• 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.
i honestly thought 2012 would be their come to jesus moment but they walked away from it like falling off a 20 story building head first and getting up and walking away like nothing happened. they're just sore losers and will double down after every loss. ... maybe if the democratic nominee were joe schmoe things would turn around but hillary's been their public enemy no. 2 for awhile now

i dunno how things turn out for ryan but being speaker is probably the worst job to have in washington. it pretty much requires you to make decisions that will piss off everybody unless you're working with a super majority. maybe things will play out different but his political aspirations are probably going to be toast soon

They weren't willing to give up a strategy that had been working for so long so quickly. Just one term of Obama wasn't going to get sweeping reformation, but two term Obama and possibly 1 or 2 of Hillary is a completely different animal. It'll take time but this can't remain on this course forever.. I hope.
 
You are all laboring under the assumption that ryan particularly desires to be president. He reluctantly accepted vp in 12 and could have ran in 16 but said he wouldn't early in the process.
 
You are all laboring under the assumption that ryan particularly desires to be president. He reluctantly accepted vp in 12 and could have ran in 16 but said he wouldn't early in the process.
With as many as 16 candidates on the Republican side announcing their run this year can you blame him? At his age I'd wait too.
 
I pay attention to both ends of the political spectrum and have since 2004. Yes, that means wading through the likes of Hannity forums, Free Republic, et al.

It clearly has a "historical basis." McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012? Remember those? Republicans were shouting from the rooftops during the primaries about those "RINOs" and how they'd never vote for anybody like them, because they wanted a real conservative! Then, the election came around, and lo and behold, what did they do? Voted for the GOP candidate because "We can't let Obama in/remain in the White House."

The exact same thing will happen with Hillary.

Yup. GOP voters will always fall in line. Only exception that could spoiler that is Trump getting screwed over and then subsequently running as a third party. Republican voters may hate the establishment, but they hate the Democrats/liberals more.
 
My debate summary:

Hillary gave her best debate performance, by far, and she once again, at least for the moment, managed to thoroughly neutralise a good deal of the negative feelings I had towards her, policy specifics aside, of course. Graciously accepting Bernie's apology, for one or more of his team taking advantage of the campaign data firewall failure, was undoubtedly the right thing to do for the Democratic party, and set the right tone for the evening. She did indeed speak with authority, and looked impeccable, to boot.

Bernie's opening statement was fine, but he was clearly pissed about something (probably the Party's handling of data breach), and, that angry tone is not a good look for him. He bounced back immediately, though, with a perfect response to the firewall failure, with an apology to his supporters, too. As the night went on, he really found his stride, and he had some great responses, especially on the opiate and heroin addiction ravaging America. Despite not dominating the foreign policy exchanges, that doesn't mean he isn't right on the substance; purely concentrating on defeating ISIS, and not also toppling Assad, which might, yet again have unforeseen consequences. Also, the wealthy Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, should be doing far more, in helping to defeat ISIS, as the United States has enough blood on its hands, and we cannot afford, and should not be involved in, perpetual warfare.

Martin had his moments, but he came across to me largely as someone doing his damndest in a drama class, i.e. trying too hard.

The most telling exchange was again in the area of Wall St., where Hillary's response to the question "Should corporate America love Hillary Clinton?", with "Everybody should", which was cute, but Bernie is absolutely right when he said "No, I think they won't," adding that "Wall Street will like me even less.", as it should not be a government's job to make corporations like them; they should respect them, applying a fair hand that encourages growth, whilst at the same time defining clear boundaries, and levying necessary taxes.

The funniest moment for me, as Bernie supporter, was Hillary nodding away to Martin's comments, only for him to go on a full scale attack, of Hillary (did anyone else catch that?) ;).

So Hillary completely managed to avoid any notable snafus, even if she had no answer for the big hike in Obamacare premiums and deductibles, and the night's WTF moment went to ABC, with that shameless late Hillary softball, with the, out of the blue, Libya question, with her long winded answer just putting me to sleep (it was not as if they hadn't already spent a ton of time on foreign policy)...

What was also funny, was that instead of perhaps going back to that focus group, they went to another advert, to eat up the remaining time...

Overall winner? Bernie, by a nose :).
 
Maybe wishful thinking but I have hope gridlock under Hillary won't be, at least quite as bad as we've seen under Obama.

The GOP strategy was to get back the House, then shut everything down until they win back the white house again. It didn't work for 2012, and if it doesn't work again in 2016, I'm going to have to think that they, or at least Paul Ryan, will try to implement a new strategy.

Congress' favorability ratings are in the gutter. I'd have to assume that Ryan will want to do what he can to bring up those numbers because if he wants to make a case to be President one day, which I think he does, he'll want to have some sort of record or list of accomplishments under his time as speaker of the house. I don't think a record of nothing but gridlock will help him. After being away from the Whitehouse for so long and being seemingly out of Bushes, he's the best prospect and closest GOP politician to the White House.. But idk, what do I know.

It may have just been a strategy at one point but clearly it's a religion now, with a life of its own. Boehner had no control over a large portion of his caucus due to the outside influence of interest groups and a radicalized base. Those voters have no interest in compromise, and the Benghazi situation gave them reason to invalidate the legitimacy of a Hillary presidency just as they've done with Obama.

Ryan has to deal with the exact same people. He's doing well so far but let's not forget a very large group of republican congressmen initially did not support his bid for speakership solely because he was the establishment choice; they calmed down before voting began but I see no reason to doubt that they'll turn on him. Ryan doesn't seem interested in the punishments Boehner used on certain trouble makers. I think his passiveness will be a mistake in the long run. He cut a very Boehner type deal with Pelosi to keep the government open...how many more times will he be able to do that?
 
Daniel B·;189987716 said:
My debate summary:

Hillary gave her best debate performance, by far, and she once again, at least for the moment, managed to thoroughly neutralise a good deal of the negative feelings I had towards her, policy specifics aside, of course. Graciously accepting Bernie's apology, for one or more of his team taking advantage of the campaign data firewall failure, was undoubtedly the right thing to do for the Democratic party, and set the right tone for the evening. She did indeed speak with authority, and looked impeccable, to boot.

Bernie's opening statement was fine, but he was clearly pissed about something (probably the Party's handling of data breach), and, that angry tone is not a good look for him. He bounced back immediately, though, with a perfect response to the firewall failure, with an apology to his supporters, too. As the night went on, he really found his stride, and he had some great responses, especially on the opiate and heroin addiction ravaging America. Despite not dominating the foreign policy exchanges, that doesn't mean he isn't right on the substance; purely concentrating on defeating ISIS, and not also toppling Assad, which might, yet again have unforeseen consequences. Also, the wealthy Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, should be doing far more, in helping to defeat ISIS, as the United States has enough blood on its hands, and we cannot afford, and should not be involved in, perpetual warfare.

Martin had his moments, but he came across to me largely as someone doing his damndest in a drama class, i.e. trying too hard.

The most telling exchange was again in the area of Wall St., where Hillary's response to the question "Should corporate America love Hillary Clinton?", with "Everybody should", which was cute, but Bernie is absolutely right when he said "No, I think they won't," adding that "Wall Street will like me even less.", as it should not be a government's job to make corporations like them; they should respect them, applying a fair hand that encourages growth, whilst at the same time defining clear boundaries, and levying necessary taxes.

The funniest moment for me, as Bernie supporter, was Hillary nodding away to Martin's comments, only for him to go on a full scale attack, of Hillary (did anyone else catch that?) ;).

So Hillary completely managed to avoid any notable snafus, even if she had no answer for the big hike in Obamacare premiums and deductibles, and the night's WTF moment went to ABC, with that shameless late Hillary softball, with the, out of the blue, Libya question, with her long winded answer just putting me to sleep (it was not as if they hadn't already spent a ton of time on foreign policy)...

What was also funny, was that instead of perhaps going back to that focus group, they went to another advert, to eat up the remaining time...

Overall winner? Bernie, by a nose :).


At least you're consistent ;)

The fact that you weren't able to spin it as a complete domination by Bernie shows that there's hope for you yet Dan.

I was pissed by the fact that they started the debate without Hillary on stage after the break. That was idiotic. I'd say the same if it was Martin or Bernie. We have 3 people, you could wait 10 seconds for Hillary goddamn Clinton to get back on stage. I mean come on.
 

dramatis

Member
Daniel B·;189987716 said:
The most telling exchange was again in the area of Wall St., where Hillary's response to the question "Should corporate America love Hillary Clinton?", with "Everybody should", which was cute, but Bernie is absolutely right when he said "No, I think they won't," adding that "Wall Street will like me even less.", as it should not be a government's job to make corporations like them; they should respect them, applying a fair hand that encourages growth, whilst at the same time defining clear boundaries, and levying necessary taxes.
Bernie is not right.

"Everybody should!" is a wishful statement, and the speed at which Hillary said it kind of reveals her feelings on the subject. I'm pretty sure she herself is aware that it's not going to happen. At no point does she say that it is the job of government to make people like bureaucracy or the politicians. It is, however, the optimistic sentiment compared to Bernie: the belief that there are problems with inequality, race, gender, sexuality, religion—whatever—but that at heart we are all Americans and should love one another, and we can work together.

But because Hillary said it, it's wrong.
 

Foffy

Banned
Bernie is not right.

"Everybody should!" is a wishful statement, and the speed at which Hillary said it kind of reveals her feelings on the subject. I'm pretty sure she herself is aware that it's not going to happen. At no point does she say that it is the job of government to make people like bureaucracy or the politicians. It is, however, the optimistic sentiment compared to Bernie: the belief that there are problems with inequality, race, gender, sexuality, religion—whatever—but that at heart we are all Americans and should love one another, and we can work together.

But because Hillary said it, it's wrong.

When money is involved? I can't post the Tidus laugh fast enough.
 
lefties complaing about Hillary last night don't understand that she was already preppering for the general election.

Bernie is admirable and brings up good points, both like eachother and the debates are healthy.

but, realistcly, she is putting up her general election gear ready to fight who ever Republicans chose.
 
I pay attention to both ends of the political spectrum and have since 2004. Yes, that means wading through the likes of Hannity forums, Free Republic, et al.

It clearly has a "historical basis." McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012? Remember those? Republicans were shouting from the rooftops during the primaries about those "RINOs" and how they'd never vote for anybody like them, because they wanted a real conservative! Then, the election came around, and lo and behold, what did they do? Voted for the GOP candidate because "We can't let Obama in/remain in the White House."

The exact same thing will happen with Hillary.

This is just a feeling, but I think it would be harder for a mid-right person to fall in line with the far-right. Romney or McCain would get the far-right SOME things they want, and they would of course be better for them than the democratic nominee. And I don't think that is true the other way around. I can't see a Bush republican falling behind someone like Trump or Cruz.
 

dramatis

Member
When money is involved? I can't post the Tidus laugh fast enough.
Oh yes, the white guy can only think about how money is identity, so he won't have to think of rich people as 'people' because they're rich.

Hillary isn't a 'person', she's a corporate puppet. She didn't spend her life fighting for children's and women's rights. She didn't work her way up from a middle class family to wealth. She's not human.

Elon Musk isn't a 'person', he's just 13 billion dollars. He certainly isn't working on a buttload of science projects hoping to make the next step for humanity.

Bill Gates isn't a 'person', he's just 79 billion dollars. He's not working on ways to relieve and end poverty around the world.

Laugh however you please. If you wish to make the distinction that people don't count as people because of money, then the one who is rather most like corporate America here is you.
 

Farmboy

Member
Yup. Replacing Scalia and Kennedy is top priority. Plus, in the meantime, let the courts continue to rule against gerrymandered maps in several states. This might lead to the Democrats having a fair chance in 2020, on the state and congressional level. Just need Clinton to make all eight years, and I think we're good.

Absolutely, but of course, holding the White House is even more important while the (current crazy version of the) GOP controls congress. Veto power is equally as important as the SC.
 
LOL at Kristol thinking republicans won't just fall in line and vote for Trump. That's cute.

They'll see five minutes of Hillary in the general election debates and they'll all carry the water buckets for the party. It will never change.
We saw all the pundits who didn't want Romney do a 180 and pimp hard for him. I can't wait for Rush et al to do the same.
More "humor" from Ted Cruz.

Cruz Christmas Classics
Wow, I thought this was going to be some SNL-type parody. I doubt it will blowback on him considering the audience he made it for, but "you probably hate Christmas" would get comments if it came from the other side.

Holy shit at that picture of a drinking, smoking Frosty!
 

Foffy

Banned
Oh yes, the white guy can only think about how money is identity, so he won't have to think of rich people as 'people' because they're rich.

Hillary isn't a 'person', she's a corporate puppet. She didn't spend her life fighting for children's and women's rights. She didn't work her way up from a middle class family to wealth. She's not human.

Elon Musk isn't a 'person', he's just 13 billion dollars. He certainly isn't working on a buttload of science projects hoping to make the next step for humanity.

Bill Gates isn't a 'person', he's just 79 billion dollars. He's not working on ways to relieve and end poverty around the world.

Laugh however you please. If you wish to make the distinction that people don't count as people because of money, then the one who is rather most like corporate America here is you.

I am not calling out a particular person, friend. It's why I didn't bold Hillary.

I bolded your claim for unity when what I cited is the epicenter to its very division. It's a psychological bugbear.

Don't pull the "people ain't people when X shit is done" with me, friend. I accept that default state. I am merely calling out the pick that plucks. I'm one of the few who defends crimes (to a degree) by acknowledging the illusion of free will when people want to crucify the perpetrator for "not being human."

I merely acknowledge we have a symbol that by its very implementation promotes division in everything I bolded of yours. No person is ever a "less than" being, despite many social ideas saying otherwise. Let me make that crystal clear. I hope you too are aware of that, and I even expect you to be.

Money is identity in the exact same way that you are your name; it's a put on and nothing more. But people assume the put ons as objective "features" of one's own organism. That line of thought is so common it is what divides your and my sincere call for unity. Look at how the Republicans use race in this way.

Hope I made it clear, and I apologize you thought I was attacking a person in particular. I thought making sure to not bold Hillary would have made that clearer.
 
Trump, in my opinion, has a less likely chance of being able to win over the actual moderate Republicans, than McCain and Rmoney did in getting the crazies on board. For the crazies, Democrats are, literally, baby killer, god hating, queer loving socialists. We can't be trusted with anything, because we want to bring Sharia law down on their heads.

The moderates in the GOP (and I do believe thy exist in relatively small numbers, but they have no control over the bat shit wing anymore) are more concerned with keeping their money safe. They put up with the bat shit because it helps them get their dudes elected. No more, no less. These people couldn't give a shit about abortion, gay rights or anything else the evangelical wing eats with a spoon.

I think that there could come a time where the moderate GOP would not be willing to vote for someone like Trump (or Cruz) because he is an actual threat to their bread and butter issues. They may be willing to hold their nose for our side instead. Now, I'm not saying this is a huge group of people. They might just sit the whole thing out. They might only vote on down ballot people.

My point is I think the far right can accept the middle easier than the middle (of the GOP) can accept the far right.

That, plus if Trump is the nominee the Latino numbers are going to be hell for the GOP. Literally, I think Pubis would rather walk through hell than have to wake up to the slaughter the GOP would be handed by the Latino/a vote.
 

Foffy

Banned
Trump, in my opinion, has a less likely chance of being able to win over the actual moderate Republicans, than McCain and Rmoney did in getting the crazies on board. For the crazies, Democrats are, literally, baby killer, god hating, queer loving socialists. We can't be trusted with anything, because we want to bring Sharia law down on their heads.

The moderates in the GOP (and I do believe thy exist in relatively small numbers, but they have no control over the bat shit wing anymore) are more concerned with keeping their money safe. They put up with the bat shit because it helps them get their dudes elected. No more, no less. These people couldn't give a shit about abortion, gay rights or anything else the evangelical wing eats with a spoon.

I think that there could come a time where the moderate GOP would not be willing to vote for someone like Trump (or Cruz) because he is an actual threat to their bread and butter issues. They may be willing to hold their nose for our side instead. Now, I'm not saying this is a huge group of people. They might just sit the whole thing out. They might only vote on down ballot people.

My point is I think the far right can accept the middle easier than the middle (of the GOP) can accept the far right.

That, plus if Trump is the nominee the Latino numbers are going to be hell for the GOP. Literally, I think Pubis would rather walk through hell than have to wake up to the slaughter the GOP would be handed by the Latino/a vote.

Aren't minorities and the GOP like trying to mix a dolphin and space travel? Do they have any fucking neck in that game?
 

HylianTom

Banned
The moderates in the GOP (and I do believe thy exist in relatively small numbers, but they have no control over the bat shit wing anymore) are more concerned with keeping their money safe. They put up with the bat shit because it helps them get their dudes elected. No more, no less. These people couldn't give a shit about abortion, gay rights or anything else the evangelical wing eats with a spoon.

In its own way, I find this to be just as abhorrent. They know they're selling the civil rights of others up the river, but hey, they need those precious tax cuts and a (delusional/gullible) hope for budget discipline, right?
 

Zornack

Member
In its own way, I find this to be just as abhorrent. They know they're selling the civil rights of others up the river, but hey, they need those precious tax cuts and a (delusional/gullible) hope for budget discipline, right?

But to some people that money means protecting and providing for their family. You can't fault someone for putting that as their main priority, even though their fears of a democratic president resulting in a harder time making ends meet are unfounded.
 
Aren't minorities and the GOP like trying to mix a dolphin and space travel? Do they have any fucking neck in that game?

Well, anyone but white men are outside the GOPs bread basket.

However, if they want to win, they simply have to do better with minorities. Putting Trump on the ticket is a big old battering ram we could use to beat the GOP down ballot.

Let's say there's a Latino voter who went Bush 04, Obama 08/12 and now Hillary 16. We've basically had their vote for 3 presidential cycles now. What are the chances, realistically, that in '20 they'll suddenly flip back to the GOP?

If the GOP wanted to win, they had to draw a line in the sand now. Take a loss if necessary. But position yourself as not so openly racist. Be like the 80s GOP, racist behind closed doors.

Rmoney got 27% of the "Hispanic" vote (a large portion of which tends to be Cuban, I would imagine). If Trump would get 15-20% I would shit myself. If you couple that with the fact that Hillary will probably do better among white voters than Obama (She did in the '08 primaries, and I'm not commenting on why/how) and women....the GOP would be hurting pretty bad.

I mean...I don't really care. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people...but still.
 
But to some people that money means protecting and providing for their family. You can't fault someone for putting that as their main priority, even though their fears of a democratic president resulting in a harder time making ends meet are unfounded.

The people who support Republican policies for monetary reasons typically have more than enough to provide for their families. Minor increases in capital gains or inheritance taxes should not be the hill you sacrifice civil rights on.
 

Teggy

Member
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-hated-front-runner

Bush told "Face the Nation" host John Dickerson that he hated being the front runner.

"Six months ago people thought you were the front runner," Dickerson said.

"Yeah, I hated that," Bush replied. "I feel much better back here."

Dickerson asked him to clarify.

"Well I've always thought that there was going to be a high expectation for me. And I totally get it," Bush continued. "Because I have a brother that was president and a father that was president. And that higher expectation was important to realize. And so being the front runner made me feel like the other guys just dancing right through this. I have to go earn it. I have higher expectations on me than people have on me."

Bush said it doesn't bother him that there are high expectations for him and "feels good" where the campaign is now.

This guy is really deluded.
 
In its own way, I find this to be just as abhorrent. They know they're selling the civil rights of others up the river, but hey, they need those precious tax cuts and a (delusional/gullible) hope for budget discipline, right?

The people who support Republican policies for monetary reasons typically have more than enough to provide for their families. Minor increases in capital gains or inheritance taxes should not be the hill you sacrifice civil rights on.


I agree with both of you, however, I also know that people (even good people) tend to look out for their own perceived interests first. Our goals should be to show people how issues that don't directly impact them are still good for the country. However, people are still going to have their pet issues that are non-negotiable.

I think Hillary is actually going after that smallish group of moderate, fiscal, tax phobic conservatives. Her refusing to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 is a smart pledge to make. IF these people are scared of what Trump would do, and she's offering them the guarantee that she's not going to raise their taxes...maybe they're more receptive. I think these people tend to be educated, tend to be less religious and tend to be more liberal on social issues. They don't hate the gays, they don't fear women being allowed to make decisions about their own bodies.

Also, I no longer feel the O'Malley. I tried...but he got a restraining order. :(
 
I apparently met Jeb! once when he was governor of Florida. His inability to command any type of presence in a room is amazing.(And I actually didn't even remember this until my mom told me just now).
 

Iolo

Member
I'm pretty sure John Kerry made the same pledge to not raise taxes on the first $250,000 back in 2004. It's odd to hear people including the debate moderators making a big deal of it.
 
let me get this right. dude is saying he knows there is an expectation attached to his name to win the nomination that he wants to flout, and earn it through his own effort, and we all shit talk him anyway for being entitled? what am i missing here
 
If politicians really wanted to eliminate the deficit, raising taxes under 250k would have to happen eventually, but no one really cares and it would go over like a lead balloon with voters.
 
Cruz was raised to win Iowa.

In a comment here some time ago, I read a really convincing scenario where Cruz would be a likely choice for the SC. It would get Cruz out of the way and basically shut down the SC.
 
NC Supreme Court upholds 2011 election district maps

RALEIGH

The N.C. Supreme Court on Friday issued a ruling upholding the legislative and congressional districts for this decade, giving approval for a second time to maps that have been the underpinnings of lawsuits through the past two election cycles.

At issue is whether race played a key role in how the Republican-led legislature drew maps in 2011.

The justices were split 4-3 along party lines over how that question should be answered.

That question will linger as another election cycle gets under way. The plaintiffs immediately announced plans to appeal.

Oh well. Looks like this case is going to the Supreme Court. Hopefully this gets sorted out before 2020.
 
A Trump loss in Iowa could be big in terms of damaging his front runner status. Obviously he could turn that around with a NH win but I can't help but be skeptical about his chances there despite polls. South Carolina seems like it'll be Cruz's second win of the process. Basically I don't see how Trump lasts if he doesn't win one of the four early contests; Cruz is going to win Iowa and should win South Carolina, at which point he should solidify the anti-establishment wing.

Iowa will be the death knell for Santorum, Graham, and Huckabee. NH should be the death knell for Kasish and potentially Christie.
 
A Trump loss in Iowa could be big in terms of damaging his front runner status. Obviously he could turn that around with a NH win but I can't help but be skeptical about his chances there despite polls. South Carolina seems like it'll be Cruz's second win of the process.

Trump's killing it in SC. There's a reason he unveiled the ban on Muslim immigrants there. Assuming Cruz wins IA it really all comes down to New Hampshire. Cruz wins there and he becomes a steamroller. I don't see anyone not winning one of those two and still winning the overall race.
 

dabig2

Member
I'm surprised no one in here is talking about UnitedHealthCare leaning towards dropping out of the ACA exchanges -- sounds like this is a potentially huge problem.

This is why Hillary's differing on the subject completely pisses me off. Fuck playing politics, people's lives and livelihoods are on the line here.

This goes for her and every other Dem out there: Grow a fucking backbone and argue with some conviction for once. You have considerable power in swaying opinions. Not like you have to try very hard since a a majority still supports single payer (as of a year ago at least)

Argue vehemently. Make healthcare a literal single issue vote by being very direct on how fucking screwed the healthcare system still is despite the progress made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom