Support NeoGAF

[NeoXChaos]

It's not just about the polls - it's about the media trying to minimize the impact Trump is having on this race.

I don't think Trump will win the nomination, though I'm not ruling it out. However, I think his presence is making it much more likely that someone like Ted Cruz gets the nomination over more establishment-friendly choices.

Has the anti-establishment sentiment spread to purple and blue state Republicans to allow Cruz to win post March 15th?

The week ending Tuesday, March 15 is where Florida looms, and its status as a later state this year is good news for Rubio and Jeb, or rather for Rubio or Jeb (assuming only one of them’s still in the race), because it’s relatively delegate-rich (though far less so than Texas or California) and winner-take-all, and an earlier date would force them to fight each other more directly, earlier on, than they’d like (although the past week suggests that Jeb is already feeling the need to do that). And it comes the same day as Ohio and Illinois, meaning that three of the nine states that have picked a winner in every GOP primary since 1976 – two of them crucial general-election swing states – all vote at once (Ohio is also winner-take-all).

If in fact, as many of us now expect, the race comes down to a Cruz-Rubio showdown (in which case Rubio, despite his solid conservative record, will be the candidate preferred by moderate and establishment voters), this is the start of his firewall against Cruz, which in that scenario depends on Florida, the Midwest and the blue states, many of which have late, winner-take-all primaries. A similar dynamic, but possibly with a different map, should play out of the final 2 candidates standing are one more insurgent-leaning and one more establishment-palatable.
After that, the primaries start to space out a bit – Colorado, Indiana, Oregon and Washington each have a week to themselves on the current schedule, and New York has two. Tuesday, April 26 is the big Northeastern/Atlantic prize, dominated by Pennsylvania in the week after New York. If the race drags all the way to the end, like Ford-Reagan in 1976 and Obama-Clinton in 2008, the California-and-New Jersey dominated June 7 primary day should provide someone with a coup de grace.

http://www.redstate.com/2015/10/31/previewing-gop-presidential-primary-calendar/

 

[thepotatoman]

Has the anti-establishment sentiment spread to purple and blue state Republicans to allow Cruz to win post March 15th?





http://www.redstate.com/2015/10/31/previewing-gop-presidential-primary-calendar/

I haven't really seen any recent statewide polls that don't have Trump and Carson at first and second. Thier appeal among republicans doesn't seem to be limited to any particular type of state.

 

[shinra-bansho]

That Atlantic article from earlier is so on point...

 

[User 463088]

Hahaha, our local GOP mayoral candidate (incumbent) who is ahead by a bajillion points just ran an ad during the college football game. Wow. No clue they were doing that.

We have...um....flyers someone ran off at the UPS Store. Half of them are in color.

 

[Diablos]

The GOP has North Carolina in the bag. Obama won it in 2008 by a razor thin margin (not even half a percent) in the biggest year for dems in a Presidential election since LBJ

 

[FloydtheFathead]

Hahaha, our local GOP mayoral candidate (incumbent) who is ahead by a bajillion points just ran an ad during the college football game. Wow. No clue they were doing that.

We have...um....flyers someone ran off at the UPS Store. Half of them are in color.

well... maybe we find out he had a scandal regarding diapers?

 

[Teggy]

Carson has expressed a desire to eliminate Medicare and has blamed gun control for the Holocaust. Outside of his apparent following among the Republican base - even if the establishment fails to take him seriously, as with Trump - he is completely unelectable in the general. Mostly people just haven't realized exactly how crazy he is because he sort of still blends in with the rest of the sea of crazy that is the GOP field right now, I think.

We've already established this season that saying crazy shit doesn't necessarily hurt you. I need to see the numbers.

 

[Plinko]

The media has no control over GOP primary voters. They tried to sink Trump and they continually brush off Carson but both keep doing better. They tried to force feed us Fiorina and that didn't last.

100% agreed.

 

[ivysaur12]

That Atlantic article from earlier is so on point...

Freakishly so.

The GOP has North Carolina in the bag. Obama won it in 2008 by a razor thin margin (not even half a percent) in the biggest year for dems in a Presidential election since LBJ

If you were talking about, Indiana. The reason why North Carolina will continue to be competitive is the changing demographic landscape. The demographics in 2008 versus 2016 in North Carolina are very different in a slow trend towards Blue. It's the exact same phenomena as what's happening in Virginia, only that North Carolina has a larger conservative population to begin with.

Polling will probably run close for Hillary and her opponent in North Carolina all the way up to the election, because that's the nature of North Carolina in 2016. She could still lose -- and at this point, might lose the state -- but to say that they have North Carolina "in the bag" is as foolish as saying Hillary is 100% sure to take Iowa.

Kay Hagan lost by 45,000 votes in what was one of the worst years for Democrats nationally. So no, the GOP does not have it "in the bag".

 

[B-Dubs]

Freakishly so.

Which one?

 

[ivysaur12]

Which one?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=183565073&postcount=12273

 

[Daniel B·]

Will you be supporting Hillary in the general?

In the event the American people pass up the possibly "once in a lifetime" opportunity, to vote in a President who just wants to do what is best for the overwhelming majority of Americans, and I believe has ample experience and wisdom to achieve his noble goals, begrudgingly, yes, but with no enthusiasm whatsoever.

 

[B-Dubs]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=183565073&postcount=12273

Freakishly on-point

 

[Daniel B·]

Mitt Romney's supporters provided balance too when their candidate didn't get the results they wanted in the polls.

As someone who spent most of 2004 arguing how the polls couldn't possibly be right, that there was no way in hell we were going to re-elect Shrub...I encourage you to go with the flow with polling. While they can make mistakes, it's highly unlikely a candidate's support is going to be missed by the 30%+ points necessary for Sanders to be winning right now.

The important thing is to monitor trend lines. If every poll is showing the same thing, and every poll is moving in a specific direction, then, more likely than not, there isn't some massive attempt by the media or the polling companies to change what's really happening. IMO, the most important thing to look at in the polling is how things are breaking down via demographics. You want to see your candidate competitive across demographics. One of the most recent polls showed Sanders losing every single group except 18-29 year olds. He was only winning that group by 10 points (Or there abouts. It may have be 13 or 14). Meanwhile, Hillary was beating him 68 to 8 among AA. That, IMO, is the reason this race is so stagnant.

Well, that and Sanders is trying to run a revolutionary campaign in a party that has a very popular sitting President. (Within the party, Obama's approval rating is in hte high 80s among Democrats).

In the round, I agree and I appreciate your insights, whilst also reaffirming my point, that not all polls can be trusted, such as CNN's and the outlier NH / OH polls, which (according to GAF post) even Hillary's Communications Director said were "crazy wrong".

I have the strong feeling that some of these polls are about as useful as drug studies commissioned by pharmaceutical corporations (i.e. not independent), seeking approval for their new drug from the FDA...

I appreciate that some, or all of this a pipe dream, but if Bernie were to win the affections of the American people, I believe he would do something about the far too close relationship between government regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, and industry.

 

[brainchild]

In the event the American people pass up the possibly "once in a lifetime" opportunity, to vote in a President who just wants to do what is best for the overwhelming majority of Americans, and I believe has ample experience and wisdom to achieve his noble goals, begrudgingly, yes, but with no enthusiasm whatsoever.

Now, this I agree with. I really do not like Hillary as a politician (though to be fair, I don't like politicians in general). Bernie would be an amazing president (possibly one of the greatest US presidents of all time) and would be one of the few people who actually gives a shit about the general welfare of the country.

Nevertheless, I'm left with no choice but to vote for Hillary in the general election. Bernie isn't gonna win, and I don't wanna see my country go to hell in a hand basket.

 

[Daniel B·]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=183565073&postcount=12273

Freakishly on-point

I guess you guys really appreciated me highlighting MSNBC's Morning Joe calling out Hillary's sexism claim as 'pathetic' .

 

[Teggy]

Only in the primaries. That happened with the last Republican circus tour in 2012, too.

No candidate promising to dismantle one of the most popular social programs in history, and one primarily serving the elderly, is going to be electable. Old people vote, and if there's one thing they fear even more than public funds being spent on minorities, it is public funds not being spent on old people.

Makes sense, I agree. All I'm saying is that Clinton went from a huge lead against Carson in national polls to a not insignificant deficit. I'd just like to see some proof that the country is coming to its senses.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Freakishly on-point

I like the point about the guns.

"Guys, we need to be realistic about guns! That's why Bernie will only implement modest reforms while he's busy getting single payer and free college"

 

[User 406]

I like the point about the guns.

"Guys, we need to be realistic about guns! That's why Bernie will only implement modest reforms while he's busy getting single payer and free college"

Hey, you can't expect the American people to suddenly and inexplicably agree with the one and only beautiful man who genuinely cares about the country on everything.

 

[Diablos]

I like the point about the guns.

"Guys, we need to be realistic about guns! That's why Bernie will only implement modest reforms while he's busy getting single payer and free college"

lol

 

[User 463088]

In the round, I agree and I appreciate your insights, whilst also reaffirming my point, that not all polls can be trusted, such as CNN's and the outlier NH / OH polls, which (according to GAF post) even Hillary's Communications Director said were "crazy wrong".

I have the strong feeling that some of these polls are about as useful as drug studies commissioned by pharmaceutical corporations (i.e. not independent), seeking approval for their new drug from the FDA...

I appreciate that some, or all of this a pipe dream, but if Bernie were to win the affections of the American people, I believe he would do something about the far too close relationship between government regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, and industry.

The point is for the polls to be deliberately off then independent pollsters have decided that their integrity is worth less than arbitrarily propping up Hillary Clinton. Monmouth, Quinnipiac, and Loras have nothing to gain by deliberately skewing their results to favor Clinton. The media has spent the entirety of the summer trying to pretend the Dem nomination was close. They gain nothing by building up Clinton. Again, I think Occam's razor comes into play.

However, I think it's great you're fired up for Bernie. Don't let yourself buy into the idea that the entire #FeeltheBern movement is about this one man. Whatever policy agenda he has that you feel strongly about, utilize the tools you have available regardless of who the candidate is. If your issue is single payer, then make sure the Democratic party knows that. Make sure Hillary knows that. Make sure anyone and everyone who listens will hear that. IF Bernie falls short, then work on changing the attitudes for next time.

I think that real #FeeltheBern people and Clinton people are on the same page here. We like the same band, it's just I prefer the guitarist and you prefer the bassist. At least we can be happy that our two choices (Sorry O'Malley supporters) aren't completely batshit insane.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I like the point about the guns.

"Guys, we need to be realistic about guns! That's why Bernie will only implement modest reforms while he's busy getting single payer and free college"

Liberals won't win the war against the second amendment. It's not going anywhere, and clearly the policies we have in place aren't working. I'm all for meaningful reform, but Bernie isn't the tough on crime "take on the NRA" candidate, and he's not going to pretend to be. I'm as Liberal as they come, and I think making Gun Control the focus of a Presidential campaign is one of the few ways a Democrat can actually lose the White House.

As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come up more on here.

 

[User 463088]

Liberals won't win the war against the second amendment. It's not going anywhere, and clearly the policies we have in place aren't working. I'm all for meaningful reform, but Bernie isn't the tough on crime "take on the NRA" candidate, and he's not going to pretend to be. I'm as Liberal as they come, and I think making Gun Control the focus of a Presidential campaign is one of the few ways a Democrat can actually lose the White House.

As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come up more on here.

You're right. Gun control is how you win a Democratic primary.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Liberals won't win the war against the second amendment. It's not going anywhere, and clearly the policies we have in place aren't working. I'm all for meaningful reform, but Bernie isn't the tough on crime "take on the NRA" candidate, and he's not going to pretend to be. I'm as Liberal as they come, and I think making Gun Control the focus of a Presidential campaign is one of the few ways a Democrat can actually lose the White House.
As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come up more on here.

So this is what ErasuerAcer was talking about.

 

[Basileus777]

Liberals won't win the war against the second amendment. It's not going anywhere, and clearly the policies we have in place aren't working. I'm all for meaningful reform, but Bernie isn't the tough on crime "take on the NRA" candidate, and he's not going to pretend to be. I'm as Liberal as they come, and I think making Gun Control the focus of a Presidential campaign is one of the few ways a Democrat can actually lose the White House.

This country is far closer to passing legislation for stricter gun control than they are for most of the central points of Bernie's platform.

 

[B-Dubs]

Liberals won't win the war against the second amendment. It's not going anywhere, and clearly the policies we have in place aren't working. I'm all for meaningful reform, but Bernie isn't the tough on crime "take on the NRA" candidate, and he's not going to pretend to be. I'm as Liberal as they come, and I think making Gun Control the focus of a Presidential campaign is one of the few ways a Democrat can actually lose the White House.

As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come up more on here.

In the grand scheme of things gun control is way more important, also reading it I'm not even so sure that would have been such a bad thing. Could have potentially nipped the AAA dude-bro shooter craze in the bud.

 

[gaugebozo]

Anybody else here watching the SNL 2008 Hillary Obama sketch? In hindsight, it's the funniest thing ever.

Obama looks so young!

 

[User 463088]

Anybody else here watching the SNL 2008 Hillary Obama sketch? In hindsight, it's the funniest thing ever.

Obama looks so young!

Is that the one with Obama at Hillary's Halloween party? All of the 2008 political ones were amazing. Personal favorite is Hillary and Palin. "Hillary: Oh ya, when I look back at my race, I think "If only I'd wanted it more...."

 

[brainchild]

This country is far closer to passing legislation for stricter gun control than they are for most of the central points of Bernie's platform.

In the short-term, I agree. In the long run, I disagree. Over time, America will become more progressive and reflect many of Bernie's ideologies. It's almost inevitable; most Americans agree with Bernie on policy.

The difference with the gun regulation issues is that America is truly divided on it. Doesn't matter if they're democrat, republican, or independent, there's a base in each party that will fight to protect their second amendment rights.

My point is that there's a reason Bernie's going for the more pragmatic stance with gun control compared to the other issues that his platform is addressing. At least with things like universal healthcare and free public college tuition, you can make the argument that with enough support from the American people, you can make it happen. With gun control, there's not even enough support from the American people, so you don't even have that leg to stand on.

 

[Dominican Power]

So Paul Ryan is the new speaker? lols

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm not really sure where one would derive the claim that "most Americans agree with Sanders on policy." And that the reasoning behind calling off with 'er head on some issues but not others is due to a read of national sentiment.

Sanders supported pro-gun positions because he had to pander to a gun favourable electorate. In a similar fashion he's voted against immigration reforms because he's had to pander to unionised labour.

Pandillary has had to pander to a national audience, and she's done so on a variety of issues.

The shockingly astounding revelation: they're both politicians.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

In the event the American people pass up the possibly "once in a lifetime" opportunity, to vote in a President who just wants to do what is best for the overwhelming majority of Americans, and I believe has ample experience and wisdom to achieve his noble goals, begrudgingly, yes, but with no enthusiasm whatsoever.

Now, this I agree with. I really do not like Hillary as a politician (though to be fair, I don't like politicians in general). Bernie would be an amazing president (possibly one of the greatest US presidents of all time) and would be one of the few people who actually gives a shit about the general welfare of the country.

Nevertheless, I'm left with no choice but to vote for Hillary in the general election. Bernie isn't gonna win, and I don't wanna see my country go to hell in a hand basket.

I'd like a hit of whatever you're smoking. Bernie's not even that notable of a Senator and ya'll acting like he's a guaranteed top 5 President when he's more akin to Jimmy Carter (who I hold great personal respect for but who had no skill in actually governing). I understood the hype for Obama as a transcendental President given the US's racial history, his appeal to broad constituencies (especially young first time voters), and his campaign as a call for post-partisan politics. But an old white guy from Vermont whose claim to fame is being consistently more liberal than the Democrats when it comes to economic issues? He doesn't hold a candle to Obama and I think we can all agree Obama was ridiculously over-hyped.

I'm not opposed to optimistic messaging but there ain't shit to merit the messiah complex people have for him. Politicians are not part of a evil cabal who exist purely to screw over the common man for the powers that be, so excuse me if I don't find the "his motivations are pure" argument to be a striking point in his favor. Nearly all politicians are motivated by a desire to do good and improve people's lives, we just disagree over how to actually do that. Having a different political philosophy is not synonymous with corruption. It's painting Sanders as an angel by demonizing everyone else.

It's not even a particularly effective approach either, it forces supporters to rationalize away any perceived flaw or mistake he may have which come across as completely unreasonable and delusional. He can't have a flaw or it undermines the mythic narrative that he's the sole prophet of truth; if he ever made a 'politically motivated decision' (see gun control), it would force us to recognize that he's like all politicians and makes tactical compromises when he feels it necessary (which isn't even a bad thing in the first place). But if you're committed to the false narrative of Bernie as a non-political savior, you can't accept that. So polling becomes a conspiracy and non-supporters become ignorant and brain-washed. The entire world is aligned against Bernie as he fights to keep the light alive against the encroaching forces of darkness.

 

[Mike M]

I have the strong feeling that some of these polls are about as useful as drug studies commissioned by pharmaceutical corporations (i.e. not independent), seeking approval for their new drug from the FDA...

I appreciate that some, or all of this a pipe dream, but if Bernie were to win the affections of the American people, I believe he would do something about the far too close relationship between government regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, and industry.

Speaking as someone in the pharmaceutical industry, I can assure you that you have absolutely no idea WTF you're going on about. The FDA's relationship with every facility is ridiculously adversarial, they are merciless in their biannual investigations.

 

[pigeon]

Liberals won't win the war against the second amendment. It's not going anywhere, and clearly the policies we have in place aren't working. I'm all for meaningful reform, but Bernie isn't the tough on crime "take on the NRA" candidate, and he's not going to pretend to be. I'm as Liberal as they come, and I think making Gun Control the focus of a Presidential campaign is one of the few ways a Democrat can actually lose the White House.

As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come up more on here.

Why would you be surprised about that?

Do you have any concerns about the names of any post offices Hillary may have voted for?

 

[Mecha]

Nearly all politicians are motivated by a desire to do good and improve people's lives, we just disagree over how to actually do that.

I don't know about that, I don't think it's that simple.

 

[Manmademan]

Ben Carson Proposes Removing Debates From Television Entirely

“Ben Carson’s campaign wants to take the coming Republican presidential primary debates off television and broadcast them over the Internet, while turning the forums into a series of lengthy candidate statements with far less time for moderators’ questions,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

http://politicalwire.com/2015/10/31/carson-proposes-taking-debates-off-television/

 

[Basileus777]

Ben Carson Proposes Removing Debates From Television Entirely



http://politicalwire.com/2015/10/31/carson-proposes-taking-debates-off-television/

I can't wait to watch the debates through Trump's periscope.

 

[Konka]

In the round, I agree and I appreciate your insights, whilst also reaffirming my point, that not all polls can be trusted, such as CNN's and the outlier NH / OH polls, which (according to GAF post) even Hillary's Communications Director said were "crazy wrong".

I have the strong feeling that some of these polls are about as useful as drug studies commissioned by pharmaceutical corporations (i.e. not independent), seeking approval for their new drug from the FDA...

I appreciate that some, or all of this a pipe dream, but if Bernie were to win the affections of the American people, I believe he would do something about the far too close relationship between government regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, and industry.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[FiggyCal]

I don't know about that, I don't think it's that simple.

I think the caveat is that *some people's lives aren't worth making better; and in fact it's good to make them much worse on purpose.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm not really sure where one would derive the claim that "most Americans agree with Sanders on policy." And that the reasoning behind calling off with 'er head on some issues but not others is due to a read of national sentiment.

Sanders supported pro-gun positions because he had to pander to a gun favourable electorate. In a similar fashion he's voted against immigration reforms because he's had to pander to unionised labour.

Pandillary has had to pander to a national audience, and she's done so on a variety of issues.

The shockingly astounding revelation: they're both politicians.

SHOCKING. Are you telling me that no one is perfect? That's madness!

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

And here I thought his views on polling were the silliest thing I'd read here today.

Ben Carson Proposes Removing Debates From Television Entirely



http://politicalwire.com/2015/10/31/carson-proposes-taking-debates-off-television/

He has to know that's not a good look for him.

I can't wait to watch the debates through Trump's periscope.

That would be spectacular.

 

[neurosisxeno]

This country is far closer to passing legislation for stricter gun control than they are for most of the central points of Bernie's platform.

On the surface, probably. But a lot of the things Bernie advocates for people like the idea of, and they are changes that could have a massive impact and greatly improve the quality of life in this country.

In the grand scheme of things gun control is way more important

I haven't seen a ton of evidence that it would help anything. I would say things like decriminalizing drugs would probably have a bigger impact.

also reading it I'm not even so sure that would have been such a bad thing. Could have potentially nipped the AAA dude-bro shooter craze in the bud.

It's essentially policing morality. The ESRB is not a perfect system, just like the MPAA isn't a perfect system. They are guidelines to help inform people about the subject matter, and you can't criminalize things like parents giving their kids Mature Games.

Why would you be surprised about that?

Do you have any concerns about the names of any post offices Hillary may have voted for?

At it's heart this is still mostly a gaming forum. I just find it weird nobody has ever taken issue with Hillary's interest in making the ESRB law and giving kids games rated above their age a legitimate crimes.

Did she name any after Hitler? I only approve of Post Offices being named after the God-King Ronald Reagan. They might as well just name them the same and give them unique numbers.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I think the caveat is that *some people's lives aren't worth making better; and in fact it's good to make them much worse on purpose.

It is possible that some Republicans make the lives of their own constituencies worse so they can have a boogey man(the government, president or Democrats) to blame for their problems?

Seems heartless.

 

[B-Dubs]

It's essentially policing morality. The ESRB is not a perfect system, just like the MPAA isn't a perfect system. They are guidelines to help inform people about the subject matter, and you can't criminalize things like parents giving their kids Mature Games.

Would it have actually done that though? From what I read it just said that stores couldn't sell M rated games to minors, parents could still buy them for their kids though. Basically it looks like it would have been set up like movies, you get carded and you can only get the game if you're under 18 if your folks buy it for you. I can't really say I see anything wrong with that.

At it's heart this is still mostly a gaming forum. I just find it weird nobody has ever taken issue with Hillary's interest in making the ESRB law and giving kids games rated above their age a legitimate crimes.

Again, from what that page says this just isn't true.

 

[thepotatoman]

Ben Carson Proposes Removing Debates From Television Entirely



http://politicalwire.com/2015/10/31/carson-proposes-taking-debates-off-television/

“Ben Carson’s campaign wants to take the coming Republican presidential primary debates off television and broadcast them over the Internet,

Sure. Makes sense as a way to make it less of a ratings grab with moderators incentivized to try and creating reality tv show conflicts instead of substantive debate. I just wonder what the numbers are for people who can access this verses accessing it on cable. More PBS debates might be a better idea, with varying moderators from various sources picked by the party.

while turning the forums into a series of lengthy candidate statements with far less time for moderators’ questions,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

Wait, nevermind. This is nuts.

 

[Vicetrailia]

"So if 20% of the population has 84% of the wealth, I guess because the Pareto principle exists there's no problem with inequality. And since poverty is about bad choices, what can you do?" ~ Dude on train today.

Mindfucking, all learned from Fox News. Greeeeat!

 

[neurosisxeno]

Would it have actually done that though? From what I read it just said that stores couldn't sell M rated games to minors, parents could still buy them for their kids though. Basically it looks like it would have been set up like movies, you get carded and you can only get the game if you're under 18 if your folks buy it for you. I can't really say I see anything wrong with that.

Almost all retailers have had that policy for years. Off the top of my head Gamestop and Walmart absolutely ID or ask for Age for the sale of any M Video Game or R Movie. It's completely okay for retailers to make that a store policy, but trying to enshrine it into law is literally unconstitutional and precedent has been set for over 100 years.

I misread the section about giving the games to minors. I'll concede that point.

EDIT: Also, this is a very concerning point;

This bill requires the Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP) of the FTC to ensure that consumers can file complaints if they find content to be misleading or deceptive and requires the BCP to report on the number of such complaints to Congress.

I imagine those complaints would have been factored in by developers and the ESRB would have started increasing restrictions.

 

[B-Dubs]

Almost all retailers have had that policy for years. Off the top of my head Gamestop and Walmart absolutely ID or ask for Age for the sale of any M Video Game or R Movie. It's completely okay for retailers to make that a store policy, but trying to enshrine it into law is literally unconstitutional and precedent has been set for over 100 years.

Kinda missing my point, I called you out on this:

giving kids games rated above their age a legitimate crimes.

There's nothing I've seen that would make this true.

While you have a valid point with your reply to me, and if they really do it that's cool, you're still guilty of a bit of misinformation there.

EDIT: Also, this is a very concerning point;



I imagine those complaints would have been factored in by developers and the ESRB would have started increasing restrictions.

Fair enough.

I just don't really see any problem with treating games like movies.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I don't know about that, I don't think it's that simple.

Nearly all is probably too inclusive, 'most' would be better. It's easy to over-focus on a minority of bad actors in Congress like the Freedom Caucus. But they're only a fifth of the Republican delegation which itself is only ~half of the House (to say nothing of the thousands of state/local officials). It's easy to blame a broken system and corrupt politicians as the cause of all our problems and lament that if only we had truly virtuous people in office everything would be better. But the truth is much scarier, there is no elite ruling class making sure everything works according to a mischievous plan; things hum along because of inertia and institutionalization. Government and society is more of a MacGyver-esque cobbled together device than it is an painstakingly crafted Rembrandt. We are more alike than we are different.

I'm not trying to deny that there are racist/sexist/etc politicians or people who do scheme about the best ways to do harm to their hated groups, but most people are just subconsciously biased or ignorant. It's the same problem issue with police, yes there are some knowingly racist cops, but most are subconsciously racist and they have those biases and stereotypes continually reinforced through their culture and badly designed training. The problem is much more of the institutional variety than it is the individual. I really don't think most Republicans oppose welfare because it will harm their 'enemies', they oppose it because they legitimately believe that less welfare will help motivate people to get good jobs and become self-sufficient and be more satisfied with life. Now none of that may be actually true (and I certainly don't think it is), but if they believe it's true, I can't really say their motivation is evil, it's just misguided/misinformed. It's too convenient (and a little comical) to assume that everyone opposed to you ideologically is a mustache twirling villain who deserves the worst.

 

[FiggyCal]

It is possible that some Republicans make the lives of their own constituencies worse so they can have a boogey man(the government, president or Democrats) to blame for their problems?

Seems heartless.

I'm sure Republicans do that; but I think that has more to do with them trying to reconcile their vision of the ideal government with what actually works. They can't admit that anything the dems do work or else they'd be out of an ideology. But the ideology itself isn't purposefully cruel -- it just turns out to be that way. And I guess there's no real way to know whether or not a guy like Sam Brownback actually thinks he's helping his state. Or if war hawks actually think war is good. Or if a guy like Reagan thought putting all those minorities in prison improved their lives. It seems pretty unlikely.

 

[brainchild]

I'm not really sure where one would derive the claim that "most Americans agree with Sanders on policy." And that the reasoning behind calling off with 'er head on some issues but not others is due to a read of national sentiment.

Sanders supported pro-gun positions because he had to pander to a gun favourable electorate. In a similar fashion he's voted against immigration reforms because he's had to pander to unionised labour.

Pandillary has had to pander to a national audience, and she's done so on a variety of issues.

The shockingly astounding revelation: they're both politicians.

isidewith.com has millions of unique voters and multiple submissions filtered out. Let's see what these Americans think.

And then we have gun control

If these views from the American people are even close to being accurate (virtually every poll with large and diverse sample sizes paint the same picture), then they absolutely agree with Bernie on most of his stances, while the majority disagree with increased gun control.

If Bernie is leaning on the support of the American people as a strategy to realize his agenda, then his approach to dealing with increased gun control makes sense. That's all I'm saying.

As for politicians, pandering and compromise is to be expected of any politician, but Bernie is an honest and principled man whose life work and voting record speak of his character. There really isn't a comparison between him and any other candidate in the running, and all it takes is a quick glance at his biography to understand why.

I'd like a hit of whatever you're smoking. Bernie's not even that notable of a Senator and ya'll acting like he's a guaranteed top 5 President when he's more akin to Jimmy Carter (who I hold great personal respect for but who had no skill in actually governing). I understood the hype for Obama as a transcendental President given the US's racial history, his appeal to broad constituencies (especially young first time voters), and his campaign as a call for post-partisan politics. But an old white guy from Vermont whose claim to fame is being consistently more liberal than the Democrats when it comes to economic issues? He doesn't hold a candle to Obama and I think we can all agree Obama was ridiculously over-hyped.

I'm not opposed to optimistic messaging but there ain't shit to merit the messiah complex people have for him. Politicians are not part of a evil cabal who exist purely to screw over the common man for the powers that be, so excuse me if I don't find the "his motivations are pure" argument to be a striking point in his favor. Nearly all politicians are motivated by a desire to do good and improve people's lives, we just disagree over how to actually do that. Having a different political philosophy is not synonymous with corruption. It's painting Sanders as an angel by demonizing everyone else.

It's not even a particularly effective approach either, it forces supporters to rationalize away any perceived flaw or mistake he may have which come across as completely unreasonable and delusional. He can't have a flaw or it undermines the mythic narrative that he's the sole prophet of truth; if he ever made a 'politically motivated decision' (see gun control), it would force us to recognize that he's like all politicians and makes tactical compromises when he feels it necessary (which isn't even a bad thing in the first place). But if you're committed to the false narrative of Bernie as a non-political savior, you can't accept that. So polling becomes a conspiracy and non-supporters become ignorant and brain-washed. The entire world is aligned against Bernie as he fights to keep the light alive against the encroaching forces of darkness.

I'm not going to argue with you about it, especially when you want to deal in absolutes. Invoking Messiah Complex is completely unnecessary and irrelevant. I said he'd be a top president, not the greatest man to ever live.

And for the record, I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren over Bernie if she was also running. She'd do even more for the country than Bernie. Shows how much you know.

Yes, guns in America are the one leftist bugbear that will prove impossible to control because the people don't want it, even when evidence suggests that actually maybe they do.

Forget universal health care, gun control is the real political impossibility here. Thank god Bernie's taken such a principled stance on the one issue that truly divides Americans.

Not that black and white. Americans aren't opposed to SOME regulation, but the closer you get to banning all guns in America, the closer you get to an impossibility.