Just don't get him started on Michelle and Barack's relationship or his Hillary/Barack fan fiction.Oh now PD is a psychiatrist.
Just don't get him started on Michelle and Barack's relationship or his Hillary/Barack fan fiction.Oh now PD is a psychiatrist.
It's coming. But Sanders will be there in it as well.Just don't get him started on Michelle and Barack's relationship or his Hillary/Barack fan fiction.
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.
Not on civil rightsas GAF could use more viewpoints.
I am reading it now. What happened?
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 = Obama" only works if you focus on just the most superficial elements of their candidacies. I know Rubio seems formidable because there are many swing voters who are fucking idiots who vote on those superficialities, but he brings nothing new to the table other than having a baby face.
Obama's expressed beliefs on the campaign trail (raising taxes on the upper brackets, increasing domestic spending, implementing some sort of universal healthcare system, getting out of the war in Iraq, support for legalized abortion and civil unions) were largely shared by the median voter. Rubio's are not.
The vision Obama laid out for America was a stark contrast to how Bush and even Clinton (somewhat) governed. Every grand reform proposal of Obama's ties back to a central theme that he could convey to the American people. Compare that to the Republican plan. Repeal or reverse all the legislation/policies Obama implemented and then what? How does repealing Obamacare fit into a broader narrative other than an explicitly anti-Obama one? Rubio, like the other Republicans lacks a coherent vision.
Furthermore I don't believe the median voter perceives Obama's presidency as a fuck up, even if they don't view it as a rousing success, which means this is much less of a change election than 2008 was. Plus Democrats have an advantage in the electoral college to the point where if they just win Virginia it's pretty much locked up. Ohio and Florida don't decide presidential elections anymore.
tl;dr stop diablosing
I set demographics aside because all demographics will react similarly to a Sanders upset in Iowa/NH, proportionally. minorities are not Clinton bots unable to react to new political developments, just like white college kid liberals are not Sanders fixed. They will react if the momentum swings back to Sanders, just like if Clinton wins she will probably make inroads with 18-30.
By how much? Probably enough to make Sanders campaign survive ST, but not enough to give Clinton a run for her money.
I am not making a roadmap to Bernie winning, just wanted to call out the ludicrous idea of her running "unopposed".
Just a feeling. Anecdotal if you will.
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...
Forget it Konka, it's PDBecause 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?
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?
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.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...
No you're wrong, everyone knows the economy is terrible. Everyone.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.
Not on civil rights
Jkbut it seems like that's where things get messy. It gets a bit personal sounding when people include civil rights in their contrarian expressions. The thread was also bizarre in other ways but we'll let it be.?
Summed up, "GAF is not wrong, GAF is just an asshole"
Carson 32%
Trump 18
Cruz 10
Rubio 10
Bush 8
Fiorina 5
Paul 3
Huckabee/Jindal/Kasich 2
I swear GAF is the nicest forum ever. Not sure how people see it as full of hateful liberals. You generally have to wade far into the deep end and insist on staying there to get banned. And there's always somebody there to explain the problem in essay format in case you don't understand why everyone is rolling their eyes at you.
Looks like he's up to no good.
Iowa is weird
Monmouth U- Iowa Poll
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.
Looks like he's up to no good.
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.
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.
That's a lot easier when the other option is a far worse pro-gun, pro-life politician.Edwards is pro-gun pro-life etc and I am still voting for him in the runoff against Vitter so there is that.
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.
It's also easier when you know that those issues are going to be decided in a different venue.That's a lot easier when the other option is a far worse pro-gun, pro-life politician.
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?
Too street to be
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.I find it hard to justify almost 20 years of institutionally sponsored homophobia, tbh.
White House, GOP near two-year budget deal
Senior White House officials and congressional leaders are nearing a deal to raise the debt limit and set the budget for the next two years, say sources familiar with the talks.
The agreement is not yet final as negotiators still need to settle a dispute over controversial policy riders, but congressional leaders hope to announce something Monday evening, according to a Senate source. The deal would cover the 2016 and 2017 budget years.
White House budget director Shaun Donovan and legislative affairs director Katie Beirne Fallon are hammering out the package with staff representing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
Hopefully were able to announce something this evening, said a Senate source, who added the length of the agreement has yet to be finalized.
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:
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 proportionos, Clinton has pretty much sealed the nomination.
King of being relatable.
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.
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).