• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

User 406

Banned
Cheebo said:
Daniel is in the swing state of Virginia? I really really hope he doesn't sit out the general or vote third party.
Click to expand...

Dunno, are there other candidates who are the only ones who really care about people and want to do the right thing and can't be bought and are a once in a lifetime chance for America to do the right thing? ;) ;) ;)

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Why do journalists that complain about silencing free speech block all of their political opponents on Twitter?

They're not blocking random trolls, they block other journalists that criticize them.
Click to expand...

That's really not silencing free speech, that's just ignoring someone they don't like. Not analogous at all. Those journalists still can say whatever they want, but they can't force everyone to listen.

Coriolanus said:
Bernie has the potential to achieve that in the same way that Hills has the potential to nuke her own campaign.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I think Hillary really does have the power to nuke her campaign. :p
 
D

Daniel B·

Banned
QuiteWhittle said:
What's your reasoning? Why do you think a socialist from New England with bottom-tier support from black Americans(Southern Democrats = Black Democrats becomes truer every day) has any better potential to win the south than the former first lady of Arkansas and the wife of the last Democrat to make significant inroads into the deep south?
Click to expand...

Once it sinks in that, Bernie's proposals have the potential to significantly improve their lives, and the alternative is merely "more of the same", do you really think it's a stretch to say that African Americans may end up voting for Bernie, en masse?
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
Daniel B·;184943072 said:
Once it sinks in that, Bernie's proposals have the potential to significantly improve their lives, and the alternative is merely "more of the same", do you really think it's a stretch to say that African Americans may end up voting for Bernie, en masse?
Click to expand...
In what universe do people pick candidates based on policy positions? Voters don't follow politics.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Daniel B·;184943072 said:
Once it sinks in that, Bernie's proposals have the potential to significantly improve their lives, and the alternative is merely "more of the same", do you really think it's a stretch to say that African Americans may end up voting for Bernie, en masse?
Click to expand...

You make it sound like they are on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Sea Manky said:
That's really not silencing free speech, that's just ignoring someone they don't like. Not analogous at all. Those journalists still can say whatever they want, but they can't force everyone to listen.P
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about actual silencing of free speech, like in Egypt or Venezuela, I'm talking about "free speech" in the sense of "You have to listen to me or you are silencing me!" stuff that these journalists constantly talk about.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
Sea Manky said:
That's really not silencing free speech, that's just ignoring someone they don't like. Not analogous at all. Those journalists still can say whatever they want, but they can't force everyone to listen.
Click to expand...

it's not so much that they're silencing free speech, it's that they complain endlessly about "being silenced" if people ignore them and then proceed to ignore everyone who vocally dissents from their opinion

or in a word, hypocritical shitbaggery
 
H

Hindl

Member
Daniel B·;184943072 said:
Once it sinks in that, Bernie's proposals have the potential to significantly improve their lives, and the alternative is merely "more of the same", do you really think it's a stretch to say that African Americans may end up voting for Bernie, en masse?
Click to expand...

Yes, because you're saying that the African American community, after being introduced for the first time to this white guy promising to fix their issues, will flock to him and abandon the family that has supported their community for years. Bernie Sanders could individually guarantee them $1 million each with a new house. He's still someone coming out of nowhere to promise them this. Even though he's been a strong supporter of the community his whole life, he hasn't put that out there. So to a lot of black people, you are choosing between this guy coming out of nowhere who's promising great change, but with little outreach to the community before this year, going against one part of the duo that has been one of the greatest advocates for the black community. If Bernie was putting in the work 5-6 years ago to become a name in the black community, then maybe. But they aren't going to abandon Hillary for ideas.
 
S

Sianos

Member
I caught a snippet of Bill O'Reilly arguing about semantics last night while over at the family's that helped me pinpoint an objection to a lot of the conservative rhetroic re: "Hillary lied to the american public about Benghazi!!"

He seems to not realize that terrorists have a motive behind their attacks. He claims that Hillary told the government that Benghazi was "a terrorist attack" and the public that it was "caused by an anti-Islamic video". But how exactly are those statements contradictory? The perpetrators of the Benghazi attack could have been prompted to commit their terror attack because of the anti-Islamic video, and from some recent testimony from captives indicates that this seems to be the case. Terrorists aren't intrinsically terrorists: they can only be classified as terrorists once they commit an act of terror and furthermore people usually have motivations behind why they do something. Of course, religious brainwashing doesn't excuse terrorism, just as it doesn't excuse homophobia - but regardless of whether it is an acceptable justification, it is still the reason why the unacceptable action took place.

It feels like most Republican rhetoric regarding Benghazi boils down to "she called Benghazi the "use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" instead of terrorism!"... when the former is the definition of the latter.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
B-Dubs said:
He'd need a win in SC for a reconsideration to occur. Iowa is heavily white, he'd need a win somewhere with black people to change the game.

Saying Iowa can change the game for him is comparing him to Obama, which he is not. Bernie needs to prove he can win the African-American vote, nothing else will alter the calculus.
Click to expand...
I picked Iowa because its first, but you're right.. SC, in our fantasy, would be the ultimate confirmation of Something Big happening at the polls.

..

Meanwhile, a new WiFi connection has popped-up around the corner from my home..
CTePo3uXAAA064p
Click to expand...
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Two birds, one stone:

If Vitter loses next week, there is buzz among Republicans in Louisiana and Washington that he would NOT run for reelection to the Senate in 2016. A loss in the gubernatorial contest would open him up to a serious GOP challenger, and it would be much harder to hit up the donors who have spent this year funding his campaign. Vitter only had $26,216 in his federal campaign account at the end of September.
Click to expand...
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
QuiteWhittle said:
That's a shame. If he somehow managed to win a runoff spot next year we would've had another possible pickup.
Click to expand...
Eh, still say we should go for it. Get one of the Landrieus to run. Presidential year, less polarizing candidate at the top of the ticket and Louisiana has been trending Democratic.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Daniel B·;184938629 said:
[post=184923542];)[/post]

Bernie voted for the measure, as I'm sure Hillary would have done, but my point is (finally ;) ), Bernie has the potential to achieve the massive landslide in popular support, including in the South, where as Hillary, the "establishment" politician, probably won't even muster Barack's level of support in 2008.
Click to expand...

For your scenario to be right, that Bernie is leading this massive revolution...every single data point everywhere has to be completely wrong. Not a little wrong, either. Entirely, completely, unequivocally, 100% wrong. Every single Democrat who has endorsed Hillary, from both wings of the party, has to be 100% wrong. Every single historical trend would have to be broken. I know you're using the word potential, but that's not the way it works. I have the potential to grow a third leg, but it's not going to happen. Bernie can't even get within 30 points of Hillary in a Southern State, yet he's going to beat her and then, magically, erase the Southern Strategy? Really?

There has been essentially zero movement of AA support towards Sanders. In his favorable/unfavorables, more AA people know about him....but they don't seem to be liking what they see.

Interesting article about Sander's Democrat problem

This is a good read. It also explains why Hillary does light years better among actual Democrats.

So, basically, all Sanders has to do is solve his minority problem, reverse the numbers when it comes to women, find a way to explain away (to the party he wants to lead) while it's no longer morally and intellectually bankrupt, hope Hillary implodes, and hope that everyone who has endorsed Hillary (including superdelegates) gets some type of amnesia before the election.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
@edhenry
Also hearing @SecretService agents assigned to @RealBenCarson have been told his likely Code Name will be "Eli" aka "God is the most high"
Click to expand...

lol

theprodigy said:
what

I'm fairly sure this is incorrect
Click to expand...

Sort of. Lousiana's white population is going to take a huge hit in terms of %, but their white population has already trended more conservative. HOWEVER, Mary Landrieu sort of hit rock bottom with whites (maybe there's a little bit left, but not much). It's sort of a wash, but it'll be interesting to watch these Southern states that have absolutely tapped out the white conservative vote as those numbers become a smaller % of the total population.

It's one of six states that Obama did better in from 2008 to 2012. He actually got more raw votes in 2012 than in 2008 which is impressive.

If demographic % holds (which is a huge question mark), any state above ~45% is going to be tough for a Republican to win in a few more cycles: http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2012/06/americas_under_age_1_populatio.html
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Hillary does light years better amongst actual Democrats because she is an actual Democrat. Bernie's entire political career has been spent as an independent representing a very small state with any national support coming from disaffected liberals who aren't satisfied with the two party system - who aren't likely to be active participants in the two party system.

Not saying that as a diss on Bernie but if you're looking at it from a partisan perspective he hasn't done much for the party.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I love all those BUY GOLD commercials that play all the time on Fox and right-wing radio. See, the American dollar will be worthless at some point due to the fed and lack of a gold standard and such, so it totally makes sense that these gold companies would want to trade such a valuable commodity for eventually worthless scraps of paper.


NSQuote said:
I caught a snippet of Bill O'Reilly arguing about semantics last night while over at the family's that helped me pinpoint an objection to a lot of the conservative rhetroic re: "Hillary lied to the american public about Benghazi!!"

He seems to not realize that terrorists have a motive behind their attacks. He claims that Hillary told the government that Benghazi was "a terrorist attack" and the public that it was "caused by an anti-Islamic video". But how exactly are those statements contradictory? The perpetrators of the Benghazi attack could have been prompted to commit their terror attack because of the anti-Islamic video, and from some recent testimony from captives indicates that this seems to be the case. Terrorists aren't intrinsically terrorists: they can only be classified as terrorists once they commit an act of terror and furthermore people usually have motivations behind why they do something. Of course, religious brainwashing doesn't excuse terrorism, just as it doesn't excuse homophobia - but regardless of whether it is an acceptable justification, it is still the reason why the unacceptable action took place.

It feels like most Republican rhetoric regarding Benghazi boils down to "she called Benghazi the "use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" instead of terrorism!"... when the former is the definition of the latter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's always been one of the stupidest fucking cases of semantics ever. And even if Hillary was intentionally lying about it, I still don't understand what the fuck she had to gain, and why it was the worst thing in the world.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
Bernie Sanders is going to win because of vague reasons.


There is very little chance of Sanders going to win at this rate among minorities.
If he just get his word out then everyone will flock to him, clearly that didn't work out. Now I bet people will continue to say he will win because of some vague reasoning. He will get the minority vote, once voters see Hillary as she really is they will turn on her , once they hear more about Sanders they will go towards him , Bernie has good ideas, so people will start to lean towards him . If all you got is that now; then you don't got much.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Still, the broad contours of his condemnation of the ACA are creating a quandary here in remote Pike County, where 55 percent of voters supported Bevin even though the county benefits greatly from the health-care changes he plans to rescind.

Dennis Blackburn has this splintered self-interest. The 56-year-old mechanic hasn't worked in 18 months, since he lost his job at a tire company that supplies a diminishing number of local coal mines. "The old guy had to go home," Blackburn says of his layoff.
Click to expand...

On Election Day, Blackburn voted for Bevin because he is tired of career politicians and thought a businessman would be more apt to create the jobs that Pike County so needs. Yet when it comes to the state's expansion of health insurance, "it doesn't look to me as if he understands," Blackburn said. "Without this little bit of help these people are giving me, I could probably die.... It's not right to not understand something but want to stamp it out."
Click to expand...

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...t-Bevin-will-do-to-400-000-Medicaid-enrollees

lol @ "I could probably die".

But hey, at least you don't have a "career politician" running your state.
 
T

theprodigy

Member
ivysaur12 said:
lol



Sort of. Lousiana's white population is going to take a huge hit in terms of %, but their white population has already trended more conservative. HOWEVER, Mary Landrieu sort of hit rock bottom with whites (maybe there's a little bit left, but not much). It's sort of a wash, but it'll be interesting to watch these Southern states that have absolutely tapped out the white conservative vote as those numbers become a smaller % of the total population.

It's one of six states that Obama did better in from 2008 to 2012. He actually got more raw votes in 2012 than in 2008 which is impressive.

If demographic % holds (which is a huge question mark), any state above ~45% is going to be tough for a Republican to win in a few more cycles: http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2012/06/americas_under_age_1_populatio.html
Click to expand...

Obama's percentage in 2008 and 2012 in Louisiana was also lower than Kerry's 2004 percentage, so....not really, that's hardly a trend
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
no hold on look at this completely random wi-fi near my house that i'm already connected to and has an esoteric name only you guys would get.

why would you even bother making that up?
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
The most interesting thing about the Sanders run (and the grotesque unlikelyhood of him getting the nom) is how, had he not ruled out running third party (which would still mean that he'd lose, obv), he'd be the single greatest threat to a democrat presidency.

Which is kinda why arguments that he aint no team player are silly. Dude gave an arm and a leg then and there and got pretty much fuckall to show for it.

That he largely squandered what little he got doesn't help things, obv.
 
G

gaugebozo

Member
NSQuote said:
I caught a snippet of Bill O'Reilly arguing about semantics last night while over at the family's that helped me pinpoint an objection to a lot of the conservative rhetroic re: "Hillary lied to the american public about Benghazi!!"

He seems to not realize that terrorists have a motive behind their attacks. He claims that Hillary told the government that Benghazi was "a terrorist attack" and the public that it was "caused by an anti-Islamic video". But how exactly are those statements contradictory? The perpetrators of the Benghazi attack could have been prompted to commit their terror attack because of the anti-Islamic video, and from some recent testimony from captives indicates that this seems to be the case. Terrorists aren't intrinsically terrorists: they can only be classified as terrorists once they commit an act of terror and furthermore people usually have motivations behind why they do something. Of course, religious brainwashing doesn't excuse terrorism, just as it doesn't excuse homophobia - but regardless of whether it is an acceptable justification, it is still the reason why the unacceptable action took place.

It feels like most Republican rhetoric regarding Benghazi boils down to "she called Benghazi the "use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" instead of terrorism!"... when the former is the definition of the latter.
Click to expand...

Republicans' contention is that Clinton lied to the public, saying the terrorists behind that attack were actually people only inspired by the video, instead of having deeper relations to Al-Qaeda. This was to avoid looking bad in the upcoming 2012 election, and to enforce the "narrative" that Al-Qaeda was defeated. So to Republicans, the reason behind the terrorism is more important than the fact that it was terrorism anyway.

This has been shown to be wrong again and again, but that's why the distinction exists.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Coriolanus said:
The most interesting thing about the Sanders run (and the grotesque unlikelyhood of him getting the nom) is how, had he not ruled out running third party (which would still mean that he'd lose, obv), he'd be the single greatest threat to a democrat presidency.

Which is kinda why arguments that he aint no team player are silly. Dude gave an arm and a leg then and there and got pretty much fuckall to show for it.

That he largely squandered what little he got doesn't help things, obv.
Click to expand...

he'll get a say in the party platform (and already has obviously, with Hillary addressing his concerns). And when Warren comes around, watch out. Sanders will have a lot to show for his efforts.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
PantherLotus said:
sorry, it read like it was your own and it struck me funny is all.
Click to expand...
My bad.. I should've made that clearer. 😋

Coriolanus said:
The most interesting thing about the Sanders run (and the grotesque unlikelyhood of him getting the nom) is how, had he not ruled out running third party (which would still mean that he'd lose, obv), he'd be the single greatest threat to a democrat presidency.

Which is kinda why arguments that he aint no team player are silly. Dude gave an arm and a leg then and there and got pretty much fuckall to show for it.

That he largely squandered what little he got doesn't help things, obv.
Click to expand...
Bernie's ruling-out of a third-party run speaks volumes to me. That one move alone makes him miles better than the whole Nadery "there's no difference" crowd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom