• 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.
As long as no one questions his statistics this time the general will be good. It was beyond embarrassing watching some liberals try to spin and lie to themselves the dems would hold the senate despite it being clear from Nates numbers that was not going to happen in 2014.

I can't wait till we can get to that point. Following random polls is so haphazard.
The polling in 2014 ended up being pretty bad - I think even Nate's modeling showed Hagan and Orman winning.

It was that plus Udall and Begich actually keeping it pretty close that I was holding out hope for a Dem majority.
 

Iolo

Member
Reporter on Twitter: CNBC will cave to Trump's demands.

I suspect Trump wanted a shorter debate not necessarily because he was "scared" as Nate insinuated, but because he was physically "having a hard time tonight", to put a twist on his own words. By the end of the last debate he looked like he was hurting and leaning heavily against the podium.
 

pigeon

Banned
Meta was/is probably good for us even if we don't like him. Hopefully he's just banned until the end of the next SCOTUS session.
 
Meta was/is probably good for us even if we don't like him. Hopefully he's just banned until the end of the next SCOTUS session.

If I recall he actually had a lot of good insight into the implications of court decisions, so overall it is a loss. I could be mixing him up with someone though.
 
It's never good when things just become more of an echo-dome, but he was being extra gross. In the abstract, sure, political discourse and conversation can be stymied if people from opposing ideologies assume the other is morally bankrupt and undeserving of any interaction. But that's a far cry from what was actually going on there.

The idea that we always have to tailor our speech to accommodate the unjustified comfort of those most ignorant and adverse to our position is dumb. Why is the onus always on the marginalized and disadvantaged to operate under the unfair terms of the privileged and powerful, terms which by their nature serve to reinforce and defend the status quo? Why not say that the responsibility to learn and reach out lies with those in positions of power and influence? White America doesn't and shouldn't get to dictate the process by which they'll agree to eventually change their minds about race; that in of itself is racist (to say nothing of the fact that it doesn't do shit even when people follow that 'approved' process, it's just an excuse to justify inaction).
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Meta was/is probably good for us even if we don't like him. Hopefully he's just banned until the end of the next SCOTUS session.

His semantic and procedural arguments do work well when talking about law. He just needs to learn that semantic and procedural arguments don't work as well for casual political discussions.

I'm sure he'll be back before anything major in happens at SCOTUS.
 
Never get banned retro. I love your wit.
sJZe88C.jpg

Thx bruh i'll try
I used to troll the gaming side a lot.

Now I do it subtly and indiscriminately.
So what changed
 

Diablos

Member
gg Meta. I admired his passion in the King v. Burwell debate even though I fundamentally disagreed with him.

On other things he has stated, not much admiration whatsoever.

I'd love to see how he talks politics, law, and society in general on somewhere like 4chan. Oh boy.

Maybe he'll be back in 2016 when Trump v. Clinton is being decided by the SCOTUS.
 

Averon

Member
Going into a thread about racial politics with his posting style was always a recipe for disaster. I don't know why Meta thought that was a good idea.
 
gg Meta. I admired his passion in the King v. Burwell debate even though I fundamentally disagreed with him.

On other things he has stated, not much admiration whatsoever.

I'd love to see how he talks politics, law, and society in general on somewhere like 4chan. Oh boy.

Maybe he'll be back in 2016 when Trump v. Clinton is being decided by the SCOTUS.
Dunno why a 326-212 EV tally would go to SCOTUS
 
Meta's arguments in that thread are ridiculous.

Trying to paint "All Lives Matter" as an inclusive message - I mean, Jesus fucking Christ.

But hey, that fits in with his shtick. Words are words are words. To hell with context.

I can't imagine that was a permaban. He'll be back. And I genuinely hope that he does come back, because as irritating as I often find him, he's very much needed in this thread, IMO.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Honestly, the debates need a higher threshold. 2 hours is fine if there's 5 or 6 candidates rather than 10 or 11.

It should be Trump, Carson, Rubio, Jeb!, Cruz and maybe Fiorina.

Then put everyone else in debate #2. Let that one bit the big one.

Time for opening and closing statements and the debate in 2 hours this way.
I already figured this out, you guys need to start printing out my posts and studying them until they're muscle memory:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=181615791&postcount=7453 said:
So CNBC announced their debate criteria earlier which could lead to a limbo for one candidate in a debate. At the time Rand Paul was in the position. They set 2.5+% for the first debate, 1-2.4% for the second tier. Paul at the time was at 2.3%.

Now Paul has moved up to 2.7% and Christie is down to 1.9%.

If they were willing to kick out Graham and Pataki they could actually do two tiers of six.

Trump-Carson-Rubio-Fiorina-Bush-Cruz
Kasich-Huckabee-Paul-Christie-Jindal-Santorum

They could also flip either of those last two for whoever of the Jindal/Santorum/Graham/Pataki battle for less than 1% leads. Or just have an eight-man second tier I suppose.

I think the five-person debate showed how much more was available with fewer candidates, IIRC Trump got something like 15 minutes in the CNN debate, Clinton and Sanders got twice that amount, Webb and O'Malley got more, and even 0.0% Chafee got almost 10 minutes.

Fox Business should consider doing it like that for their debate if CNBC isn't willing to change criteria. (And if they aren't THEY BETTER have the one-person debate.)
 

ivysaur12

Banned
I used to troll the gaming side a lot.

Now I do it subtly and indiscriminately.

Also started posting here when I was 15 so there was a lot of built in immaturity.

I also started when I was 15. I keep my trolling light and harmless! And mostly in communities who would know me.

Ben Jacobs
‏@Bencjacobs
Jim Gilmore's fundraising report is in. He's raised 60k and loaned himself 43k, spent 71k and has 35k on hand.

go gilmore go
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
I used to troll the gaming side a lot.

Now I do it subtly and indiscriminately.

Also started posting here when I was 15 so there was a lot of built in immaturity.

Lol, I hear that. I was 15 when I started posting here, now looking back, I have been on GAF more than half my life! Where does the time go?
 
If you want to positively reference All Lives Matter the safest way to do so would be something like "we should all be working towards a day where All Lives Matter, as MLK did when he envisioned a day when his children would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. But we aren't there yet, because all lives clearly don't matter right now."
 

benjipwns

Banned
Lindsey Graham: Democratic Debate “Made Me Sick”
“It made me sick,” Graham, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, said when asked by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council’s Washington Watch radio show.

“It makes me feel so sad that the Democratic Party has dropped so far when it comes to defending the nation,” Graham continued.

Singling out the Democratic presidential contenders as weak isolationists, Graham said America’s enemies would be hoping the Democrats took the White House.

“If I were ISIL, the ayatollah, Assad I would be pulling for the Democrats because their foreign policy is leading further from behind than Obama,” Graham said. “Bernie Sanders would shut down the NSA program so we couldn’t detect the next terrorist attack. Everybody had an isolationist, disengagement policy regarding radical islam.”
 
Lol, I hear that. I was 15 when I started posting here, now looking back, I have been on GAF more than half my life! Where does the time go?
Who knows, man. I mean that's not half my life (I'm 24) but it's been a crazy nine years.

Honestly I'm surprised I even got an account here. I have a friend who registered years ago (before I did) and still hasn't been approved.

Lindsey Graham said:
"Bernie Sanders would shut down the NSA program so we couldn't detect the next terrorist attack"

Yeah because they did such a great job of that 14 years ago
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
2006 here. I can't imagine what this place would have been like in 1999.

Let's just say, it was A Lot different. For one, there wasn't two forms, just a mishmash of every topic, flying by at lightning speed. We had gif avatars and signatures and it wasn't PC at all. Sometimes, I miss those days. We would get raided by trolls who would spam goatse and other garbage constantly, but it was fun.
 
Building a campaign infrastructure is expensive. Same reason that Biden getting in now is pretty
much nonsense.

Everyone wants to run the Obama playbook from 2012 but they don't have the ability to consistently draw in new money. Also the Pres never had to go on the air. Its what killed Walker, is hurting Jeb!, and will be a problem for HRC if Sanders stays strong.
 
Trump's campaign manager on why he should be punched in the dick repeatedly:

“When you think about it, fundamentally, people say okay, if you want to leave your country and you’re a healthy male maybe between the age of 18 and 35, why are you leaving you country to go to another country,” Lewandowski said this week on the John Fredericks Show. “I can’t imagine anyone from our country doing that. We would see our men, double down, support their country, make sure that we continue to have the greatest country in the world.”

And, so [Trump] raised the issue, ‘hey are these the refugees that we are gonna be taking in,” Do we really need 200,000 additional Syrians coming to our country. Why don’t they stay and fight for their own country as opposed to us putting our troops over there, fighting for them. Maybe there’s something fundamentally wrong with that.’”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczy...ricans-wouldnt-flee-as-refugees-li#.slYGkXMl1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom