• 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.
So you care about the lies Hillary committed regarding the e-mail scandal, but somehow don't care about her lies regarding her role in killing Ambassador Stevens (which are most likely related to said lies regarding the e-mails)?

It's all the same BS.

"They claimed it was because of a video!" is the same weird nonsense as calling Hillary a serial liar because "I never received classified emails" became "emails that were classified at the time they were sent".

There's zero substance there in both cases.
 
Make a serious argument if you have one, Oblivion. Spare me this "everyone who disagrees with me only does so because they're crazy conspiracy-theory nutjobs" garbage.



See above.

Let's try having discussions in which each participant argues for whatever it is he or she believes, rather than merely sneering at people who express different beliefs.

Now I see why people think I'm your alt-account. Sometimes when reading your posts, I feel like I'm looking at myself in the mirror.

When this e-mail nonsense actually has some meat on the bones, I'll be sure to do that.

If by 'meat on the bones' you mean 'incriminating evidence' you might as well resign from the discussion. Not all of us talking about this are arguing for or against her going to jail.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Make a serious argument if you have one, Oblivion. Spare me this "everyone who disagrees with me only does so because they're crazy conspiracy-theory nutjobs" garbage.



See above.

Let's try having discussions in which each participant argues for whatever it is he or she believes, rather than merely sneering at people who express different beliefs.

Now I see why people think I'm your alt-account. Sometimes when reading your posts, I feel like I'm looking at myself in the mirror.



If by 'meat on the bones' you mean 'incriminating evidence' you might as well resign from the discussion. Not all of us talking about this are arguing for or against her going to jail.

of course. You both have a similar posting style/dialect.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
If by 'meat on the bones' you mean 'incriminating evidence' you might as well resign from the discussion. Not all of us talking about this are arguing for or against her going to jail.

So what are you arguing should happen to her then? Because if we're not talking about how much jail time Hillary should serve, then this discussion/scandal is infinitely less interesting. I imagine that "Hillary Clinton forced to pay $250 fine for not following State Department protocol" isn't really a particularly sexy headline for Republicans.
 
So what are you arguing should happen to her then? Because if we're not talking about how much jail time Hillary should serve, then this discussion/scandal is infinitely less interesting. I imagine that "Hillary Clinton forced to pay $250 fine for not following State Department protocol" isn't really a particularly sexy headline for Republicans.

I'm not arguing that anything should happen to her at the moment, especially considering that the investigation has not been concluded.

I made some value judgments about her competence as a government official, but mostly, I've just been responding to people who were under the assumption that I was arguing that she's guilty of some crime, by clarifying my actual position.

And yes, it's obvious to me that my angle is less interesting, as evidenced by the tendency of this thread to gravitate towards arguing against the unsubstantiated notions about what should happen to her because of this.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Now I see why people think I'm your alt-account. Sometimes when reading your posts, I feel like I'm looking at myself in the mirror.

Just don't launch into lengthy explanations about legal minutiae and I think we'll be OK.

So what are you arguing should happen to her then? Because if we're not talking about how much jail time Hillary should serve, then this discussion/scandal is infinitely less interesting. I imagine that "Hillary Clinton forced to pay $250 fine for not following State Department protocol" isn't really a particularly sexy headline for Republicans.

At least potentially, the following issues remain:

  • Poor judgment in setting up a private server to host her private email account used in public affairs.
  • Incompetence in failing to train her staff to recognize classified information and respect the rules of classification; and incompetence in failing to recognize such information and respect the rules for herself.
  • Lying about knowing the rules of classification or about whether classified material had found its way to her server.
Take your pick. Politicians shouldn't be free from criticism simply because they haven't violated a criminal law.
 
It's not like we've got much detail to go on, but I think there's something to this. The rhetoric here is somewhat different - usually Republicans are annoyed that a little under half of households don't pay any federal income tax - but as policy the effect on people making not much money is pretty minor. Especially if a bunch of people aren't even filing anymore, presumably we're losing a bunch of the tax credits that right now keep a lot of people's income tax low. Probably a few more households pay no income tax under Trump's plan, but not a huge number. Mostly it's a tax cut for people making lots of money.

There are only two things about it that really strike me as weird for a Republican plan. It's much less aggressive about cutting taxes on capital gains, although it still cuts them. And Trump's just totally unconcerned with whether the math adds up so the magnitude of the cuts is pretty large all around, whereas most Republican proposals try to make it so that it's at least possible that the policy won't generate vastly more debt.

I think we're on the same page- but I'm not entirely sure.

No one in their right mind expected Trump to whip out a bernie sanders style liberal tax policy and flip a middle finger to the GOP. What you were going to get was ALWAYS going to be something palatable to republican voters.

Details don't matter here- this is a stump speech early in the primary. NO ONE'S plan has a prayer of getting to congress much less through it without being heavily, heavily altered- assuming a republican can manage the nigh impossible task of winning the general in the first place.

What matters here is messaging and rhetoric. Yes, trumps plan lowers the top tax bracket and gets rid of the "death tax". republicans love these, why wouldn't he? But what else does it do?

Trump goes all in here and says "the poor won't be paying any federal tax at all. They don't have any money at all, it's pointless to tax them."

what?? do you expect any of the OTHER 11 candidates to whip this one out? The GOP has made demonizing the poor and slapping them with "flat taxes" for not paying their fair share a MAJOR party plank as far back as Steve Forbes. This is not a typical republican talking point, and if a democratic candidate said it the GOP talking heads would have a field day with "free giveaways" the democrats were doing with the money of "real americans".

Second, trump has no problems demonizing "wealthy wall street managers fleecing the public and not paying taxes" as a problem but this one isn't new- for him. perfectly bog standard language on the blue side of the aisle, but I don't expect any other republican candidate to say this or anything close to it. How he gets there isn't all that exciting (repealing the carried interest exemption...yawn) but again- messaging is more important than details here. "Wall street is a problem, they need to pay their fair share" is the takeaway.

Finally- I think the solution to the overseas money comes across as surprisingly reasonable. They've been lobbying hard for another tax holiday forever and refusing to repatriate those dollars at full tax rates. Coming down in the middle at 10% seems like a surprisingly moderate position, given that "job creators need that money!" is the typical talking point. Has anyone else running for the GOP nomination even mentioned this one?
 
PollGAF! July shit in parentheses

Obama job approval
47 approve (45)
47 disapprove (50)

Obama favorability
46 positive/40 negative (44/43) +6

Democratic Party favorability
41 positive/35 negative (38/38) +6

Republican Party favorability
29 positive/45 negative (28/44) -16

Jeb Bush favorability
24 positive/39 negative (26/40) -15

Hillary Clinton favorability
39 positive/47 negative (37/48) -8

Donald Trump favorability
25 positive/58 negative (26/56) -33

Bernie Sanders favorability
32 positive/22 negative (24/19) +10

Ben Carson favorability
29 positive/21 negative (24/19) +8

Carly Fiorina favorability
27 positive/20 negative (15/13) +7

Joe Biden favorability
40 positive/28 negative (40/31) +12

Planned Parenthood favorability
47 positive/31 negative (45/30) +16

Black Lives Matter favorability
32 positive/29 negative (no July numbers) +3

Presidential Election Match-Ups

Generic D 38
Generic R 38

Clinton 45
Bush 44

Clinton 49
Trump 39

Clinton 45
Carson 46

Clinton 44
Fiorina 45

Biden 48
Bush 40

Biden 56
Trump 35

Biden 49
Carson 41

Biden 47
Fiorina 41

Sanders 52
Trump 38
No polls of Sanders against any of the other GOPers, oddly. Biden's numbers are terrific. They'd probably fall if the GOP started attacking him but really, what asshole (besides Cruz) would attack a grieving father? Is what I'm guessing the media's angle would be on that.

RGA is pulling an Akin on Matt Bevin. Could be good for Conway (who said he's leading in his private internals by around 5 or so, but that always comes with a grain of salt) and Bevin has just burned too many bridges, or the RGA might just feel he has it in the bag. Even then though it's not like there are any other contests this year that need RGA funding, so we'll have to see how this plays out.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
It's all the same BS.

"They claimed it was because of a video!" is the same weird nonsense as calling Hillary a serial liar because "I never received classified emails" became "emails that were classified at the time they were sent".

There's zero substance there in both cases.

You act as if you know there's something wrong in both cases, but you have no idea what it is. There being some mysterious Wrong Thing in each case, it must be same in both. But the cases are dissimilar in important respects.

From what I can tell, "They claimed it was because of a video!" is immaterial, because claiming otherwise wouldn't have affected the events in Benghazi. And it's not evidence of wrongdoing, even if it is deceptive.

But "I never received classified emails" becoming "I never received emails that were classified at the time" and then "I never received emails that were marked classified" isn't like that. It matters whether she received classified emails (she did) and whether she knew they were classified (unknown at this point, but ignorance of the classification rules is no virtue). We don't need the emails to point to some further wrongdoing, like a secret plot to kill Ambassador Stevens. Like I said before, it doesn't matter whether the gun is smoking when you find it in a school--the fact that it's there is the problem.
 
CQATJhHWUAAWmTJ.jpg


University of Chicago. Axelrod introduced Bernie.

I have pictures of my wife singing in that space.
 

Gotchaye

Member
PollGAF! July shit in parentheses


No polls of Sanders against any of the other GOPers, oddly. Biden's numbers are terrific. They'd probably fall if the GOP started attacking him but really, what asshole (besides Cruz) would attack a grieving father? Is what I'm guessing the media's angle would be on that.

RGA is pulling an Akin on Matt Bevin. Could be good for Conway (who said he's leading in his private internals by around 5 or so, but that always comes with a grain of salt) and Bevin has just burned too many bridges, or the RGA might just feel he has it in the bag. Even then though it's not like there are any other contests this year that need RGA funding, so we'll have to see how this plays out.

A little surprised at BLM being 32/29. It's also impressive how PP is staying above water, though opinions on that have to be pretty hardened at this point. My mom was asking the other day about a possible government shutdown and when I brought up PP she came out with the usual "and they do so much that has nothing to do with abortion", and she doesn't follow this stuff at all.
 
WSJ Poll Shows Risks for GOP; Clinton Support Wanes
The Republican Party heads into the 2016 White House race with a negative image and policy stances out of step with those of the broader public, while Democrats are backing a front-runner who continues to lose steam with all parts of the electorate, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton preserved her lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but she is showing new signs of wear as a general-election candidate. She now runs neck-and-neck with three of the four leading Republican contenders, two months after polling showed her dominating the GOP field. Vice President Joe Biden, who is still weighing a bid, performs much better in test match-ups against potential GOP nominees.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/wsj-poll-shows-risks-for-gop-clinton-support-wanes-1443474203

Biden: 48
Bush: 40

Clinton: 45
Bush: 44

Biden: 56
Trump: 35

Clinton: 49
Trump: 39

----

Clinton 42
Sanders 35
Biden 17

----

Trump 21
Carson 20
Rubio 11
Fiorina 11
Bush 7
Kasich 6
Cruz 5
Paul 3
Christie 3
Huckabee 2
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
WSJ Poll Shows Risks for GOP; Clinton Support Wanes


http://www.wsj.com/articles/wsj-poll-shows-risks-for-gop-clinton-support-wanes-1443474203

Biden: 48
Bush: 40

Clinton: 45
Bush: 44

Biden: 56
Trump: 35

Clinton: 49
Trump: 39

----

Clinton 42
Sanders 35
Biden 17

----

Trump 21
Carson 20
Rubio 11
Fiorina 11
Bush 7
Kasich 6
Cruz 5
Paul 3
Christie 3
Huckabee 2

Did they poll Carson v. Clinton/Biden in the general election? They need to start.

Edit: Saw it above. He beats Clinton, which I would expect.
 
GOP would have no issue going all the way completely in on Biden, grieving father or not. And I honestly don't see the media giving them that much shit for it either.
 
People believe Carson wouldn't lose by 5+ in the general?

His GE polling is flukier than anything Trump has accomplished this year. He's done the moment someone starts to seriously campaign against him.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
At least potentially, the following issues remain:

  • Poor judgment in setting up a private server to host her private email account used in public affairs.
  • Incompetence in failing to train her staff to recognize classified information and respect the rules of classification; and incompetence in failing to recognize such information and respect the rules for herself.
  • Lying about knowing the rules of classification or about whether classified material had found its way to her server.
Take your pick. Politicians shouldn't be free from criticism simply because they haven't violated a criminal law.

Pretty sure no one's said you can't criticize Hillary for anything, but there is a little thing called perspective. None of those things you mentioned would be things that reasonable people would think qualifies as front page news.
 
Did they poll Carson v. Clinton/Biden in the general election? They need to start.

Edit: Saw it above. He beats Clinton, which I would expect.

By one point? That's within the margin of error, come on.

Listening to any random Carson interview for 10 minutes will make it clear why he is unelectable.
 
I'm kind of conflicted about the video below. On one hand, I understand that this is supposed to be a skit that plays off the idea of interrupting Bernie ala #blacklivesmatter, but on the other hand, I feel like they could have let him talk about his platform just a LITTLE bit more than they did. It almost came across as disingenuous.

Nevertheless, publicity is publicity, and Bernie needs all the publicity he can get.


https://youtu.be/frPKif4j5go
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Pretty sure no one's said you can't criticize Hillary for anything, but there is a little thing called perspective. None of those things you mentioned would be things that reasonable people would think qualifies as front page news.

Oh, so this is actually about ethics in political journalism?

This is front-page news because Clinton is front-page news, and her behavior with respect to the server has raised a number of important questions about her competence, honesty, and judgment.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
At this very moment? Yeah, sure, whatever.
Next year?* You are insane.

*Jesus Christ, there is still over a year left.

By one point? That's within the margin of error, come on.

Listening to any random Carson interview for 10 minutes will make it clear why he is unelectable.

Guys, all I meant was that I expected he would be beating her in a hypothetical matchup AT THIS POINT.

That's all.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Oh, so this is actually about ethics in political journalism?

This is front-page news because Clinton is front-page news, and her behavior with respect to the server has raised a number of important questions about her competence, honesty, and judgment.

If it were not the emails it would be something else that would question her competence, honest and judgement. Benghazi comes to mind. The Clinton Foundation also comes to mind. Her million dollar speeches come to mind. Her "dead broke" comment comes to mind. etc etc etc.
 
It's also impressive how PP is staying above water, though opinions on that have to be pretty hardened at this point. My mom was asking the other day about a possible government shutdown and when I brought up PP she came out with the usual "and they do so much that has nothing to do with abortion", and she doesn't follow this stuff at all.

I think average women are the last people that need to be convinced Planned Parenthood does a lot more than abortion services. For them it's not so much a political issue as common sense.

As the polls keep coming I'm liking my prediction of Sanders/Rubio. I'm heavily biased being from VT and having met Sanders a number of times personally, but he's a good man and I strongly believe he has a fighting chance.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Benghazi me if old

Chad Pergram ‏@ChadPergram 21m21 minutes ago
Many contingencies w/the Gowdy scenario. McCarthy has to become Spkr. GOP must stall on other candidates for ML & GOP must go along w/Gowdy

Chad Pergram ‏@ChadPergram 22m22 minutes ago
If Gowdy were to become Acting Maj Ldr, unclear what his role woukd be chairing the #Benghazi Committee.

Chad Pergram ‏@ChadPergram 23m23 minutes ago
Fox is told Gowdy would only be willing to serve as a caretaker Maj Ldr through the end of this Congress in January, 2017.

Chad Pergram ‏@ChadPergram 24m24 minutes ago
Fox has learned that Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) would be willing to serve as ACTING Majority Leader should GOPers deadlock & McCarthy advance
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
No.
And really, seeing Sting live is just a terrible idea, there's like 75% chance he'll bring out a lute.
That's a risk no person should ever take.
Some guy: "Don't stand so close to me!"
Sting: "Uhh sorry we aren't taking any requests tonig..."
Some guy: "No seriously bro, just back the fuck up."
 

HylianTom

Banned
Bush camp moves to ease donor angst

For the past week, Jeb Bush's campaign advisers have been using a new data point to convince nervous donors that he's still the candidate to beat — Bush's lead in the political prediction markets.

Just one problem: Beginning Sunday night, PredictIt, the biggest of the online sites and the one referenced last week by top Bush advisers and confidants, placed Marco Rubio ahead of Bush at the head of the GOP pack.

The sudden evaporation of yet another data point in his favor explains the tension in and around Bush's campaign this week on the eve of the third quarter FEC fundraising deadline.

His top bundlers, summoned to Miami for a last-minute call-a-thon, are working hard to convince increasingly anxious donors of their candidate's strength. Bush's team is highlighting the benefits of its sizable financial advantage — mainly, a top-notch national organization — in an effort to focus attention on the campaign's durability but also to demonstrate its superiority in relation to Marco Rubio, whose rise in recent polls represents a growing threat.

Miami's message essentially boils down to this: Keep calm and remember we’re sitting on $100 million and an extensive organization.

Pretty good read. I'd be very inclined to pick Rubio if Bush weren't sitting on that warchest, but that muddies things a bit. We know that Bush & Trump are in this until at least March, and I wonder if the big donors are hesitant to throw money into keeping another candidate in the mix, prolonging the process while the Dems are on the other side uniting behind a nominee and taking pot shots..
 
Closing the book: The Pointless Cowardice of John Boehner (New Yorker)
Boehner also supported immigration reform, at least in its broad outlines—because he correctly saw that it was good for both his party and his country. And there was no doubt that the reform bill could pass the House, with the support of most Democrats and a substantial number of Republicans as well. But Boehner’s Tea Party colleagues in the House opposed immigration reform. So the choice for Boehner, who controlled the House floor, was clear: pass a historic bill that would be good for the Republicans and for the republic, or appease the extremist elements in his party in hopes of hanging on to his position as Speaker.

Boehner caved, refusing to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, and he suffered the fate of all those who give in to bullies; he was bullied some more.
This year, the fight was over the highway bill, another piece of popular legislation that Boehner himself and a majority of the House (as well as the Senate and the President) supported—as well they might, given that maintenance of roads and bridges represents some of the basic work of government. But again the Tea Party intimidated Boehner into keeping the bill off the floor, depriving the Speaker of another major accomplishment.

...

And what did Boehner’s cowardice in the face of the Tea Party stalwarts get him? They forced him out anyway. Boehner built his career around keeping his job, and he still failed. If Boehner had allowed the passage of immigration reform, it’s entirely possible that the Tea Party would have rebelled and evicted him—but at least he would have had a substantial accomplishment to his credit. Instead, Boehner tried nothing, accomplished nothing, and lost his job anyway. It’s the legacy he deserves.
 
Saw Jennifer Rubin praising Eric Cantor on Twitter for being a serious strong voice in trying times. Good lord. A Hillary win would probably send her to a mental hospital.

Man, do people really think Opa is the only GAF spin-off? That is one of the smaller spin-off's. Hell there is a GAF spin-off with a very active political thread with numerous members of this very thread there, I left it a long while back though. There is already a GAF 3.0. And 4.0.
Including Mandark, Drinky Crow, MAF...
 

Owzers

Member

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Sunday that while he believes President Obama is an American citizen and a Christian, Americans have a right to think otherwise if they so choose.

"It's not my job to tell the American people what to think," Boehner said on NBC's "Meet The Press" when asked about a recent focus group of Iowa voters shown on Fox News during which several said they believe Obama is Muslim.

That line summarized Boehner for me.
 
My ex-colleague is going to meet sal khan, the educator next week. My dream is that Hillary selects him for secretary of education position. Can anyone tweet Hillary this idea? I already told my colleague to tell him to think about it....lols
 
PPPoll of NC said:
Our new NC poll- Trump 26, Carson 21, Fiorina 12, Rubio 10, Cruz 9, Huckabee 6, Bush 5, Kasich 4, Christie 2

"Outsider" candidates have right at 60% of the vote. Still not sure how all of these people are going to magically migrate to Bush or Rubio over the next four months.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
"Outsider" candidates have right at 60% of the vote. Still not sure how all of these people are going to magically migrate to Bush or Rubio over the next four months.

Simple. negative ads and ground game.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/09/trump-steady-in-nc-biden-polls-well-.html

On the Democratic side, North Carolina appears to be a pretty strong state for Joe Biden. Hillary Clinton leads with 37% but Biden's at 30% to 17% for Bernie Sanders, 3% for Jim Webb, 2% for Lincoln Chafee, and 1% for Martin O'Malley. The North Carolina data reaffirms previous findings that a Biden entry would hurt Clinton a lot more than Sanders- 46% of Biden voters say Clinton's their second choice to just 21% who say it's Sanders. Reallocate Biden voters to their second choice and Clinton would lead Sanders 51/23, tighter than her 55/19 advantage a month ago but still not terribly competitive.

Conservative Democrats are still a thing in North Carolina- 20% of the party's electorate- and it's them who are making Biden so competitive in the state. He gets 40% to just 14% for Clinton and 8% for Sanders. When you look at the race just among liberals and moderates, Clinton has a much more comfortable lead with 42% to 28% for Biden and 19% for Sanders.
Sanders continues not to do that well in the South. The race is relatively close three ways when you look just at white voters- 31% for Clinton to 26% for Biden and 23% for Sanders. But Clinton (47%) and Biden (34%) are far stronger with African Americans than Sanders (8%) and that leaves him in a distant third place in the state overall.

PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls 11m11 minutes ago
Carson's 70/17 favorability makes him easily most popular GOPer in NC, also most frequent second choice at 16%: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/09/trump-steady-in-nc-biden-polls-well-.html …

https://www.bencarson.com/issues

His issues page has nothing of detail on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom