• 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 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ophelion

Member
There's too much misinformation in your post, but I would strongly urge you to become more informed. There were men and women who put their livelihoods in finance on the line for strangers like you and apparently chose wrong in retrospect for that public service. And that's because despite what they know a lot of people are going to walk away from an epidemic of fraud. Even with our best efforts to embarrass ourselves as regulators, there were still people in the private sector that knew enough for a ton of people to get nailed with an unthinkable amount of felonies. The least you could do before telling your friends and Bernie supporters they don't know shit is to at bare minimum bring a knowledgeable mind to the table.

That's my advice to you since you've likely been impacted by the multi-trillion $ losses, forfeited GDP estimated in the trillions, and you will share a likely future of slow growth and economic stagnation for years to come alongside the rest of us. A group of individuals looted their institutions, it impacted your life, and they gained far more from the situation than you did. You lost out and the folks involved are dabbing on you like Cam Newton while consistently running up the score. Simple as that.

First, let me say that I don't tell my friends anything with regards to politics. I listen, but I do not make comment. Neither providing my stance, nor critiquing their own. It's my belief that, short of someone supporting a fascist or getting mixed up with something actually dangerous for themselves or the country, it's not my place to push them one way or the other. At most, I might ask them if they can back up an assertion they've made, but I play my cards very close to the chest.

Also, I can see this is very personal to you, so I apologize if I offended you. I do appreciate what regulators did during the recession and I am angry about what people got away with. I would dearly like to see justice done as effectively and as completely as is humanly possible. But what my friends are talking about is not justice. They're talking revenge. People swayed by revenge make bad decisions. Sanders is not a bad decision, but it makes me anxious about the future and I came to express that anxiety. My language was colorful because I was worked up. Again, I'm very sorry if it seemed like I didn't value what was done or if I spoke out of ignorance in a more general sense.
 
Oh, yeah. That'll be a shit show. The more competitive Bernie becomes, the more this primary season starts resembling 2008. Poligaf was insane in 2008.
I was a lurker but I dont remember poligaf being insane in 2008. Vast majority of posters were in favor of Obama. Few HRC holdouts like PD remained, but the forum was overwhelmingly in support of Obama. Hillary and Bill Clinton soured everyone because they kept attacking Obama with negativity and whisper campaigns and no one liked that. She is running a considerably positive and cleaner campaign now as compared to 2008.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I was a lurker but I dont remember poligaf being insane in 2008. Vast majority of posters were in favor of Obama. Few HRC holdouts like PD remained, but the forum was overwhelmingly in support of Obama. Hillary and Bill Clinton soured everyone because they kept attacking Obama with negativity and whisper campaigns and no one liked that. She is running a considerably positive and cleaner campaign now as compared to 2008.

I would agree that her campaign has been cleaner. Part of that is probably Sanders' insistence on not engaging in personal attacks and part of that is probably Clinton's (reasonable) expectation that Bernie isn't a threat like Obama was.

Maybe I'm mistaking the vitriol in poligaf with the vitriol on the campaign trails because I know the 2008 primaries were way more contentious. Not too late for things to get dicey in 2016 though.
 
If the two Democratic campaigns actually start going at each other like Hillary and Obama did, I don't want to even imagine what reddit would be like
 
who wouldn't want to be paid $625,000 for a speech. That is a lot of cash. Hillary answer for it is hard to turn into the positive give the circumstances.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/goldman-sachs-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Yeah, there's really no effective way to outdo Sanders on the topic of Wall Street regulation. If I were Hillary, I would concede that Sanders has a stricter approach on Wall Street and try to make the case for why she has a more moderate approach. She shouldn't try beating Bernie at his own game when she doesn't necessarily have to. It just isn't believable coming from her.
 
who wouldn't want to be paid $625,000 for a speech. That is a lot of cash. Hillary answer for it is hard to turn into the positive give the circumstances.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/goldman-sachs-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

I thought the answer was a slip of the mask, and an atrocious answer. It's not just about Hillary accepting the money, it's what Goldman Sach's will get in return. Specifically access to her administration, and multiple members of her cabinet no doubt. It also highlights the duality of her campaign, pretending to be tough on Wall Street while accepting their money and advice.

It's a game, everyone plays it. Perhaps Sanders is a sign of things to come. IE maybe one day democrats will buck industry interests like some members of the tea party have bucked corporate welfare interests. But not this year or next year.
 
Damn.

NYMag ran a whole piece today on how cringey Jeb is. With this:
03-jeb-voter-hug.w529.h352.gif

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/02/jeb-bush-is-giving-me-vicarious-embarrassment.html#

If you'd told me that was a scene from Arrested Development or any other "cringe" comedy, I would have believed it.
 
It's kind of a stupid topic, IMO.

I mean, if someone offered me $500k to speak to Goldman-Sachs, I'd do it. So would you. So would pretty much anyone.

She's being a self-made business woman!
 

User 406

Banned
Sea Manky, I can't look at Kasich anymore without cracking up. Thank you.

proxy.jpg

The truth must be spread!



he was and its big. NH Democratic men don't like Hillary I guess.

It's not sexism. It's not sexism. Stop trying to see sexism where there's no sexism. It's not sexism. Why does everything need to turn into sexism? It's not sexism. It's not. Not everything is about sexism. It's not sexism. Okay, maybe there is some sexism. But it's not sexism.

Did this dance with Obama and race for 8 years, time to get back on the dance floor.
 
Part of getting a group of voters to support you is probably to stop saying things like "earned X support."

Also, I think the idea that attacks aren't personal is frankly wrong, they are quite personal if indirectly so.
 

Allard

Member
I would agree that her campaign has been cleaner. Part of that is probably Sanders' insistence on not engaging in personal attacks and part of that is probably Clinton's (reasonable) expectation that Bernie isn't a threat like Obama was.

Maybe I'm mistaking the vitriol in poligaf with the vitriol on the campaign trails because I know the 2008 primaries were way more contentious. Not too late for things to get dicey in 2016 though.

It is definitely still early. The more vicious parts of the campaign didnt really start till after Iowa when Obama got his first win and then subsequently lost NH. It really didn't start taking off till the south carolina primaries when some of the open hostilities on Clintons side started showing when they felt shunned by the African American community and that attitude started leaking out. The big event though was Super Tuesday, when it became clear that the state demographics heading forward did not favor Hilary that is when the real nastiness started to come out.

To be honest given the current climate and Hilary dominance among minorities this time I don't expect her to get nasty especially since she has a much better campaign staff then last time, I also don't expect Bernie personally to get nasty even if trailing, not at Hilary specifically anyways, I see him getting more contentious with democratic party leads then Hilary specifically, and I also worry his campaign staffers may have other ideas what it means to fight as an underdog in this race which is another wildcard. To me I don't think his staff speaks very well or for Bernie at all, and some of his more rabid supporters have made things a bit more socially contentious in my opinion then they were in 2008 but even then I don't think anything that happens this cycle will ever look like they did in 2008 as far as open animosity, not just between candidates but between supporters as well. May not have seen it on GAF but I can tell you there were a LOT of disgruntled Hilary supporters that were long time democrats that felt she was getting unfairly demonized. In retrospect I can see why now looking back, but I was a huge Obama supporter that I saw the more negative angles on the other candidate then positive ones they shared.

Its just a part of the process which is why whoever wins the primary I am looking forward to supporting whoever makes it out, I think either Bernie or Hilary would be 1000% better then current crop of Republican candidates, especially those at the top.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
It's kind of a stupid topic, IMO.

I mean, if someone offered me $500k to speak to Goldman-Sachs, I'd do it. So would you. So would pretty much anyone.

She's being a self-made business woman!
It's not stupid at all. There's a quid pro quo relationship between politicians and those who give them money. Whether Hillary is guilty of it is the question.
 
It's kind of a stupid topic, IMO.

I mean, if someone offered me $500k to speak to Goldman-Sachs, I'd do it. So would you. So would pretty much anyone.

She's being a self-made business woman!
No brainer. Just tell the audience what the speech was about rather than deflect.

"Yes I spoke to Goldman Sachs board and they paid me 675k because they wanted my opinion on x,y,z matters. I was the secretary of state, so lot of organizations, banks included, wanted my opinion. I did not compromise on my liberal values or my democratic principles." Much better than that nasty word salad yesterday. Come on.
 
The problem with her answer on speaking fees is that it's not the one some people want to hear. It's the same with Califf being blocked.

I'm again going to bring up being reminded of the guy who wanted public office holders basically barred from "business" and vice versa. Because there's this undercurrent to the discussion that basically echoes that. There are people talking about how only appointing career academics should be allowed. It, to me, is nonsense. There's an article by Barney Frank, who may be biased given his Clinton endorsement, on these purity tests that I might find and post later.

I'm rather more disappointed that it shows shit political instincts. I can only assume she really didn't think she was running again. Or she thought she would actually run unopposed.
 
No brainer. Just tell the audience what the speech was about rather than deflect.

"Yes I spoke to Goldman Sachs board and they paid me 675k because they wanted my opinion on x,y,z matters. I was the secretary of state, so lot of organizations, banks included, wanted my opinion. I did not compromise on my liberal values or my democratic principles." Much better than that nasty word salad yesterday. Come on.

Yeah. She gave just about the worst answer possible. I'd imagine that she spent part of today coming up with a better answer to the goldman sack's speech thing and I wouldn't be surprised to see her try to correct the record tonight, because most of the media narrative today that I've seen has been about how clunky that answer was.
 

kirblar

Member
Speaking fees are often essentially just appearance fees, it's a celebrity thing more than anything else.

The idea that these are "bribes" is silly.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
Speaking fees are often essentially just appearance fees, it's a celebrity thing more than anything else.

The idea that these are "bribes" is silly.
That is very naive. You could be right, but there's no sure way of knowing except looking extensively through a politician's voting history and their campaign contributions.

People really should not dismiss money in politics being an issue. It's a problem across both parties.
 

noshten

Member
I'm rather more disappointed that it shows shit political instincts. I can only assume she really didn't think she was running again. Or she thought she would actually run unopposed.

Agreed with this in particular, Trump has used this to his advantage already on several occasions especially early in the race.
 

Muzy72

Banned
As entertaining as Trump has made this election season, he better not fuck this up. Without him entering the race we probably would've gotten Jeb as the nominee which would've been an easy win for Hillary, but now that Trump has completely shifted things, if he doesn't win we're probably going to get Rubio as the nominee, which means I actually have to worry about the GOP controlling all 3 branches of government.
 

Iolo

Member
As entertaining as Trump has made this election season, he better not fuck this up. Without him entering the race we probably would've gotten Jeb as the nominee which would've been an easy win for Hillary, but now that Trump has completely shifted things, if he doesn't win we're probably going to get Rubio as the nominee, which means I actually have to worry about the GOP controlling all 3 branches of government.

It seems like Trump has decided NH gives him an easy way out of the race.
 

kirblar

Member
That is very naive. You could be right, but there's no sure way of knowing except looking extensively through a politician's voting history and their campaign contributions.

People really should not dismiss money in politics being an issue. It's a problem across both parties.
Typically these are done when someone's out of office. Hillary was out and is now jumping back in, so it suddenly became an issue.
 
Cruz fucked up so bad with the media that no one gives a shit that he won Iowa and was 2nd in NH. Probably would've been better for him for Trump to have won Iowa.
 
No brainer. Just tell the audience what the speech was about rather than deflect.

"Yes I spoke to Goldman Sachs board and they paid me 675k because they wanted my opinion on x,y,z matters. I was the secretary of state, so lot of organizations, banks included, wanted my opinion. I did not compromise on my liberal values or my democratic principles." Much better than that nasty word salad yesterday. Come on.

Yeah. It's not like she doesn't know these questions are coming. Come up with a prepared response. I don't get how they haven't over this. Bernie is going to rail on that response all night
 
Yeah. It's not like she doesn't know these questions are coming. Come up with a prepared response. I don't get how they haven't over this. Bernie is going to rail on that response all night

I was just thinking about how "That's what they offered" is asking to be used against her. Something like "College students have $80,000 debt because unaffordable tuition is what the universities offered, the elderly can't afford prescription drugs because expensive medication is what the pharmaceutical companies offered, and yet Hillary is offered several hundred thousand dollars for a speech. I've been fighting on behalf of working people my whole life and I wouldn't be running for president if I felt that Hillary Clinton was doing the same."

It plays up not only the wall street ties, but also the doubts people have, as evidenced in the Iowa entrance polls, that Hillary understands people like themselves. Not sure that Bernie wants to be that aggressive though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom