T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
He thinks every problem can be fixed by ignoring until it goes away.
-
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
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
He thinks every problem can be fixed by ignoring until it goes away.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-mccaskill-2012-121262_full.html#.Vc4ecRNViko
This is amazing. Give her credit -- she's a fighter.
This is amazing. Give her credit -- she's a fighter.
RustyNails
Member
Fucks like one too
NYCmetsfan
Banned
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The onion presents: the 2016 presidential election
Oh, if only this were to be the case. I'd pay pay-per-view money for those debates.
Coriolanus
Banned
... you calling Edwards a rapist?
People don't think HIllary can give a good thrashing to The Donald in a debate besides Biden?
Biden is only getting this praise because of him and Ryan. He debated in the 08 primary and did not do any outstanding debate performances that made headlines aside from his Giuliani comment.
Biden is only getting this praise because of him and Ryan. He debated in the 08 primary and did not do any outstanding debate performances that made headlines aside from his Giuliani comment.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Eventually, one of the Republican candidates is going to slip up and use "Make America Great Again" in a speech.
And Trump will sue that candidate for copyright infringement.
And it will be glorious.
Yeah, Biden vs. Ryan was a great show, but whooping Paul Ryan on the debate floor is no great feat.
And Trump will sue that candidate for copyright infringement.
And it will be glorious.
Yeah, Biden vs. Ryan was a great show, but whooping Paul Ryan on the debate floor is no great feat.
I hope bernie is registering people to vote with these large crowds he's getting. Easier to track them down in the general for Hillary should he lose. Especially the unlikely voters interested in his campaign. We need every vote we can get for the Fall. These young people 18-24 are the future of our party.
thezerofire
Banned
why do I keep reading that bernie thread?
I ask myself that every day.
Any one of the Democratic candidates will appoint folks who'll kill Citizens. These folks claim to care about eliminating such sources of corruption, and then..
{I'm biting my tongue as much as I do on Gaming Side..}
I read it for fun. Might as well have some fun since I am going to be plunged into 8 more years of darkness if Hillary is nominated.
So you know who to put on your ignore list through election season? Seriously, the delusion and basic understanding of consequences when you pass up good because your "perfect" didn't make it through a primary is astounding.
The people posting in there are the kind of people you really need one of those alternate reality "windows" from Fringe so they can see (once the election is over) what the alternate would have been and see their jaw drop.
thezerofire
Banned
I see those "Who Do You Side With" results and they're like 92% Bernie, 90% Clinton and then there's some leap and Bernie is a perfect socialist redeemer and Clinton is a neocon. I just don't get it.
Retromelon
Member
You ignore people because they want to vote for someone who they feel represents their ideals the best?
I ignore people because if Bernie isn't the nominee they'd prefer to not vote or say they'd prefer to vote for Trump. That indicates a fundamental disconnect from the realities of how politics and the world work and doing basic, elementary level cost-benefit analysis.
Also, given that outlook, they'll have no meaningful discourse past the primary season anyway since they've told me they have no interest in voting seriously, so why should I give a damn?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
You guys think about Bernie to much.
Like NYCmetsfan said, we think about Bernie too much. Hopefully once the fall hits discussion can go from Trump and Bernie to something else.
Retromelon
Member
In that case, you'd help your cause more through gentle persuasion rather than to let them drift away through apathy.
thezerofire
Banned
As far as I can tell there is no convincing them
Yeah. When someone doubts that Hillary would appoint liberal judges, I really don't know what I could say. That belief is something that speaks for itself. It's amazing.
Coriolanus
Banned
There is, however, co-opting them, as Obama showed us in 2008.
Problem seems to be not that you can't bring them to hillary, but that hillary failed to attract them to herself.
"oh but they should come to terms with pragmatism". Sure. But they haven't yet. So you can either find a way to make yourself attractive to them or... opt to run into a wall with eyes wide open.
I mean, if we going the pragmatic route... pulling a bait and switch on them is kind of a very solid example of the philosophy.
Problem seems to be not that you can't bring them to hillary, but that hillary failed to attract them to herself.
"oh but they should come to terms with pragmatism". Sure. But they haven't yet. So you can either find a way to make yourself attractive to them or... opt to run into a wall with eyes wide open.
I mean, if we going the pragmatic route... pulling a bait and switch on them is kind of a very solid example of the philosophy.
I'm a huge Bernie fan. Huge. Going to vote for him in the primary, but I totally get where you guys are coming from. The bullheadedness of some of his fans is frustrating. Not voting just because Bernie loses to Hillary is just the dumbest thing ever. I had a big argument on Facebook the other day about it. The guy just wouldn't fucking do it. Said Hillary and any of the clowns on the republican side would be exactly the same. I couldn't persuade him with Supreme Court nominations.
I kind of feel like "money in politics" is kind of the white people problems of politics now. Don't get me wrong, it's still a problem, and it's one of my most important ones, but when you're so tunnel visioned that it's the only thing that matters and the candidates are "exactly the same" without that one issue I just don't know what to say except that you're probably so privileged you can't see what's really going on. There are so many other problems that other types of people are having. People are struggling to make ends meet, black people are being killed in the streets, women's healthcare and rights are being eroded by people trying to defund planned parenthood and put other restrictions, there's still sexism in the workplace, trans people struggle for rights and recognition, there are crazy bills being drafted against gay people and even though same sex marriage is now recognized across the country we still have a ways to go, we have a failing drug war, and there are a lot of issues with other countries and our relationship to them that could affect millions in our military and their families, etc. The list really just goes on and on. I realize getting money out of politics helps nearly every one of these in some way, but if you can't get that absolute goal this one election why in the world are we giving up on touching these issues altogether?
I kind of feel like "money in politics" is kind of the white people problems of politics now. Don't get me wrong, it's still a problem, and it's one of my most important ones, but when you're so tunnel visioned that it's the only thing that matters and the candidates are "exactly the same" without that one issue I just don't know what to say except that you're probably so privileged you can't see what's really going on. There are so many other problems that other types of people are having. People are struggling to make ends meet, black people are being killed in the streets, women's healthcare and rights are being eroded by people trying to defund planned parenthood and put other restrictions, there's still sexism in the workplace, trans people struggle for rights and recognition, there are crazy bills being drafted against gay people and even though same sex marriage is now recognized across the country we still have a ways to go, we have a failing drug war, and there are a lot of issues with other countries and our relationship to them that could affect millions in our military and their families, etc. The list really just goes on and on. I realize getting money out of politics helps nearly every one of these in some way, but if you can't get that absolute goal this one election why in the world are we giving up on touching these issues altogether?
That doesn't make things any better.
3rd parties are not viable with a first past the post voting system. Until such a time that we adopt a completely different voting system, you're not doing yourself any favors by voting 3rd party.
Aaron Strife
Banned
If third parties want to seriously participate in the political process they need to start putting up well-funded candidates in local races. Just find like twenty marginal/moderate state house districts where a Green or an Independence Party candidate could win and drop a few grand on them.
Instead they go for trickle down politics where if they put a well known name up for president that'll maybe translate into more votes in the future? Except it never does, it just creates a cult of personality around that person. No one cared about the Reform Party or the Green Party, they cared about Ross Perot and Ralph Nader.
Instead they go for trickle down politics where if they put a well known name up for president that'll maybe translate into more votes in the future? Except it never does, it just creates a cult of personality around that person. No one cared about the Reform Party or the Green Party, they cared about Ross Perot and Ralph Nader.
Why do all that when you can just talk about how excited you are about a single candidate, shit on everyone else, and fantasize about being in the cheering crowd at the end of the movie when the good guy hero saves the day?
... yeah, I'm pretty bitter about this shit.
I'm not sure what third party actually has relevance even in local politics, though. I mean in Arlington County, VA you can't even get a Green Party candidate elected (although we got a Republican on the County Board after 20-something years, so that's progress.)
speculawyer
Member
WTFisthisshitPicard.jpg
BertramCooper
Banned
The perverse thing about "money in politics" is that it's going to take money in politics to beat money in politics.
It's not going to be beaten by an obstinate idealist like Bernie Sanders.
It's not going to be beaten by an obstinate idealist like Bernie Sanders.
I am surprised you have not offered your incite in that thread. We are having a civil discussion in helping each other understand the process a little better.
BertramCooper
Banned
Sorry, I'm far too busy yanking out my fingernails with pliers to post in another Sanders thread.
It's not a big deal as long as he's in a state that doesn't matter.
But the Browns aren't playing today.
I need to attach a stickied footnote for all of these conversations that says " ***I only care if you're in these 10 states. Go nuts if you're in Kentucky, etc.."
Aaron Strife
Banned
Speaking for the Green Party winning literally any state house/senate/assembly seat with party identification would be a massive improvement over their current situation where they have none out of thousands across the country. Start propping up legislative candidates in say, Minnesota. Build a significant caucus, even if it's not a majority you can form coalitions with like-minded members of the other parties and get stuff done and build a platform. If that works, spread out to Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, the Dakotas, Michigan and do the same thing there until there's at least a regional presence and they can start running serious candidates in federal races. Not joke candidates or celebrities who won't build the party as much as they'll build themselves.
Or instead throw away all your money on one presidential candidate who will be fighting over 1% of the vote with the other eight million third parties. Sure that'll work.
Feingold has gotten the message at least, which I'm happy about. Ron Johnson is whining about him breaking campaign promises from 24 years ago lol
I know Republicans have stopped giving a shit about offering realistic economic forecasts based on their trickle-down policies, but shit's gotten much more blatant recently. Jeb said that he can get 4% growth per year, and today Huckabee came out with his own projection that said he can get shit up to 6%.
Reminder: Even Republican god, Ronaldus Magnus couldn't get 4% with the greatest economic boom in the history of civilization, let alone 6%.
But no, let's keep arguing about how Trump is the buffoon this competition.
Reminder: Even Republican god, Ronaldus Magnus couldn't get 4% with the greatest economic boom in the history of civilization, let alone 6%.
But no, let's keep arguing about how Trump is the buffoon this competition.
I want a "Name-that-Tune"-style debate question where the moderator says, "raise your hand if you can get us a 4% growth rate. Keep it raised for 5%. 6%? 7%.."
This isn't BritPoliGAF, but Vox (I should probably read Vox less lol) has an article up about a dude in British "Dem" party that's also sending the Labour Party into a panic.
I see a parallel of sorts here. The Labour Party is having an election for leadership, there's a real left-wing guy challenging the 'centrism' in the party, etc. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's the basic opportunity zone argument, which has been around since Jack Kemp. I don't think the argument is completely horrible, of course - I like the idea of companies investing in neighborhoods. The problem is that it suggests there is no government role, and the bigger problem is this basically calls for corporations to be able to mine low wage labor in big cities while pocketing big tax breaks.
There are a lot of people who are on welfare who probably shouldn't be on it, and a lot of poor people who don't put any effort into anything. However to suggest those types make up a majority strikes me as ignorant and out of touch. When you base your entire economic message on that fact you turn folks off. If you want to help the poor or "lower working class" you've got to expand opportunities and even the playing field. That means investing in vocational schools as well as community colleges. That means addressing child care in a decent fashion; if you're a single mom with three young kids and are trying to find a job, you should be able to search for a job without worrying about where your kids or, or having no place to drop them off. It also means ensuring that people don't have to worry as much about healthcare.
Republicans oppose most of that shit though, which tells you everything you need to know about them.
RustyNails
Member
Jack Remington
Banned
Anyone know when we'll get updates on this Clinton FBI thing? Like if charges were to be filed, what's the realistic timeline here?
Carson'a an absolute tool. The dude literally grew up on welfare and praised it in one of his books as "saving his life" or something to that effect.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked