• 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.
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Good to see Hillary opposing the Arctic drilling proposal, it's a shit idea.

RDreamer said:
Seriously, let's look at the ideas that seem to be the most popular now amongst candidates:

-End birthright citizenship
-Build a wall to stop illegal immigration
-Abortion ban with no exceptions
-Bring back torture
-Defund planned parenthood
-Repeal and replace Obamacare with race to the state with the lowest regulations
-Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court decision allowing same sex Marriage
Click to expand...

But what about Iraq 3.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Ending birthright citizenship is just about the most un-American proposal one could possibly devise.

America's incredible global rise in the century following the Civil War never would have happened without it.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
BertramCooper said:
Ending birthright citizenship. I just can't even...

Those post-2012 GOP brainstorming sessions must feel like they took place a generation ago.
Click to expand...
I think you guys are underestimating how popular that talking point may be. They'll point out that even many of those 'liberal' countries in Europe don't have it.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
speculawyer said:
I'm kinda confused as to why shell even wants to drill there. Either they are playing the long game and expect eventual oil price increases before the ojl flows. Or they are are sure of a big shallow water find. There is no way this operation is profitable today.
Click to expand...
I've asked the exact same questions. Shell has to know that the check is in the mail as far as energy issues are concerned, so this may be just positioning for when the time comes.

I just hope that expensive oil holds-off for another 15 months..
 
R

RDreamer

Member
I'm not entirely sure I understand how Walker plans to cover those with pre existing conditions without mandates. It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Also subsidies based on age and not income is so fucking terrible.
 
D

David Incorporated Esq.

Member
RDreamer said:
I'm not entirely sure I understand how Walker plans to cover those with pre existing conditions without mandates. It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Also subsidies based on age and not income is so fucking terrible.
Click to expand...

You missed the part where his plan was going to reduce costs by 25%.

He must have missed it too, because he never said how that would happen.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
There's also a reason why countries of immigrants in the western hemisphere almost universally have birthright citizenship when Europe doesn't. They also have the EU, which makes traveling and working between these countries much easier.

Also lol amending the constitution.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
RDreamer said:
I'm not entirely sure I understand how Walker plans to cover those with pre existing conditions without mandates. It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Also subsidies based on age and not income is so fucking terrible.
Click to expand...

Dave Inc. said:
You missed the part where his plan was going to reduce costs by 25%.

He must have missed it too, because he never said how that would happen.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I thought when reading it. "I'll protect them."

Then he doesn't say how. Because it can't be done.

Here's how I see this panning out if it (God forbid) ever occurred:

Law passes.
Things go haywire because of pre-existing conditions.
GOP Congress says screw it and votes to strike down those regulation, and we're right back to where we were before ACA.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
HylianTom said:
Hmm..


http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/08/hillary-clinton-arctic-drilling-shell

The stealth Republican strikes again!
Click to expand...

Was very close to posting this as a topic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...m_hp_ref=climate-change&kvcommref=mostpopular

Noted wolf-in-sheep's-clothing neoconservative murderress of Vince Foster has come out against Obama's Arctic drilling plan:

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has agreed with the vast majority of President Barack Obama's policies, but in a Tweet on Tuesday she expressed her disapproval with one: letting Shell drill for oil in the Arctic.

Clinton had previously said she was "skeptical" and had "doubts" as to whether the Obama administration should have given Shell the go-ahead for exploratory drilling. The oil company's permit from the U.S. Department of the Interior allows it to drill in the Chukchi Sea off the northwest coast of Alaska. Shell halted its drilling program in the region after it lost control of a massive rig in 2012.
Click to expand...

The Butcher of Benghazi then went on to tweet:

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/633629814713397249

@HillaryClinton
The Arctic is a unique treasure. Given what we know, it's not worth the risk of drilling. -H
Click to expand...

Clinton's willingness to come out against Arctic drilling is at odds with her non-answer on whether she supports construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. When pressed on the issue, she said that it would be inappropriate for her to express an opinion, since she was head of the Department of State when the pipeline review process began.
Click to expand...

Details of Hillary's previously announced climate plan to keep our Water White can be found here.
Click to expand...

Decided against it!
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I would argue that Walker releasing his healthcare plan this early is a HUGE strategic error. All it does is give his fellow candidates the chance to pick it apart, destroy it, and hurt him.

He would have been much better off to release details late in the cycle, even in the general if he got there.

It appears this was merely a rush to get something out ahead of Trump.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Amazing hit piece on fiorina today in the nyt. And not even by Maureen dowd or any of the other loonies. It's in the deal book section and is written by Andrew Ross Sorkin so you know this is serious business.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Cheebo said:
If you posted it I guarantee it would be flooded by the Bernie crazies who'd find a way to spin it to show why she is more conservative than George W. Bush and needs to be stopped.
Click to expand...

Most younger millennials like the article Ivysaur posted don't believe or are too young to believe in that vast right wing conspiracy trash.

She was elected in NY of all places. She had to be liberal on certain issues or she would have gotten kicked out in 06. The media is not doing her any favors by allowing this trash to filter the airwaves and papers.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
There's also a reason why countries of immigrants in the western hemisphere almost universally have birthright citizenship when Europe doesn't. They also have the EU, which makes traveling and working between these countries much easier.

Also lol amending the constitution.
Click to expand...

For white europeans.

My biggest problem with opposition to immigration is the mismatch between the mobility of capital and labor.

Capital is free to travel the world seeking new teats to suck but labor much stay in squaller conditions just hoping and prostrating itself before it hoping that they're lucky enough to do the right rain dance. We do we have free trade by not free movement of people? What's the reason?
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Cheebo said:
If you posted it I guarantee it would be flooded by the Bernie crazies who'd find a way to spin it to show why she is more conservative than George W. Bush and needs to be stopped.
Click to expand...

I know, that's why I didn't. There'd even be a fun, clickbaity title making it seem like The Shrill was going to the right of Obama, again, of course.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
ivysaur12 said:
I know, that's why I didn't. There'd even be a fun, clickbaity title making it seem like The Shrill was going to the right of Obama, again, of course.
Click to expand...

I am a household name to them now. I should have posted it. I'm public enemy no 1.

I just try my best to offer incite but I keep getting resistance.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
HylianTom said:
I've always maintained that if polls were to begin to consistently showing him outperforming her in the general election match-ups, I would have no qualms switching my preference to him in the primary (that is, if I were voting in my state's Democratic primary). I tend to match-up with Bernie slightly more than Hillary as far as policy preferences go, but I'm also pretty confident that, in these political circumstances, a Hillary presidency would not look significantly different from a Bernie presidency or a Biden presidency.. so it'd make no sense for me to support putting-up a slightly riskier candidate, especially given how close elections have been over the past few decades.
Click to expand...

Oh,so basically in your opinion Hillary has a greater chance at this moment so you will support her, but if that starts to turn around you will support Bernie? I think that makes sense. I would think Hillary presidency would look a little for different though. I would imagine she would be more little more assertive than Obama is now when it comes to foreign policy.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
The daily caller is very confused on how sex works

CMtXYhFXAAUt06G.jpg
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
RDreamer said:
I'm not entirely sure I understand how Walker plans to cover those with pre existing conditions without mandates. It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Also subsidies based on age and not income is so fucking terrible.
Click to expand...

Republican health care proposals are never anything but wishful thinking.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Abinash117 said:
Oh,so basically in your opinion Hillary has a greater chance at this moment so you will support her, but if that starts to turn around you will support Bernie? I think that makes sense. I would think Hillary presidency would look a little for different though. I would imagine she would be more little more assertive than Obama is now when it comes to foreign policy.
Click to expand...
I'd absolutely support Bernie (but I'd still be helping to pick the GOP's candidate for them.. =P )

If I were to rank candidates by my heart instead of by cold general election numbers, Bernie would be my hands-down pick (Uncle Joe would very probably be #2). It's not that I don't think he can win the general.. it's just that I prefer going with whoever it is that has the best odds of winning. Polling is the best measurement we have of guessing this, which is why I hope that polling outfits continue to include him in general election matchups (it's kinda bullshitty when we only see Hillary vs ... numbers), just so that we have more info on this measurement.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
pigeon said:
Sure, among white people. The GOP doesn't have a problem with white people.
Click to expand...

Oh don't be so sure. Unions are often very big proponents of immigration limits. And there is the 'last over the gangplank effect' wherein often recent legal immigrants are against more immigrants coming in.

It is not just a racist thing. It is also rooted in law & order, protectionism, . . . even some environmentalists view it as bad policy because it allow populations to expand quicker than they should.

Ignore this issue at your peril. It has certainly pushed European and Australian politics further right. And as Trump has shown, it is quite popular here too.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
HylianTom said:
I'd absolutely support Bernie (but I'd still be helping to pick the GOP's candidate for them.. =P )

If I were to rank candidates by my heart instead of by cold general election numbers, Bernie would be my hands-down pick (Uncle Joe would very probably be #2). It's not that I don't think he can win the general.. it's just that I prefer going with whoever it is that has the best odds of winning. Polling is the best measurement we have of guessing this, which is why I hope that polling outfits continue to include him in general election matchups (it's kinda bullshitty when we only see Hillary vs ... numbers), just so that we have more info on this measurement.
Click to expand...

Don't know how credible CNN is but it seems like the White House and most importantly Obama privately realize that a Biden candidacy is out of the cards and Hillary is his preferred successor.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/17/politics/joe-biden-white-house-2016-concerns/

Plus, Democratic strategists both inside and outside the White House say the former secretary of state, not the Vice President, is now seen as the best hope of protecting and expanding the president's legacy.
Click to expand...

For example, President Barack Obama would love to see universal pre-K become the law of the land, but he's realistic that that will never happen with a Republican Congress. "Maybe Hillary will get that," the president has been quoted as saying in meetings.
Click to expand...
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Trump is has made ending birthright citizenship a litmus test in the primaries. Wow. This has been amazing/stunning to witness.

I wonder if Rubio will take that position...
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Don't know how credible CNN is but it seems like the White House and most importantly Obama privately realize that a Biden candidacy is out of the cards and Hillary is his preferred successor.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/17/politics/joe-biden-white-house-2016-concerns/
Click to expand...
It's bittersweet, the whole Joe Biden running topic. But if Hillary's the nominee, it's also damn reassuring to see so much overlap with the White House. The last time we saw a Democratic incumbent trying to hand it off, it was incredibly frustrating to see him basically sit on the sidelines as the campaign occurred.

...

And I can see that Rubio picture coming back in an education-themed commercial. Hilarity writes itself.

...

Wow.. did Hillary have a baby with the Donald a long time ago, and then that baby grew-up to be a circuit court judge?
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
#hotgaystove

The Republican National Committee (RNC) may have rejected two anti-gay resolutions related to marriage equality and sex education, but it apparently approved another resolution blatantly endorsing discrimination against people who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

The RNC wants Congress to approve the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). This bill, which the ACLU has called “a Pandora’s Box of taxpayer-funded discrimination against same-sex couples and their children,” would prevent the federal government from acting against businesses and non-profits that discriminate against same-sex married couples. This would mean that government workers could refuse to perform their duties, and businesses and organizations — including those that operate with support of taxpayer money — would be free to discriminate.

Ellen Barrosse, RNC chair of the Conservative Steering Committee, told The Daily Signal that neither the resolution nor the bill have anything to do with discrimination, but are instead “an attempt, for those of us who are people of faith, to protect religious organizations.” She offered the following example: “Does Catholic Charities have to place children with gay couples, or will they have to shut down? This is a free market, there are other agencies that will place children with them.”

Barrosse neglected to point out that every time Catholic Charities faced this conflict, it was because the organization believed it was entitled to continue receiving state funding while discriminating against couples the state recognized as married. In each case that Catholic Charities shut down adoption services, it was a voluntary decision made because it refused to operate without state funding.

The RNC resolution specifically references multiple cases when private business owners have faced legal consequences for refusing to serve to same-sex couples in violation of nondiscrimination laws. It also mentions several individuals who faced public scrutiny for their anti-gay views, suggesting that all of these people are victims of “intensifying hatred and intolerance”:
Click to expand...
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
And Rubio has decided to not follow the piper on the 14th Amendment immigration issue. Damn.

Marco Rubio against Donald Trump's call to end 'birthright citizenship'

Marco Rubio said Tuesday he does not agree with Donald Trump's call to end so-called birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, though he said some abuses should be addressed.

Rubio said he had only read news accounts of Trump's immigration plan and said some ideas "have merit, but the majority of it is really not a workable plan that could ever pass Congress. It's a serious issue. We have to confront it as a country. But it's much more complex than people sometimes give it credit for."
Click to expand...
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-b...ps-call-to-end-birthright-citizenship/2241755

For fun, here's the FreeRepublic reaction thread..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326210/posts
 
P

pigeon

Banned
speculawyer said:
Oh don't be so sure. Unions are often very big proponents of immigration limits. And there is the 'last over the gangplank effect' wherein often recent legal immigrants are against more immigrants coming in.

It is not just a racist thing. It is also rooted in law & order, protectionism, . . . even some environmentalists view it as bad policy because it allow populations to expand quicker than they should.

Ignore this issue at your peril. It has certainly pushed European and Australian politics further right. And as Trump has shown, it is quite popular here too.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of it only being about racism. It's a question of whether it is, itself, a racist policy that is abhorrent to people of color, which it is. I don't think it's really debatable, frankly, but here's Paul Waldman making the same point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...6-election-by-raising-birthright-citizenship/

European and Australian politics are themselves heavily driven by xenophobia and racism, so it's not surprising that the argument is successful there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • 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
Top Bottom