• 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.
M

Makai

Member
Bel Marduk said:
So.. Herman Cain will be speaking at an upcoming Trump rally in Georgia, and he's been torching Jeb! in the process.

What do you guys think are the odds of him picking Cain as a running mate? He and Trump share an extreme lack of substance and it may make Trump's racism more palatable to the racist, but totally not racist segment of the population.
Click to expand...
You remember why Cain dropped out, right? I would be shocked if it's not somebody currently running.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Bel Marduk said:
So.. Herman Cain will be speaking at an upcoming Trump rally in Georgia, and he's been torching Jeb! in the process.

What do you guys think are the odds of him picking Cain as a running mate? He and Trump share an extreme lack of substance and it may make Trump's racism more palatable to the racist, but totally not racist segment of the population.
Click to expand...

Does Trump want us to make "nien, nien, nien" jokes? Because this is how that happens.
 
M

Makai

Member
I see Trump's VP picks approximately like this

TOP TIER
Ted Cruz

HIGH TIER
Marco Rubio

MID TIER
Chris Christie
Martin Scorsese

LOW TIER
Ben Carson
Mike Huckabee

FUCK NO TIER
Everyone else
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Baltimore, Maryland (CNN)The first of six city police officers went on trial Monday in a closely watched case involving a 25-year-old black prisoner who died after being shackled and placed without a seat belt in a Baltimore City police van.

The April 19 death of Freddie Gray, the son of an illiterate heroin addict, made him a symbol of the black community's distrust of police. His name is now invoked with those of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri; Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio; Eric Garner in New York; and other black men who died during encounters with white police officers. In Gray's case, three of the officers charged are white; three black.
Click to expand...

Half of the people reading CNN have children addicted to heroin and can't do math, but sure, good points to bring up, CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/us/baltimore-police-trial-freddie-gray-jury-selection/

Also, it's fucking sad how every major female writer or commentator for major news outlets in the U.S. is white and blonde.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Pre-Reagan, Republicans were more pro-choice than any other group of people in the U.S.

CVEvH9uWcAEOl_l.jpg
Click to expand...

And, notably, the split was about the same across party lines.

This is what I remember from my teen years-- abortion was not a party-split issue.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Why would Trump even need Cruz? They basically have the same audience. Sure Cruz is more popular with Evangelicals and traditional conservatives but Trump would likely expect those people to vote for him regardless.

I can't imagine any candidate with a future or with an ounce of political insight agreeing to run on a Trump ticket.
 
M

Makai

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Why would Trump even need Cruz? They basically have the same audience. Sure Cruz is more popular with Evangelicals and traditional conservatives but Trump would likely expect those people to vote for him regardless.

I can't imagine any candidate with a future or with an ounce of political insight agreeing to run on a Trump ticket.
Click to expand...
Prove ideological purity. And yeah, everyone else seems incompatible.
 
B

Bel Marduk

Banned
Makai said:
You remember why Cain dropped out, right? I would be shocked if it's not somebody currently running.
Click to expand...

Yes, Cain dropped out because of allegations of sexual misconduct.

None of that matters in this cycle because Donald Trump is the frontrunner.

However, you can still laugh at Cain whether it be the Pokemon speech or "Becky, Becky, Becky, Becky, Stan Stan."

Trump and his supporters are really starting to get scary.
 
M

Makai

Member
Happy Holidays

Front-side-christmas-cup-blur_grande.png
Click to expand...

$9.95

Introducing Breitbart's Limited Edition, politically incorrect, Merry Christmas travel mug.

Now you can enjoy your coffee without apologizing for Christmas.

Buy yours today before the limited supply is gone. Limit 4 per order.

*A portion of the proceeds will be used to purchase Christmas wreaths to lay on the graves of fallen U.S. soldiers.
Click to expand...
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
Metaphoreus said:
And that's an idiosyncratic use of the word "tyrant." In fact, democracy doesn't ask why people support the policies or politicians that they do. Moreover, your theory of democracy would shut out most religious people from voting, since, it seems to me, most people try to support policies that they consider moral, and oppose policies that they consider immoral. For the religious, what is moral and immoral is generally going to be a purely religious question. Your standard condemns the progressive Christian supporting socialism because he believes it's better for the poor (and that God commands us to care for the poor) as much as anyone else.
Click to expand...

People with religious beliefs can vote without voting for people who want to impose their purely religious views on others. If a progressive Christian is only voting for socialism because he thinks God would want that, then they shouldn't be voting for socialism.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Giant Panda said:
People with religious beliefs can vote without voting for people who want to impose their purely religious views on others. If a progressive Christian is only voting for socialism because he thinks God would want that, then they shouldn't be voting for socialism.
Click to expand...

Why on earth not?
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/30/mor...nnial_and_ill_never_vote_for_hillary_clinton/


More like Reagan than FDR: I’m a millennial and I’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton
I never thought I'd be encouraging people to not vote for the Democratic nominee for president. But I am

I am a 27-year-old, politically active, progressive millennial voter. I am a political junkie; my background is political science and American history. However, if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination (a big “if”), I will likely not vote for her, and will instead write in “Bernie Sanders” … and I encourage my readers to do so as well.

I never thought I would be encouraging people to not vote for the Democratic nominee for president. Looking at 2012, history illustrates that the only way to change politics is through primary elections: If you want change, vote for the party aligned most closely to that change, and participate in primaries, but when it comes to the general, select the “lesser of two evils.” However, I am disgusted with how the Democratic Party is resisting that process.

1) Hillary’s personality repels me (and many others).
2) On foreign policy, Clinton is a neoconservative.
3) On domestic policy, Clinton is basically a moderate Republican.
4) Choosing Hillary threatens the future of the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...
==
But Hillary is better than a Republican, so why not vote for her if Bernie doesn’t get the nod?

From a political science perspective, I see American politics through the lens of realignment cycles. We Democrats have a limited time to get done what we want to get done, which is why I would rather lose this election cycle due to low turnout than waste four years. What will America look like if Hillary wins two terms? So far her platform is more about preserving what we have than it is about improving it; protecting women’s rights, maintaining Obamacare, etc. The U.S. post-Hillary will, more likely than not, bear a striking resemblance to America now — complete with all the same underlying problems we face today, like the political dominance of the billionaire class and the massive wealth gap. That’s because the issues we must tackle require more than half-measures, and Hillary is the half-measures candidate. Hillary winning even one term precludes President Bernie and makes it unlikely that we will ever see President Elizabeth Warren (who will have to run either in 2020 or 2024 in order to be viable age-wise).

The 2020-2024 election cycles are far more important than 2016. Both the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court of the United States will be up for grabs. I worry that Hillary in 2020 will be an even harder sell than she is now, given the direction the electorate is shifting. The fact is, Hillary is not a progressive. She’s barely even a liberal.

That’s why I am not ready for Hillary. Bernie Sanders has given America a vision of what a statesman looks like — the caliber of political leader we can have if we choose. He’s been consistent throughout his entire career on issues that matter. There are videos of him from the early ’90s that sound remarkably similar to what he is saying today. He voted against “welfare reform,” he supported universal healthcare, and in terms of foreign policy, he’s been vindicated. Bernie gives me real hope, and I cannot support the “lesser-of-two-evils” model when there is such a person in the race with a serious chance of winning.
Click to expand...

I can sense Cheebo foaming at his keyboard in rage as he reads this.
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
Metaphoreus said:
Why on earth not?
Click to expand...

Because a religious justification isn't a real justification in my view. Justifications should be based on actual real world facts. This hypothetical socialist Christian only cares about the religious outcome, not the actual outcome. It's another case of trying to force their religion on others.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Giant Panda said:
Because a religious justification isn't a real justification in my view. Justifications should be based on actual real world facts. This hypothetical socialist Christian only cares about the religious outcome, not the actual outcome. It's another case of trying to force their religion on others.
Click to expand...

LOL no.
 
B

Butts-a-plenty

Banned
Giant Panda said:
Because a religious justification isn't a real justification in my view. Justifications should be based on actual real world facts. This hypothetical socialist Christian only cares about the religious outcome, not the actual outcome. It's another case of trying to force their religion on others.
Click to expand...

I can safely say I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/30/mor...nnial_and_ill_never_vote_for_hillary_clinton/



==


I can sense Cheebo foaming at his keyboard in rage as he reads this.
Click to expand...

If not for Charles Blow's asinine "Why Hillary Will Be Better For Black People Than Obama Was" article (which for whatever reason I broke my "never click articles that start with the words Why or What" rule to glance at) this would be the worst article I've skimmed in months. This guy and everyone who agrees with him is a fucking idiot. The Supreme Court alone should be reason enough to vote for Hillary Clinton; of course he doesn't mention it once in his article (unless my ctrl+f search is messing up).

What will America look like after four years of Sanders btw? Pretty much the same as it'll look after four years of Hillary. Next to no legislation passed but Obamacare will still exist, and the Supreme Court could be more liberal depending on who dies/retires.

This is something liberals don't understand, be they BLM radicals or Sanders fanatics. Change does not come from the top down. If you want change you need to spark it on a grassroots level. Prosecutors, sheriffs, school boards, congressmen, etc. Which means showing up to midterm elections as well as local elections. You're not going to get a hashtag trending by taking over a school board or electing a decent prosecutor but it'll do more good than yelling at Bernie fucking Sanders. Likewise Hillary isn't as trendy or "appealing" as Bernie, but she can actually win an election and sweep a decent amount of democrats into office.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
PhoenixDark said:
If not for Charles Blow's asinine "Why Hillary Will Be Better For Black People Than Obama Was" article (which for whatever reason I broke my "never click articles that start with the words Why or What" rule to glance at) this would be the worst article I've skimmed in months. This guy and everyone who agrees with him is a fucking idiot. The Supreme Court alone should be reason enough to vote for Hillary Clinton; of course he doesn't mention it once in his article (unless my ctrl+f search is messing up).

What will America look like after four years of Sanders btw? Pretty much the same as it'll look after four years of Hillary. Next to no legislation passed but Obamacare will still exist, and the Supreme Court could be more liberal depending on who dies/retires.

This is something liberals don't understand, be they BLM radicals or Sanders fanatics. Change does not come from the top down. If you want change you need to spark it on a grassroots level. Prosecutors, sheriffs, school boards, congressmen, etc. Which means showing up to midterm elections as well as local elections. You're not going to get a hashtag trending by taking over a school board or electing a decent prosecutor but it'll do more good than yelling at Bernie fucking Sanders. Likewise Hillary isn't as trendy or "appealing" as Bernie, but she can actually win an election and sweep a decent amount of democrats into office.
Click to expand...

People want to change things the laziest way possible, most of these people aren't politically knowledgeable to a point, and most likely won't vote anyway. If they was going to vote for Bernie, but not Hillary if she is the nominee it really wasn't a lost vote.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
If not for Charles Blow's asinine "Why Hillary Will Be Better For Black People Than Obama Was" article (which for whatever reason I broke my "never click articles that start with the words Why or What" rule to glance at) this would be the worst article I've skimmed in months. This guy and everyone who agrees with him is a fucking idiot. The Supreme Court alone should be reason enough to vote for Hillary Clinton; of course he doesn't mention it once in his article (unless my ctrl+f search is messing up).

What will America look like after four years of Sanders btw? Pretty much the same as it'll look after four years of Hillary. Next to no legislation passed but Obamacare will still exist, and the Supreme Court could be more liberal depending on who dies/retires.

This is something liberals don't understand, be they BLM radicals or Sanders fanatics. Change does not come from the top down. If you want change you need to spark it on a grassroots level. Prosecutors, sheriffs, school boards, congressmen, etc. Which means showing up to midterm elections as well as local elections. You're not going to get a hashtag trending by taking over a school board or electing a decent prosecutor but it'll do more good than yelling at Bernie fucking Sanders. Likewise Hillary isn't as trendy or "appealing" as Bernie, but she can actually win an election and sweep a decent amount of democrats into office.
Click to expand...
Pretty much nailed it.

If SCOTUS leans strongly right after the 2017-2021 presidential term, we progressives can elect all the Bernie-types we want to all levels of government for several cycles after this one - but those victories will be haunted in the form of conservative judicial intervention.

I have yet to see Berniefolk (or G.E. temper tantrum advocates of any cycle) of this stripe come-up with an effective counterpoint (and I have challenged them on many occasions to do so), and it screams volumes that she deliberately avoids the topic altogether. She might as well admit that she has no comeback.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
HylianTom said:
Pretty much nailed it.

If SCOTUS leans strongly right after the 2017-2021 presidential term, we progressives can elect all the Bernie-types we want to all levels of government for several cycles after this one - but those victories will be haunted in the form of conservative judicial intervention.

I have yet to see Berniefolk (or G.E. temper tantrum advocates of any cycle) of this stripe come-up with an effective counterpoint (and I have challenged them on many occasions to do so), and it screams volumes that she deliberately avoids the topic altogether. She might as well admit that she has no comeback.
Click to expand...

I mean, I support Bernie for two main reasons, a) because the threat of losing forces Clinton to at least partially alter her positions to keep his voters, and b) because he's more electable than Clinton and therefore guarantees the Supreme Court. No tantrums here.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Crab said:
I mean, I support Bernie for two main reasons, a) because the threat of losing forces Clinton to at least partially alter her positions to keep his voters, and b) because he's more electable than Clinton and therefore guarantees the Supreme Court. No tantrums here.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and I get that - I'm not going to begrudge anyone for supporting whomever they like in the primary. My ire is mainly reserved for swing staters who make this threat/whine once it's time to line-up for the general election.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
HylianTom said:
Absolutely, and I get that - I'm not going to begrudge anyone for supporting whomever they like in the primary. My ire is mainly reserved for swing staters who make this threat/whine once it's time to line-up for the general election.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't understand not voting the Democratic nominee at all. It's just nuts. Like, if accelerationism worked, maybe I'd consider the short-term harms worth it, but it just doesn't seem clear it does. After two terms of Reagan and one of Bush senior, we got Bill Clinton, who's about as milquetoast a liberal as you can possibly get. No acceleration there.
 
T

teiresias

Member
PhoenixDark said:
If not for Charles Blow's asinine "Why Hillary Will Be Better For Black People Than Obama Was" article (which for whatever reason I broke my "never click articles that start with the words Why or What" rule to glance at) this would be the worst article I've skimmed in months. This guy and everyone who agrees with him is a fucking idiot. The Supreme Court alone should be reason enough to vote for Hillary Clinton; of course he doesn't mention it once in his article (unless my ctrl+f search is messing up).

What will America look like after four years of Sanders btw? Pretty much the same as it'll look after four years of Hillary. Next to no legislation passed but Obamacare will still exist, and the Supreme Court could be more liberal depending on who dies/retires.

This is something liberals don't understand, be they BLM radicals or Sanders fanatics. Change does not come from the top down. If you want change you need to spark it on a grassroots level. Prosecutors, sheriffs, school boards, congressmen, etc. Which means showing up to midterm elections as well as local elections. You're not going to get a hashtag trending by taking over a school board or electing a decent prosecutor but it'll do more good than yelling at Bernie fucking Sanders. Likewise Hillary isn't as trendy or "appealing" as Bernie, but she can actually win an election and sweep a decent amount of democrats into office.
Click to expand...

You did miss the SCOTUS mention - which is probably just as well as it makes no damn sense:

The 2020-2024 election cycles are far more important than 2016. Both the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court of the United States will be up for grabs.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS only up for grabs in 2020? Does this douche have any idea how the Supreme Court even works?
 
U

User 406

Banned
HylianTom said:
Absolutely, and I get that - I'm not going to begrudge anyone for supporting whomever they like in the primary. My ire is mainly reserved for swing staters who make this threat/whine once it's time to line-up for the general election.
Click to expand...

I used to feel like that, but then I realized the futility of getting mad about people who weren't engaging seriously in the political process to begin with. May as well huff and puff over non-voters. They're electorally the same thing.

Edit: Actually, come to think of it, pestering non-voters to start voting is probably orders of magnitude more likely to get results than explaining math to brave self-servingsacrificing ideologues for the millionth time.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
PhoenixDark said:
If not for Charles Blow's asinine "Why Hillary Will Be Better For Black People Than Obama Was" article (which for whatever reason I broke my "never click articles that start with the words Why or What" rule to glance at) this would be the worst article I've skimmed in months. This guy and everyone who agrees with him is a fucking idiot. The Supreme Court alone should be reason enough to vote for Hillary Clinton; of course he doesn't mention it once in his article (unless my ctrl+f search is messing up).

What will America look like after four years of Sanders btw? Pretty much the same as it'll look after four years of Hillary. Next to no legislation passed but Obamacare will still exist, and the Supreme Court could be more liberal depending on who dies/retires.

This is something liberals don't understand, be they BLM radicals or Sanders fanatics. Change does not come from the top down. If you want change you need to spark it on a grassroots level. Prosecutors, sheriffs, school boards, congressmen, etc. Which means showing up to midterm elections as well as local elections. You're not going to get a hashtag trending by taking over a school board or electing a decent prosecutor but it'll do more good than yelling at Bernie fucking Sanders. Likewise Hillary isn't as trendy or "appealing" as Bernie, but she can actually win an election and sweep a decent amount of democrats into office.
Click to expand...

Yep. Not to be a broken record, but Democrats need to look no further than 2010 to realize what the detrimental effects of not voting because you're not satisfied that your Democrats are sufficiently liberal. It resulted in us losing an entire branch of the government and dozens and dozens of state legislatures for at least a fucking decade. And there's no guarantee that we'll be able to turn the tide even in in 2020. That's how fucking bad things got thanks to one fucking election.

I criticized Obama and the Democrats in the senate a lot during Obama's first term, but as seemingly dysfunctional as they may have appeared at times, it was infinitely preferable to what we had to deal with afterwards: constant shutdowns, threats over the debt ceiling, major cuts in spending, etc.

It's always good to vote for a Democrat that's as liberal as possible, but if you can't do that, you need to vote for the next best thing regardless, and you have to do that EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. And we have to make sure that we always vote, on every level and prevent any Republican from even getting elected dog catcher.

If any of the SC justices retire (and sadly, it'll be on the liberal side), the left will be fucked for a generation. Not to mention the 70 or so federal judge openings that need to be filled.

Enough of these fucking protest votes already. I don't give a damn how much some may hate Hillary. However bad she is, she is infinitely a better option than any Republican on the field right now.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Sea Manky said:
I used to feel like that, but then I realized the futility of getting mad about people who weren't engaging seriously in the political process to begin with. May as well huff and puff over non-voters. They're electorally the same thing.
Click to expand...

In this case, I'll call it out if only because this interesting person has a bit louder a megaphone. But I'm not too worked-up over it. This kind of "there's no difference" malarkey gets more eyerolls than agitation from me. :p
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Giant Panda said:
Why do you disagree? Voting to enact something that will affect everyone purely for religious reasons is an attempt to force their religion on others.
Click to expand...

You said it was "trying to force religion on others" if you vote because you believe God would want it that way.

I am a Christian. I also believe that Jesus would be absolutely disgusted with the massive gap between the rich and the poor right now and how republicans seem to want to do everything in their power to get the rich as much money as possible at the expense of the poor and middle class. As a result, I vote democrat because they care more about the poor than republicans do.

In no way are my votes "trying to force religion on others." My votes are merely what I believe God would want ME to do as a representative of His, nothing more.
 
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