Support NeoGAF

[User 463088]

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:.

I didn't think it was aimed at me at any rate. I also agree with you that it won't hurt him. The issue is that he has to stop doing things that don't help him. He could have been tactful about it like Hillary was on Chris Matthews where she refused to hit Bernie about being a socialist. She could have scored some cheap points, but she didn't.

Bernie's political instincts are pure shit. It seems that he can never pass up an opportunity to prove how right he is about something. You don't say something negative (or something that can be construed as negative) and then immediately pat yourself on the back for being above it all.

I also have never questioned that there are legitimate reasons to support Bernie. There are. However, I will always stand by the idea that he benefits from being "not Clinton." That's not the sole heart of his supporters, as there are people who are very passionate about him and his policies. There are aspects of his platform that would gain support from me, if I didn't think there was a better choice out there. Where I have had issue, and will continue to have issue, is this fake Hillary Clinton some Bernie supporters create. People saying she's a faux progressive, corporate shrill, etc. That stuff gets me because it's just not true. Those reasons to support Bernie over Hillary are indefensible, because they're not true. If you prefer Bernie's policy on healthcare over Hillary's, that's a perfectly valid reason. Now, I'll engage and explain why I don't think his policy is better. That's the whole point of debate.

 

[B-Dubs]

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.

Wow, I have no fucking idea where you got the second part of that post dude. That just came out of left field, nothing I've written could possibly be construed in that way. All I said was he threw a punch and that's perfectly ok considering the situation he's in. Dude played the media cycle perfectly and that's perfectly fine. It's a campaign for the presidency, that shits important and he should be taking it this seriously.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

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.

Yes and no. Firstly I disagree; I think that interest rate policies adopted from about 2001 onwards were harmful and directly responsible for fanning the housing bubble, although not the direct cause of the problem. Secondly, the Fed and the people on the Fed have a wide impact on more than just monetary policy and also impact regulation - including the regulation of derivatives, something Greenspan failed miserably on. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101403343.html

 

[CCS]

Yes and no. Firstly I disagree; I think that interest rate policies adopted from about 2001 onwards were harmful and directly responsible for fanning the housing bubble, although not the direct cause of the problem. Secondly, the Fed and the people on the Fed have a wide impact on more than just monetary policy and also impact regulation - including the regulation of derivatives, something Greenspan failed miserably on. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101403343.html

Perhaps I phrased that badly. I'm not so much saying that monetary policy and the Fed has been perfect, rather that I don't believe a Fed operating under the new rules suggested would have necessarily done a much better job.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I didn't think it was aimed at me at any rate. I also agree with you that it won't hurt him. The issue is that he has to stop doing things that don't help him. He could have been tactful about it like Hillary was on Chris Matthews where she refused to hit Bernie about being a socialist. She could have scored some cheap points, but she didn't.

I think beating about the bush in that situation would have hurt him. People value Sanders because he is blunt. If he was not blunt, he would not have the same degree of support he does now; which even if he isn't in the lead, is considerable. Removing his bluntness removes one degree of difference between him and Clinton; that only helps Clinton.

Bernie's political instincts are pure shit. It seems that he can never pass up an opportunity to prove how right he is about something. You don't say something negative (or something that can be construed as negative) and then immediately pat yourself on the back for being above it all.

I disagree that his political instincts are shit. Bernie is literally a former independent from a tiny state nobody cares about who is in his 70s and proclaims himself to be a socialist - and he's taking ~35% of the Democratic vote against someone widely dubbed the strongest primary candidate of all time. That's not shitty political instinct, that's some fucking good shit. Like, if you think his political instincts are shit, you can't think highly of Clinton's given she's having to dedicate at least a fair amount of resources to stopping his advance.

Also, he didn't pat himself on the back for it.

I also have never questioned that there are legitimate reasons to support Bernie. There are. However, I will always stand by the idea that he benefits from being "not Clinton."

I agree very weakly. There is probably a small portion of people who cannot stand Clinton for various reason who nevertheless are Democrats, and thus have to vote Sanders because of the lack of alternative. Nevertheless, they are a tiny, tiny fraction of Sanders support. If Sanders were a primarily "Not Clinton" candidate, then he would do worse the more people there were in the race, because there are more potential "Not Clintons". That's the reverse of what happened - when Biden left, his votes went to Clinton, not Sanders. Most people like Sanders for positive, substantive reasons. If this wasn't the case, O'Malley would be booming because he's a far more intuitively appealing Not Clinton.

That's not the sole heart of his supporters, as there are people who are very passionate about him and his policies. There are aspects of his platform that would gain support from me, if I didn't think there was a better choice out there. Where I have had issue, and will continue to have issue, is this fake Hillary Clinton some Bernie supporters create. People saying she's a faux progressive, corporate shrill, etc. That stuff gets me because it's just not true. Those reasons to support Bernie over Hillary are indefensible, because they're not true.

I agree. But I will say this: on the average Sanders thread on GAF, the majority of the first 10 posts aren't people calling Hillary $hillary or whatnot. They're people from here, in PoliGAF, complaining about how shitty reddit is and how Bernie supporters are morons. The vast majority of the shit flung on GAF goes from Clintonites to Standers. This doesn't excuse Stander behaviour, but I'm saying that this community also needs to do a better job of checking itself, because it is 100% not a PoliGAF community right now. There have genuinely been times I have been surprised admins have not stepped in, although I guess they sort of *did*, what with the recent mass PoliGAF ban.

If you prefer Bernie's policy on healthcare over Hillary's, that's a perfectly valid reason. Now, I'll engage and explain why I don't think his policy is better. That's the whole point of debate.

Agreed.

 

[ivysaur12]

not worth it

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Perhaps I phrased that badly. I'm not so much saying that monetary policy and the Fed has been perfect, rather that I don't believe a Fed operating under the new rules suggested would have necessarily done a much better job.

Really? Genuinely surprised. At the time of 2006 when I think it was becoming increasingly apparent something was wrong, the membership of the Fed was Alan Greenspan, Susan Bies, Mark Olson, Ben Bernanke (although literally just appointed so we can probably excuse him), Donald Kohn, and Kevin Warsh. Literally all of those except Bernanke and Kohn had financial backgrounds. Bernanke and Kohn were arguably also the only competent members in terms of their stances.

 

[East Lake]

The guy who said this

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

Don't see the problem. It's only the equivalent of what's posted here constantly about Bernie losing.

 

[pigeon]

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.

I really don't think this is true at all. In fact, I was surprised to read it! We have literally several years of object lessons in the deep limitations of monetary policy to manage the economy. Nor does limiting the size of banks, without limiting their interdependence (and it's not clear how to accomplish that), do anything meaningful to protect the economy. Fiscal policy is absolutely critical and the first line of defense in terms of economic management.

 

[CCS]

Really? Genuinely surprised. At the time of 2006 when I think it was becoming increasingly apparent something was wrong, the membership of the Fed was Alan Greenspan, Susan Bies, Mark Olson, Ben Bernanke (although literally just appointed so we can probably excuse him), Donald Kohn, and Kevin Warsh. Literally all of those except Bernanke and Kohn had financial backgrounds. Bernanke and Kohn were arguably also the only competent members in terms of their stances.

I agree with you there. I think however one has to consider that while they've been judged quite harshly in retrospect, and the time of their initial bad decisions their views were not unrepresentative of general consensus. As such, I'm not sure different members would have led to substantially different policy.

EDIT: See for example the fairly wide support in government for deregulation of derivatives around 2000.

 

[User 406]

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.

Archiving all your posts here for future political leverage. When you're on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I'll show you my very competitive contract bid to produce balloon animals for the military. Shouldn't be more than a couple million a pop.

 

[User 463088]

Anyway,

New Iowa Poll from Fox
Click me

Cruz 27
Trump 23
Rubio 15
Carson 9
Bush 7
Paul 5
Christie 4

They also did a Dem poll of NH,
Click Me

Bernie 50
Hillary 37

However, I'm fairly certain this poll is an outlier. This shows a 15 point swing towards Bernie in a little over a month. It also has really questionable cross tabs...showing Bernie winning those over 45 and women by 7 points. I still think NH is a single point lead for Bernie. (And, yes I'd say this if it showed Hillary ahead like I did with those weird ass Iowa polls from Oct/Nov showing her ahead by like 20 points.)


NH GOP Numbers

Trump 33
Rubio 15
Cruz 12
Bush 9
Kaisch 7
Christie 5

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I really don't think this is true at all. In fact, I was surprised to read it! We have literally several years of object lessons in the deep limitations of monetary policy to manage the economy. Nor does limiting the size of banks, without limiting their interdependence (and it's not clear how to accomplish that), do anything meaningful to protect the economy. Fiscal policy is absolutely critical and the first line of defense in terms of economic management.

Fiscal policy is not the first line of defence because the lag-time on fiscal policy is so high. You can't engage in meaningful fiscal policy until you've ascertained that whatever recession you're in is likely to be ongoing in the ~1.5 to 2 years that your fiscal policy mechanisms begin to have an effect. Sometimes, that's quite clear - 2008 is an example because it was fairly obvious shit was going down early on. That's rare, though - most recessions you can't tell how bad they're going to be in advance, they're usually slow declines as opposed to shock bang catastrophe a la 2008. Most papers I've seen reckon the lag time on e.g. the interest rate is about 9 months, which means you can be far more confident monetary policy is combatting this recession and not overheating the next boom. Less so for fiscal policy.

The most useful form of fiscal policy are the automatic aspects like welfare rather than conscious plans like infrastructure (although infrastructure is obviously good for other reasons), because they respond immediately and are relatively wide-reaching compared to most fiscal instruments. That means you don't have a fiscal policy after the recession, you already have one in place in the form of a strong welfare system - something Sanders obviously is in favour of.

 

[CCS]

If Trump gets close in Iowa but loses I wouldn't surprised to see him claim that he won but that it was fixed against him.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Can I get my pedantic hat on and say that it's technically a 5 point swing? Swing refers to the movement from one candidate to another, not the change in the margin between the two candidates. In this case, 5 percentage points went from Clinton to Sanders, so it was a 5 point swing. There was also a 2 point swing from Clinton to unsure.

Sorry, this was my job. ;_;

 

[Black Mamba]

Really? Genuinely surprised. At the time of 2006 when I think it was becoming increasingly apparent something was wrong, the membership of the Fed was Alan Greenspan, Susan Bies, Mark Olson, Ben Bernanke (although literally just appointed so we can probably excuse him), Donald Kohn, and Kevin Warsh. Literally all of those except Bernanke and Kohn had financial backgrounds. Bernanke and Kohn were arguably also the only competent members in terms of their stances.

The only one that actually matters is Bernanke/Chairman. It's not like the BoG does all the work themselves, anyway. There's lots of economists giving input that guides the decisions and at the end of the day the Chairman is what matters.

I really don't think this is true at all. In fact, I was surprised to read it! We have literally several years of object lessons in the deep limitations of monetary policy to manage the economy. Nor does limiting the size of banks, without limiting their interdependence (and it's not clear how to accomplish that), do anything meaningful to protect the economy. Fiscal policy is absolutely critical and the first line of defense in terms of economic management.

Slight disagreement here in that fiscal policy takes a lot longer in most regards to have an impact. Its impact is greater but it is not the first line of defense. Just think about the impact of infrastructure spending to boost jobs. Even if the bill passes swiftly, it takes a long time to send out the money to the states, then a long time to make the contracts with companies, then they have to hire and devise a plan, then they have to actually do it.

The 2009 stimulus Obama signed saw almost no money go anywhere in 2009. 2010 is when it actually started to have an impact. Even if you trim some bureaucracy, this will always be the case. Things like extending UE or cutting taxes don't take effect until the next year. I could go on. Obviously, some things can have quicker impacts, but generally fiscal policy is a longer term effect while monetary is shorter.

The Fed Funds rate can change over night. They can bail or broker deals for failing large firms. They can do things today that will have an impact tomorrow. Fiscal policy not so much.

You can look at fiscal policy as preventative, too. But once something bad happens, monetary policy is the first line of defense.

FWIW, that's the only part I disagreed with. Everything else I'm on board with ya.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Oh, and after looking at their last poll very briefly, I think they've changed the methodology (hence the big swing) - they didn't use cell phones in their last sample unless I've read the table wrong, only landline, whereas this used a mix of both (which is more expensive).

 

[User 463088]

Oh, and after looking at their last poll very briefly, I think they've changed the methodology (hence the big swing) - they didn't use cell phones in their last sample unless I've read the table wrong, only landline, whereas this used a mix of both (which is more expensive).

Both used cell phones, from November's release:

The Fox News Poll is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). The poll was conducted by telephone with live interviewers November 15-17, 2015 among a random state sample of 804 New Hampshire registered voters (RV). Results based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Landline and cellphone numbers were randomly selected from a statewide voter file of registered New Hampshire voters using a probability proportionate to size method. This simply means that phone numbers are proportionally representative to the number of voters in all regions across the state of New Hampshire.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The only one that actually matters is Bernanke/Chairman. It's not like the BoG does all the work themselves, anyway. There's lots of economists giving input that guides the decisions and at the end of the day the Chairman is what matters.

They all vote. Bernanke actually got bullied around quite a bit by his board in '06, iirc.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Both used cell phones, from November's release:

D'oh, I was comparing to polls used for their national methodology. Rookie error, I hang my head in shame. Good catch. We don't have constituency specific polls in the UK because nobody would bother, it's far too expensive for such small units.

 

[User 463088]

D'oh, I was comparing to polls used for their national methodology. Rookie error, I hang my head in shame. Good catch. We don't have constituency specific polls in the UK because nobody would bother, it's far too expensive for such small units.

I'm not even touching their national GE matchup numbers. They have Republicans outnumbering Democrats. That's never, ever happened in a recent Presidential election.

 

[dramatis]

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.

Insular? It's the others who don't want to come in. When they come in, they come with conspiracy theories and insults, like so:

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.

The same guy who, yesterday, posted this when Planned Parenthood endorsed Hillary:

Also the first time a woman candidate is heavily favored to be president. What a coincidence.

Bernie has long been advocating for women's rights, including reproductive rights, paid family leave, healthcare for mothers, and yes, expanding Planned Parenthood. But of course no one takes Bernie seriously because he is a man.

Reverse sexism at its finest.

Where was your righteousness then, Crab?

Is it the fault of PoliGAF when people come in with garbage and get repudiated? It's PoliGAF's fault for getting irritated at the missteps of Bernie's campaign? When we do the same shit to Trump, to Carson, to Jeb? Did we not actually have a discussion a few days ago about how Hillary's use of the line "god-given potential" was cringe? When there's some actual shit being posted by Bernie supporters, you look the other way, but if PoliGAF treats Bernie equal to other candidates, it's suddenly too insular and bad? Your bias is present. Sure, you yourself don't participate in the stupid that Bernie stans engage in. But you certainly don't hold them to the same standard.

Don't see the problem. It's only the equivalent of what's posted here constantly about Bernie losing.

When people discuss Bernie losing here, it's largely numbers, polls, election factors, and very little schadenfreude about Bernie supporters. Most of the chatter in here has actually been about the Republican race moreso than the Democratic one. The jabs at Bernie supporters are not even close to equal of the nonsense Bernie supporters themselves put out. If you would like to argue that they're equal, I'd like to see the receipts.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Crab the bernie stans are welcome to post here as they please. They just choose not to because they know we don't tolerate their conspiracy theories and personal attacks against Hillary.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

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.

As a hilary supporter, I'm flabbergasted at some posters react and post about bernie. Its really weird. I personally don't care as he's not likely to win.

 

[vicissitudes]

Wow, I have no fucking idea where you got the second part of that post dude. That just came out of left field, nothing I've written could possibly be construed in that way. All I said was he threw a punch and that's perfectly ok considering the situation he's in. Dude played the media cycle perfectly and that's perfectly fine. It's a campaign for the presidency, that shits important and he should be taking it this seriously.

Someone asked about Bill Clinton's actions and he said they were wrong. Which they were. Even the most staunch Democrats will admit this. He also defended Hillary by saying "Hillary is not her husband." That was the entire exchange. There is no attack here. It's like if someone asked "what do you think about the Iraq War" and he said "it was wrong to go there."

From this we got:

He sucks at campaigning.
He's running a negative campaign.
He can't keep his composure.
He's being snarky.
He's opportunistic and desperate, attacking Hillary because he's down in the polls.

People are pulling conclusions out of thin air but I'm the one posting garbage. Okay, whatever.

 

[Holmes]

He sucks at campaigning.
He's running a negative campaign.

I'll stand by my comment and double down. He really sucks at running for the Democratic nomination for President, and if his home state wasn't bordering New Hampshire, he wouldn't be ahead there.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Ted Cruz just sent my mom a check for $45 made out to himself and said something like "all you have to do is sign and resend!"

Cruz is kidding himself. NE is Trump central

 

[East Lake]

When people discuss Bernie losing here, it's largely numbers, polls, election factors, and very little schadenfreude about Bernie supporters. Most of the chatter in here has actually been about the Republican race moreso than the Democratic one. The jabs at Bernie supporters are not even close to equal of the nonsense Bernie supporters themselves put out. If you would like to argue that they're equal, I'd like to see the receipts.

It's about half schadenfreude, you don't like it because it's on the opposite side now. This thread tends to be as delusional as Bernie stans, if you want evidence check the last Bill Clinton non-story.

 

[And_Gignac]

You see this type of knee-jerk reactions with poorly documented headlines (the Politico one that hasnt even gained traction lolol) because some Clinton fans are STRESSED and PRESSED on their toes looking for ANYTHING that can bring down Sanders from his morally superior stance against Clinton (a superiority based on merits, tbh).

Ugh, Jesus please give Sanders the 1-2-3 punch of IW-NH-NV so this fight can get spicier. Democrats need this. The party needs a more interesting primary so it can be better prepared against the avalanche of Trump.

 

[Wilsongt]

You see this type of knee-jerk reactions with poorly documented headlines (the Politico one that hasnt even gained traction lolol) because some Clinton fans are STRESSED and PRESSED on their toes looking for ANYTHING that can bring down Sanders from his morally superior stance against Clinton (a superiority based on merits, tbh).

Ugh, Jesus please give Sanders the 1-2-3 punch of IW-NH-NV so this fight can get spicier. Democrats need this. The party needs a more interesting primary so it can be better prepared against the avalanche of Trump.

So much delusion in one post. The only people pressed by Clinton are members of the GOP and other Bernie stans.

 

[B-Dubs]

He's opportunistic and desperate, attacking Hillary because he's down in the polls.

People are pulling conclusions out of thin air but I'm the one posting garbage. Okay, whatever.

See, no where in my posts did I say opportunistic or desperate. Taking an opportunity does not make you opportunistic, there's a difference between the two, and if you think he's desperate just say it, don't put that in my mouth. My point was that he's acting like a regular politician would do and that it is perfectly ok. It means he's taking this seriously. The only way that can be construed as negative is if you believe that, somehow, a guy that has been a mayor, a congressman and a senator, who has been running for political office his whole life, is not a politician and that being a politician is a bad thing.

 

[User 463088]

You see this type of knee-jerk reactions with poorly documented headlines (the Politico one that hasnt even gained traction lolol) because some Clinton fans are STRESSED and PRESSED on their toes looking for ANYTHING that can bring down Sanders from his morally superior stance against Clinton (a superiority based on merits, tbh).

Ugh, Jesus please give Sanders the 1-2-3 punch of IW-NH-NV so this fight can get spicier. Democrats need this. The party needs a more interesting primary so it can be better prepared against the avalanche of Trump.

What in the heck do we have to be stressed about? Our candidate is leading in every single national poll. She's leading in every single state outside New Hampshire? She has the money advantage. She has the endorsement advantage. She has surrogates she can send anywhere she needs to. What in the world would we have to be stressed about.

He is not morally superior to anyone. Come on. That's the kind of thing that makes rational discussion and debate impossible.

 

[Makai]

Trump on Kim Jung Un

Well, I think it’s a serious problem because he is probably on the wacky side. He certainly – he could be a total nut job, frankly. It’s amazing that a young guy would go and take over. You know, you would have thought that these tough generals would say no way this is going to happen when the father died. So he has got to have something going for him because he kept control which is amazing for a young person to do and I would say this – we are protecting South Korea. I have tremendous expense with South Korea. I do a lot of business with South Korea. I like them. They are great people. They are wonderful people but they make a fortune as a country. Every time I order a television set, when I order thousands of sets, I order so many television sets every year for different properties, thousands, they all come from South Korea. They have to make more of a contribution toward the protection because we have 28,000 soldiers on the line, very, very dangerous, and we get paid very little money, relatively speaking, by South Korea. So they are going to have to step up to the plate and pay us more. You know, we are a debtor nation. We owe 19 trillion dollars and we are going in the wrong direction. The budget that was made two weeks ago is ridiculous what they did, how that got approved. So we have to start thinking a little bit differently than we have in the past.

 

[NeoXChaos]

It's about half schadenfreude, you don't like it because it's on the opposite side now. This thread tends to be as delusional as Bernie stans, if you want evidence check the last Bill Clinton non-story.

The only delusion that I see is thinking a 74 year old socialist is going to have a snowball chance of winning the nomination and then surviving the onslaught of a billion dollar Republican fall smear campaign.( in general not directed at you)

 

[User 463088]

Trump on Kim Jung Un

I wonder what a family member of the previous leader in what is essentially a hereditary dictatorship could have done to inherit the keys to the kingdom.

I wonder what it could have been.....Let me think about this one, though.

 

[Makai]

I wonder what a family member of the previous leader in what is essentially a hereditary dictatorship could have done to inherit the keys to the kingdom.

I wonder what it could have been.....Let me think about this one, though.

Actually, at the time a lot of people thought he would get deposed by the military.

 

[theprodigy]

It was funny before but now it's just facepalm-worthy.

Why are you still responding to Melkr_'s posts as if he's being serious? Do you guys enjoy getting baited by the same thing every time, or do you want to feign outrage, or...?

 

[User 463088]

Actually, at the time a lot of people thought he would get deposed by the military.

Fair point, but it never felt like that was entirely in the cards. To be honest, though, I'm not up on what's been going on lately in North Korea. I probably should be, but I'm not.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Trump on Kim Jung Un

is he saying that he's got talent?

 

[B-Dubs]

is he saying that he's got talent?

Maybe? The hidden gem in there is when he's talking about ordering a TV. "I ordered one TV," then he realized that's bullshit and was like, "OK I ordered hundreds," then realized that's bullshit, "Thousands, I ordered thousands," then realize that's bullshit, "OK, I don't remember how many because I order so many." It's like he forgot how his whole thing is he's ultra-rich and he forgot how rich he's supposed to be acting.

 

[And_Gignac]

What in the heck do we have to be stressed about? Our candidate is leading in every single national poll. She's leading in every single state outside New Hampshire? She has the money advantage. She has the endorsement advantage. She has surrogates she can send anywhere she needs to. What in the world would we have to be stressed about.

He is not morally superior to anyone. Come on. That's the kind of thing that makes rational discussion and debate impossible.

One of the biggest assets of Sanders is that he hasnt changed his core positions since forever. This is certainly not the case for Clinton who has pragmatically changed opinions and positions in key matters like gay marriage.

At the end is not even a problem of purity, since Clinton moves herself as a politician while Sanders tries to pass as an activist (instead of the career politician he is). Is a problem of perception.

The thing is that people on the left love ideological purity just as much as people on the right. Since Sanders, superficially, seems to have such purity in a higher grade than Clinton, it makes him harder to dismiss by the moderates. Thats why some shark-jump on him as soon as theres a chance to deconstruct his holy persona.

It was funny before but now it's just facepalm-worthy.

Why are you still responding to Melkr_'s posts as if he's being serious? Do you guys enjoy getting baited by the same thing every time, or do you want to feign outrage, or...?

I was being serious this time, but also a little candid.

 

[Y2Kev]

You see this type of knee-jerk reactions with poorly documented headlines (the Politico one that hasnt even gained traction lolol) because some Clinton fans are STRESSED and PRESSED on their toes looking for ANYTHING that can bring down Sanders from his morally superior stance against Clinton (a superiority based on merits, tbh).

Ugh, Jesus please give Sanders the 1-2-3 punch of IW-NH-NV so this fight can get spicier. Democrats need this. The party needs a more interesting primary so it can be better prepared against the avalanche of Trump.

Jesus is voting for Hilldawg. Sorry!

 

[Retromelon]

^^^ i laughed for over 20 seconds
this is the type of smarmy comeback that you would see touchdown or azalean make in popgaf

 

[Jack Remington]

Trump continues to lead in two new NH polls:

NH1 News

Among the overall sample, Trump grabs 31.7% support. Bush is at 11.9%, with Kasich at 11.8% and Christie at 11%. Cruz is backed by 9.7% of those questioned, with Rubio at 8.9%. Taking into account the overall poll's 3.1% sampling error, all five candidates are basically all knotted up in the race for the second spot.

Also a Fox News poll: https://mobile.twitter.com/FoxNews/status/685599012716736512/photo/1

That poll shows Trump 33, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Bush 9, Kasich 7, Christie 5, who cares about the rest.

 

[User 463088]

Trump continues to lead in two new NH polls:

NH1 News



Also a Fox News poll: https://mobile.twitter.com/FoxNews/status/685599012716736512/photo/1

That poll shows Trump 33, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Bush 9, Kasich 7, Christie 5, who cares about the rest.

How in the hell is Trump doing better among women than among men!? (It's from the NH1 Poll.). I mean....how in the actual hell is that a thing that is actually being reported on by a pollster.

Or am I just completely out of the loop on Trump actually having fairly wide and deep support among GOP/GOP leaning women.

 

[dramatis]

It's about half schadenfreude, you don't like it because it's on the opposite side now. This thread tends to be as delusional as Bernie stans, if you want evidence check the last Bill Clinton non-story.

What posted in the last Bill Clinton non-story thread was 'delusional' by the usual PoliGAF posters? In that thread, the guys who offered substantial discussion and personal opinions are ivysaur12 and Suikoguy, who even talked about different studies done on the subject. Jack Remington and others brought up reasons why the cases never brought Bill Clinton down. That was the quality of PoliGAF posters.

This is the quality of Bernie posters. It doesn't take long for a woman to be blamed for her husband's poor behavior.

Which is a shame, since Bill Clinton is a rock star piece of human garbage.

Why people are lining up to support another entry in that dynasty over the much more human and clean Bernie Sanders is a reflection on our culture of "vote for the most popular person you sort of agree with"

Some of those pardons make my skin crawl, and many tie directly back to Hillary.

I think it's fair game.

Hillary is putting women's rights at the center of her agenda and campaign.

Hillary is asking Bill Clinton to go out to rallies and campaign for her. [therefore, we are supposed to blame Hillary for Bill's misdeeds?]

It's certainly a tough position for diehard liberals to be in. Bill has cheated on his wife, who happens to be running a presidential campaign with Women's Rights being a cornerstone of her platform. [here, it's confusing that a woman is being blamed for her husband cheating on her?]

There was also one guy who claimed Hillary ignored Juanita Brodderick, offered no evidence in favor of this rumor, and doubled down with still no evidence when questioned. In the end another poster had to produce the evidence (an interview with Sean Hannity), and even said poster noted it was sketchy at best.

For each gleeful Cerium and noxious Cheebo there's a pile of Bernie stans driving by. Those who opt to support Hillary in here have never expressed the kind of venom against Bernie that Bernie stans callously throw out without basis. At worst people in here are quite okay with Bernie, but unhappy with his campaign. It is your assumption that I don't like it because it's from the opposite side. What I actually don't like are people saying both sides are the same. That the underlying current of sexist behavior by Bernie stans is allowed and ignored because of this false equivalence.

So where are your "equivalent" PoliGAF poster posts? You had nothing after all.

 

[NeoXChaos]

like the 20th woman to do the eye popping surprise thing at a trump rally.

 

[pigeon]

This is the quality of Bernie posters. It doesn't take long for a woman to be blamed for her husband's poor behavior.

Honestly, this is an example of the conflation that is creating this bizarre conflict. LosDaddie is a Republican. AlteredBeast is (or was) a disaffected moderate. These aren't "Bernie posters," they're just posters. Not everybody who dislikes the Clintons is a Bernie stan! Why would you assume that?

 

[And_Gignac]

Jesus is voting for Hilldawg. Sorry!

ClockT me!

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Cruz said that he doesn't support abortion for raped women and he'll just shoot potential rapists of his daughters:

In iowa, @tedcruz asked about rape abortion exception: "come near my girls & you will experience a direct exercise of the second amendment"

We're on the creepy train today.