• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Did you watch the first debate? Carson struggles to put together coherent sentences under the spotlight, let alone any kind of pressure or scrutiny.

He made it out alive only because he was ignored. No one had any expectations for him, so a well timed joke led to favorable impressions of what otherwise was an absolutely miserable showing.

Carson no longer has that luxury and his numbers are going to crater after the second debate, attacked or not.

Edit: as for evangelicals Huckabee had that crew locked up in 2008. That crew is hyper regional and irrelevant outside of the south. All it was good for was spoiling Romney's primary strategy before getting steamrolled by McCain of all people.

I agree about Carson not being able to debate, but why in the world are you using anything from previous knowledge of elections here? Things are clearly changing. Over 50% of the GOP voters don't want a politician. Nothing makes sense any more. Carson is a doctor that refuses to admit health care before ACA was becoming a huge problem, a black republican, refuses to admit there is systemic racism, and hates Obama. That is more than enough to make today's GOP love him. He not only "made it out alive" of that debate--his popularity skyrocketed.
 
I kind of hope Biden runs just to see how Bernie supporters react to Sanders instantly plunging in the polls.

That will never happen sadly. Numbers say is Hillary who will suffer the most from Biden running. He will reach 2nd place as soon as he runs (put of media awareness and coverage) but in the long run Biden will make Sanders win many states that otherwise he wouldn't.
 
That will never happen sadly. Numbers say is Hillary who will suffer the most from Biden running. He will reach 2nd place as soon as he runs (put of media awareness and coverage) but in the long run Biden will make Sanders win many states that otherwise he wouldn't.

Oh, so Sanders is beating Biden, too?

That's fun.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
That will never happen sadly. Numbers say is Hillary who will suffer the most from Biden running. He will reach 2nd place as soon as he runs (put of media awareness and coverage) but in the long run Biden will make Sanders win many states that otherwise he wouldn't.

How will that happen exactly? Biden running isn't going to improve Bernie's numbers with minority voters, which is something that needs to happen if he wants to be at play anywhere in the South. No matter what happens he needs to fix his demographic problem if he wants a path to the nomination, Biden jumping in won't do it for him.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Biden can recapture the enthusiasm Clinton has lost a little. But Sanders is riding a different wave of political hype. I can see many primaries results being triple 30s splits if Biden runs.

This completely ignores Bernie's demographic problem. In the last South Carolina poll I saw Hillary was sitting at about 60, Biden at 25-ish and Bernie couldn't even pull 10. That's down to his demographic issue. He's doing well where he is because both Iowa and NH are predominantly white, once you start adding some diversity to the electorate he starts seeing issues as he has been unable to appeal to minority voters. There's room for Clinton and Biden to go 12 rounds in the South without Bernie even factoring into the equation.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I think Jindal wants Trump to blow up his campaign just like he did Rand's.

You act like Trump even knows who he is. It would be funny if his response was, "who is this guy, if he's going to talk like this he should run instead of sitting on the sideline."
 
Gonna see the veep
aoW7QMYh.jpg
 

dramatis

Member
Hold your camera steady, NYCmetsfan.


I was randomly surfing news when this article popped up.

Hostage held by Islamists underscores China's struggle with militants
“Although the burden of international terrorism has now shifted from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to Syria and Iraq,” he added, “China still faces a sustained threat, because several hundred Chinese — several hundred Uighurs — have traveled [to these areas], they have received training in terrorism, and they have joined" militant groups such as Islamic State and the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra front.

Uighurs, who are often denied passports by Chinese authorities, are increasingly leaving the country via human smuggling routes through southern China’s Yunnan and Guangxi provinces into Southeast Asia.

Early this month, Thai authorities announced that several Chinese citizens from Xinjiang may have perpetrated a bombing at a Bangkok shrine in August that killed 20 people, including five mainland Chinese and two Hong Kong tourists.
I wasn't aware that China's internal problems led to some serious terrorism issues on their front.
 
Gotta say I kinda agree. The anti-Israel sentiment on GAF goes too far sometimes, IMO.
I wasn't really making a comment on that but just that it wasn't a threat. It sounds like something liberal Israelis and one staters say. It's a

I dont share that view and support two states (or a federated one state) but its annoying to see people intentionally misconstrue his words. I mean we translate polticial speech when our guys do it but we can't do the same with foreign leaders when we can war monger. The media needs to be more responsible around this stuff.
 
Carson questions Trump's faith:

And Trump responds:

Things are getting good.

It's all that darn media's fault!

Ben Carson calls for truce after spat with Donald Trump

By Thursday morning, Carson was dialing down his rhetoric -- and blaming the whole episode on the media.

"The media frequently wants to goad people into wars, into gladiator fights, you know," Carson, a Seventh Day Adventist, told The Washington Post. "And I'm certainly not going to get into that."

"Everyone is going to be saying, 'Oh there's a big fight, everyone come watch the fight,'" he said. "But it's just not going to be as great as they think, because I'm not going to participate."
 

pigeon

Banned
What does his religion have to do with that article?

It is pretty funny how they shove that into the second-to-last paragraph. "Oh, crap, we forgot to mention he's part of a weird cult!"

I think the justification is that the original argument between the two was based on religion.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/09/us/politics/lawmakers-against-iran-nuclear-deal.html

Wtf is the "Jewish column" and percentage jewish? This is pretty damn outrageous. The vast majority of opposition is Non-Jewish republicans!

But got to insinuate that is those disloyal Jews (some of whom support the deal and are critical of Israel!) who are behind the opposition even though theyre not. Never mind the majority of Jewish senators supporting the deal!

Well that's super fucking creepy. BRB, moving to Canada before they start handing out the patches again.
 
The takeaway I got from this is wow, Jewish people aggressively cluster by county. I had no idea, although I guess I probably should have.
Yeah, well the culture tends to need a lot of specialized support (kosher stores, synagogues, cultural institutions) which kind of enforces this. It's not easy to transplant.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
That's what it is though. Its a fools game to try to stop something that has the votes to pass.

How do you figure? Suppose the Republicans are successful in forcing the president to give them the IAEA side agreement, and that it turns out to be as bad as the AP was reporting last month. You don't think there are any Democrats in Congress who might change how they vote, given such information?
 

ivysaur12

Banned
How do you figure? Suppose the Republicans are successful in forcing the president to give them the IAEA side agreement, and that it turns out to be as bad as the AP was reporting last month. You don't think there are any Democrats in Congress who might change how they vote, given such information?

No, and even if that were the case (which I don't think it is, but that's not really the discussion at hand), there's absolutely no way that enough Democrats would change their vote to be able to override a veto, so it's a moot point.

There isn't a path forward where the Republicans can win on this deal's passage.
 
How do you figure? Suppose the Republicans are successful in forcing the president to give them the IAEA side agreement, and that it turns out to be as bad as the AP was reporting last month. You don't think there are any Democrats in Congress who might change how they vote, given such information?
The US doesn't have them! They're not party to them. It's like asking for a japan and south Korea's secret agreements. They're not ours.

And the bolded is clearly trolling as I posted a few weeks ago. And no I don't. The side deals aren't controversial and don't change anything material about the deal
 

pigeon

Banned
How do you figure? Suppose the Republicans are successful in forcing the president to give them the IAEA side agreement, and that it turns out to be as bad as the AP was reporting last month. You don't think there are any Democrats in Congress who might change how they vote, given such information?

Which time? The original story, or the one where they edited out most of the stuff from the first story?

haaretz said:
A few hours after AP released the initial details of the agreement, a revised report emerged overwriting some of the more troubling issues pertaining to the inspection of Parchin.

For instance, the news agency removed from its report the claim that it was Iranian scientists themselves who would be inspecting the air and soil samples at Parchin, rather than UN inspectors. It also removed the claim that the number of air and soil samples taken from within suspected nuclear sites would be limited to seven.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.672049

In either case, though, there are no particular reasons to care about the Parchin inspections, since it's a dead site and the only reason the IAEA's checking it out is to verify Iran's self-reporting about their nuclear program. So no, I don't really think it will change any votes.

What parts of the IAEA side deal do you think would change opinions, exactly?
 
Should be even less concerned about the kinda crap that comes out from the ayatollah's mouth than from what comes outta bibi's.
 
Name a single part of that post that has any relevance to the Iowa poll.
Just moving goal posts as usual

It's perfectly relevant in the sense that picking and choosing polls is the definition of spin. Her average lead against Sanders with this poll included on RCP is still +11. That's a fact but Erasure is holding this poll as sacrosanct. Why is that?

If we wanna get into the game of singling out polls instead then Sanders is in 3rd place according to a single poll. Once again, perfectly relevant FACTS being presented to what was a pretty disingenuous post to begin with.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
What does his religion have to do with that article?

I agree. I found it odd.

It is pretty funny how they shove that into the second-to-last paragraph. "Oh, crap, we forgot to mention he's part of a weird cult!"

I think the justification is that the original argument between the two was based on religion.

SDAs are basically a heterodox version of Christianity, not a cult. Carson is still crazy, though.

As for his comments, blaming the media seems to be the clear go-to for any GOP politician.
 

Crisco

Banned
Which time? The original story, or the one where they edited out most of the stuff from the first story?



http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.672049

In either case, though, there are no particular reasons to care about the Parchin inspections, since it's a dead site and the only reason the IAEA's checking it out is to verify Iran's self-reporting about their nuclear program. So no, I don't really think it will change any votes.

What parts of the IAEA side deal do you think would change opinions, exactly?

The one's they've imagined.
 
Should be even less concerned about the kinda crap that comes out from the ayatollah's mouth than from what comes outta bibi's.
In the end, Ayatollah is just pumping rhetoric and hot air. Good number of Iranians distrust America and rightly so. We overthrew their democratic government, installed a corrupt sleazebag, shot down their passenger airline (never apologized), gave ammo to Saddam to fight them and on top of all that dropped sanctions on them in a decade long debilitating war. If I were an Iranian I would be skeptical as fuck too. Khamenie is trying to reassure the hardliners by saying look guys, this nuclear deal is nothing. Important thing to remember is Israel sucks.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
So I'm waiting for my friend so we can claim our tickets, he isn't responding to texts but that's not what this I about, and there's a guy with a draft Biden sign. It's gonna be one of those shows I guess.
 
So I'm waiting for my friend so we can claim our tickets, he isn't responding to texts but that's not what this I about, and there's a guy with a draft Biden sign. It's gonna be one of those shows I guess.

I expect a post within seconds if he decides to run. You are now our reporter in the field.
 

Bowdz

Member
Ugh, fuck this guy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/john-boehner-barack-obama-sue-iran-nuclear-deal-213496

Speaker John Boehner said Thursday he might sue President Barack Obama again.

The Ohio Republican said Obama has not turned over the entirety of the Iran agreement for congressional review as mandated by law. Boehner said legal action is “an option that’s very possible.”

“If you read the provisions in [the congressional review law], it’s pretty clear that the president has not complied,” Boehner said Thursday during his weekly news conference. “Because it makes clear that any side agreements and any other type of an agreement — including those that do not directly involve us — must be turned over as part of it. I do not believe that he’s complied.”

The speaker said the agreement is "worse than anything I could’ve ever imagined."

House Republicans have a pending lawsuit against Obamacare, which a judge ruled this week can proceed.

Congress lacks the votes to stop the Iran agreement, but a lawsuit is one way for Boehner to prolong the fight over the nuclear accord. The House will vote Thursday and Friday on several pieces of legislation related to the pact, including an up-or-down vote on approving the deal, and another to rebuke Obama for not submitting so-called side deals between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran. The agreement will be in place by Sept. 17.

Boehner also said the House might vote on disapproving the agreement, a move that would bring it in line with the Senate, which is set to vote Thursday on whether to proceed on a measure to disapprove of the pact.

I have a love/hate relationship with election season. I hate it because of assholes like Boehner and Cruz, and I love it because my squat PR continues to go through the roof with all of this material to get me pissed off and hyped up to lift. Brb, watching Ed Henry be a dick and set a new squat PR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom