-
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 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
Aaron Strife
Banned
"I think people are overestimating Democrats in 2016"
->
"He needs a perfect storm to win"
Do you ever realize how frequently your trolling contradicts itself
Coriolanus
Banned
Dude. Jeb would destroy Jeb in a debate. Way he's going, all the democratic nominee has to do is chain Please Proceed Guvnah every single time and let him shove both foots into his mouth with fury. Dude could go full Eastwood and he'd still lose.
Then mention Schiavo at the end for #lulz
Coriolanus
Banned
Well, he's borderline 70. Old people tend to be early risers and/or have very irregular sleep cycles.
Either that or all the coke.
Either that or all the coke.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Here's the thing though...indicators suggest he will get that perfect storm. The global economy is stalling and the U.S. is finally feeling it. Foreign policy remains a perceived weakness for the administration, with Russia continuing to flex on the national stage. Crime is increasing, which results in (white) people instinctively being willing to support someone who promises a return to law and order. People are becoming more receptive to xenophobic arguments about immigration.
Everything is pointing to Americans being poised to do something stupid and against their own interests. History tells us people will be more than willing to throw social issues under the bus in order to feel safe again.
It's just a rhetorical thing at this point. Hillary is not invincible but a lot of our fellow Poligaffers would think otherwise.
I still think she will lead any GOPer when all the dust settles, but 2016 is going to be closer than the last two Presidential elections.
I really think Rubio is going to end up getting the nod.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Why does the far-right constantly talk about how good a job Putin is doing and how he's "humiliating" Obama?
This seems like a kind of shit job to be honest.
And The Economist is the only magazine that seems to recognize that Russia getting involved in the Middle East can't be anything but a horrible thing for them.
This seems like a kind of shit job to be honest.
And The Economist is the only magazine that seems to recognize that Russia getting involved in the Middle East can't be anything but a horrible thing for them.
Coriolanus
Banned
Big Dick Politics is easier to understand and visually appealing. Remember when W. posed in a jet pilot costume or whatever? Same deal. Plus they're already predisposed to see Bams as weak.
Kinda why i wished that democrats would bring up that they the ones that killed bin laden every single god damn time that republicans tried to give them lip.
Man, it's eeeeaaarrrrly on a Saturday morning, and Trump's been up for a few hours tweeting. When does this guy sleep?
(either that, or the media person on his account keeps odd hours)
(maybe he's like me and has a dog who wakes him at 4am?)
I have read before that Trump's Twitter is 100% himself and himself alone, much to his staffs chagrin unlike basically every other candidate.
I saw an interview where he blamed a tweet on a staffer. I think it was this one:
Knowing him, he at least has someone transcribing his tweets for him.
Lord_Byron28
Member
Yeah which makes it even more confusing when they paint Obama as a Kenyan, Muslim, Communist, Hitler 2.0. However then he apparently is this weak, incompetent and inferior leader to the rest of the world and could learn some things from Putin and Netanyahu. I don't grasp this logic.
It's one of the paradoxes of propaganda that's always amused me. People paint Obama as a weak, ineffectual, unintelligent failure who cant recognize the obvious well at the same time being a supremely ruthless chess master who at any moment is going to complete his plan to usurp power and install himself as supreme sheik for life well violently crushing any resistance.
You can find the same contradictions in almost all propaganda. The enemy has to be scary enough to fight and ineffectual enough to laugh at and easily beat.
TRUMP will devour the souls of the unbelieving.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The U.S. government is still total shit at foreign policy and waging war:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/w...-hospital-doctors-without-borders-kunduz.html
The establishment candidate that can speak for twelve consecutive seconds without saying something horrible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/w...-hospital-doctors-without-borders-kunduz.html
The establishment candidate that can speak for twelve consecutive seconds without saying something horrible.
Wonder if they'll be any repurcussions? I'm guessing not.
Also; maybe Obama didn't deserve that peace prize after all.
I don't see the Democratic nominee as the prohibitive favorite either. All it takes is a sluggish quarter and ISIS or Russia to flare up again in the news and Obama is back with a low 40's approval rating, the lower end of his usual range. If the months leading up the election have job numbers at 200,000+ a month, GDP growth is above 2.5% and ISIS and Russia can stay out of the news, then the Democrat will win. If not then then the election is more uncertain.
It reminds me of 2000, even though the economy was great, the months leading up to the election weren't as red hot as people had become accustomed to, and doubts crept in. If the 6 months before the 2016 election look shaky, doubts will creep in despite how much better the economy is compared to how it was handed to Obama in 2009.
Jack Remington
Banned
Hillary is, at this moment, +2.3 against Rubio in the RCP average. Problem is there hasn't been a H2H poll of that matchup released in a few weeks. Rubio has been strangely left out of the last few major general election polls.
Coriolanus
Banned
Maybe? Of course he didn't.
Jack Remington
Banned
It's a fundamental part of their identity at this point to attack Obama with whatever's available. Plus they really, really want ground troops in Syria and Iraq. Another critical part of their mental functioning is the idea that the Middle East really was stable and secure by the end of the Bush presidency. It lets them avoid confronting the reality that Bush really left us in a horrible place by the end of his term, and that the "progress" we made was illusory and would collapse the minute we no longer maintained a military presence in the country, whether that be 8 years after the invasion or 20. On top of all that, they really liked the big dick-swinging America that jumped dick first into global conflicts.
I'd say it's roughly 60% about attacking Obama, 40% coping mechanisms for the Bush years.
Jack Remington
Banned
The Neville Chamberlain comparison has also become pretty ubiquitous at this point. That allows them to paint whoever their candidate is as the modern Winston Churchill who will save us all because leadership.
ErasureAcer
Banned
This is why I don't post much in here. There's no real discussion going on.
Frank the Great
Banned
God damnit. I was the first to go Rubio, I thought I was going against the trend. He was polling at like 2% at the time.
I stick by my choice though even though it is now disappointingly the conventional choice.
ErasureAcer
Banned
You forgot my vote to Romney.
Poodlestrike
Banned
What discussion is there to be had? You said something flatly ridiculous, people expressed their amusement/exasperation.
If you'd talked about how clearly the moon landings were faked you'd get a similar response.
hipsteeeeeer
Your post is a non-sequitur from Bernie's pro-gun positions.
You and me both, buddy! Though I think you may have beat me by a couple of hours? Same day though, and yes, he was in the pits back then. I picked him because he seemed like the only establishment choice with any sort of charisma and any sort of chance of doing well in the debates. (Well, Christie maybe, but he's too hated by the far right for hugging Obama).
Have the terms and conditions of the bet been established yet? I think the OG's of each candidate should get to pick the Rubio avatar that everyone who didn't get on the Rubio boat in time should wear (until Election Day). Replace Rubio with the winning candidate's name.
Frank the Great
Banned
More like leader, and you are all followers. In other words I'm Putin and you are all a bunch of Obummers.
You didn't say anything to warrant a serious response dude. If you want to talk about something, that's cool. Just don't expect people to drink your cool aid.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I stand with Trump, you can't possibly be leading me as I go down my classy, luxurious path.
That path arrives at victory, btw.
People voting for a center-left politician is not a "revolution" -- no matter how much Bernie is pushing that line.
brainchild
Banned
I agree with this. Poligaf is not an echo chamber for Bernie Sanders, despite many of its members agreeing with most of his views. I wouldn't want it to be either.
Voting for any politician is not a revolution in and of itself; they're just one person with limited executive power. However, a country that manages to use their voting power to transform the United States of America into a Bernie 'utopia' would most certainly be a revolution. Nothing short of a revolution would even allow for such a utopia in the first place.
He said in an interview somewhere recently he sleeps like 4 hours a night because genetics and he loves his job lol.Man, it's eeeeaaarrrrly on a Saturday morning, and Trump's been up for a few hours tweeting. When does this guy sleep?
(either that, or the media person on his account keeps odd hours)
(maybe he's like me and has a dog who wakes him at 4am?)
Retromelon
Member
If you look at it in the context of going from reagan/bush/clinton/bush, all conservative or right leaning moderate presidents by today's standards, to a genuine liberal like sanders in the span of 20 years, it certainly is
Im freezing to death get that rat fuck al gore on the phone
Are you aware of your own candidates position on gun control? Its the one thing Hillary is unequivocally farther to the left on then him.
I would call it progress. Maybe if Bernard was a revolutionary himself, I could see that.
Most of the Democratic party is to the left of Sanders on this issue.
There's no perfect candidate, all anyone can do is weigh how important an issue is to them and use that scale to decide how they will vote. Anyone who thinks Bernie can swoop in and fix everything, or wants to fix everything, is as delusional as the people who thought that of Obama.
Ultimately even if I don't agree with everything he stands for and I think he's dishonest about what socialism means. I want someone that comes into office and is ready to make some actual changes even if they don't achieve everything on their list.
The way I look at it is: it's better to have someone come into office wanting to close down Guantanemo and fail than someone that doesn't want to close Guantenamo and does nothing to it. Except on all issues. Berne is not that candidate, because he has so many shortcomings, but I think he's closer than any of the democratic candidates.
But it is absolutely naive to think that any candidate will reform the country single-handedly. Which on an unrelated note is why I think it's weird when people blame Nixon for the republican party's racism.
eBay Huckster
Member
whatever, AZULA
there's a very distinct difference between reformist and revolutionary
and Bernie's policy platform is firmly in the first camp
Nixon deserves part of the blame for that. Instead of marginalizing the nation's racists, he helped to bring them into the GOP with the Southern strategy.
In all honesty, I don't think he's that guy. For me, a lot of what I've been hearing about how he plans to get things done if elected ring hollow and feel like pandering. I totally get why someone would feel that way about him, but there's too much stuff piled up for me to get there.
brainchild
Banned
This is not about Bernie's platform itself. His ideologies are not even remotely revolutionary; they're being implemented in many industrialized countries all over the world in some way or another. This is also not purely about what the country would look like under these ideologies. That would simply be the look of progress.
This is about the means to attain these things. In this political climate, it might as well be impossible to accomplish this, even if Bernie was president. My point is that it would take nothing short of a revolution (nearly synonymous with 'miracle' in this context) for Bernie Sanders and his supporters to fully realize his vision by the end of his tenure as president, considering the statistical improbability of him doing so.
Anyway, you guys can argue the semantics of using the word 'revolution', but that really doesn't matter. Whether it's 'revolution' or 'divine intervention', the point is that being able to change the country around so quickly despite all obstacles that would seemingly make that impossible is not something that happens by conventional means.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked