• 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.
U

ugaboga232

Member
Throwing my hat into the vox sanders healthcare plan, I think the vox analysis is rather shoddy but also does highlight the plan is not really fleshed out well at all. I guess its more symbolic than actual (presidents dont really write legislature).

But yea, administrative costs, prescription drugs are two big parts of it but also the plan just kinda assumes healthcare will stay the same except a different payer. A big part of universal healthcare would be dramatic shifts in fee for service, much better preventative care which should save a lot of money, and a lot more changes that incentive not wasting care. It really doesn't make sense that 70% of people would pay more in universal healthcare when we already pay so so much.
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
Did the Sanders fans every really comment on Pelosi's statement on Sanders health care plan which amounted to basically "lol nope".

In that even if the revolution works and Dems took control of congress that the Dem Speaker of the House wouldn't even take up his health care plan because it would never pass (the Obamacare BARELY passed a Dem majority so it makes sense).

How can the revolution work if the Democrats in congress are not even willing to go along with it?
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Roland_Gunner said:
Thing is, all of the studies on the affects of minimum wage increases are looking at relatively mild raises. In Greene County, AL the average wage is $27K a year. With a $15 min wage the lowest you would pay a full time employee is $31.2K. So half the people in the county would get at least a 15% raise. I can't find any kind of study that tracks the impacts of a move like that, but it seems reasonable to suggest that a lot of jobs would suddenly become at risk.
Click to expand...

Indeed. My concern is that a raise to 12usd is already (considerably) significant, so if one wants to doom and gloom 15usd, one should have data to indicate which is the projected impact of each, otherwise all one is left with is a generic "this will close businesses" vs "this will close MORE businesses". Then one considers that, according to that position, if you proposing a raise, you already accepting that SOME businesses will close, so why does one feel that the closure rate at 12 would be acceptable, but at 15 it wouldnt?

I mean, why not settle for 9 or 10? How is one balancing this?
Cheebo said:
Did the Sanders fans every really comment on Pelosi's statement on Sanders health care plan which amounted to basically "lol nope".

In that even if the revolution works and Dems took control of congress that the Dem Speaker of the House wouldn't even take up his health care plan because it would never pass (the Obamacare BARELY passed a Dem majority so it makes sense).

How can the revolution work if the Democrats in congress are not even willing to go along with it?
Click to expand...

Does anyone truly envision a scenario where the dems in the house would completely rebel against their president? They'd argue and negotiate, obv, but " nah, this will not be discussed AT ALL"?

Right after an election?

Might as well say that dems will try to make bernie lose if he takes the nom, is equally as likely.

I mean, look at your scenario: "in the event the revolution works". Mein freund, if it worked, then what that bourgeoise Pelosi said is irrelevant. If dems manage to recapture the house as a consequence of that, then Bern would have so mucb political capital oozing out of every orifice that the whole ruleset has changed. That is legit miracle territory.

The problem is with the revolution working in the first place.
 
S

sangreal

Member
Cheebo said:
Did the Sanders fans every really comment on Pelosi's statement on Sanders health care plan which amounted to basically "lol nope".

In that even if the revolution works and Dems took control of congress that the Dem Speaker of the House wouldn't even take up his health care plan because it would never pass (the Obamacare BARELY passed a Dem majority so it makes sense).

How can the revolution work if the Democrats in congress are not even willing to go along with it?
Click to expand...

She's under the bus
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
PPP IA

Hillary 48
Bernie 40

https://twitter.com/ppppolls

Sanders' hopes in Iowa really rely on a lot of independent voters showing up Monday and changing their registration to Democratic to caucus for him. Clinton has a 53/36 lead with registered Democrats, while Sanders has a whooping 62/23 advantage with independents. We find independents to make up about 17% of the likely electorate for Monday night- given Sanders' overwhelming advantage with them his path to victory is dependent on turning out even more of those folks.
Click to expand...
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
sangreal said:
She's under the bus
Click to expand...

That's thing about this so called political revolution, even if they elect a ton of Dems to congress the Democratic leadership in Congress has absolutely no interest in pushing forward Bernie's proposals.

I don't get what the end goal is here. Bernie would

A. Have to win.
B. Overwhelmingly turn both the Senate and House from Republican to Democrat
C. Democratic leadership would have to be primaried to be replaced, Tea Party style since they have no intention of wanting to push forward dramatic policy changes to the degree Sanders does.

He can't pull off getting anything done without all 3 happening.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Cheebo said:
That's thing about this so called political revolution, even if they elect a ton of Dems to congress the Democratic leadership in Congress has absolutely no interest in pushing forward Bernie's proposals.

I don't get what the end goal is here. Bernie would

A. Have to win.
B. Overwhelmingly turn both the Senate and House from Republican to Democrat
C. Democratic leadership would have to be primaried to be replaced, Tea Party style.

He can't pull off getting anything done without all 3 happening.
Click to expand...
I have been saying the exact same thing verbatim (before the Pelosi hitjob) for the past few weeks. The counter response typically is well it's not like Republicans will let any of Hillary's agenda pass so why not go for bernie??? Complete strawman.
 
S

Snowman Prophet of Doom

Member
The thing that's disingenuous about Sanders supporters is that they will say that "a majority of Americans support his individual views", but it's not the same majority down the line, in reality. 55% might support universal healthcare, 52% might support breaking up the banks (these are BS numbers cuz I'm on mobile), but the overlap of those two majorities is only a subset of the two, collectively. And every view you add reduces the subset of common views, until you end up with a pretty small minority that actually support all of the positions Bernie has adopted for his platform. And when you add in all the policy wonks poking holes in his actual implementations, the number prob shrinks even more.

Also, all the full-out Marxists in OT is a surprise to me. Is Marxism poised to make a comeback in the West? Any data on that?
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
 When I’ve disclosed that my daughter works for Clinton—in The Nation, on MSNBC, and on social media—we’ve both come in for trolling so vile it’s made me not merely defensive of her. It’s forced me to recognize how little society respects the passion of the many young women—and men—who are putting their souls into electing the first female president. It’s one thing to note that Sanders is winning among millennials; that’s true. It’s another to impugn the competence and dignity of the literally millions of millennials who support Clinton. Social-media trolls have had several fascinating and stunningly sexist reactions to the news of my daughter’s position. Obviously, she can’t be competent; I must have gotten her the job (in fact, she got it through a high-school friend who worked for Clinton and recommended her.) Obviously, she can’t think for herself; I must have indoctrinated her to support Clinton over Sanders. Or the flip side: Obviously, I have no integrity, and I support Clinton over Sanders only because my daughter is on her payroll.
Click to expand...

Watching people trash your daughter on social media isn’t fun. It got worse when Hillary Clinton’s Twitter account retweeted her, and worse again when she tweeted about Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards, a woman she admires, in the wake of the group’s controversial decision to endorse Clinton. It turns out Richards’s daughter works for Clinton as well, and that began a new round of insults to both our daughters. Either they were beneficiaries of our nepotism, or they somehow used their influence to corrupt their dimwit mothers into ignoring Sanders’s obviously superior feminist qualifications. It is interesting to me that none of the ladies—not Clinton, not me nor my daughter, not Richards nor her daughter—are credited with competence or integrity when the Berniebot keyboard warriors break it all down.
Click to expand...

total disrespect form some people.


http://www.thenation.com/article/why-im-supporting-hillary-clinton-with-joy-and-without-apologies/
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
The thing that's disingenuous about Sanders supporters is that they will say that "a majority of Americans support his individual views", but it's not the same majority down the line, in reality. 55% might support universal healthcare, 52% might support breaking up the banks (these are BS numbers cuz I'm on mobile), but the overlap of those two majorities is only a subset of the two, collectively. And every view you add reduces the subset of common views, until you end up with a pretty small minority that actually support all of the positions Bernie has adopted for his platform. And when you add in all the policy wonks poking holes in his actual implementations, the number prob shrinks even more.

Also, all the full-out Marxists in OT is a surprise to me. Is Marxism poised to make a comeback in the West? Any data on that?
Click to expand...

well yeah like gun control. 90% support but can't get through Congress because the Americans who live in red districts either don't want it or put certain issues higher priority then gun control or minimum wage or free college. Its a hard sale.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Cheebo said:
That's thing about this so called political revolution, even if they elect a ton of Dems to congress the Democratic leadership in Congress has absolutely no interest in pushing forward Bernie's proposals.

I don't get what the end goal is here. Bernie would

A. Have to win.
B. Overwhelmingly turn both the Senate and House from Republican to Democrat
C. Democratic leadership would have to be primaried to be replaced, Tea Party style since they have no intention of wanting to push forward dramatic policy changes to the degree Sanders does.

He can't pull off getting anything done without all 3 happening.
Click to expand...

No, this is silly. Pelosi is a pragmatic liberal. If Sanders generated a majority for single-player Pelosi would absolutely push the bill. She just won't do it if it's doomed to fail. But in the universe where the House and Senate turn overwhelmingly blue she'll be just as blue. Pelosi's famous for knowing exactly what she has 218 votes to do and doing that.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
NeoXChaos said:
total disrespect form some people.


http://www.thenation.com/article/why-im-supporting-hillary-clinton-with-joy-and-without-apologies/
Click to expand...

Conflicts of interest are a thing (asshole trolls be damned).

Regarding marxism, I had to read marx in college so I guess I don't think its very bad and I see more and more how a system that emphasizes capital as the money maker instead of labor will probably screw a lot of people and I swore on zeus and friends to help people.


Also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cA0NM5RAY0
 
D

dramatis

Member
Vox has a feature written by a former ghostwriter for Donald Trump.
Still, Trump was everywhere: The office was wallpapered with 8-foot-high posters of the man, all steely and severe (his trademark look), each one emblazoned with a different "Trumpism": Think Big! — Go with Your Gut — Love What You Do. Trump video clips played constantly on computers around the cramped one-room office, as editors and course developers combined elements of Trump wisdom, creating content designed to effect the alchemy of success.

My first day on the job, I was told to write some blurbs for the Trump University website, as part of the rollout for our first major product, "The Wealth Builder's Blueprint," a mixed-media grab bag that came with lots of stuff (DVDs, a booklet, various "success tools," and more). My initial attempt was all wrong — too soft, not salesy enough. "You have to find the voice of Trump," my boss said. He gave me a DVD to watch, "Donald Trump Speaks," a 20-minute interview where the Donald held forth on the promise of his new venture: "Action is what Trump University is all about. Our motto is ‘Learn by Doing' ... Think like a billionaire ... You will be successful."
Click to expand...
Sounds like a blast.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
Coriolanus said:
Indeed. My concern is that a raise to 12usd is already (considerably) significant, so if one wants to doom and gloom 15usd, one should have data to indicate which is the projected impact of each, otherwise all one is left with is a generic "this will close businesses" vs "this will close MORE businesses". Then one considers that, according to that position, if you proposing a raise, you already accepting that SOME businesses will close, so why does one feel that the closure rate at 12 would be acceptable, but at 15 it wouldnt?

I mean, why not settle for 9 or 10? How is one balancing this?
Click to expand...

I'm obviously one of the more moderate libs on the board but shouldn't the approach be we start with incremental increases and see what happens rather than pushing out to $15 immediately and see if it wrecks the economy? If there is one state that wants to test this out we should let them but pushing through an unproven theory nationwide seems extremely risky.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
Roland_Gunner said:
I'm obviously one of the more moderate libs on the board but shouldn't the approach be we start with incremental increases and see what happens rather than pushing out to $15 immediately and see if it wrecks the economy? If there is one state that wants to test this out we should let them but pushing through an unproven theory nationwide seems extremely risky.
Click to expand...

Yea pretty sure all the $15 minimum wage increases are really a slow ramp to $15 over a few years.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Roland_Gunner said:
I'm obviously one of the more moderate libs on the board but shouldn't the approach be we start with incremental increases and see what happens rather than pushing out to $15 immediately and see if it wrecks the economy? If there is one state that wants to test this out we should let them but pushing through an unproven theory nationwide seems extremely risky.
Click to expand...

The problem is that your opponents will argue that pushing 12 immediately will rek the economy. Hence my focus on how to counter that (and how to justify one's own preference for the value)

Iirc some states (or cities?) already adopted 15.


Were it up to me, id just focus on passing legislation to automatically readjust the thing yearly to inflation/cost of living by area, and then working on genuine gains later down the late.

Fun "fact" (bcz heavy iirc) Story Time: brazil back in the.... I wanna say 50s, was before the military coup, had... 24? states. The federal government determined that each state would have its own wage acc cost of living and two wages per state, one for major metropolitan areas, and another for less densely populated areas. Automatic yearly adjustments, the works, the kinda plan that you read and go "wait, they did what? and when?".

Military coup happens. One of the first things? Scrap the whole lot. One wage. Whole country. Only readjusted when significant production gains could be proved, otherwise it stayed the same. The kicker? Yearly 15+% inflation. :D
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Four_Chamber said:
I made the mistake of reading that comment section, really ugly and validates the statements made in that column

The internet vitriol produced by the supporters of Sanders campaign is really nauseating and really does a disservice to a guy (Sanders) that I genuinely like.
Click to expand...

 Exactly, what did the first black president do for blacks or the 99% in general? Nothing, he carried water for Wall St.
Click to expand...

Huh.

 As always, Walsh fails to make an affirmative case for Hillary Clinton, except that she is a staunch supporter of abortion. Other reasons: people are mean to Hillary; Sander's supporters are mean to me and my daughter; men are sexist; she's a woman and it's about time; I believe, just because. Pitiful.
Click to expand...

.........
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
B-Dubs said:
So what, one of them should quit? Come on dude. So long as he disclosed the fact his daughter works for Clinton then he's fine from an ethics point of view.
Click to expand...

No I dont think so, but to suggest that conflict of interests don't exist is also disingenuous. You disclose your conflicts so people can make their own calls.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
ugaboga232 said:
No I dont think so, but to suggest that conflict of interests don't exist is also disingenuous. You disclose your conflicts so people can make their own calls.
Click to expand...

Which is what he did.

I never said conflicts of interest don't exist, so please don't insinuate that I did. All I did was say that he disclosed the fact and that's all he needs to do ethically. There's nothing else he can do short of quitting or her quitting.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
Coriolanus said:
The problem is that your opponents will argue that pushing 12 immediately will rek the economy. Hence my focus on how to counter that (and how to justify one's own preference for the value)
Click to expand...

Yes, they'll argue that but there is a big distinction between what conservatives will say and the very real risk that quickly moving to a $15 an hour minimum wage actually will wreck the economy, especially in already poor areas.



ugaboga232 said:
Yea pretty sure all the $15 minimum wage increases are really a slow ramp to $15 over a few years.
Click to expand...

The ones that have past so far get to $15 in a couple of years but those are in relatively rich areas. You could write a bill that gets to $15 over a decade with pauses to check on impacts but that isn't what is being proposed.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Chichikov said:
The ACA is an improvement, no doubt about it, but still, the state of US healthcare when compared to the rest of the developed world it's quite terrible.
It's only "pretty good" when you compare it to what came before it.

Also, if you want a single payer system, the bare minimum you can do is not to trash it, which is what I sadly see by many on the left.
Click to expand...

My point is mostly that there's a real argument to be made that while America needs universal healthcare it might be better served by a Dutch-style system with individual mandates and heavily regulated insurers than by a single-payer system. Obviously the changes would be less drastic and it wouldn't mean sidelining or eradicating all the current stakeholders in the American system.

If people who study and work on implementing single-payer think that it would be pretty disruptive for current healthcare users if we did it in America, it kind of speaks to that claim and suggests that it's worth thinking hard about the Dutch approach. Obviously Obamacare is already designed to move us in that direction.

Y2Kev said:
It's not great that Hillary is less favorable than generic D.
Click to expand...

I actually think it's pretty normal for real people to poll worse than generics. Generics have no traits for you to be mad at! Doesn't really worry me.

Frank the Great said:
I don't think Hillary can win by relying on the Obama coalition. Young voters will not turn out in droves for Hillary. She is just not as exciting of a candidate and she does not have the whole antiwar initiative behind her the way Barry did.
Click to expand...

Subtle point here, but worth remembering: the Obama coalition didn't include "the youth," it included Millenials. They just happened to be young. The people who voted for Obama 8 years ago are still a big part of the coalition, they're just not youth any more. But that doesn't mean Hillary will somehow lose them because she's not "exciting." These are habitual voters at this point. Excitement's not the requirement.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Roland_Gunner said:
Yes, they'll argue that but there is a big distinction between what conservatives will say and the very real risk that quickly moving to a $15 an hour minimum wage actually will wreck the economy, especially in already poor areas.
Click to expand...
How can one categorically affirm that the increase to 12usd isn't a very real risk?

Roland_Gunner said:
The ones that have past so far get to $15 in a couple of years but those are in relatively rich areas. You could write a bill that gets to $15 over a decade with pauses to check on impacts but that isn't what is being proposed.
Click to expand...
Ahm...
Feeling it yet? said:
Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.
Click to expand...
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Thanks Obama :)

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will move on Friday to require companies to report to the federal government what they pay employees by race, gender and ethnicity, part of a push by President Obama to crack down on firms that pay women less for doing the same work as men.

The new rules, Mr. Obama’s latest bid to use his executive power to address a priority of his that Congress has resisted acting on, would mandate that companies with 100 employees or more include salary information on a form they already submit annually that reports employees’ sex, age and job groups.

“Too often, pay discrimination goes undetected because of a lack of accurate information about what people are paid,” said Jenny Yang, the chairwoman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which will publish the proposed regulation jointly with the Department of Labor. “We will be using the information that we’re collecting as one piece of information that can inform our investigations.”
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/u...losing-gender-pay-gap.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
Coriolanus said:
How can one categorically affirm that the increase to 12usd isn't a very real risk?


Ahm...
Click to expand...

1. There is a risk to both. But the larger the move, the bigger the risk. Just pointing out that risk exists isn't a reason to not attempt to manage it.

2. I don't think several years generally means 10. If that is what Sanders proposes when he gets in office a lot of his voters will feel sold out, even if I think its a smarter policy.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
B-Dubs said:
Which is what he did.

I never said conflicts of interest don't exist, so please don't insinuate that I did. All I did was say that he disclosed the fact and that's all he needs to do ethically. There's nothing else he can do short of quitting or her quitting.
Click to expand...

"Or the flip side: Obviously, I have no integrity, and I support Clinton over Sanders only because my daughter is on her payroll."

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, I don't actually think the author is biased but the author is kinda making the argument that no one has ever been biased toward their children which is a bad retort. I was targeting the author not you. The internet comments are horrifically obnoxious but thats what people do with anonymity.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
pigeon said:
My point is mostly that there's a real argument to be made that while America needs universal healthcare it might be better served by a Dutch-style system with individual mandates and heavily regulated insurers than by a single-payer system. Obviously the changes would be less drastic and it wouldn't mean sidelining or eradicating all the current stakeholders in the American system.

If people who study and work on implementing single-payer think that it would be pretty disruptive for current healthcare users if we did it in America, it kind of speaks to that claim and suggests that it's worth thinking hard about the Dutch approach. Obviously Obamacare is already designed to move us in that direction.



I actually think it's pretty normal for real people to poll worse than generics. Generics have no traits for you to be mad at! Doesn't really worry me.



Subtle point here, but worth remembering: the Obama coalition didn't include "the youth," it included Millenials. They just happened to be young. The people who voted for Obama 8 years ago are still a big part of the coalition, they're just not youth any more. But that doesn't mean Hillary will somehow lose them because she's not "exciting." These are habitual voters at this point. Excitement's not the requirement.
Click to expand...

Isn't bernie way up in the below 45 age group?

Back to healthcare: the real problem is not necessarily any specific system, its the administrative costs, inability to set costs with regards to drugs, and wasteful healthcare spending plus other issues. They can be solved in multiple ways, but whatever the way a few big things need to happen. Fee for service is dumb, administrative costs are high and gameable, drug prices are way too high, hospitals need to be regulated a bit better, and health care should not be tied to jobs.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Roland_Gunner said:
1. There is a risk to both. But the larger the move, the bigger the risk. Just pointing out that risk exists isn't a reason to not attempt to manage it.

2. I don't think several years generally means 10. If that is what Sanders proposes when he gets in office a lot of his voters will feel sold out, even if I think its a smarter policy.
Click to expand...

1. Yes, but again, what is the risk difference? Why should one attempt to manage the risk 12 brings and not settle for 10? And if the difference between 10 and 12 is so small that it is worth taking, what is the risk difference between 12 and 15, and why is it so large that it should be considered too big to be confronted in the same way that the difference between 10 and 12 was?

The point of this exercise is to show that we appear not to have the data for either position, so simply disregarding one with so little data necessarily entails disregarding the other and settling for...say, 9 or 10 or whatever would be the value adjusted solely via inflation.

2. They'll feel sold out either way. But this runs into the same problem. over time could mean 4, 8 or 10. Which of these is optimal? Which of these should we strive for? Some will feel sold out if it doesnt go immediately to 15. Some will think anything less than 10 years to implement 15 is cray.

And the point of this exercise is to show that specifics demand even more specifics, and there's simply a point where one must go "fuck it, we'll do it live" (which appears to be the basis for criminal legislation in the US in the 90's, hey ho!). That point will always vary considerably because politics ho!
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
ugaboga232 said:
Isn't bernie way up in the below 45 age group?

Back to healthcare: the real problem is not necessarily any specific system, its the administrative costs, inability to set costs with regards to drugs, and wasteful healthcare spending plus other issues. They can be solved in multiple ways, but whatever the way a few big things need to happen. Fee for service is dumb, administrative costs are high and gameable, drug prices are way too high, hospitals need to be regulated a bit better, and health care should not be tied to jobs.
Click to expand...

From the breakdowns his numbers among 18-24 are so great that they skew anything that includes that range. I was looking at a poll a few weeks back and he won 18-35, but when they broke it down further he killed it with 18-24 but lost 25-35. Most of the 2008 voters are 25-35 at this point and they tend to skew Clinton. His heavy support among students and independents are juicing his numbers.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
B-Dubs said:
From the breakdowns his numbers among 18-24 are so great that they skew anything that includes that range. I was looking at a poll a few weeks back and he won 18-35, but when they broke it down further he killed it with 18-24 but lost 25-35. Most of the 2008 voters are 25-35 at this point and they tend to skew Clinton. His heavy support among students and independents are juicing his numbers.
Click to expand...

I sincerely thought I saw a poll showing like 40% up at 25, 20% at 35, 5ish % at 45, and then clinton favored after that.

sorry about any misunderstandings earlier up, running on little sleep
 
P

PBY

Banned
Y2Kev said:
Man Cruz is getting hammered.
Click to expand...

Trump savaged him this morning, some quotes:
"Ted Cruz is an anchor baby in Canada. But Canada doesn't accept anchor babies," Trump said, adding "he's a citizen of Canada and a senator of Texas." Cruz renounced his dual citizenship in 2014.

"I think we're going to do really well in Iowa. We're leading in the Iowa polls. And Cruz is in the second place. He got really pummeled last night. I'm glad I wasn't there. And they didn't even mention that he was born in Canada," Trump said at a speech at the Radisson Hotel here in Nashua on Friday morning. "So he got beaten pretty badly last night. And I don't know what's going to happen to him."


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-post-skip-debate-218403#ixzz3yejui9eu
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
adam387 said:
Exactly. They planned this to burn Trump to the ground. They were going to "attack" the others as coverage. Without him there, they've just been savaging everyone else on the stage. This...this backfired on Fox News and the GOP so hard. I think they actually damaged most of these people today.

Trump is god tier. He really, really is. I am impressed.
Click to expand...

B-Dubs said:
That's what we're all saying. The plan here was to kill Trump.
Click to expand...

Bam Bam Baklava said:
If Trump really knew what was going to happen at that debate and managed to avoid it by doing all this then I'm just about ready to get down on my knees and call him my lord and savior.
Click to expand...

If he figured out that was FOX News' plan...damn. That's impressive.

PBY said:
Trump savaged him this morning, some quotes:
"Ted Cruz is an anchor baby in Canada. But Canada doesn't accept anchor babies," Trump said, adding "he's a citizen of Canada and a senator of Texas." Cruz renounced his dual citizenship in 2014.

"I think we're going to do really well in Iowa. We're leading in the Iowa polls. And Cruz is in the second place. He got really pummeled last night. I'm glad I wasn't there. And they didn't even mention that he was born in Canada," Trump said at a speech at the Radisson Hotel here in Nashua on Friday morning. "So he got beaten pretty badly last night. And I don't know what's going to happen to him."


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-post-skip-debate-218403#ixzz3yejui9eu
Click to expand...

This is why I am far more worried about Trump in the General Election than many other liberals. The longer this goes on, the more I think this isn't just dumb luck but serious, serious political acumen and skill.
 
P

PBY

Banned
Cybit said:
This is why I am far more worried about Trump in the General Election than many other liberals. The longer this goes on, the more I think this isn't just dumb luck but serious, serious political acumen and skill.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not sure how he does it

10 days out he was down significantly in Iowa. All of a sudden, BAM. Like, what the fuck just happened? How did he get here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom