Is there a future coalition that would be better?
-
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
If I'm not mistaken, he billed his personal expenses to the Republican party and they paid for it. He only partly paid for his personal expenses. In the case of the tiling company, he says he "pulled the wrong credit card" to pay for it. Dude's slimy.
But I agree what other people are saying. It will get lost in the category 5 Carsonado that will continue to rage for next few days..
It can get brought up in the debate at least.
Abinash117
Member
What reason for Michigan to go red 5 to 8 years in the future? Seems to me racial demographics would make it difficult for one and 2014 was a bad year in general. I say they might vote in non presidential years that leans republican .
Hobbestetrician
Member
And we even elected a Democratic senator in the otherwise bad year last year.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Today in "these people have been important in U.S. politics" Bachmann told the people of Israel that we need to convert as many Jews as possible to Christianity ASAP because Jesus' return is very soon. The National Review said in so many words that the black Missouri football players' protest over racism is stupid because those players are a bunch of thugs.
What's going on? I could listen to this guy (a politician), every day of the week (well I'd perhaps take a break on the weekend's 
)!
Bernie Sanders at the South Carolina - Democratic Women's Council:
Bernie's way more electable (today), but he reminds me a little of Tony Benn (RIP), who was left-wing Labour MP, who I had enormous respect for, based on his appearances on BBC's Newsnight etc. I actually met him once, but totally wasted the opportunity.
Bernie not 1000% for Women and Women's equal rights; preposterous!.
)!Bernie Sanders at the South Carolina - Democratic Women's Council:
Bernie's way more electable (today), but he reminds me a little of Tony Benn (RIP), who was left-wing Labour MP, who I had enormous respect for, based on his appearances on BBC's Newsnight etc. I actually met him once, but totally wasted the opportunity
.Bernie not 1000% for Women and Women's equal rights; preposterous!
.Not that I can see unless they can somehow grab more suburbanites in non-blue states.
The death of Detroit, though it'll be a slow march towards a swing state. Their white voters are much more conservative than other Midwestern whites.
Retromelon
Member
hillarygaf too smug, i almost hope trump wins to see yall faces
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The far-right's obsession with Sisi after he murdered a dozen Mexican tourists is moving from evil to evil and creepy...
Sisi literally does nothing in a democratic fashion and is one stupid motherfucker who is so dumb he's helping ISIS by accident, but Sisi hates Muslims and thus has gotten the love of all of the American right.
Sisi literally does nothing in a democratic fashion and is one stupid motherfucker who is so dumb he's helping ISIS by accident, but Sisi hates Muslims and thus has gotten the love of all of the American right.
Right, we get driveby, "ohmigod ohmigod isn't Bernie just dreamy he's sooooo much better than all those lesser politicians, he's the only person who ever really truly cared about anything ever and your teeth get whiter and your wrinkles disappear when you hear him speak, you must hate progress and all that is good in the world if you aren't voting for Bernie-sempai
^o- ^^;;;" posts, but HillaryGAF are the smug ones.Okay.
Manmademan
Member
Daniel B·;184688162 said:What's going on? I could listen to this guy (a politician), every day of the week (well I'd perhaps take a break on the weekend's
Bernie Sanders at the South Carolina - Democratic Women's Council:
Bernie's way more electable (today), but he reminds me a little of Tony Benn (RIP), who was left-wing Labour MP, who I had enormous respect for, based on his appearances on BBC's Newsnight etc. I actually met him once, but totally wasted the opportunity
Bernie not 1000% for Women and Women's equal rights; preposterous!
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
How can conservatives talk so much shit about the names of transgender women when half of their candidates go by different names than their birth names?
Ted, Jeb, Bobby, Mitt... I have nothing against those guys using whatever names they prefer, but it's just a ridiculous contradiction.
Ted, Jeb, Bobby, Mitt... I have nothing against those guys using whatever names they prefer, but it's just a ridiculous contradiction.
Yet the only post wishing death upon a candidate has come from a Sanders supporter talking about Clinton.
User 463088
Banned
He's just bad at this. I'm sorry, but Bernie is just terrible at politics. When your enemy is drowning, maybe you don't throw them another anvil, but you don't help him tread water!
This does reinforce the idea that the "going negative" stuff comes from his campaign and not from him. I cannot believe someone who has been in politics as long as Bernie has doesn't understand the importance of perception. This Carson stuff is ridiculous. It's not from 40 years ago, it's shit he brought up today. What's the time limit on stupid shit you can call someone out on? A week? A decade? The only chance Bernie has is maximizing any points you can gain on forced or unforced errors by your opponent.
This does reinforce the idea that the "going negative" stuff comes from his campaign and not from him. I cannot believe someone who has been in politics as long as Bernie has doesn't understand the importance of perception. This Carson stuff is ridiculous. It's not from 40 years ago, it's shit he brought up today. What's the time limit on stupid shit you can call someone out on? A week? A decade? The only chance Bernie has is maximizing any points you can gain on forced or unforced errors by your opponent.
lol.
Defending the other parties candidates is generally not a good idea for people running for the nomination of the opposing party. Especially when it's all self inflicted.
I don't really mind when he mouths off about Clinton but dammit Bernie, don't help the fucking Republicans!
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Dr. Ben Carson has some thoughts:
As always, they're ridiculously stupid.
As always, they're ridiculously stupid.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
The line of logic from addictions to political correctness is absurd. It makes no sense whatsoever.
It is basically like everything he says: starts off decent then descends into a puddle of talking points and hyperbole. What exactly is he arguing? Decline of religion in America? Rise of gay rights? Decline of the traditional family? He is clearly covering up what he really wants to say, but does a terrible job of saying anything in the process.
WayneMorse
Banned
Good god that makes me wanna puke.
Leave it to Hillary supporters to criticize Bernie for being too decent.
Retromelon
Member
did that really happen. whoa. its not that serious dawg
cmon now.
It's a pretty standard religious argument that people do "immoral" things to try to fill the hole in their lives that's caused by the lack of a relationship with God.
Carson's audience will pick up on what he's saying immediately there, which is a lack of Christian values in modern society is what's hurting the US.
User 463088
Banned
Decency is not the point. You can criticize what someone has said while maintaining decency. However, refusing to comment on asinine shit your opponent has said si weird. It's a stupid position to take, decency be damned. Carson is running for President based on his autobiography. He is using his experiences as demonstrative proof that he is qualified to be President. So far, there have been nothing but lies coming out of any basic fact checking. What he wrote absolutely is fair game. He's lied about attacking his mother with a hammer. He's written that his secretary magically disappeared because Jesus. He's lied about an experience he had in Med school. He lied about his association with that nutritional supplement company. He has no other experience to run on. It's absolutely fair to scrutinize what he's said and done.
If Bernie wanted to be tactful, he could have said "These are questions best left to the voters." You do not defend your opponent (especially in the other party) from self-inflicted wounds. It's asinine to do so. There are times where you have to realize that politics is a full contact sport. I do not want a candidate who won't hit back on legitimate criticisms. Past is prologue, after all.
I wish I lived in this magical fairy land where everyone only talks about the issues. Perception doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the absolutely certainty in the rightness of one's position, and the overwhelming knowledge that Americans always, always do what is in their best interest. I bet there are unicorns.
Edit: Let me be clear. I'm not being critical of Sanders for refusing to attack Carson over the issues. I'm critical of the decision to pretend like you can't criticize Carson for these things. Sanders now has a sound bite out there that makes it impossible for him or his campaign to be critical of anything in Carson's past. If he does, then there's a pre-made rebuttal to it, in the candidates own words.
♪ while governmental power
tends to grow contiguously
I'm living day to day
by imperial decree ♫
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1137215
tends to grow contiguously
I'm living day to day
by imperial decree ♫
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1137215
shinra-bansho
Member
Carson is building his entire book tour campaign on a narrative about being a poor kid who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to become a world-renowned neurosurgeon.
If there are embellishments in that narrative, they are fair game.
Also, it's kind of funny watching GOP candidates point to Obama (as Carson did) or Clinton (as Rubio's campaign did about finances) and claim that no one has investigated them as with as much scrutiny.
If there are embellishments in that narrative, they are fair game.
Also, it's kind of funny watching GOP candidates point to Obama (as Carson did) or Clinton (as Rubio's campaign did about finances) and claim that no one has investigated them as with as much scrutiny.
Yeah, it seems like Obama's still getting vetted.
User 463088
Banned
Well, I do still have some questions about him that still haven't been answered.
RustyNails
Member
Carson's "shtick" so to speak, is embody the conservative memes. He grew up poor, but believing in a conservative, bootstraps worldview rid him of his food stamps-destined fate. He also found Jesus, and Jesus turned him from a violent hammer-wielding mad-man to a soft-spoken, calm savior.
He is a living example for conservatives that black people are lazy. If Carson can do it, so can anyone. All they need to do is believe in Supply Side Jesus.
Gloria Bromell Tinubu, former South Carolina Democratic nominee for Congress, who is "with and for Bernie Sanders", with a great introduction of the next President of the United States (video link):
Sure, we have the lobbyists from the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), and probably ever other trade association, working against us, as highlighted in the Intercept article, but Bernie can call on the good will of millions upon millions of everyday Americans.
Sure, we have the lobbyists from the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), and probably ever other trade association, working against us, as highlighted in the Intercept article, but Bernie can call on the good will of millions upon millions of everyday Americans
.So, the Guardian today put out this interesting article that is pretty topical:
New Democrats' sound alarm over Sanders and Clinton's leftward march
Interested in thoughts and opinions. I'm fairly confident of how Bernie supporters are going to think about it, but I'm interested in Hillary backers. Do you fear Hillary tracking back to the right? Do you want her to track back to the right?
New Democrats' sound alarm over Sanders and Clinton's leftward march
Interested in thoughts and opinions. I'm fairly confident of how Bernie supporters are going to think about it, but I'm interested in Hillary backers. Do you fear Hillary tracking back to the right? Do you want her to track back to the right?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Bobby Jindal should be called Bobby Jindal, I'm just upset that the right tries to deny the ability of transgender individuals to go by the names they want at the same time.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
How about these New Democrats stop losing elections before they start complaining about the progressive wing of the party.
It just makes me question his judgement. When given the choice, who would choose to be called Bobby.
shinra-bansho
Member
I mean I'd say it's fine to pander to the left flank of a leftwing party particularly during a primary season.
What the Democrats want to avoid though is polarisation to the degree of the GOP where it's basically no longer capable of governance.
What the Democrats want to avoid though is polarisation to the degree of the GOP where it's basically no longer capable of governance.
User 463088
Banned
I take a couple of issues with that Guardian piece. Obama was never too radical for the party. He was a moderately liberal candidate/nominee/President. He is, in many ways, to the right of Hillary. (Honestly, they're about the same for all intents and purposes, but I would peg him to her right--moderately.) I don't believe that Bernie Sanders has drawn Hillary to the left on anything. I think he's made her state her opinion on things that she may not have brought up without him, but I don't see him being this gigantic magnet to the left of the party.
Since primaries are partisan, you have to appeal to the base. However, if you appeal too hard, you can't tack back to the center. That's why the GOP clown car spends so much time trying to out crazy each other. Once they get to the General, they've already said so many bat shit crazy things that it's hard for them to appeal to moderates.
To me, the biggest problem with the Democratic party now is the pure implosion of the liberal/moderate wing of the GOP. There isn't one any more. We've had to become this big umbrella party that tries to placate everyone who is immediately turned off by the insanity that happens on the right. This is a good thing, in a sense. It helps us liberalize some more moderate folks, or it shifts the definition of "moderate" to "leans left." It creates a new center, so to speak. (For example, a decade ago supporting SSM would have been incredibly liberal. Now, it's maybe left leaning, but far closer to the center than it used to be.) On the other hand, we have a party that is more ideologically divided than the GOP. I still don't think it's a divided party, but there are bigger swings between the Democratic Left of the Left and the Democratic Right of the Right. The core principles are the same, but I think there is some difference on how best to achieve them.
As a Clinton supporter, I expect that she will stand behind the principles and policies she's announced during the campaign thus far. Will there be things that a potential GE Hillary has to moderate on? Perhaps, although I'm not sure what those will be, as none of her policies seem so left wing radical that many would object to them simply for being too liberal.
Will a fictitious President Bernie or President Hillary have to concede some things to govern effectively? Absolutely. That's the way good governance works. One side (even if it's my side) doesn't get to get every, single thing it wants. You have to give and take. There are things you absolutely refuse to do, though. Lines in the sand exist for a reason. There was a time when both parties realized there were certain things that simply had to be done (a social safety net, for instance). The differences arose when each hard a different view how best to achieve that. I feel one side of the equation now, though, simply wants to burn this mutha down. Those types of things, you can't negotiate on. Period.
Since primaries are partisan, you have to appeal to the base. However, if you appeal too hard, you can't tack back to the center. That's why the GOP clown car spends so much time trying to out crazy each other. Once they get to the General, they've already said so many bat shit crazy things that it's hard for them to appeal to moderates.
To me, the biggest problem with the Democratic party now is the pure implosion of the liberal/moderate wing of the GOP. There isn't one any more. We've had to become this big umbrella party that tries to placate everyone who is immediately turned off by the insanity that happens on the right. This is a good thing, in a sense. It helps us liberalize some more moderate folks, or it shifts the definition of "moderate" to "leans left." It creates a new center, so to speak. (For example, a decade ago supporting SSM would have been incredibly liberal. Now, it's maybe left leaning, but far closer to the center than it used to be.) On the other hand, we have a party that is more ideologically divided than the GOP. I still don't think it's a divided party, but there are bigger swings between the Democratic Left of the Left and the Democratic Right of the Right. The core principles are the same, but I think there is some difference on how best to achieve them.
As a Clinton supporter, I expect that she will stand behind the principles and policies she's announced during the campaign thus far. Will there be things that a potential GE Hillary has to moderate on? Perhaps, although I'm not sure what those will be, as none of her policies seem so left wing radical that many would object to them simply for being too liberal.
Will a fictitious President Bernie or President Hillary have to concede some things to govern effectively? Absolutely. That's the way good governance works. One side (even if it's my side) doesn't get to get every, single thing it wants. You have to give and take. There are things you absolutely refuse to do, though. Lines in the sand exist for a reason. There was a time when both parties realized there were certain things that simply had to be done (a social safety net, for instance). The differences arose when each hard a different view how best to achieve that. I feel one side of the equation now, though, simply wants to burn this mutha down. Those types of things, you can't negotiate on. Period.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm not entirely convinced that the core principles underlying the disparate base of the Democratic party are necessarily all aligned or of equal weight. And this probably goes for other Western leftwing parties as well.
There's a schism between the identity politics/civil rights driven social progressive agenda and the economic leftist and labour driven agenda. The low income, white, straight, cis and typically male voter to whom the Democratic Party's policies, on things like wages, should probably appeal are more often than not voting Republican.
I don't know whether a renewed focus on economic populist messages will necessarily bring them back.
Thomas Edsall has a bunch of interesting op-eds on the NYT about the topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html
There's a schism between the identity politics/civil rights driven social progressive agenda and the economic leftist and labour driven agenda. The low income, white, straight, cis and typically male voter to whom the Democratic Party's policies, on things like wages, should probably appeal are more often than not voting Republican.
I don't know whether a renewed focus on economic populist messages will necessarily bring them back.
Thomas Edsall has a bunch of interesting op-eds on the NYT about the topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html
Manmademan
Member
They're voting republican because the republican party has successfully branded all of those things as "minorities are getting free stuff."
All the economic populism in the world is ineffective when the GOP just uses it to race-bait.
Fuck the New Democrats. By all rights, they should be Republicans, as their concern trolling over "growth" clearly demonstrates, just as the dixiecrats by all rights should be Democrats again, if they would just stop being racist fucking assholes. Before this relationship was reversed, and the Democratic party was a primarily populist party at the height of its power, we had fantastic growth and the least economic inequality in our history due to stronger unions and a stronger commitment to a social safety net.
The party has needed to pull back towards the left for a long time now, so I'm not shedding any tears over blue dogs reaching the end of their relevance as the pendulum swings back.
shinra-bansho
Member
I mean that's part of the point though.
The less educated are more likely to be lower income. They're also more likely to be socially conservative.
And the Democratic Party is too trans-, gay-, women-, racial minority- friendly for the socially conservative poor to vote for, even if they do see the potential economic benefit. So they'll vote in favor of minimum wage referendums, but install a Republican in the Governor's mansion.
In 2008, based on the survey linked in that article, 27% of people with only some high school education think a women's place is in the home. 11% of the lowest percentile income.
That the Republican Party is able to make it into a racial issue in itself kind of speaks to the social conservatism of this electorate.
The less educated are more likely to be lower income. They're also more likely to be socially conservative.
And the Democratic Party is too trans-, gay-, women-, racial minority- friendly for the socially conservative poor to vote for, even if they do see the potential economic benefit. So they'll vote in favor of minimum wage referendums, but install a Republican in the Governor's mansion.
In 2008, based on the survey linked in that article, 27% of people with only some high school education think a women's place is in the home. 11% of the lowest percentile income.
That the Republican Party is able to make it into a racial issue in itself kind of speaks to the social conservatism of this electorate.
I'm a pragmatist, but if pragmatism dictates that we abandon the needs of black people, gay people, hispanic people, women, transgendered people, and any other group that is being actively harmed by the status quo just so we can seduce some more xenophobic white male voters, then I'm tearing up my pragmatist card.
There are limits. If we simply can't win elections because the country is too bigoted, then we just won't win elections. If the country really would rather fuck itself into penury than share prosperity with the persecuted, then so be it.
There are limits. If we simply can't win elections because the country is too bigoted, then we just won't win elections. If the country really would rather fuck itself into penury than share prosperity with the persecuted, then so be it.
This gets to the heart of the matter; the fear that a Bernie Sanders presidency would hurt corporate profits. But would it hurt the profits of all corporations?
Let's say, for arguments sake, that I and almost all of Bernie's supporters come through in 2018, and boot the Republicans out of The House, thus giving Bernie the super majority he'll need to get anything done. He then instigates the trillion dollar infrastructure program, that would put over a million Americans back to work, on $15 and higher (the likes of Structural Engineers would obviously be earning way more).
All those Americans, as well as being able to support themselves and perhaps a family, will have extra cash to spend on consumer goods and services, a driver of economic growth, no? Also, they would be able to afford health insurance, in states that have blocked Medicaid expansion (despite ultimately only costing them 10% of the cost...).
And what about all the extra jobs created in our necessary transition away from fossil fuels, hopefully including an explosion in fully electric vehicles, which we should be manufacturing in this country, with again, jobs that, at a minimum, pay a living wage. All driving our economy forward and at the same time, a step in the right direction on Global Warming.
So, I would contend that some industries would actually see significant growth and Koch Industries
.JesseEwiak
Member
Unfortunately, way too many white people are willing to vote for candidates who will treat them like shit as long as their still a rung above The Other, whether that other is women, African-American's, Hispanic's, gay people, Muslim's or whomever. The old joke about the ruling class paying one half of the working class to fight the other half doesn't apply here - one half will do it for free.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked