T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Just found more evidence to support teiresias's point.
They sure are desperate.
They sure are desperate.
-
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
RustyNails
Member
Yes, but he wants to come to speakership from a position of strength. Meaning, he wants the freedom nuts fall in line for vote without him talking to them during when they will inevitably bring out their list of hostage demands.
I highly doubt they will entertain Paul Ryan, especially when their ouster of two speakers is their biggest "you better talk to us" moment.
I understand the President's reasoning and respect his decision, but I'm inclined to agree with you. Fareed Zakaria had a great segment on Afghanistan last week talking about how nothing will change in the country until Pakistan truly becomes cooperative. Among many, many issues Pakistan presents, the very porous nature of the Afghan/Pakistan border and the tribal loyalties that exist in the Pashtun region have allowed (and will continue to allow) the Taliban and their supporters to hide or pullback for as long as it take for the US to leave. It is a very similar situation to Iraq where despite the initial success of the surge in 2007, one could tell that none of the pre-existing ethnic tensions that had exacerbated the civil war had been effectively dealt with and that extremist groups would attempt to destabilize the country as soon as the US left. IMO, this is a primary problem for stability in the ME in general: in many countries, there is greater loyalty to one's ethnic/religious/tribal group than to the national government (and who can blame people when their governments are generally corrupt, brutalistic dictatorships) which makes fighting for one's country or establishing political institutions that gain legitimacy next to impossible. We can stabilize countries through our intervention, but is it really worth the cost? Our only strategic interest with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan is preventing terrorist from establishing safe havens from which they can launch large scale terrorist operations and our solution to that has (correctly) been to tighten security upon entrance into the US which nullifies much of our concern in being overseas.
Sadly, I think the President's decision is more of an insurance policy for 2016 than sound long term policy: i.e. it is better to keep troops in and deal with the policy repercussions later than to pull them out as Afghanistan collapses during a presidential election.
Poodlestrike
Banned
It's easy to argue that all we're doing is "delaying the inevitable," but what about all the people whose lives get dramatically worse when we leave? Women are getting involved in politics for the first time there, going to school for the first time in decades. What happens to them? Things may be getting better very, very slowly, but they do seem to be getting better. Just dropping it and washing out hands of the issue is incredibly irresponsible, just because the blowback on us is likely to be minimal.
And good luck addressing the systematic issues in the region when the people in charge suddenly support perpetuating those issues.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'm watching the mets game so I'll respond later. But I just read Jerry Jones have money to Christie. Dude loved backing disappointments
FloydtheFathead
Member
Jerruh gonna jerruh
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
My mom is an anti-feminist populist Republican and it's been illuminating to hear how she went from liking Carly Fiorina after the Planned Parenthood lie at the debates to hating her after learning that she cut off contact with her ex and realizing that she was a woman who did a terrible job as CEO. I feel like it's a similar arc to a lot of Republican voters who were initially attracted to Fiorina after the CNN debate.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't know your mom but seriously anti-feminist women are the worst.
Especially the ones who are like "We don't need feminism anymore because we already have equality!" First of all no, second of all who got that equality, oh yeah feminists.
It's like when corporations argue we don't need unions because many of the things unions fought for are now standard law. Or when Rand Paul argues we don't need desegregation laws because America is now desegregated, thanks to desegregation laws.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Racists have stuff to say
Check out @KevinNR's Tweet: https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/655915418373124096?s=09That
I love how they really can't come to grips with the southern strategy
Check out @KevinNR's Tweet: https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/655915418373124096?s=09That
I love how they really can't come to grips with the southern strategy
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The GOP is so not racist that 5% of black voters support the GOP.
I wonder if they believe their shit or not... I think the National Review actually does considering how easily offended they are. People just playing a role don't care about insults to the role.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Which is bullshit. The laws for employment ate extremely week.
omg, yes. Speaker Dent ftw. It's the best we can hope for.Just found more evidence to support teiresias's point.
They sure are desperate.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I agree with you, just recalling very specific talking points from training videos at Target and Sam's Club.
Saw Wal-Mart is doing terribly - good, let's burn those motherfuckers down
I agree with you (I kind of want to see it happen just for the lolz and GOP meltdowns, knowing full well that not much can get accomplished beyond basic governance) but I really don't know if it'll happen. Any GOPer who supports this, even if the consensus pick is a Republican, is ripe for a primary challenge. And Democrats would need to extract some serious concessions from the GOP to back one of them as Speaker.Diablos said:
Who knows how this is all going to go down, though. Doubt Ryan's gonna get it if his condition is the Freedom Caucus can't muck things up, considering the Freedom Caucus mucking things up is exactly why the GOP is in this situation.
Coriolanus
Banned
Hrmmm... eh. While he hasn't been responsible for the conditions that gave rise to it, the man has had the run of the place for quite a long time now, with nothing but bin laden's skull to show for it and that was in pakistan, so... yeah.
A somewhat permanent solution will most likely only be found once the administration swallows its pride and cuts a deal with the taliban. Obviously admitting to that while on the campaign trail would be suicide.
And if you lived in a country where anti-deforestation legislation got passed all the time, you'd hear the brand new thing: we shouldn't keep all those trees around when the economy is in trouble. Although if memory serves, Gore had to hear something akin to that related to owls.
Ain't no one messing with carbon footprint reductions while we breaking 38ºc in spring tho.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Honestly, I meant more the "creating the conditions" thing, up to and including the withdrawal (which was basically equivalent to suddenly increasing the oxygen supply to a smoldering fire).
I don't think that cutting a deal with the Taliban is a thing that I could support. Not unless the deal is basically "you sick SOBs are going to treat your people like any civilized nation is expected to," which is barely something the US can do, let alone convince a bunch of violent religious lunatics to abide by.
No shit, Boehner would love to be Speaker too if he could just pretend the Freedom Caucus didn't exist.
I don't see this going anywhere.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Finally, just four more weeks of Biden speculation (at the bare minimum).
Bill Kristol anti-profit again:
https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/655584572554498048
Coriolanus
Banned
Indeed. Alas, whataboutism, beggars, choosers.
Oops, they spilled the beans. Biden doesn't want to run against Clinton, he just wants people to remember he's there if Clinton starts falling apart.
Somebody's going to be mad that they leaked the master plan!
shinra-bansho
Member
The will he won't he has kind of reached farcical levels now. Diamond Joe seems like a swell guy and I get that he's grieving, but this degree of dithering is probably an indication you shouldn't be running. There seems to be no upside at this stage for a Biden run.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This is getting sad
He is the incumbent VP of the United States and his party. He has the privilege of time.
Aaron Strife
Banned
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Not gonna lie, most of the stuff against trade deals complaining about copyright and videogames/movies makes me want to support these deals out of spite.
Talk about being concerned about the wrong things.
I don't know what this means.
If Biden really had the privilege of time he wouldn't be spinning this never-ending decision process. He'd just hang out and wait and come in on a motorcycle if Hillary got indicted.
The fact that he keeps sending out media beats is clear evidence that he feels he needs to or he'll lose his window.
Yeah its becoming a joke now. He seems so emotional which is understandable given the circumstances but my gosh you knew years ago you wanted to run or should have known. He never did anything between 2013 & now. Hillary did not either but it had to have been obvious given the closeness of 08 that she not him the party would turn to.
pigeon: well his time runs out logistically starting October 29th with Georgia.
shinra-bansho
Member
I mean if Clinton implodes any time between now up to and including voting at the convention I fully expect the party to turn to him. But it's looking increasingly unlikely.
And I'm less convinced now that he'd bounce into second on announcing.
If he does run he'd be doing so either implicitly or explicitly because of her being regularly on Scandalmakers. I don't see how that helps his party when he ultimately (imo) will lose.
From a practical standpoint Clinton and Sanders have around $30M cash in bank, and the former has already staffed up and built widespread infrastructure. The well-heeled monied elite are already giving to Hillary and I don't see Biden managing to leverage new vehicles as Sanders does for small donations. And in a couple weeks Biden starts missing filing deadlines.
How much has Draft Biden even managed to raise?
And I'm less convinced now that he'd bounce into second on announcing.
If he does run he'd be doing so either implicitly or explicitly because of her being regularly on Scandalmakers. I don't see how that helps his party when he ultimately (imo) will lose.
From a practical standpoint Clinton and Sanders have around $30M cash in bank, and the former has already staffed up and built widespread infrastructure. The well-heeled monied elite are already giving to Hillary and I don't see Biden managing to leverage new vehicles as Sanders does for small donations. And in a couple weeks Biden starts missing filing deadlines.
How much has Draft Biden even managed to raise?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/biden-draft-214625
According to this article, their goal is to raise $3 million before Biden gets in.
I think we will have an even clearer picture of the political calculus after Thursday's Benghazi hearing. If Clinton nails it like she did in 2013 and the debate, I don't think there will be any chance of Biden taking a significant portion of her voters. If she gets beaten down by the Republicans, who knows if her post-debate sheen will start to dissipate again.
More Biden dump courtesy of Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/18/source-biden-calling-top-dems-about-2016-ambitions-decision-not-imminent/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/18/source-biden-calling-top-dems-about-2016-ambitions-decision-not-imminent/
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._school_workers_from_showing_up_for_jobs.html
I fucking hate racists, fucking christ.
Personal property is not the same as private property.
Your computer, TV etc. are personal property, socialism does not aim to abolish your right to own such things.
Private property is when you leverage your capital to derive wealth from the labor of others. And while those people might be compensated, they are not entitled to the profits made from that property through their work. Socialism sees this arrangement as inherently unfair and this is what it aims to abolish. The idea is to replace it by community owned means of production (and more specifically, though not exclusively, the workers).
And if we circle back to the question about why welfare isn't socialism that's exactly it, the main tenant of socialism is workers (or more broadly the community) own the means of production and derive the fruits of their labor, as opposed to people with capital who are doing so. Welfare is not directly related to the question of who own the means of production.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Ouch. This all feels like it's really falling apart.
Oh shit, this Benghazi hearing is going to be a hoot. I'm going to have to take that day off work.
Retromelon
Member
You need a term that doesn't frighten people off your message, like how global warming became climate change and liberal became progressive, (hate that word). Production inequality? Profit predation...
lol.
Edit: I actually do like the term "profit predation"; I don't think i've heard it before (and also my computer is telling me it's not a real word). We already have words for that action, like exploitation and theft -- but neither of those are neutral.
Edit 2: you have a way with words.
I used to think like this, but fuck staying in the middle east. We've had 14 years to get it right in Afghanistan, what's to say we don't still have Americans dying there in 14 more years if we stay until we can get it right? At some point, we have to accept the fact that we can't change a culture over the course of a few years and move on.
It's also why we should be staying out of Iraq and Syria. Let them sort their own problems out. America needs to get out and stay out of the middle east.
As if Hillary needed any more ammo going into her hearing.
hoooooly shit
It's pointless to play that game, people who oppose to essence of the socialism (or liberalism or whatever) will just vilify the next term you pick. In the end, you end up constantly on the defensive and look like you lack strong convictions.
With that being said, I think socialists did a terrible job explaining that concept, there's a lot of people out there who are not inherently hostile to the concept of socialism who believes that socialism means that you can't own a DVD player.
But I think the move is to better articulate the position, which I think many people will support, rather than try to play terminology whack a mole.
DOWN
Banned
Having just watched the debate in full finally...
Honestly, it surprises me that people feel there is realistic substance to Bernie as a candidate (though it seems his landslide polling only happens on social media among people who aren't active in the primaries whatsoever). He sounds as revolutionary and broad as a high school class president with a good attitude. Break up the banks, make college tuition free, no combat, expand social security benefits and medicare. Nice things, but he rarely gets more specific for me to believe he realizes how monumentally different America would look in several measures after all that compared to now or a few years ago. They are incredible challenges in my mind, so his promises seem to lack any sort of reality check.
Then Hillary, albeit a notoriously calculated politician, comes in with this specific managerial tone when she responds to Bernie 'give regulators power to break up at-risk banks' 'make college tuition free by lowering university costs and developing reasonable work programs for students' 'enable coalitions for conflict and a no-fly zone in syria' 'focus on improving social security for its poor and struggling recipients'. She made sure to include the specific limitation of those changes, which are the reality check I was noticing.
It seems like she is a bit less naive in knowing you don't promise to break up the banks, make tuition free, expand social security benefits across the board, don't engage internationally.
Sanders and O'Mally sound like VPs or lower in this debate.
Honestly, it surprises me that people feel there is realistic substance to Bernie as a candidate (though it seems his landslide polling only happens on social media among people who aren't active in the primaries whatsoever). He sounds as revolutionary and broad as a high school class president with a good attitude. Break up the banks, make college tuition free, no combat, expand social security benefits and medicare. Nice things, but he rarely gets more specific for me to believe he realizes how monumentally different America would look in several measures after all that compared to now or a few years ago. They are incredible challenges in my mind, so his promises seem to lack any sort of reality check.
Then Hillary, albeit a notoriously calculated politician, comes in with this specific managerial tone when she responds to Bernie 'give regulators power to break up at-risk banks' 'make college tuition free by lowering university costs and developing reasonable work programs for students' 'enable coalitions for conflict and a no-fly zone in syria' 'focus on improving social security for its poor and struggling recipients'. She made sure to include the specific limitation of those changes, which are the reality check I was noticing.
It seems like she is a bit less naive in knowing you don't promise to break up the banks, make tuition free, expand social security benefits across the board, don't engage internationally.
Sanders and O'Mally sound like VPs or lower in this debate.
I don't take debates too seriously, but if you look at Sanders' actual platform you'll see he's specific and not all that radical.
Look at his college tuition proposal as an example (since you mentioned it) -
Specific, actionable, not radical at all and something that I think a pretty big majority of population would support.
shinra-bansho
Member
Is that new? I don't think it was there the last time I had a look at his issues page, shortly after the debate.
Larry David was kind of right about the webpage.
Policy releases seem to be randomly inserted and or updated into existing pages without any changelog. It's good that more detail is being added, but it's impossible to tell what's new.
(Clinton's page has its own problems, namely, that her policy release pages seem to be disconnected from her main page - with no navigational links between. EDIT: oh there is a link, it's just a bit non-obvious)
Larry David was kind of right about the webpage.
Policy releases seem to be randomly inserted and or updated into existing pages without any changelog. It's good that more detail is being added, but it's impossible to tell what's new.
(Clinton's page has its own problems, namely, that her policy release pages seem to be disconnected from her main page - with no navigational links between. EDIT: oh there is a link, it's just a bit non-obvious)
DOWN
Banned
Yeah that's better but for myself (who basically stick to debates/interviews/speeches until we get into the last couple of month's before the actual election) his own presentation is important and I'm not surprised that even Webb remarked during the debate "Bernie I don't think the revolution is gonna come and I don't think the Congress is going to pay for a lot of this stuff." Bernie has a complete overhaul for everything. Even getting specific like that site, it seems unmanageably unchecked in his own presentation.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked