• 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.
R

rjinaz

Member
adam387 said:
People in Iowa are really nice, or at least the one's I'm talking to are nice.
Click to expand...

Some of the most stuck up people I have ever met were from Iowa. My Sister's Husbands family.

That said, I tend to like country folk more than city folk. At least in terms of how they interact with strangers.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
Iowa isn't bad. I've met some stuck up ones that act like they're the gatekeepers of US democracy and take things far too seriously...but most are pretty cool and simply enjoy the process.

I agree the country Iowans are very nice.
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
disastermouse said:
People self-segregate based on resource scarcity fears, primarily. They see the success of others as threatening.

I honestly don't think that either socialist revolution or the eradication of racial/sexual orientation/ethnic fears can happen the one without the other. That is, in order to work together, we must see that we are all just people. Conversely, one of the best ways to see that we're all just people is to work together. Class-based resource allotment prevents that, and it always has.

There's a sociological element to racism that can only be eradicated by close proximity and working together. Progress has always been the steadily advancing popular idea of who 'us' is.

Providing dignity to everyone is impossible under the limitations of a system designed primarily to either rob large amounts of people of dignity or to distract them from noticing that they are being robbed of dignity.
Click to expand...

People self-segregate based on a multitude of factors, but the predominant variable in nearly every study is race. Your proffered 'rationale' isn't even self-coherent, otherwise we would see rich people moving to low-income neighborhoods to feel good about themselves. Your own solution would similarly fail because you wouldn't be able to get whites and blacks in close proximity because racism precludes it. You can't get to where you want to go without addressing these root problems.

More importantly, asking people who are marginalized because of their identities to give up their identity in favor of the white male cultural default is sexist/racist, full stop. You can't just skip ahead to a theorized color/gender-blind society (nor is it clear that such a society would be better than one which acknowledges difference), especially not by ignoring those very problems. These differences are real and they drive behavior in and of themselves, they are not accidental by-products.

I'm reminded of an essay discussing the problems with this colorblind argument by Alan Freeman, “Legitimizing Racial Discrimination Through Anti-Discrimination Law: A Critical Review of Supreme Court Doctrine”.

The most complete version of the integrated society can be found in a science fiction story in which it is the year 2200 and everybody is a creamy shade of beige. Race has not merely become irrelevant but has disappeared altogether under the guiding hand of genetic entropy. A second and slightly less extreme version of the utopia posits a society in which racial identification is still possible, but no longer relevant to anyone’s thinking or generalizations about anyone else. In this world of racial irrelevance, the sensory data employed in making a racial identification, though still available, would have returned to the domain of other similar human identification data in such a way as to obliterate the cultural concept of race. Race would have become functionally equivalent to eye color in contemporary society. In yet a third version of the integrated society, racial identification persists as a cultural unifying force for each group, equivalent to idealized models of religious tolerance. Each group respects the diverse character of every other group, and there are no patterns of domination or oppression between different groups.

Each of these visions of the future reflects the achievement of a casteless, if not classless, society in which there is no hierarchy of status corresponding with racial identification. The essential defect in the color-blind theory of racial discrimination is that it presupposes the attainment of one of these futures. It is a doctrine that both declares racial characteristics irrelevant and prevents any affirmative steps to achieve the condition of racial irrelevance.

These theories are not alone in presupposing the goal that one is purportedly working toward. Suppose one were to visit the future society of racial irrelevance and discover conditions that in any other society might be regarded as corresponding with a pattern of racial discrimination. Among such conditions might be that one race seems to have a hugely disproportionate share of the worst houses, most demeaning jobs, and least control over societal resources. For such conditions to be fair and accepted as legitimate by the disfavored race in future society, they would have to be perceived as produced by accidental, impartial, or neutral phenomena utterly dissociated from any racist practice. Otherwise the future society would fail to meet its claim of racial irrelevance and would not be a future society at all.

Any theory of antidiscrimination law which legitimizes as nondiscriminatory substantial disproportionate burdens borne by one race is effectively claiming that its distributional rules are already the ones that would exist in future society. From the perspective of a victim in present society, where plenty of explicit racist practices prevail, the predictable and legitimate demand is that those ostensibly neutral rules demonstrate themselves to be the ones that would in fact exist in future society. The legitimacy of the demand is underscored by the fact that those very rules appealed to by the beneficiaries to legitimize the conditions of the victims were created by and are maintained by the dominate race. From the perpetrator perspective however, those practices not conceded to be racist are held constant, they are presumed consistent with the ethics of future society, and the victims are asked to prove that such is not the case. This is a core difference between the victim and perpetrator perspectives.

A vision of the future also bears on the question of who will benefit from the attainment of the integrated society. To introduce the issue more precisely, one might ask whether the integrated society is an end in of itself or just a symbolic measure of the actual liberation of an oppressed racial group from the conditions of oppression. To say that the integrated society is an end in itself, apart from the interests of the oppressed group in its own liberation, is basically to say that the goal is in the interest of society at large or in the interest of the dominate group as well as of the oppressed one. It is hardly controversial to contend that integration is for everyone’s benefit, or even that it is in some sense for the benefit of the dominant group. Problems arise however, when interests diverge and the dominant’s group desire for integration supersedes the victim group’s demand for relief
Click to expand...

I have to bounce out though, so I won't respond, though I'll read later, so last word away.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Based off who I think I'm calling, it's mostly country folk. They seem really nice. I think these are mostly soft support people, but I'd say 95% of those I'm talking to are going to caucus and nearly all have said they'll definitely caucus for Hillary.

One lady told me she's caucusing for Martin just because he's "too precious" for no one to support. Then she'll realign for Hillary.

Bernie Sanders Foreign Policy Deficit

When asked whether Sanders has a full-time campaign staffer who handles foreign policy issues, his campaign did not respond. And several people whom the Sanders campaign has cited as sources of national security advice tell POLITICO they barely know the socialist firebrand.
“Apparently I had a conversation with him last August,” said Tamara Cofman Wittes, a Brookings Institution Middle East scholar, after checking her calendar upon hearing that her name was on a list of people the Sanders campaign said he had consulted in recent months. “My vague recollection is that it was about [the Islamic State] but I don't really remember any of the details.” Wittes added that she backs Clinton.
“I don’t know how I got on Bernie Sanders’ list,” said Ray Takeyh, an Iran scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations who says he spoke to Sanders once or twice about the Iran nuclear deal at Sanders’ request in mid-2015.
-----
Five of the people cited by his campaign say they have only spoken to him once or twice. One is President Barack Obama's deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes, whom Sanders mentioned at the Bloomberg Politics breakfast. Rhodes told CNN that he had spoken to Sanders twice as part of "standard briefings" he gives members of Congress on issues like Iran and ISIS.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-deficit-218431#ixzz3ylOjLKD1
Click to expand...
 
T

tmarg

Member
daedalius said:
Regardless of that fact, the story is pure spin of berns "triumphing" over the DNC, because obviously this was his plan all along!
Click to expand...

The DNC has scheduled as few debates as possible, and buried them in graveyard time slots all the way through out the process. Then, suddenly, at the only time in the primary thus far when Hillary has more to gain than lose from a debate, they insist that we need more. But only one, right before the caucus where she's trailing.
 
A

Armaros

Member
tmarg said:
The DNC has scheduled as few debates as possible, and buried them in graveyard time slots all the way through out the process. Then, suddenly, at the only time in the primary thus far when Hillary has more to gain than lose from a debate, they insist that we need more. But only one, right before the caucus where she's trailing.
Click to expand...

Hilary already agreed to more debates before the DNC said yes.
 
P

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
egruntz said:
Reddit is saying that it's confirmed to have come from Hillary's campaign.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersFor..._donated_to_bernie_again_because_of_an_awful/

But Reddit is very largely for Sanders. I don't know how they verified it. In the comments they go into it a bit more.
Click to expand...

The email is a bit poorly worded but they are saying that more of Bernie's supporters have donated than Hillary supporters. Or is the issue trying to appeal to women? Either way it was a pretty benign email. Some people get riled up over the littlest things.
 
P

Polari

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Clinton's main proposals for this primary:

1. LGBT rights: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/17/fighting-for-full-equality/
2. More money for Alzheimer's research: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/22/an-end-to-alzheimers-disease/
3. Overturning the Hyde Amendment (this is impossible, but so are Bernie's ideas!).
4. More gun control
5. Autism action: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...adults-living-with-autism-and-their-families/
6. Appointing judges who will overturn Citizens United.
7. Preserving what Obama has done (making her pretty different from Republicans running on the "I will repeal what Obama has done." platform)

Clinton prior focuses as Senator and first lady:

1. Women's rights: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction...ton-and-bernie-sanders-compare-womens-health/
2. Children's health care.


Hillary Clinton is pretty liberal...
Click to expand...

Socially liberal, sure.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Particle Physicist said:
The email is a bit poorly worded but they are saying that more of Bernie's supporters have donated than Hillary supporters. Or is the issue trying to appeal to women? Either way it was a pretty benign email. Some people get riled up over the littlest things.
Click to expand...
Peoples' absolute hatred for politicians always reminds me of this:

1324596542030_7713053.png


I feel like the vast majority of elected officials are probably very pleasant people in person (I know I'd be more than happy to have a beer with George Bush). Exception made for Ted Cruz.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
This Iowa mailer story has legs. The Secretary of State has now admonished the Cruz campaign. Horrible timing.

Looking more and more possible that Trump takes this process by storm.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
dramatis said:
This one, probably:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1177557
Click to expand...

Yup.

And now the SoS has weighed-in:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/i...ersial-maile?utm_term=.rp6V76XvOx#.skz4LEa0oq

“Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law,” Paul Pate, the Iowa secretary of state, said in a statement distributed by his office. “Accusing citizens of Iowa of a ‘voting violation’ based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.”
Click to expand...
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
I think it's pretty fair for Sanders to take a victory lap over getting more debates, even after the somewhat awkward reluctance to have this one extra debate before NH. In a two-candidate race (sorry Martin) the DNC is basically irrelevant to the process except insofar as voters are inclined to assume that it's running things fairly and that candidates who break its rules are in the wrong. Like, you can't ban a candidate from future DNC debates in the same way that the RNC could - if you ban either Sanders or Clinton you've really just canceled the debates. It's a little hard to even see how one candidate ends up getting banned by showing up to an unsanctioned debate if the other candidate isn't there to get banned too (unless they do something dumb like debate O'Malley alone).

It really does look like the debate schedule was set up to help Clinton and she could easily have agreed with Sanders to do more debates before this and made that happen (because the DNC is irrelevant if both of them agree). Obviously it looks terrible for Sanders to drag his feet on the one-off NH debate but obviously he's got pretty good reason to object to only doing extra debates when Clinton thinks they'll help her.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
HylianTom said:
Yup.

And now the SoS has weighed-in:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/i...ersial-maile?utm_term=.rp6V76XvOx#.skz4LEa0oq
Click to expand...

Ouch. Initially I thought he was just doing what many campaigns and political parties do in terms of listing elections a person did not participate in and shaming them in some way. But he takes it three steps farther and makes it look like some type of official admonition. Reeks of desperation, which is surprising given how good his ground game is.
 
R

rjinaz

Member
Gotchaye said:
I think it's pretty fair for Sanders to take a victory lap over getting more debates, even after the somewhat awkward reluctance to have this one extra debate before NH. In a two-candidate race (sorry Martin) the DNC is basically irrelevant to the process except insofar as voters are inclined to assume that it's running things fairly and that candidates who break its rules are in the wrong. Like, you can't ban a candidate from future DNC debates in the same way that the RNC could - if you ban either Sanders or Clinton you've really just canceled the debates. It's a little hard to even see how one candidate ends up getting banned by showing up to an unsanctioned debate if the other candidate isn't there to get banned too (unless they do something dumb like debate O'Malley alone).

It really does look like the debate schedule was set up to help Clinton and she could easily have agreed with Sanders to do more debates before this and made that happen (because the DNC is irrelevant if both of them agree). Obviously it looks terrible for Sanders to drag his feet on the one-off NH debate but obviously he's got pretty good reason to object to only doing extra debates when Clinton thinks they'll help her.
Click to expand...

Yeah I get why he did it. He saw it as an opportunity to secure more debates but he came across as being mistreated which is starting to become a look for the Sanders campaign even though there is some truth to it I think to a point.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
HylianTom said:
This Iowa mailer story has legs. The Secretary of State has now admonished the Cruz campaign. Horrible timing.

Looking more and more possible that Trump takes this process by storm.
Click to expand...

Caucuses are weird, so its hard to save for sure but this may do more to help Rubio than Trump, who was probably going to win no matter what.
 
T

tmarg

Member
Roland_Gunner said:
Caucuses are weird, so its hard to save for sure but this may do more to help Rubio than Trump, who was probably going to win no matter what.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I don't think most Cruz voters are going to jump to the establishment, and the ones most likely to be offended are new voters with bad "grades", who are probably more likely to go Trump.
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
NeoXChaos said:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/hillary-bernie-math#.otzNgkPWl …
Click to expand...

Even an app for that? wow. Disgusting and antidemocratic, but what else is new with the establishment. :p


Thankfully, tactical voters are a minority in Iowa caucuses

Iolo said:
This is normal for caucuses; as the article says both Clinton and Obama did it in 2008 (Obama more effectively). If Sanders' campaign says they are not doing this then they are either incompetent or, more charitably, keeping a lid on their plans.
Click to expand...

They certainly are doing something about it.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Theories on why BroMalley hasn't dropped out yet?

I mean, aside from my fresh new "so hills can pull that kinda shady stuff". Which is nice!

adam387 said:
That's how you play a caucus. Hillary 08's inability (or unwillingness) to do that is one of the reasons she lost.
Click to expand...

Unwillingness? cmon. Was raw incompetence/hubris
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
NeoXChaos said:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/hillary-bernie-math#.otzNgkPWl …
Click to expand...

This is exactly what Obama did to her 8 years ago and is exactly why she finished third instead of second.

Coriolanus said:
Theories on why BroMalley hasn't dropped out yet?

I mean, aside from my fresh new "so hills can pull that kinda shady stuff". Which is nice!
Click to expand...

He might be angling for a cabinet spot or to grab up supporters from whoever drops first.

Or he's setting up for the next cycle, like Rubio.
 
T

Third Strike

Member
Coriolanus said:
Theories on why BroMalley hasn't dropped out yet?

I mean, aside from my fresh new "so hills can pull that kinda shady stuff". Which is nice!



Unwillingness? cmon. Was raw incompetence/hubris
Click to expand...

O'Malley is either setting up for a future presidential run, or he wants a cozy spot in a Clinton/Sanders administration.
 
T

tmarg

Member
Coriolanus said:
Theories on why BroMalley hasn't dropped out yet?
Click to expand...

If there was an actual smoking gun in the email thing, he could probably win. Although there have been n so many bullshit smoking guns at a this point that even if there was one, we probably wouldn't know it in time for him to make a comeback.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
It also illustrates how having people who understand the caucus process are worth more, politically, than a well meaning 1st time organizer. If you don't know how to gain the system you won't win.

I want this poll, but I don't want this poll.
 
S

SmokeMaxX

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Hope O'Malley gets 15% lol

When does the poll come out again, 5:45? (CST I'm Minnesotan)
Click to expand...

If you have money on PredictIt, I'd recommend tuning in at 5:30 where they said Selzer would go over the trends of the polls. You might be able to shift money around before everyone else gets the actual poll results haha.
 
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