "Bill Clinton is a disgrace and his behavior is unacceptable. But we shouldn't make personal attacks, end of discussion!"

He's so above the fray and running such a positive campaign #feeltheBern!!

Sanders was literally asked what he thought of Bill Clinton's behaviour. He didn't bring it up himself, he was asked a question. Answering honestly - that Clinton's behaviour was shameful, which it was, and I will challenge anyone who disagrees - is not making a personal attack and not running a negative campaign. It's answering a question honestly.

This is the PoliGAF community and not the ClintonGAF community. Make reasonable posts.
 
This part is pretty goddamn amazing:



If most people got that question, they'd be stumped. You're dealing with a full-on conspiracy theorist there. Cruz absolutely crushes the answer without even needing to B.S. about anything. It's very impressive.

To be fair, that's a question that Ben Carson and Trump would also kill. Rubio or Jeb though? Yeah, they would have no idea how to respond.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Breitbart's exclusive search for whether or not Ted Cruz's mother was American enough(tm).

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/

I am consumed with embarrassment and hatred that this is the best attack strategy against Cruz for a GOP primary.

I'm enjoying the irony that the birther bullshit they pulled on Obama is going to come back and bite them in the ass gloriously.

The magnitude is what matters. How many people wash ashore on boats in the US compared to Europe?

Some background on refugees w/r/t US vs world

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ited-states-accept-two-thirds-worlds-refugee/
 
Holy shit South Carolina. Last year, a bill to fix our shitty roads was up in the legislature. It was set to pass, but failed because the Koch brothers bombed money at lawmakers.

http://www.free-times.com/news/how-the-koch-brothers-helped-kill-the-roads-bill

Now they are bringing it up again, and the guy who filibustered it before is bringing it up again saying it is going to pass now.

I assume these fuckers know they fucked up when nearly 400 roads were washed away with our flood back in October and some 50+ roads are still unusable. I wonder if the Cock's will show up this time?
I'm kind of at the point where I just hate Republicans. They are just so universally foolish and incompetent and shouldn't be trusted to run a petting zoo, much less the government.

Between this and that law in Michigan that limits public education on ballot initiatives. "Oh I didn't read it before voting on it lol" Get bent, asshole.

That's it I'm running for office
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Nazgul_Hunter is NeoXChaos' alt?

You got some explaining to do NeoXChaos!

Oops, my sincere apologies to NeoXChaos. I was scrolling back to find who said it and stopped in the wrong place. :x
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
On this rare occasion, that wasn't aimed at you, although I think you have a similar problem where you are far too condescending towards the idea that Sanders support is defensible. I agree that it is entirely legitimate to criticize Sanders' criticism of Bill Clinton's actions as poor electoral calculus, as you did, although I disagree in the sense that I don't think this will hurt Sanders' chances. My pervious comment was directed specifically at NeoXChaos and Holmes, for these two ridiculous strawmen:





Sanders was literally asked what he thought of Bill Clinton's behaviour. He didn't bring it up himself, he was asked a question. Answering honestly - that Clinton's behaviour was shameful, which it was, and I will challenge anyone who disagrees - is not making a personal attack and not running a negative campaign. It's answering a question honestly.

This is the PoliGAF community and not the ClintonGAF community. Make reasonable posts.

Just because he didn't bring it up himself doesn't mean he didn't throw a punch. It's OK that he did, it doesn't mean he's going negative. It just means he saw an opportunity and took it, as politicians do when they're down by the numbers he is. If he was really above the fray he'd have left off the first part of the answer, but instead he played into Trump's attack and used the opportunity to throw a jab of his own. That's fine, he's a politician. That's what they do.
 
Why doesn't anyone call out Trump for being born with a silver spoon in his mouth? Seems like the most obvious attack. His whole persona is that of a shrewd business man but he was born into wealth and still had to declare bankruptcy twice.
 
Why doesn't anyone call out Trump for being born with a silver spoon in his mouth? Seems like the most obvious attack. His whole persona is that of a shrewd business man but he was born into wealth and still had to declare bankruptcy twice.

Ironically, most of the candidates running have more humble beginnings than he did but he's supposed to be the "common man" because he talks like a truck driver. What a sad reality of the electorate. I have more respect for Marco Rubio given that he took loans to go to school and didn't get rubber stamped into U of Penn like Trump with his dad covering the tuition.
 

Iolo

Member
Just because he didn't bring it up himself doesn't mean he didn't throw a punch. It's OK that he did, it doesn't mean he's going negative. It just means he saw an opportunity and took it, as politicians do when they're down by the numbers he is. If he was really above the fray he'd have left off the first part of the answer, but instead he played into Trump's attack and used the opportunity to throw a jab of his own. That's fine, he's a politician. That's what they do.

Now we have Bernie duality?


  • Is a politician - Took the opportunity to attack, but made it look like it was not an attack
  • Is not a politician - Did not realize it sounded like an attack
I lean toward the latter, given that "the American people are tired of hearing about your damn emails" was a missed blow. A skilled politician would have landed that. (Or he did not intend it as an attack, same result.)
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Just because he didn't bring it up himself doesn't mean he didn't throw a punch. It's OK that he did, it doesn't mean he's going negative. It just means he saw an opportunity and took it, as politicians do when they're down by the numbers he is. If he was really above the fray he'd have left off the first part of the answer, but instead he played into Trump's attack and used the opportunity to throw a jab of his own. That's fine, he's a politician. That's what they do.

No, that's a absolutely untrue. People like Sanders because he does not obfuscate or beat about the bush - because he's *not* a typical politician. You ask him a question, he answers the question as directly as he can. Saying "I have no opinion on what Bill Clinton did" would be the politician thing to do - because politicians want to win the primary by any means necessary and issuing a rebuke to the most popular president of recent times to supporters of his own party is probably not too helpful to that. Instead, Sanders did the non-politician thing to do: firstly, he gave a direct answer, secondly, he explained why he didn't think it was an important issue - even though he could probably make some mild political hay from it if he wanted to.
 

CCS

Banned
Real talk, I would be a lot more open to Bernie if he didn't reveal his complete lack of understanding every time he starts talking about the Fed. He's almost as bad as Paul for bizarre conspiracyish comments.
 

dramatis

Member
This is bullshit and why nobody outside of PoliGAF has the patience for most of you guys. Sanders said that Clinton's behaviour was a disgrace. I think this is both true and pretty uncontroversial. This isn't the same as calling Clinton himself a disgrace, and is not an attack on Clinton's character but a criticism of Clinton's action.

With genuine sincerity and well-meaningness meant here, get your heads the fuck out of your asses and stop being so snooty and deliberately making the worst of everything. Be the better campaign.

EDIT: Obviously not directed at ItWasMeantToBe19.
The guy who said this
I have to admit, at least 20% of my desire for Sanders to win is now fuelled by the immense potential for schadenfreude this thread would generate.
Is not in a position to try and act superior about himself.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I don't think his grasp of monetary policy is particularly good - his comment about the Fed only raising the interest rate if present unemployment was 4% was a little jarring given most papers put the NAIRU above that - but that's fine because presidents have essentially nothing to do with monetary policy. I do think his analysis of who ends up sitting on the Federal Reserve is spot on, however. Barring former financial executives from the Federal Reserve Board and making the transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee public after a certain amount of time are both excellent policies.
 

CCS

Banned
I never believed we'd have another candidate who produced as much salt when they won first the nomination then the election as Obama, but looks like Hilldawg will manage it! Gonna need a lot of popcorn :p
 

CCS

Banned
I don't think his grasp of monetary policy is particularly good - his comment about the Fed only raising the interest rate if present unemployment was 4% was a little jarring given most papers put the NAIRU above that - but that's fine because presidents have essentially nothing to do with monetary policy. I do think his analysis of who ends up sitting on the Federal Reserve is spot on, however. Barring former financial executives from the Federal Reserve Board and making the transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee public after a certain amount of time are both excellent policies.

Whilst presidents don't control monetary policy, fiscal and monetary policy are obviously linked, so if someone doesn't seem to understand monetary policy then I'm not going to place much faith in their fiscal policy going well.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
The guy who said this

Is not in a position to try and act superior about himself.

I've never said $hillary seriously, I don't pedal the weird Clinton is a Republican stuff, and when I do criticize Clinton I always keep it grounded to the best of my abilities and based on her arguments or competencies and not her personal character or strange strawmen. That post was slightly too far, yes, but it was really more intended to slightly nudge some of the people here into realizing how insular this community is when you behave and make posts in the manner you have been.
 

Makai

Member
I don't think his grasp of monetary policy is particularly good - his comment about the Fed only raising the interest rate if present unemployment was 4% was a little jarring given most papers put the NAIRU above that - but that's fine because presidents have essentially nothing to do with monetary policy. I do think his analysis of who ends up sitting on the Federal Reserve is spot on, however. Barring former financial executives from the Federal Reserve Board and making the transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee public after a certain amount of time are both excellent policies.
Presidents nominate the Fed chairman, so he does have an impact on monetary policy. Maybe Bernie nominates Dean Baker or something.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
No, that's a absolutely untrue. People like Sanders because he does not obfuscate or beat about the bush - because he's *not* a typical politician. You ask him a question, he answers the question as directly as he can. Saying "I have no opinion on what Bill Clinton did" would be the politician thing to do - because politicians want to win the primary by any means necessary and issuing a rebuke to the most popular president of recent times to supporters of his own party is probably not too helpful to that. Instead, Sanders did the non-politician thing to do: firstly, he gave a direct answer, secondly, he explained why he didn't think it was an important issue - even though he could probably make some mild political hay from it if he wanted to.

I don't know what to say to this. He absolutely gave a politician's answer dude. Politicians give that exact sort of answer all the time.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Whilst presidents don't control monetary policy, fiscal and monetary policy are obviously linked, so if someone doesn't seem to understand monetary policy then I'm not going to place much faith in their fiscal policy going well.

This is a fairer criticism, but equally the need for fiscal policy is dramatically reduced at the point monetary policy is improved because the central bank isn't a revolving door for financial executives and each individual bank has less capacity to influence the American economy on account of being smaller.
 
Alright, I'm going to find a local office this year to run for and do it. My first campaign promise is that I'll find sufficient time in the day to post on NeoGAF.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Presidents nominate the Fed chairman, so he does have an impact on monetary policy. Maybe Bernie nominates Dean Baker or something.

IIRC not a single governor's position expires between 2016 and 2020, so actually Sanders would have no influence (unless someone dies, or he uses one of the junior vacancies) until his hypothetical second victory.

EDIT: To be more specific, while he could fire Yellen as chair, he can't fire her as a governor, and he can only appoint a chair from the sitting governors, all of whom are fairly similar to Yellen anyway; and Yellen would remain on the board under this hypothetical replacement, so it doesn't really do anything.
 

Iolo

Member
Instructive when comparing the campaigns of Obama and Sanders is that Obama, while willing to hit Hillary pretty hard, to my recollection never got personal ("you're likable enough" was the closest he came) and never attacked Bill Clinton (despite the latter's comments about his win in South Carolina, "fairy tale", etc.) or burned bridges with the party. In short, Obama was an incredibly skilled politician. Sanders is not, and that's why he would get slaughtered in the general.
 
What's with all the Hillary crazies in here lately? Bernie directly answers a question about Bill Clinton's behavior (not the person), while defending Hillary (she's not her husband), and that gets turned into Bernie's an opportunistic Politician who landed a low blow, and he's the devil. This is some birther-level of distorting reality to fit your agenda.
 

CCS

Banned
This is a fairer criticism, but equally the need for fiscal policy is dramatically reduced at the point monetary policy is improved because the central bank isn't a revolving door for financial executives and each individual bank has less capacity to influence the American economy on account of being smaller.

The problem with this contention is that it assumes monetary policy could and would be markedly better. I don't believe that in recent years monetary policy could have been much better, regardless of who was deciding it.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
What's with all the Hillary crazies in here lately? Bernie directly answers a question about Bill Clinton's behavior (not the person), while defending Hillary (she's not her husband), and that gets turned into Bernie's an opportunistic Politician who landed a low blow, and he's the devil. This is some birther-level of distorting reality to fit your agenda.

not worth my time addressing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom