Support NeoGAF

[Elaugaufein]

Well, I think I owe you an apology dramatis . Those people are more appalling than thought.

*Sigh* How do people actually sink to these levels of awful. I don't even begin to understand the mindset that thinks that kind of thing is an appropriate response to disagreement.

 

[Abinash117]

This graph is impossibly sad.

The degree to which white people straight up despise black people is so disheartening...

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/01/29/racial-attitudes-differ-ideology-class/

Yeah it seems like all races think that way to other races more or less which is something pretty damn awful. I really think this is do with the fact that people really don't interact outside there community on a personal level.

 

[Four_Chamber]

These people actually exist- I shouldn't waste time reading political threads on reddit because they're a circlejerk but damn, I seriously cannot conceive of the logic here.

[–]atb1183 268 points 3 hours ago
As someone in this environment, I'm outraged. Any of us do this, we'd disappear for a long time off not indefinitely.
If she beats bernie, I'm voting trump.
permalinkparent
[–]heapsp 163 points 2 hours ago
Same... If she beats bernie I'm voting republican. All of the issues that are important to me like campaign finance reform.... Single payer healthcare.... Net neutrality... She's on the wrong side of.
permalinkparent
[–]MoralAndFree 130 points an hour ago
If Hillary wins the nomination, I am voting for whoever is running against her. She is just an awfully immoral person from all the things I've read/heard about her.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Outside of one week of Ben Carson, Trump has been basically unchallenged this primary season, total domination.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

These people actually exist- I shouldn't waste time reading political threads on reddit because they're a circlejerk but damn, I seriously cannot conceive of the logic here.

I wouldn't worry about those people. The internet provides safe havens for people who would be so few and far between otherwise that they'd never meet another like minded person in real life. We're also at the fever pitch of the intraparty divide right now. Wait till, say, September, and you'll see a lot less vitriol I imagine. Unless Hillary endorses Bloomberg or Bernie endorses Jill Stein, you're not gonna see this fissure continue into the general in any meaningful way. 10,000 or so people scattered across the country who hold steadfast to this view will absolutely not matter in the general.



Also, I was curious, for those who have a horse in the Bernie/Hillary race right now, who would you align with if the race was Bernie/Hillary/Warren instead?

 

[Iolo]

This why I can't stand Millenials and their participation ribbon culture. You have a guy promising them free college, free healthcare, and free jobs and they can't even get off their asses to participate. Meanwhile, you have people saying they "would breaststroke through hell to vote for Ted Cruz."

Ever since 18-year-olds were given the right to vote in 1972, youth have been under represented at the polls.[1] In 1976, one of the first elections in which 18-year-olds were able to vote, 18-24 year-olds made up 18 percent of all eligible voters in America, but only 13 percent actually voted - an under-representation of one-third.[1] In the next election in 1978, youth were under-represented by 50 percent. “Seven out of ten young people…did not vote in the 1996 presidential election… 20 percent below the general turnout”.[5]

goddamn 1970s millennial culture

 

[Elaugaufein]

These people actually exist- I shouldn't waste time reading political threads on reddit because they're a circlejerk but damn, I seriously cannot conceive of the logic here.

I don't understand this. I mean even if I think Hillary is wrong on Single payer the belief that the Republicans are less wrong about it is wronger than I think Hillary is about single payer by several orders of magnitude.

 

[Basileus777]

Outside of one week of Ben Carson, Trump has been basically unchallenged this primary season, total domination.

People are going to be studying Trump's campaign for a long time. It's scary to think that we're going to get future politicians that attempt to imitate his tactics.

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

Are you trolling or something?

Somewhat. I think it says a lot that a candidate has been handed to them and "speaks to them" and their issues, yet they can't do the bare minimum.

 

[Third Strike]

I don't understand this. I mean even if I think Hillary is wrong on Single payer the belief that the Republicans are less wrong about it is wronger than I think Hillary is about single payer by several orders of magnitude.

Just chalk it up as populism. Voting for Trump is basically voting against everything Bernie stands for. It means you never really cared about Bernie's message in the first place, and you have the privilege to vote for whomever, and not have to worry about the repercussions.

 

[ctothej]

Somewhat. I think it says a lot that a candidate has been handed to them and "speaks to them" and their issues, yet they can't do the bare minimum.

Really though...? You think the average voter over the age of 30 is willing to bus several hours away so that their one vote will be counted in a different precinct?

 

[kess]

These people actually exist- I shouldn't waste time reading political threads on reddit because they're a circlejerk but damn, I seriously cannot conceive of the logic here.

One of the boards I frequent had an influx of pro-Bernie (and accordingly, anti-Clinton) posters, some of which are calling for violent struggle if their candidate loses -- and then, of course, you've got the crowd that doesn't think Bernie is sufficiently socialist enough. Classic.

 

[dramatis]

Well, I think I owe you an apology dramatis . Those people are more appalling than thought.

*Sigh* How do people actually sink to these levels of awful. I don't even begin to understand the mindset that thinks that kind of thing is an appropriate response to disagreement.

No hard feelings. I think if we check our own behavior and try our best to check others, things generally turn out somewhat okay.

 

[JesseEwiak]

People are going to be studying Trump's campaign for a long time. It's scary to think that we're going to get future politicians that attempt to imitate his tactics.

Honestly, I think the reason why most of the reason why this hasn't happened before now is fundamentally, previous Republican candidate were uncomfortable with this kind of red meat. Sure, dog whistle talk, promises to increase scrutiny of welfare benefits, hand ups, not hand outs, low tax rates encourage growth, that stuff was all fine.

But, George W. Bush, despite his many, many problems seemed to genuinely believe that democracy would flourish in the Middle East, that illegal immigrants deserved some sort of path to citizenship, and that we weren't at war all of Islam.

Same thing with Bob Dole and John McCain - they both had policies I hated, but I don't think they were more racist (and probably in many ways, they were less racist) than an average white guy their age and again, prior to being scared by the crazies, McCain was also largely for 'amnesty.'

Hell, even Mitt Romney had to pivot hard right on immigration and he looked like he was faking it the whole. Rick Perry even had the temerity to have the idea that we should treat undocumented folk like human beings.

But, Trump (and to a lesser extent, Cruz and the rest) simply don't give a fuck anymore.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

You'd think that someone would combine Trump's "wall with a big beautiful door" with something like the DREAM Act. That is, create a path to permanent residency and/or citizenship for those who are already here and have established lives for themselves, but make clear that while it is a good idea to make the process of immigration from neighboring countries simpler, it is reasonable, responsible, and even necessary for the U.S. to do a much better job of securing its borders in the future, because in an age of global internet-linked terror networks, it's imperative that we have a decent sense of who is and is not within our borders at a given time. I think there are a lot of white middle-class people like my parents who see illegal immigration as a problem, in the overall sense, for a variety of reasons, but are understanding of the fact that plenty who have taken advantage of the current arrangement have made lives here and shown themselves to be model, productive citizens, and don't deserve to be deported. You will always have far-left liberals who think any action taken against illegal immigration is just racist persecution of peoples wronged by centuries of imperialism, and far-right assholes who think illegal immigrants are just moochers and criminals, but I'm just surprised no major candidate on the left or the right has tried to take the wind out of the sails of the other side by trying to create a decent middle ground position on that particular issue.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

You'd think that someone would combine Trump's "wall with a big beautiful door" with something like the DREAM Act. That is, create a path to permanent residency and/or citizenship for those who are already here and have established lives for themselves, but make clear that while it is a good idea to make the process of immigration from neighboring countries simpler, it is reasonable, responsible, and even necessary for the U.S. to do a much better job of securing its borders in the future, because in an age of global internet-linked terror networks, it's imperative that we have a decent sense of who is and is not within our borders at a given time. I think there are a lot of white middle-class people like my parents who see illegal immigration as a problem, in the overall sense, for a variety of reasons, but are understanding of the fact that plenty who have taken advantage of the current arrangement have made lives here and shown themselves to be model, productive citizens, and don't deserve to be deported. You will always have far-left liberals who think any action taken against illegal immigration is just racist persecution of peoples wronged by centuries of imperialism, and far-right assholes who think illegal immigrants are just moochers and criminals, but I'm just surprised no major candidate on the left or the right has tried to take the wind out of the sails of the other side by trying to create a decent middle ground position on that particular issue.

... This is basically Obama and even Dubya though?

 

[NeoXChaos]

What happened to the Clinton fans pretending to care about Obama's questionable ancestry after Obama won a much more vitriolic primary? People will fall in line. There was more snark not just between the bases, but also between the candidates in that campaign. Sanders and Hillary (and O'Malley) are a step away from debate and chill comparatively.

I'm more interested in what happens to the republicans once Trump wins.

and some people won't so we just have to live with it.

 

[tmarg]

People are going to be studying Trump's campaign for a long time. It's scary to think that we're going to get future politicians that attempt to imitate his tactics.

The story of this election is how perverse the republican base has gotten, not some super secret technique Trump is using to take advantage.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

You'd think that someone would combine Trump's "wall with a big beautiful door" with something like the DREAM Act. That is, create a path to permanent residency and/or citizenship for those who are already here and have established lives for themselves, but make clear that while it is a good idea to make the process of immigration from neighboring countries simpler, it is reasonable, responsible, and even necessary for the U.S. to do a much better job of securing its borders in the future, because in an age of global internet-linked terror networks, it's imperative that we have a decent sense of who is and is not within our borders at a given time. I think there are a lot of white middle-class people like my parents who see illegal immigration as a problem, in the overall sense, for a variety of reasons, but are understanding of the fact that plenty who have taken advantage of the current arrangement have made lives here and shown themselves to be model, productive citizens, and don't deserve to be deported. You will always have far-left liberals who think any action taken against illegal immigration is just racist persecution of peoples wronged by centuries of imperialism, and far-right assholes who think illegal immigrants are just moochers and criminals, but I'm just surprised no major candidate on the left or the right has tried to take the wind out of the sails of the other side by trying to create a decent middle ground position on that particular issue.

Couldn't you argue that, due to the rise of the internet, it's less important than ever who is and isn't in our country? You can't control the immigration of ideas via twitter, for instance. Not only that, but China has been engaging in cyber warfare for years. I've heard through a respectable grapevine

Spoiler

so respectable that I wouldn't be comfortable being more specific, for his or her sake

that Hillary was only using a private email address in the first place because China had gained access to her govt email.

 

[Basileus777]

The story of this election is how perverse the republican base has gotten, not some super secret technique Trump is using to take advantage.

It's not a super secret technique, but Trump has manipulated the media and public attention in ways that typical politicians have not been able to.

 

[User 406]

If that's true, why don't we see Dixiecrat policies in Republican controlled states? Why are the representatives elected from those southern districts so conservative when it comes to economics?

Because the first rule of Dixiecrat is black people ain't shit and they should never get anything good. And since the federal government doesn't allow them to do separate but unequal anymore, that means they choose nobody getting anything good.

 

[HylianTom]

Meanwhile, on Twitter, Sam Wang was asked to weigh-in on the pop vote that Bernie would need to win Iowa. Here's his bottom line:

.@PCalith I estimate Sanders needs a 10-point pop. vote win. Rule of thumb conversion x3, so a 30-point delegate win, i.e. 65-35....so ok.

If true, I'm a bit surprised at how the math worked out.

 

[sangreal]

What happened to the Clinton fans pretending to care about Obama's questionable ancestry after Obama won a much more vitriolic primary? People will fall in line. There was more snark not just between the bases, but also between the candidates in that campaign. Sanders and Hillary (and O'Malley) are a step away from debate and chill comparatively.

I'm more interested in what happens to the republicans once Trump wins.

They became Trump fans

http://www.hillaryis44.com

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

The story of this election is how perverse the republican base has gotten, not some super secret technique Trump is using to take advantage.

Agreed. Trump is lucky the racism and xenophobia and sexism in the republican base is as widespread as it's turned out to be. I think history will remember Trump a lot more as the right guy in the right place at the right time than they will as some political mastermind. Just wait until he wins less than 150 electoral votes in November before we talk about how brilliant a politician he is.

It's not a super secret technique, but Trump has manipulated the media and public attention in ways that typical politicians have not been able to.

Typical politicians are not as famous or consistently idiotic. Trump's success is a damning indication of the state of the republican party, not vindication for his political acumen.

 

[Basileus777]

Typical politicians are not as famous or consistently idiotic. Trump's success is a damning indication of the state of the republican party, not vindication for his political acumen.

It's not mutually exclusive, Trump can be the beneficiary of a dysfunctional Republican party and a politician who has run a surprisingly effective campaign. You don't become the likely nominee for President by a major party through sheer luck.

 

[disastermouse]

This is my only fear about HRC in a general election - for some reason or another (and we saw in this in 08 w/ Obama) - she manages to get people to really, really dislike her. Not just Republicans / conservatives, but even a lot of democratic / liberal voters. I don't know what it is, (and I don't even think it is particularly fair) - but that woman inspires irrational hatred when normally dislike is where it would be. My fear is that would come into play in a general election. I actually kind of think it is why there are at least some Bernie fans who won't vote for her in the GE as well.

You rang?

 

[Jack Remington]

Also, I was curious, for those who have a horse in the Bernie/Hillary race right now, who would you align with if the race was Bernie/Hillary/Warren instead?

I'd still vote Hillary. Biden is the only person who could change my vote.

 

[disastermouse]

Question: if Warren endorses HRC over Sanders, what happens?

Also - what happens if Warren endorses Sanders over HRC?

The. Elizabeth Warren is dead to me. I don't think that affects anyone else, though.

 

[disastermouse]

PUMAs were gross, and as a crazy 2008 supporter, I hated them being associated with my candidate. I'm sure a lot of Berners feel the same way. Absolutely wretched people.

Oh I'm a wretched person now?

 

[disastermouse]

One of the boards I frequent had an influx of pro-Bernie (and accordingly, anti-Clinton) posters, some of which are calling for violent struggle if their candidate loses -- and then, of course, you've got the crowd that doesn't think Bernie is sufficiently socialist enough. Classic.

Well yeah, he isn't socialist at all.

 

[Holmes]

Oh I'm a wretched person now?

He was talking about people who support campaigns that troll and insult people who support others on social media............

 

[pigeon]

He was talking about people who support campaigns that troll and insult people who support others on social media............

I actually think he was mostly talking about people who make multiple consecutive posts responding to separate people instead of making one post combining them all.

 

[User 463088]

Oh I'm a wretched person now?

If I wanted to insult you, I'd do it behind your back, I was raised right. That's a joke, by the way. I wouldn't want to insult you regardless.

I was calling that small group of PUMAs who were causing all kinds of trouble wretched people. The people who make outright lies about Obama because it makes them feel better when Hillary didn't win. They were pathetic, and they really grossed me out by some of the things they said and did. That type of behavior wasn't something they should have done, and it definitely wasn't the reason I supported Hillary.I said I was embarrassed by them, as I'm sure many Bernie supporters are embarrassed when people try to do the same thing to Hillary.

Anyone who doesn't want to vote for Hillary because they disagree with her policies is not a bad person. I disagree with them, but they're not bad. The "Berniebros" I meant are the ones who are using barely concealed sexist attacks in an attempt to "support" Bernie. They're not supporting him at all, because I highly doubt he would tolerate half of the stuff they spew out.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

It's not mutually exclusive, Trump can be the beneficiary of a dysfunctional Republican party and a politician who has run a surprisingly effective campaign. You don't become the likely nominee for President by a major party through sheer luck.

Sure, but my argument is that a dysfunctional republican party is the only realm he can be successful in. Let's say he hadn't done a 180 on his views and ran as a democrat instead. Could you see him besting Clinton and Sanders right now? I don't think any group except the craziest half of the craziest party would support Trump. I give him kudos for being aware of that, but I don't for a second believe he could be effective in a campaign that did not rely on having a base built strongly around high school dropouts.

I'd still vote Hillary. Biden is the only person who could change my vote.

I take it you're pretty moderate?

 

[kess]

Well yeah, he isn't socialist at all.

Yeah, but it's not like anybody is going to run to the left of him, either... besides the usual minor parties.

 

[disastermouse]

I actually think he was mostly talking about people who make multiple consecutive posts responding to separate people instead of making one post combining them all.

Phone. Not easy and every forum does it differently.

 

[disastermouse]

If I wanted to insult you, I'd do it behind your back, I was raised right. That's a joke, by the way. I wouldn't want to insult you regardless.

I was calling that small group of PUMAs who were causing all kinds of trouble wretched people. The people who make outright lies about Obama because it makes them feel better when Hillary didn't win. They were pathetic, and they really grossed me out by some of the things they said and did. That type of behavior wasn't something they should have done, and it definitely wasn't the reason I supported Hillary.I said I was embarrassed by them, as I'm sure many Bernie supporters are embarrassed when people try to do the same thing to Hillary.

Anyone who doesn't want to vote for Hillary because they disagree with her policies is not a bad person. I disagree with them, but they're not bad. The "Berniebros" I meant are the ones who are using barely concealed sexist attacks in an attempt to "support" Bernie. They're not supporting him at all, because I highly doubt he would tolerate half of the stuff they spew out.

I'm sorry Adam, I thought you meant that they were wretched because they weren't going to vote for Obama and you were likening them to people who won't vote for Hillary if she wins.

My problem with Hillary has nothing to do with hatred, and I should trust that you know that. I have a tendency to assume the worst of people and that's on me.

 

[User 463088]

I'm sorry Adam, I thought you meant that they were wretched because they weren't going to vote for Obama and you were likening them to people who won't vote for Hillary if she wins.

My problem with Hillary has nothing to do with hatred, and I should trust that you know that. I have a tendency to assume the worst of people and that's on me.

It's all good. No worries.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Get it together, Nate! This is getting worrying.

Nate Silver @NateSilver538
Just hanging out by the White House.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/693306781997596672

 

[User1608]

Goddamnit Nate. LOL. Trump-kun pleeeease~~~~

 

[Suikoguy]

Is there anything in the constitution or laws passed that say the White House has to be in Washington D.C.?

 

[Republic of Ezo]

The. Elizabeth Warren is dead to me. I don't think that affects anyone else, though.

Remember Elizabeth Warren was a Republican until 1994 and championed Reagan's economic policies in the 80's. People like her are much more responsible for our current economic situation than anyone like Hillary will ever be.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

Is there anything in the constitution or laws passed that say the White House has to be in Washington D.C.?

No, that was the compromise Hamilton made with Jefferson in order to get the charter for the first bank of the US. Jefferson wanted the capital to be further south.

 

[Suikoguy]

Remember Elizabeth Warren was a Republican until 1994 and championed Reagan's economic policies in the 80's. People like her are much more responsible for our current economic situation than anyone like Hillary will ever be.

I did not know that.

Perhaps having someone who once championed those ideas, and realized later they were not a great idea, may perhaps be a great person to convey a change away from such policies.

 

[johnsmith]

Is there anything in the constitution or laws passed that say the White House has to be in Washington D.C.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residence_Act

 

[ugaboga232]

Meanwhile, on Twitter, Sam Wang was asked to weigh-in on the pop vote that Bernie would need to win Iowa. Here's his bottom line:


If true, I'm a bit surprised at how the math worked out.

Sam wang is very smart, I interviewed with him for a neuro phd (hes a neuro PI).

On Topic: I think bernie's gonna lose Iowa short of a miracle. Oh well, bernie has added some pizzaz to this election and I'm glad there are ppl like him.

 

[Holmes]

Meanwhile, on Twitter, Sam Wang was asked to weigh-in on the pop vote that Bernie would need to win Iowa. Here's his bottom line:


If true, I'm a bit surprised at how the math worked out.

I don't think I understand exactly what he's saying here. Sanders needs to win the popular vote by 10 points to win the most delegates?

 

[Jack Remington]

Sam wang is very smart, I interviewed with him for a neuro phd (hes a neuro PI)

How did the interview go?

I take it you're pretty moderate?

I probably am. I like a lot of what Bernie says, but I guess I prefer more incremental change.

 

[User 463088]

I don't think I understand exactly what he's saying here. Sanders needs to win the popular vote by 10 points to win the most delegates?

I think that he's saying Bernie would need to win by 10 points to get enough delegates out of the caucus to make the win mean anything. Winning by 1 or 2 delegates isn't going to be enough to keep him viable. I think that's what he's saying, but I'm not entirely sure. If you go to the link he posted in his tweet, there's an analysis by the Princeton Election Consortium that says this:

Now, the Democratic side. In four surveys that started on or after January 23rd, Hillary Clinton is at 48.0 ± 1.5 % and Bernie Sanders is at 42.0 ± 1.0 %. So Hillary appears to be ahead. However, Iowa Democratic party rules say that if a candidate gets below 15% in a precinct, his/her voters must be reassigned. That means most of Martin O’Malley’s support (5.5 ± 0.9 %) has to go somewhere, and they prefer Sanders by about a 2-to-1 margin. That narrows the Clinton-Sanders margin by about 2 percentage points. So Clinton is still favored, though narrowly.

However, I estimate that Sanders doesn’t just have to win Iowa. He has to win by a fairly large margin. Why is that? Clinton runs stronger in states with fewer whites than Iowa, which is almost everywhere else. So Iowa is a high-water mark for Sanders, at least for now. My guess is that Sanders has to win by 5 to 10 percentage points in Iowa to be competitive for the nomination. Exactly what he needs is hard to estimate, since a win will also get him more media attention. This could boost him further.

There is literally a diary on DailyKos where a Bernie supporter is throwing Bernie's campaign under the bus for calling for civility among the online followers. I shit you not. That is a real thing that is happening in this world right now. Everyone, Bernie and Hillary supporters alike, are in total shock. If Hillary wins this, the meltdowns are going to be epic .

Edit: Does anyone know why Trump is going after Sen Sasse? I saw it in his Twitter feed, but I didn't see what happened to make Trump go after him. I mean, not that anything had to happen. He exists, ergo he is fair game for Trump's righteous indignation.

2nd Edit: Somehow, I missed the fact that in October Cher endorsed Hillary. YASSS QUEENSSSSSSSSS.

 

[Black Republican]

So only half a day till the final dmr poll. Have their polls always been accurate before caucus results or at least pick the winners?