• 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 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.

NeoXChaos

Member
So? That something bad might happen doesn't mean that something else shouldn't be done, but simply that you should design, test, adopt and perfect a system of checks and balances to deal with whatever issues might arise, provided that you consider that the benefits outweight the costs.

Then you factor that republicans would cockblock it anyway and just keep getting reamed in the midterms.

Democrats and Republicans alike have been creamed* in the midterms for the last couple of decades anyway due to the "out of power" "punish in power" party phenomenon we have.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/house-2016-clinton/
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/explaining-the-republican-lock-on-the-u-s-house-of-representatives/

Those too articles explain the reason. Turnout certainly affected the Democrats in 2010 and 2014 for sure though.
 
So? That something bad might happen doesn't mean that something else shouldn't be done, but simply that you should design, test, adopt and perfect a system of checks and balances to deal with whatever issues might arise, provided that you consider that the benefits outweight the costs. To use a completely unrelated example that parallels this in no way whatsoever, the US gave no fucks about spending millions of dollars and turning some individuals into gigantic balls of flame if it meant telling the soviets to get fucked cuz they got to the moon first. Same deal.

Then you factor that republicans would cockblock it anyway and just keep getting reamed in the midterms.

I mean... I agree with everything you're saying, which is why I think digital voting is just a bad idea. The potential risks are freaking enormous. We build our systems of government on what people could do, not what they will do. I just don't have confidence that any system of e-voting would be secure enough to justify the risk of somebody fucking it all up.
 
Democrats and Republicans alike have been creamed* in the midterms for the last couple of decades anyway due to the "out of power" "punish in power" party phenomenon we have.

Those too articles explain the reason. Turnout certainly affected the Democrats in 2010 and 2014 for sure though.

I'm aware. Afaik only one party has *recently* tried to promote more voter disenfranchisement though, no?

I mean... I agree with everything you're saying, which is why I think digital voting is just a bad idea. The potential risks are freaking enormous. We build our systems of government on what people could do, not what they will do. I just don't have confidence that any system of e-voting would be secure enough to justify the risk of somebody fucking it all up.

Well, sure. On one hand, massive voter fraud could very well be a risk, buuut on the other hand, i could vote from home at any time of the day. Heck, i could vote while watching youporn. Can't put a price on that.
 
I'd rather see a week or two of early voting but keep Election Day. Too bad we can't make it a "half day" where you get to leave work early to vote.
 
I'm aware. Afaik only one party has *recently* tried to promote more voter disenfranchisement though, no?



Well, sure. On one hand, massive voter fraud could very well be a risk, buuut on the other hand, i could vote from home at any time of the day. Heck, i could vote while watching youporn. Can't put a price on that.

Voting from home is one thing; offering mail-in voting as an option should be mandatory. But it's just... man, forget fraud, what happens if somebody just sneaks some malware in with their vote and destroys the whole thing?
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I'm aware. Afaik only one party has *recently* tried to promote more voter disenfranchisement though, no?



Well, sure. On one hand, massive voter fraud could very well be a risk, buuut on the other hand, i could vote from home at any time of the day. Heck, i could vote while watching youporn. Can't put a price on that.

oh of course. In terms of online voting, I could get behind it as long as safety mechanism are in place to prevent some crazy hacker from hacking into the system and changing vote tallies etc.

and even then if it was possible, politicians have made the system so toxic that millions just dont want to vote for them. There are also a lot of low information voters who dont know of the consequences of not voting due to whatever reasons.
 

Jooney

Member
King and Parks were not the heroes of the civil rights movement. They were tyrants who forced their views on everyone else. The true heroes of that era were the men who disobeyed an illegal ruling by an illegitimate SCOTUS. When black students attempted to force their way into high schools and universities across the South, George Wallace and Orval Faubus courageously stood up to federal autocrats who ruled by fiat. Undaunted by threats of federal intervention, they epitomized civil disobedience by opposing an unjust law. They fought for the rights of citizens to live free of a domineering government. And like today's gay agenda, honest disagreement was dismissed as bigotry by a peremptory PC culture. A vocal minority is usurping the rule of law to force a radical social agenda down our throats.

qas28Uq.png
 

NeoXChaos

Member
So he's using FOX News math.

He's still pulling more than I expected. How many actors you think he hired for this?

Is the man even laying ANY type of ground game for this primary? he is all talk and no action right now. Its ridiculous. He cant expect to just say stuff and win delegates on a whim.
 
Voting from home is one thing; offering mail-in voting as an option should be mandatory. But it's just... man, forget fraud, what happens if somebody just sneaks some malware in with their vote and destroys the whole thing?
What if? What if? I give you hopes and dreams of a better future and you come at me with What IF? I'll tell you what if. When nuclear weapons were on the theoretical stage, there was the concern that their detonation could ignite the atmosphere, turning the whole world into a ball of ash. Did that stop the people in power from testing the fucking thing? Fuck. No. They went ahead and dropped the fuckers anyway. Because that's how America rolls. You know who keeps worrying about "bububu what if?" and pussies out in the end? Dickless bastards like Stanislav Petrov. That's the kinda scum you're throwing your lot with.

and even then if it was possible, politicians have made the system so toxic that millions just dont want to vote for them. There are also a lot of low information voters who dont know of the consequences of not voting due to whatever reasons.

Low information voters will always be a part of the system, mate. Always have, always will be.

On a different note, tho. If general Gaf theory that democrats will have an even greater lock on the presidency while (and because) demographics keep shifting, getting people interested in midterms is legit the most important issue they gotta face. They gon' be hitting that wall hard and fast quite a bit more, and it ain't no use doing so with eyes wide open. Or closed, for that matter.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I don't think he needs to at this point. Trumpmentum is real, even if that's fleeting.

I'm kidding, it's a thing even if I can't believe it. Even my very conservative father thinks Trump is a goddamned joke of a candidate.


So you're saying Trump wasn't actually there and hired an actor to stand in for him?

Is the man even laying ANY type of ground game for this primary? he is all talk and no action right now. Its ridiculous. He cant expect to just say stuff and win delegates on a whim.

Ground game? Trump don't need to ground game!
 

ivysaur12

Banned
So the ivy family took ISideWith:

Ivy: Bernie
Papa Ivy: Jeb
Mama Ivy: Hillary (this surprised her, she's a Republican)
Brother Ivy: Rubio (to be fair, not sure if he even knew the questions and was just answering at random)

Should be an interesting election for us!

Is the man even laying ANY type of ground game for this primary? he is all talk and no action right now. Its ridiculous. He cant expect to just say stuff and win delegates on a whim.

Yeah, I want to see him stumping in Iowa with Iowa farmers before I believe this is happening.
 
So the ivy family took ISideWith:

Ivy: Bernie
Papa Ivy: Jeb
Mama Ivy: Hillary (this surprised her, she's a Republican)
Brother Ivy: Rubio (to be fair, not sure if he even knew the questions and was just answering at random)

Should be an interesting election for us!
Maybe this will convince her to vote Democrat? :3
 

NeoXChaos

Member
So the ivy family took ISideWith:

Ivy: Bernie
Papa Ivy: Jeb
Mama Ivy: Hillary (this surprised her, she's a Republican)
Brother Ivy: Rubio (to be fair, not sure if he even knew the questions and was just answering at random)

Should be an interesting election for us!



Yeah, I want to see him stumping in Iowa with Iowa farmers before I believe this is happening.

Is she a moderate Republican? I assume your family is from CT if I recall.

What does your mom think about the possibility of a female president? I suppose a slice of moderate Republican woman could be swayed to Hillary's Candidacy and that "chance to make history." HylianTom mentions this a lot about the untold story of the impact woman will have on this election and the advantage Hillary will have.
 
The damage Trump is doing to the republican party is truly amazing. He has spent weeks making prejudiced to straight out racist comments and yet barely any republicans are denouncing him. It's amazing. And assuming he doesn't plummet in the polls, he will be at the first GOP debate. There will no doubt be a moment where all the candidates are asked about Trump's comments and asked if they agree with him, which will once again result in tepid non answers.

It's a pipe dream but man, imagine if Obama was asked about this and he straight out called Trump racist. What other conclusion can there be for his comments - not only about Mexicans, but black people?
 

HylianTom

Banned
Most of the conservative-leaning women in my family quietly admit that if Hillary's the nominee, she'll most likely get their votes. I say "quietly" because if my uncles find-out, they'll give them hell for it over the next 16 months..
 
The damage Trump is doing to the republican party is truly amazing. He has spent weeks making prejudiced to straight out racist comments and yet barely any republicans are denouncing him. It's amazing. And assuming he doesn't plummet in the polls, he will be at the first GOP debate. There will no doubt be a moment where all the candidates are asked about Trump's comments and asked if they agree with him, which will once again result in tepid non answers.

It's a pipe dream but man, imagine if Obama was asked about this and he straight out called Trump racist. What other conclusion can there be for his comments - not only about Mexicans, but black people?
It would be great if Obama got involved and started talking shit about Trump, so Trump could in turn use it to drum up support ("If Obama hates him he must be good!").

And then you know Trump goes onto win the GOP nomination and dooms the party to its worst performance since Goldwater.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
It would be great if Obama got involved and started talking shit about Trump, so Trump could in turn use it to drum up support ("If Obama hates him he must be good!").

And then you know Trump goes onto win the GOP nomination and dooms the party to its worst performance since Goldwater.

Obama's probably waiting for Trump-mentum to die down a bit before giving him the boost.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
The damage Trump is doing to the republican party is truly amazing. He has spent weeks making prejudiced to straight out racist comments and yet barely any republicans are denouncing him. It's amazing. And assuming he doesn't plummet in the polls, he will be at the first GOP debate. There will no doubt be a moment where all the candidates are asked about Trump's comments and asked if they agree with him, which will once again result in tepid non answers.

It's a pipe dream but man, imagine if Obama was asked about this and he straight out called Trump racist. What other conclusion can there be for his comments - not only about Mexicans, but black people?
Obama could never call a specific person racist. Doesn't matter who, only a specific action or systemic things can be racist.
This is the president who has to worry about not appearing "angry" to others.
 

Jackson50

Member
The damage Trump is doing to the republican party is truly amazing. He has spent weeks making prejudiced to straight out racist comments and yet barely any republicans are denouncing him. It's amazing. And assuming he doesn't plummet in the polls, he will be at the first GOP debate. There will no doubt be a moment where all the candidates are asked about Trump's comments and asked if they agree with him, which will once again result in tepid non answers.

It's a pipe dream but man, imagine if Obama was asked about this and he straight out called Trump racist. What other conclusion can there be for his comments - not only about Mexicans, but black people?
I'm surprised to see you side with the PC mob against Trump. He's said nothing racist. Trump is speaking hard truths to power. He's not afraid to call people out on their bullshit. That's something you've done on this board, and in this thread, for years. SMH.
It would be great if Obama got involved and started talking shit about Trump, so Trump could in turn use it to drum up support ("If Obama hates him he must be good!").

And then you know Trump goes onto win the GOP nomination and dooms the party to its worst performance since Goldwater.
He goofed on Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner a few years ago. Haha. I love it!
 

Jooney

Member
I'm surprised to see you side with the PC mob against Trump. He's said nothing racist. Trump is speaking hard truths to power. He's not afraid to call people out on their bullshit. That's something you've done on this board, and in this thread, for years. SMH.

I like this new Jackson50.

---

Watching this trump rally. This is something else.

"I took their deposit!" lmao
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Hazel Powell, 68, said she is happy for the first time in seven years because of Trump’s candidacy. After President Obama’s election, she went into self-exile in Bulgaria, where she taught English for two years in the Peace Corps. “I was depressed every day,” said Powell, wearing a cowboy hat, American flag nail polish, American flag cowboy boots, and a shirt that said, “Arrest Obama.”
“He just seems to have things clear in his head,” said Powell of Trump. “I just hope he keeps it up because I’m happy now. He’s done a number on me and many other people, emotionally.”
“He says what he means like I do. He’s not wishy-washy,” said Joan Rosicki, 67, of Phoenix. “He’s for the people. It doesn’t matter if you’re male or female. He also is for the Spanish people. I am, too. We just don’t like the lawlessness.”
She said she had been a fan of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie until he took a helicopter ride with, and hugged, President Obama in the wake of Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Of the president, she said, “he wants to be a dictator. I don’t know if he’s ever going to leave. My friends all told me he has to because of the First Amendment.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-storms-phoenix-119989.html#ixzz3fdsLwbPg

cant make this up people. I cant believe this exist.
 
I've heard this ever since Obama was elected, "He's never going to leave office!!" and "King Obama" shit. Where the heck did that come from? Is it just these people terrified that the scary black man is going to refuse to leave office?
 
I've heard this ever since Obama was elected, "He's never going to leave office!!" and "King Obama" shit. Where the heck did that come from? Is it just these people terrified that the scary black man is going to refuse to leave office?

Guess you don't remember the "Bush is going to attack Iran and cancel the 2008 election" shit.
 
Guess you don't remember the "Bush is going to attack Iran and cancel the 2008 election" shit.

With W. you could justify it on multiple levels. Stole the presidency via SC decision, manufactured reasons to kill a fuckton of people overseas, and even helped the jews pull out 9/11.

Bams, tho?
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Is she a moderate Republican? I assume your family is from CT if I recall.

What does your mom think about the possibility of a female president? I suppose a slice of moderate Republican woman could be swayed to Hillary's Candidacy and that "chance to make history." HylianTom mentions this a lot about the untold story of the impact woman will have on this election and the advantage Hillary will have.

My mom actually took a job in Philly and splits her time between PA and CT until my father sells his poorly run flower store which he blames Obama and Dannel Malloy for ALL of his problems. Not that he's a shitty business man. No. It's not his fault! It's the taxes and the unions.

If Mama Ivy ends up voting Hil, I'm going to try to get her to register in PA.
 

benjipwns

Banned
With W. you could justify it on multiple levels. Stole the presidency via SC decision, manufactured reasons to kill a fuckton of people overseas, and even helped the jews pull out 9/11.

Bams, tho?
What bullshit, Bush didn't help the Jews pull off 9/11. They put him in office by manipulating the Supreme Court through the Pope because they knew he was too incompetent to uncover their plot while Wolfowitz, Perle and others set it in motion right under their noses as a pretense to surround Iran and build a stealth gas pipeline across Afghanistan.

I swear, sometimes you left wingnuts go off the deep end into nonsense conspiracy theories.
 

Chichikov

Member
What bullshit, Bush didn't help the Jews pull off 9/11. They put him in office by manipulating the Supreme Court through the Pope because they knew he was too incompetent to uncover their plot while Wolfowitz, Perle and others set it in motion right under their noses as a pretense to surround Iran and build a stealth gas pipeline across Afghanistan.

I swear, sometimes you left wingnuts go off the deep end into nonsense conspiracy theories.
Sorry benji, but you know too much.

fTUOETw.gif
 

Trouble

Banned
King and Parks were not the heroes of the civil rights movement. They were tyrants who forced their views on everyone else. The true heroes of that era were the men who disobeyed an illegal ruling by an illegitimate SCOTUS. When black students attempted to force their way into high schools and universities across the South, George Wallace and Orval Faubus courageously stood up to federal autocrats who ruled by fiat. Undaunted by threats of federal intervention, they epitomized civil disobedience by opposing an unjust law. They fought for the rights of citizens to live free of a domineering government. And like today's gay agenda, honest disagreement was dismissed as bigotry by a peremptory PC culture. A vocal minority is usurping the rule of law to force a radical social agenda down our throats.
I'm surprised to see you side with the PC mob against Trump. He's said nothing racist. Trump is speaking hard truths to power. He's not afraid to call people out on their bullshit. That's something you've done on this board, and in this thread, for years. SMH.

He goofed on Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner a few years ago. Haha. I love it!
PYYcRlg.gif
 

benjipwns

Banned
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0PL0DA20150711
Donald Trump, who became the center of attention in the race for the 2016 Republican U.S. presidential nomination with his denunciation of illegal immigrants from Mexico, has vaulted into a virtual dead heat with Jeb Bush atop the field, a Reuters-Ipsos poll released on Saturday showed.

Trump, a billionaire real estate developer, had the support of 15.8 percent of respondents in the online poll of self-identified Republicans compared to 16.1 percent for Bush, a former Florida governor.

They were followed by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie at 9.5 percent, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul at 8.1 percent, surgeon and author Ben Carson at 7.2 percent and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker at 5.8 percent.

However, given a choice of three candidates - Bush, Trump or Florida Senator Marco Rubio - Bush had a comfortable lead at 42 percent among the respondents in the Reuters-Ipsos Republican poll, compared to 28.4 percent for Trump and 20 percent for Rubio.

In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remained in front with the support of 48.3 percent of self-identified Democrats polled, with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders continuing to inch up, at 22.9 percent, and Vice President Joe Biden, who has not entered the race, at 10.7 percent.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Anthony Weiner has a question for Bernie Sanders...
Sanders has been drawing crowds of thousands at his rallies and is quickly becoming the main primary rival of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. I totally get Bernie Mania. However, I’m deeply conflicted about it.

My wife works for Hillary so there’s that. But I’m also torn because I don’t really understand what he is doing.

I served with Bernie and he is my kind of politician — a progressive guy with some New York City attitude. It’s hard not to love Bernie Sanders. The Brooklyn accent perfected at Madison High School and Brooklyn College and the rumpled mad scientist look are perfect compliments to his colorful and unyielding presentations.

Still, I have one major question for Bernie. What exactly does he think he’s doing in a Democratic presidential primary? Why is he asking for the nomination of a party he always avoided joining?
Independent Bernie Sanders seemed to like this question. He probably got it a lot. He would tell me that I shouldn’t confuse the fact that our voting records generally matched with party agreement. He was a proud socialist and thought the institutional Democratic Party was too cautious and lacking imagination. As much as I prodded, I would never get him to think about joining the Democrats for a moment.

In fact, Bernie always got me fired up to make the fighting wing of the Democratic Party feistier. So much so, that I loved it when my less clever right wing opponents would decry Obamacare as “socialism”. Bernie and I would remind these blockheads that giving people tax credits to buy a product from a giant corporation is hardly socialist.

There’s no question Bernie’s leftist agitating is filling a void in this primary process. The Democratic Party has a strong primal scream element right now. It expresses itself in frustration that the high expectations of change that came with President Obama have not been met. It howls at the failure of candidates who hew to the middle of the road and it feels the need to counter the batshit crazy it sees dominating the debate on the other side of the aisle.

Our party needs a kick in the butt. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), Paul Krugman, and Jon Stewart are currently the standard bearers for that sentiment.

But Bernie Sanders? I just don’t know.
After a career of steadfastly insisting that the Democratic party was not his home, now he wants to not only be a member of the party but its standard bearer? What changed?

Is Bernie’s newfound party affiliation just a practical decision to run in a party that can win rather than risk being a Nader-esque spoiler on a third party line in November? That’s a fair calculation, but doesn’t it wipe away Bernie’s three decades of standing as a principled Socialist?

Many times over the course of his career Bernie has repeated the line that his independence made him more able to speak truth. He argued forcefully that being a Socialist was his identity and not function of political expediency. Well, duh, nobody chooses to be a Socialist to smooth their political path. Yet, as 2016 approaches, here he is filing papers all over the country presumably declaring himself a member of the Democratic Party.

Bernie is right about a lot of things. He is right that a Medicare for All health care program is a simpler, cheaper and more American solution to our health care needs than a jury rigged system that is better under Obamacare but still has too many gaps. And his battle cry on behalf of working Americans is almost as good as Hillary Clinton’s.

In spite of all this, if Bernie wants to lead this party, he needs to explain what he's doing here in the first place.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member

This is a silly article. I don't know anyone that really cares about party loyalty like that. Hell, people usually pride themselves in not voting straight party tickets by peppering the bottom of the with the other party to feel less partisan. Even the extreme leftists here admit to voting republican for certain positions perceived to be nonpartisan, even though every position that can be voted on is affected by political ideology in some fashion.

Oh well. At least its a decent attempt at actually explaining why democrats should find him too extreme to vote for him. It's better than the reasons McCaskill gave for attacking Bernie.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I don't know anyone that really cares about party loyalty like that.
Political party members. Especially party establishments.

We allow for more freedom to divert from the party than European and other nations, but you still have party fundraising quotas and you buck the party too much you can forget much of the underlying party support.

See Joe Lieberman for just one example. Or Jim Jeffords.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Political party members. Especially party establishments.

We allow for more freedom to divert from the party than European and other nations, but you still have party fundraising quotas and you buck the party too much you can forget much of the underlying party support.

See Joe Lieberman for just one example. Or Jim Jeffords.

At least we don't have the Australian system. The idea of having to specifically call something a conscience vote is insane.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
This is a silly article. I don't know anyone that really cares about party loyalty like that. Hell, people usually pride themselves in not voting straight party tickets by peppering the bottom of the with the other party to feel less partisan. Even the extreme leftists here admit to voting republican for certain positions perceived to be nonpartisan, even though every position that can be voted on is affected by political ideology in some fashion.

Oh well. At least its a decent attempt at actually explaining why democrats should find him too extreme to vote for him. It's better than the reasons McCaskill gave for attacking Bernie.

Really? I find Weiner's entire point ridiculous, while McCaskill's entirely pragmatist. They're the same reasons why some here feel as if this Bernie candidacy isn't anything more than a Madison Fantasia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom