Just don't get him started on Michelle and Barack's relationship or his Hillary/Barack fan fiction.
-
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
It's coming. But Sanders will be there in it as well.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
That Republican thread was pretty embarrassing and proved the OP correct, as ModBot pointed out.
Which is a real shame, as GAF could use more viewpoints.
Which is a real shame, as GAF could use more viewpoints.
I am reading it now. What happened?
DOWN
Banned
Not on civil rights
Jk
?
Summed up, "GAF is not wrong, GAF is just an asshole"
PhoenixDark
Banned
Why wouldn't most Americans view his presidency as a fuck up? The vast majority think we're on the wrong track, economic confidence is down, wages are stagnant, and Obama has no domestic victories that most people appreciate or even like.
Rubio would be a change in direction, and most people want that. Sure he offers conservative nonsense but most people are looking at the economy and feel things aren't much better. Young people are worse off, black unemployment is higher than it was under Bush, college is more expensive, etc...
I don't really think political momentum is a thing. Pundits love to talk about it but I don't really see where the force comes from that allows a poll number in motion to stay in motion. I think people just get addicted to trendlines.
I think that Sanders winning Iowa and NH will help create a positive media narrative for him, which will matter inasmuch as you think he's losing to Hillary because of the media narrative. (Which is at least partially true -- you can look at Hillary's improvement after the debate and during Benghazi week as being heavily due to spin, because nothing really happened.)
Sanders winning won't change the fundamentals, it will only change the conversation. That will give him a boost, but we've already seen what an extensive "Hillary in disarray/Sanders ascendant" narrative looks like, and it didn't do much for him in the Super Tuesday states. So I don't really see why this one would be that significantly different.
C'mon.
Because he currently has a 51% approval rating vs 45% disapproval rating?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...its-an-18-month-high-is-back-over-50-percent/
Why would your view his presidency as a fuck up and approve of the job he's doing?
Aaron Strife
Banned
Forget it Konka, it's PD
Jeez Carson is tearing up in new Iowa polls. Also a Kentucky poll has Conway leading by 5 and Charlie Cook moved Louisiana to a tossup.
Fenderputty
Banned
He's just warming up for national election.
RustyNails
Member
Economic confidence, GDP, Manufacturing Index, Retail Index, and all other economic indicators suggest the economy is back to normal. Fed is just figuring out the right time to pull all the inflationary spending out, because we don't need it anymore. I think wages and salaries will continue to stay low because we entered the same 80's situation where corporation is king and greed is good. It sucks because no one cares to keep up with inflation except the fed.
Aaron Strife
Banned
No you're wrong, everyone knows the economy is terrible. Everyone.
The only good economy left is Rick Snyder's (Walker RIP)
Real unemployment is like 30%
We've gotta unskew these polls
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I agree, but when somebody states that they have some conservative views, it seems that the initial reaction is to fish for some that are unpalatable and stress that.
Essentially. And, GAF is happy to generalize.*
*Irony noted.
Black Republican
Member
Iowa is weird
Monmouth U- Iowa Poll
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32...1087/58019993-0901-4917-9afa-39e6fd4b748f.pdf
Monmouth U- Iowa Poll
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32...1087/58019993-0901-4917-9afa-39e6fd4b748f.pdf
I mean, we do have a problem with conservative posters getting dogpiled. I will note that a lot of the most fervent dogpilers are people who don't actually post in PoliGAF -- this just demonstrates the importance of challenging crazy people on your own side so that they don't end up representing you.
I think the idea of people "trying to get you banned" is a bizarre trope that's been hanging around forever. If I wanted to try to get somebody banned I wouldn't post in the thread taunting him, I would just, you know, send PMs saying "you should ban this guy." When you get dogpiled it's really easy to get tilted, say something stupid and get banned, but that's kind of on you. Mods definitely don't look for dogpiles to ban people, though. If anything they go in and model reasonable conversation. If your posts are racist or anti-GLBT you'll probably catch a ban for that regardless of the dogpile. If your posts are misogynistic you've got a little more leeway.
As a Catholic I am sympathetic to the feeling that there are a bunch of threads about stuff you conceivably care about that you really just can't post in because there are a lot of people not interested in productive conversation. It's frustrating! But at the same time, like, I understand that the brand is tarnished and I try to engage in conversations about the values rather than the stuff that's just going to end up in conflict.
I was going to post in that thread, before it got locked, that it's important to talk about policies rather than labels, since "conservative" and "liberal" are pretty different outside of the US. I remember a conversation a while back where somebody claimed to be a libertarian and wanted to shrink government to the minimum necessary agencies. I said "well, what about people needing food to eat tho." It became clear that he was from Australia and when he said minimum necessary agencies he was including a welfare state significantly stronger than the one America currently has. You might put this on me for assuming that a libertarian would be against welfare but frankly it sounds like a vocabulary problem to me.
I also think the "sure, I voted for a guy who's against gay marriage but I voted for him because of the economy" argument is fundamentally specious, but since the thread is locked I'll let it go.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Looks like he's up to no good.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Part of it is that the number of people who vote in caucuses is tiny compared to even one state so even small changes in the race have an outside impact.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
It's realty not, though. If you think that a) gay marriage is inevitable and the candidate won't have an impact there or b) you just don't care about that issue more than economic issues, then that's a reasonable stance.
It's not quite a parallel, but I voted for a guy using drone strikes which I'm fairly against.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
He looks happy and relieved in a way that a guy who's surrendered to the inevitable might look.
Edwards is pro-gun pro-life etc and I am still voting for him in the runoff against Vitter so there is that.
Check his pockets for skittles and a drink.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
The other problem is that dogpiles are just the inherent nature of an unbalanced forum, there doesn't even need to be bad intentions for it to happen. Someone posts a minority opinion. The majority of posters disagree with said opinion and that means the majority of people want to make their feelings known even if it's not constructive. You don't need fifty people responding to every single post from the alternative side, it just muddles the thread and makes it impossible for the other person to feel like they can have a real dialogue. But it's hard to argue and even harder to internalize (guilty as charged here) that, "hey I know everyone wants a say in this, but if we limit ourselves to just 2-3 people responding, we'll probably get a more mature and structured dialogue out of this." Nobody wants to think their contribution is irrelevant or unhelpful.
But you still see it all the time even when people troll or post something outrageous, because everyone feels compelled to quote it and point out how dumb it is, thus making it show up on page after page and completely derailing the thread. I'm much more frustrated when this happens because people should know that's exactly what the poster wanted to happen and they're playing right into it.
But you still see it all the time even when people troll or post something outrageous, because everyone feels compelled to quote it and point out how dumb it is, thus making it show up on page after page and completely derailing the thread. I'm much more frustrated when this happens because people should know that's exactly what the poster wanted to happen and they're playing right into it.
I realize why it sucks to get dogpiled, but why does that turn into a "liberals are mean" thing. This is a forum. People all separately express their opinions. How do we figure out who gets the exclusive contract to discuss something with a specific poster? A lot of times what probably happens is that people see the post, hit reply and then while they're typing their reply a few other people respond too. Why is that mean?
theprodigy
Member
That's a lot easier when the other option is a far worse pro-gun, pro-life politician.
I'll give you a) for the moment, although I'm not 100% on it, but b) is what I really think is wrong.
Let's say you vote for candidate X because you agree with him on the national debt. Then he goes to Washington and votes against ENDA and kills it.
I'm a GLBT person and I'm angry about his vote to kill ENDA. When you say you voted for him, I'm angry at you.
Why would "well, I didn't vote for him because of his stance on ENDA, I voted for him because of his stance on the national debt" make me less angry? If anything, it would make me more angry. The issue that is my number one priority is so unimportant to you that you did damage to it by accident while voting for an issue you actually care about!
When somebody chooses to prioritize economic issues over social issues, that's a choice that implicitly devalues social issues. It's totally reasonable for people who care a lot about those social issues to be angry about that and to not accept that response as reasonable. Their goal is to raise your priority level on social issues, after all.
To put it another way, I think that the people who get angry at Democratic voters about civil liberties issues are not, like, fundamentally wrong. I disagree with them about prioritization. But it's not unfair of them to get mad at me for thinking that the NSA isn't that big a deal. The appropriate discussion to have there is about whether civil liberties or civil rights are a higher priority.
It's also easier when you know that those issues are going to be decided in a different venue.
I didn't like Bill Clinton's actions on DOMA, but Hillary's answer on why he did it rings true. And many of us voted for him knowing that court appointees could do the dirty work on these issues at a later date.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
It's not mean per se, it's just not constructive. If I'm at a town hall or something, and someone says something that everyone else disagrees with, it's not helpful to have everyone else start shouting their opinions. Yes, I personally could still add something to the debate and my argument may be of a better quality than the people already talking, but adding another voice to the cacophony isn't helping anyone.
Forums are weird relative to in-person discussions because they're asynchronous and nonexclusive, but having the vast majority of the thread argue against a single poster is the forum equivalent of having a large crowd shout a hundred different things at one person all at once.
VendettaRed07
Member
Is he on his way to get icecream with Papa Bush?
Too street to be
Edit: damn. Didn't know u would be 1 of 20 riffing on a similar theme with this lol.
Yup. Our state is never going to become a Democratic liberal utopian anytime soon so the federal government(Democratic Congress, SC and Democratic President) are very important in forcing our states hands on minimum wage, redistricting reform etc.
Besides with JBE we get medicaid expansion and he'll probably govern like Edwin Edwards(without the baggage)
theprodigy
Member
side note: "pro-life" is such a shitty term, people should stop using it
Mostly this is not what happens, unless it's taking people the better part of an hour to write their posts.
But, conceptually this is pretty simple. Post if it's likely that your post adds value. If you recognize that the post you're wanting to reply to is likely to attract disagreement from virtually everyone, don't reply poorly even if you'd be one of the first. If a bunch of people have already replied, don't reply unless they're all missing something important or you're otherwise adding something significant to the conversation.
Obviously part of the problem is that bad posters don't know they're bad posters, but with dogpiling a big part of it is also that people just really want to get their post out there even if they recognize that the sentiment has already been expressed.
Fenderputty
Banned
It's not sweatshirt weather yet here.
So Haiti had their general election yesterday.
You thought we had it bad with the Republican primary...
Haitians faced lengthy ballots featuring 54 presidential hopefuls and a slew of legislative and municipal candidates. Electoral officials said there might be partial results in 10 days but final results would not be ready until late November.
And_Gignac
Member
I find it hard to justify almost 20 years of institutionally sponsored homophobia, tbh.
Well, we will see. I think, historically, Iowa has proven itself as a king maker/destroyer under certain circunstances. But yeah all this discussion is kind of meaningless considering how, by the power of October and sans a major scandal of watergate proportions, Clinton has pretty much sealed the nomination.
King of being relatable.
I agree -- a lot of the "liberals are toxic haters" stuff seems like special pleading to me. People get dogpiled when they post something outside the norm. There are just a lot of things you can post outside the norm that are theoretically "conservative."
One thing that I keep referring to in understanding the zeitgeist is this report from last year: http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/981/dcor rpp full report 061214.pdf
The whole thing is great, but here I'm focused on the bit about how evangelicals fear Facebook because their relatives flame them on it. Politically, America's still pretty divided, but when it comes to the culture war, progressives own the cultural media (TV, movies) and the internet.* So I can understand why social conservatives feel like they're constantly under attack online.
Even among Millenials, 30% oppose gay marriage. I'm pretty sure you could get banned for openly opposing gay marriage on GAF. I don't have a problem with that, but you can see the disparity.
* They used to -- it seems like crazy far-right racism and sexism has made a pretty hard resurgence in some places.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
It's not wrong for you to be mad at him, but engaging him in his wrongness on an issue that he admittedly doesn't care much about is a huge waste of time, and counterproductive to any kind of conversation. I'm taking political discussion dynamics here, and dredging up an issue somebody doesn't care about that their candidate voted the other way on is just asking for sides to be drawn up and conversation to sink to "sides" and more generalization. It's inherently polarizing.
You referred to the position as specious in the post I replied to, but then you yourself describe a position that you prioritize lower than some people. It's not that it's specious, it's whether it should be a source of conflict (perhaps, but with the understanding that it's uphill and maybe not the place to engage).
The thing is, I don't know if there could've been a more realistic path that would've gotten us to where we wanted to be more quickly. The political environment was pretty hostile. Hell, I'm still shocked that things have changed so quickly. It's easy for us to sit here now and second-guess, but I don't know if anyone could've foreseen just how successful things have gone over the past decade.
...
Another meanwhile.. this could actually be significant.
I wonder if it'll include PP funding.. /s 😋
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
"Libruls are mean" needs to die. *Majorities* are mean. Liberals are a majority on GAF.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
It's easy to forget the climate of the 90s and how much things have changed.
That's not to excuse anything because we certainly wouldn't want anyone applying the same logic to defend inaction/racism for something similar:
That's not to excuse anything because we certainly wouldn't want anyone applying the same logic to defend inaction/racism for something similar:
DOWN
Banned
The same sex marriage approval numbers still aren't great when you think about it in terms of people you can come across. Not much less than half still disapprove, but the concentration varies by how close they are to civilization.It's easy to forget the climate of the 90s and how much things have changed.
That's not to excuse anything because we certainly wouldn't want anyone applying the same logic to defend inaction/racism for something similar:
It's super easy. While there's a bit more triangulation than she's let on, DOMA was a defensive measure after it looked like Hawaii could legalize gay marriage. Yeah, it was homophobic, but without realizing the context (as Bernie just happens to forget) ignores the reality of the situation.
DOMA was a shitty law. You know what's worse? If a Federal Marriage Amendment passed. The votes were probably there in Congress and there were enough state houses to vote for it. Is that what you would've wanted? DOMA was bad for married gay couples from 2004-2013. A FMA would've been bad for gay couples for generations. The bill would've become law with or without Bill's signature, and it's pretty bizarre that gay rights activists are shouting that the FMA wasn't introduced until 2002. You're right, because DOMA passed, and thus it was felt that a FMA was unnecessary.
Yeah I think the biggest thing is that in almost any thread 90% of the posts don't actually add value. That's kind of to be expected in an informal online environment like this.
I've been on both sides being dogpiled in my past. When I was you and terribly conservative people dogpiled me for being against gay marriage. Now as a liberal on Facebook or something I've been dogpiled for almost every liberal view you can think of too. It's just never occurred to me to be angry at the dog piling itself. I feel people will express their opinions in a public place when something is posted and expecting people to bite their tongue and have super high class etiquette just because someone else expressed something sorta similar to what they might think. Being challenged is what made my beliefs today.
Yeah no, Clinton is not receiving a pass for DOMA because it was less apocalyptic than the alternative. When you find the public against you, maybe you need to spend the time educating the public and actually arguing for your beliefs and views.
What happened after Clinton signed DOMA if I may ask? Cause what I remember as a kid was Clinton triumphantly praising his DOMA legislation during his election year. I remember the ads on Christian radio. And I also remember a decade later Clinton was still pushing DOMA with his advice to John Kerry (according to some insiders). Clinton wasn't the only failure of progressive ideals here, most other prominent Dem members were also resigned to defeat when it comes to gay marriage (and a host of other things).
But I sure as hell am not going to give liberals a pass for shit like that.
What happened after Clinton signed DOMA if I may ask? Cause what I remember as a kid was Clinton triumphantly praising his DOMA legislation during his election year. I remember the ads on Christian radio. And I also remember a decade later Clinton was still pushing DOMA with his advice to John Kerry (according to some insiders). Clinton wasn't the only failure of progressive ideals here, most other prominent Dem members were also resigned to defeat when it comes to gay marriage (and a host of other things).
But I sure as hell am not going to give liberals a pass for shit like that.
DOMA passed with overwhelming support in both the House and Senate, as well with overwhelming public support. Even with a blitz campaign of "why I'm vetoeing this", there's absolutely no way that the public would've been "educated" on gay marriage that fast. The fact that a majority supports gay marriage now is a feat in of itself.
Receiving a pass is not the same as understanding context. Context, as always, is important. Again:
He did. That's shameful.
I've never heard this before, and "according to some insiders" seems tenuous, at best.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked