• 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.
New Gravis poll conducted January 10th:

Dem:

Clinton 65%
Sanders 26%
O'Malley 9%

GOP:

Trump 41%
Cruz 20%
Rubio 11%
Bush 6%
Carson 5%
Fiorina 4%
Kasich 4%
Christie 3%
Paul 2%
Huckabee 2%
Santorum 0%

http://www.oann.com/pollnational/

Feel the Bern.

Trump and Cruz have pretty much drunk up Carson's support. The Trump+Carson+Cruz sum has stayed around 65% to 66% though. Without the other, one of Trump or Cruz would definitely win and would crush the competition... I wish Trump would drop out, Cruz would be so easy to beat.
 

benjipwns

Banned
The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Monday slammed the Republican Party's selection of South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley for its State of the Union response, calling it "appalling," according to a Post and Courier report.

"It's pretty clear that Nikki Haley is being chosen because the Republican Party has a diversity problem," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (R-Fla.) said on a conference call.
DEBBIE
 
I think it's a bit of an outlier though, just like the IBD/TIPP poll was. Clinton's probably up 15%. Who knows though?

No, no. That's now how this works. You find the most favorable poll to your candidate and repeat over and over "This is the one that mattes."

Kidding. It's Gravis. You're more likely to get an accurate result by randomly throwing darts at a board with each candidate's face and seeing what happens....
 

PBY

Banned
Rand doesn't deserve to sound reasonable, he's just as crazy as the rest.

Maybe so. But I can appreciate that his core beliefs have a consistency to them that doesn't require some sort of cognitive jumping jack exercise to rationalize.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Maybe so. But I can appreciate that his core beliefs have a consistency to them that doesn't require some sort of cognitive jumping jack exercise to rationalize.

No they don't. He's given four answers on the same issue in the space of a week before, his answers change depending on his audience. If you said that about his father I'd agree, but not Rand.
 

PBY

Banned
No they don't. He's given four answers on the same issue in the space of a week before, his answers change depending on his audience. If you said that about his father I'd agree, but not Rand.

Don't know that much about him, but you sound informed. Should have said my perceived understanding of his views.
 

PBY

Banned
Abby McKelson 50 minutes ago
This is just another utterly stupid attack ad. Jeb, you know you're the candidate most people would never vote for despite of how many ads your team consistently airs. And why always just go against RUBIO? Isn't Cruz leading in Iowa? Trump in New Hampshire? Isn't Carson leading you?

Yooooo youtube commenter with the truthbombs.
 

johnsmith

remember me
For anybody that still thinks Rubio or Cruz have any hopes of stealing a significant chunk of Hispanic support this article backs what I've been saying for a while. Not a chance. And the entire party is tainted to Mexicans thanks to Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/01/10/32d20f8e-b4bc-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html

Maria Herrera, a 62-year-old retired casino housekeeper, feels no affinity for Marco Rubio even as he aims to make history as the first Hispanic president of the United States. As she explained: “He’s Cuban. I’m Mexican.”

“Rubio says things that are not good for Mexicans,”
Herrera said, adding that she supports Hillary Clinton. “I would never vote for him just because he’s Latino.”

Rubio, whose parents are from Cuba, and Ted Cruz, whose father was born in Cuba, are competing to be the first Hispanic in the White House — and casting unprecedented attention on the nation’s growing Hispanic vote.

But in several key swing states — Nevada, Colorado, Florida and Virginia — most Latinos are not Cuban. Most lean Democratic — and identify more with their country of origin than with the broader terms, Hispanic or Latino, for those from Spanish-speaking countries. Most also oppose both Rubio’s and Cruz’s positions on immigration reform. All of that, in addition to long-standing tensions between Cuban and Mexican immigrants, could dash the GOP’s hopes that Cruz or Rubio could do what few Republicans have been able to do in a presidential election: attract significant Hispanic support.

[Rubio’s cousin, a Democrat, says Marco has his love but not his vote]

Rubio takes his kids sledding
Play Video0:41

Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), took a break from campaigning Dec. 30 to watch his kids go sledding near the Iowa State Capitol. (AP)
Mexicans account for nearly two-thirds of the Latinos in the United States — about 35 million people. Cubans are the third-largest group, after Puerto Ricans, with just 2 million people, or only 3.7 percent of the Latino vote, according to the Pew Research Center.

In interviews in wedding chapels and casinos, all around this city of stretch limos, slot machines and neon signs, Mexicans who make up so much of the workforce said it would be far more meaningful to elect the first Mexican American president than the first Latino. Many said they would vote for a non-Latino over a Cuban American.

In two days of interviews, not a single Mexican said he or she supported Rubio or Cruz, and even some Cubans said they don’t plan to support either Cuban American candidate.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Maybe the media will go back to hyping Carly and she will HAPPEN again just in time for Iowa?

I hate her "my superpac is not my campaign! no way! lol!" shit.
 

Iolo

Member
Maybe the media will go back to hyping Carly and she will HAPPEN again just in time for Iowa?

I hate her "my superpac is not my campaign! no way! lol!" shit.

CARLY PAC has nothing to do with Carly, how could one even entertain the thought.
 
Could someone point me in the direction of gun regulation taking people's guns away? My parents and brother claim the Nazis took people's guns away as a means of taking power, but scholarly articles claiming the opposite aren't credible resources.

Also, somewhat serious question, how can Cruz run for president? Does natural-born mean born on US soil, or just having a US parent?
 

Makai

Member
Could someone point me in the direction of gun regulation taking people's guns away? My parents and brother claim the Nazis took people's guns away as a means of taking power, but scholarly articles claiming the opposite aren't credible resources.

Also, somewhat serious question, how can Cruz run for president? Does natural-born mean born on US soil, or just having a US parent?
Australia. Japan.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Maybe the media will go back to hyping Carly and she will HAPPEN again just in time for Iowa?

I hate her "my superpac is not my campaign! no way! lol!" shit.
The worst is her daughter dying from drugs.

Also, she has a "just asking questions" schtick she does talking around something instead of actually talking about it, example:
Republican presidential candidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina says she finds it odd it took so long for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship, and listed his renouncement in 2014 as one of the reasons people are so fed up with politicians.

“I just think it’s odd. Why would it take you this long to renounce a Canadian citizenship?” Fiorina said last week on the Heidi Harris Show last week. “Why would it take a year before you run for president? I think it’s one of the reasons that people get sort of tired of politicians.”
 
No they don't. He's given four answers on the same issue in the space of a week before, his answers change depending on his audience. If you said that about his father I'd agree, but not Rand.

Ron's actual voting record is also consistent and completely at odds with his espoused ideas socially (even though those are consistent). Voting record wise Ron Paul comes close to the being the most conservative conservative that every conservatived both socially and economically.

Also, somewhat serious question, how can Cruz run for president? Does natural-born mean born on US soil, or just having a US parent?

It's completely undefined in the document the qualification is mentioned in. The jurisprudence has been pretty consistent that it merely requires US citizenship at birth, by whatever means you acquire it (a parent who meets the requirements or being born in a US State or Territory). It didn't come up with the first few presidents (since no one could have been a US Citizen at birth prior to the US existing) which is probably why it wasn't clarified in a time period where amendments were actually a thing that could happen.
 
I don't see anything in there about banning children from getting vaccines. Typical politico avoiding the real causes to support wealthy donors.

It's kind of insane that Trump flat out saying "vaccines cause autism" and Ben Carson lying to say "maybe vaccines cause autism" to avoid pissing off the uber-crazies got like one day of media coverage.

One of the lowest points of an impossibly disheartening campaign season and no one even remembers it.
 
Kidding. It's Gravis. You're more likely to get an accurate result by randomly throwing darts at a board with each candidate's face and seeing what happens....

Gravis sucks. They're sitting pretty on a C from 538 and I'm surprised it's even that high of a rating.
 
It's kind of insane that Trump flat out saying "vaccines cause autism" and Ben Carson lying to say "maybe vaccines cause autism" to avoid pissing off the uber-crazies got like one day of media coverage.

One of the lowest points of an impossibly disheartening campaign season and no one even remembers it.

I mean, if the media actually took the time to cover every batshit insane thing the GOP says, they wouldn't have time to promote the oligarchy. We can't have that.
 

danm999

Member
So you're telling me that regulating guns won't spontaneously cause tyranny? Ain't buying it /s

My next question is then, why? Why oppose gun legislation that seems to prevent mass shootings so opposed?

People make money selling them, and they have a very effective political lobby. Other people worry any regulation means their guns will be taken away and they like their guns.

There's also a portion that probably does believe the government tyranny/impossible to be personally secure without them arguments.
 
So you're telling me that regulating guns won't spontaneously cause tyranny? Ain't buying it /s

My next question is then, why? Why oppose gun legislation that seems to prevent mass shootings so opposed?

Because when Jesus Himself wrote the Constitution in 1492, he decided that we all should have guns. Guns are the only way to make sure the scary brown people don't get too uppity. Of course, they can't have guns, because that would be insane. So, when Jesus wrote the 2nd Amendment, what he meant was that middle aged, white men (preferably men, women can have one as long as it's pink and fits in her purse) should have guns. Free from the tyranny of the gubbmint.

And, see, if we do simple things like prevent mass shootings it's really unamerican. This is America. We have the right to die of preventable illnesses in the ER and/or get shot so that Bubba can feel good about owning six shotguns and a closet full of ammo.

All jokes aside, there's no good reason, other than an extremely narrow reading of the 2nd Amendment while ignoring the words "well regulated" and "militia."
 
Shit as long as Bubba is of the faculties to own responsibly, why not? Aren't most people just for not letting people who can't pass background checks or who are mentally unstable own guns?

It sounds like the whole thing is slippery slope argument, a logical fallacy. Speaking of, I've never understood why logical fallacies are wrong.

I understand they're wrong, but I don't get the why they are wrong.

Apologies for sounding like a novice, everyone.
 

Makai

Member
Shit as long as Bubba is of the faculties to own responsibly, why not? Aren't most people just for not letting people who can't pass background checks or who are mentally unstable own guns?

It sounds like the whole thing is slippery slope argument, a logical fallacy. Speaking of, I've never understood why logical fallacies are wrong.

I understand they're wrong, but I don't get the why they are wrong.

Apologies for sounding like a novice, everyone.
It's a logical fallacy if the argument appears to be valid but actually isn't. Slippery slope arguments assume continued progress in a certain direction towards an inevitable undesirable outcome, when progress can halt or go in a different direction.
 
It's kind of insane that Trump flat out saying "vaccines cause autism" and Ben Carson lying to say "maybe vaccines cause autism" to avoid pissing off the uber-crazies got like one day of media coverage.

One of the lowest points of an impossibly disheartening campaign season and no one even remembers it.

Remember when being an anti-vaxxer was enough to sink Michelle Bachmann's campaign?

Halcyon days.
 
It's a logical fallacy if the argument appears to be valid but actually isn't. Slippery slope arguments assume continued progress in a certain direction towards an inevitable undesirable outcome, when progress can halt or go in a different direction.

Gotcha. Makes sense when you put it that way. So then the question would become what makes an argument valid, which is well, determined by those three: ego, logos, and pathos. Right?
 

pigeon

Banned
(I am going to respond to the immigration discussion but I am thinking about that post. Normally I don't have to think about anything I post, so it's quicker.)

There's something just beautifully poetic about the idea that Ted Cruz's campaign for president is running into an iceberg not because of any of the insane things he actually did, but because Trump started a birther campaign about him and every single other Republican politician would rather play along than point out it's ridiculous.
 

UraMallas

Member
I made this post on PoliReddit but I haven't garnered a single response. Thought you guys might be able to give me insight. I'll copy paste the whole thing.


ELI5: The difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy.

I have been rummaging around on the internet on this lazy Sunday and was reading a few articles on the democratic candidates when I became the victim of the Wikipedia rabbit hole.

I read good portions of the entries on democratic socialism and social democracy. I read the 'compare and contrast' sections and thought I had maybe a tenuous grasp on the real differences presented. I then read a section on the democratic socialism entry that described Bernie Sanders as a democratic socialist AND a social democrat by his own admission. After reading the entries and believing I understood, Bernie Sanders confused the issue for me by claim both ideologies when the Wikipedia articles took pains to separate the two.

So, Reddit, what is the difference between democratic socialism and being a social democrat?
 
Shit as long as Bubba is of the faculties to own responsibly, why not? Aren't most people just for not letting people who can't pass background checks or who are mentally unstable own guns?

It sounds like the whole thing is slippery slope argument, a logical fallacy. Speaking of, I've never understood why logical fallacies are wrong.

I understand they're wrong, but I don't get the why they are wrong.

Apologies for sounding like a novice, everyone.

You're not going to get a great rational argument out of me, so I'll say that up front. I do not believe anyone needs to own a gun, and I would support an entire repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I accept that it won't happen, and that I'm probably in the minority.

I believe that all guns should be registered. I believe gun owners should have to insure them as well. On top of that, I believe there should be strict limits on the amount of ammo that people are allowed to purchase. I support a ban on automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

So, I'll gladly accept "common sense" reform. The fact that small steps won't solve everything doesn't mean we shouldn't do something.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Shit as long as Bubba is of the faculties to own responsibly, why not? Aren't most people just for not letting people who can't pass background checks or who are mentally unstable own guns?

It sounds like the whole thing is slippery slope argument, a logical fallacy. Speaking of, I've never understood why logical fallacies are wrong.

I understand they're wrong, but I don't get the why they are wrong.

Apologies for sounding like a novice, everyone.
They aren't wrong in the way I think you're thinking. They're "wrong" in that they're faulty reasoning.

You can make an argument that is nothing but fallacies, and it still comes to the "right" conclusion.

For example, cats don't have thumbs. All creatures without thumbs are trustworthy. Jason Kidd played point guard, but never with Chuck Person. Chuck Person was nicknamed The Rifleman, yet there's no proof he ever owned a gun. Bearing arms isn't a right granted by the Constitution, it's a right protected by the Constitution. Barack Obama doesn't understand the Constitution because he was born in the foreign nation of Hawai'i. Anakin killed all the Jedi. Therefore, Hillary Clinton is a felon who won't even be on the November ballot.

JOHN MCCAIN said it's worth looking into Ted Cruz's citizenship! It's so amazing.
Remember that time he was born in the Canal Zone.

I made this post on PoliReddit but I haven't garnered a single response. Thought you guys might be able to give me insight. I'll copy paste the whole thing.


ELI5: The difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy.

I have been rummaging around on the internet on this lazy Sunday and was reading a few articles on the democratic candidates when I became the victim of the Wikipedia rabbit hole.

I read good portions of the entries on democratic socialism and social democracy. I read the 'compare and contrast' sections and thought I had maybe a tenuous grasp on the real differences presented. I then read a section on the democratic socialism entry that described Bernie Sanders as a democratic socialist AND a social democrat by his own admission. After reading the entries and believing I understood, Bernie Sanders confused the issue for me by claim both ideologies when the Wikipedia articles took pains to separate the two.

So, Reddit, what is the difference between democratic socialism and being a social democrat?
Priorities.

And true scotsman branding disputes.
 

danm999

Member
They hate him so much they won't even throw him a lifeline; even though the implication is they allowed a non-eligible candidate to run for their parties nomination.

It's glorious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom