• 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.
E

effzee

Member
NeoXChaos said:
.
Click to expand...

Dumbest question brought up on both sides every GE.

You don't want politicians to be in politics? WTF? You want dumbfucks who know nothing about politics to be the leaders?

Her response was excellent - Sanders has been in politics for a long ass time himself.
 
E

effzee

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Writer for The Intercept complains that... Hillary didn't partake in enough regime change?!?

https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/700529637902782464



This site is embarrassing. Are they now neoconservatives...?
Click to expand...

They are so anti-Hillary they make it seem like voting for her is like voting for a Republican. I follow them on twitter and its impossible to read their stuff without rolling eyes.

Guess what - all candidates have terrible records on foreign policy. There is no single candidate who has the right answers on how to deal with the ME, Israel, and other world conflicts. They either have baggage with bad decisions or have no real ideas because they simply haven't given much thought to the issue.
 
R

royalan

Member
Holmes said:
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/700528718066819072

7c13e48afc598c67fa03a82e8d976bd4.gif
Click to expand...

Now that is a PopGAF level dragging. lol
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Also, LGBT issues do not begin and end with marriage equality. To pretend that that is the issue by which all politicans must be measured is riduclous.

Bernie has shown, through words and actions, he does not understand basic intersectionality. Income inequality is not the result of, nor does it totally or even marginally contribute to, homophobia and transphobia. I do not trust Bernie Sanders to understand this. He'd be better than some on LGBT issues, but I fear he'd only care so long as it didn't impair or cost him capital in dealing with the millionaires, billionaires and Wall Street.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
effzee said:
Guess what - all candidates have terrible records on foreign policy. There is no single candidate who has the right answers on how to deal with the ME, Israel, and other world conflicts. They either have baggage with bad decisions or have no real ideas because they simply haven't given much thought to the issue.
Click to expand...

It's true, foreign policy is extremely tough. The last President to have an ideology that they could actually implement was Bush the Elder.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
So, I've probably said it before, but I read a sentiment in an Advocate article where the author said they mostly don't really care as much when you got here, so long as I think you've got my back now. And it's something I can generally agree with. I don't know if this is a sentiment that other LGBT people share. But I think for those that grew up in the 90s or earlier, it may stem in part from growing up in a very different world.

Holmes said:
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/700528718066819072
Click to expand...
I wonder if whatever staffer runs that account is getting reprimanded. Or if this is going to be like that dumb twitter spat that happened on "progressiveness."

-----

Also, that defense of calling for a primary is really dumb. She ran against Barack Obama, when he was a Senator, not a sitting President. No one is going to consider that the same.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Yoda said:
Still what I said originally (he dodged/cop out on the issue) but in the clip you'll notice he doesn't appease the religious/moderate-rights with the bullshit line "Between one man and one woman". Not pure, but still a much more consistent narrative than Hillary, and took stances that weren't easy @ the time, voting not on DOMA for example.
Click to expand...

DOMA was the least bad option that we had at the time. Had the GOP wanted to get a Constitutional Amendment passed, they would have. They would have had the votes.

Again, though, marriage equality is not the end all be all of everything. If I held it against every single person who was at one point on the wrong side of the issue (as Bernie was, as he supported unions more than marriage), there would be about six people in the world I could consider voting for. All I care about is they are on the right side now.

When I look at policies that have made an actual effect on LGBT people, Hillary's done a hell of a lot more in her role at State, let alone on visibility issues to the community. I do not trust Bernie on this issue. I simply do not. He has yet to prove that he understands how our community is impacted outside of income inequality, which is not as powerful an issue among gays and lesbians. (Our trans brothers and sisters suffer from income inequality at far greater levels than queer people do, though. I will give him that.)
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
shinra-bansho said:
So, I've probably said it before, but I read a sentiment in an Advocate article where the author said they mostly don't really care as much when you got here, so long as I think you've got my back now. And it's something I can generally agree with. I don't know if this is a sentiment that other LGBT people share. But I think for those that grew up in the 90s or earlier, it may stem in part from growing up in a very different world.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much my position.

I'm amazed at how far we've come and how quickly. This progress - both legal and cultural - was the stuff of fantasies a few decades ago. And I don't sneer at my family or friends or political leaders for being too slow; I'm glad and relieved that they're finally here.

To be honest.. despite my joy over the issue's process through the last few years, I'm tired of the sniping on it. Both candidates - here in 2016 - are sufficient, and both have demonstrated that they are on-board. Trying to score points on who-arrived-when just seems petty and tired to me.
 
J

Jay-Hova

Banned
adam387 said:
Also, LGBT issues do not begin and end with marriage equality. To pretend that that is the issue by which all politicans must be measured is riduclous.

Bernie has shown, through words and actions, he does not understand basic intersectionality. Income inequality is not the result of, nor does it totally or even marginally contribute to, homophobia and transphobia. I do not trust Bernie Sanders to understand this. He'd be better than some on LGBT issues, but I fear he'd only care so long as it didn't impair or cost him capital in dealing with the millionaires, billionaires and Wall Street.
Click to expand...
His voting record totally goes against any arguments that he'd be any worse than Hilary Clinton on civil rights issues rhetoric aside, period
And Bernie's advocacy for rights for LGBT issue's doesn't end at marriage, I don't know why you'd even claim that when he's advocated for removing workplace discrimination against gay's as well.
Can you find me anywhere that he pivoted from lgbt issues to income inequality/wall street like he did in that terrible answer in the debate on profiling Muslims?
HylianTom said:
This is pretty much my position.

I'm amazed at how far we've come and how quickly. This progress - both legal and cultural - was the stuff of fantasies a few decades ago. And I don't sneer at my family or friends or political leaders for being too slow; I'm glad and relieved that they're finally here.

To be honest.. despite my joy over the issue's proceedings, I'm tired of the sniping on it. Both candidates - here in 2016 - are sufficient, and both have demonstrated that they are on-board. Trying to score points on who-arrived-when just seems petty and tired to me.
Click to expand...
It's not right to hold people back from changing their views.
But if you have to pick between two people for something wouldn't want to go with the person who's been consistent longer regardless of the topic?
That's why it matters.
It show's character as well.
 
D

danm999

Member
shinra-bansho said:
Also, that defense of calling for a primary is really dumb. She ran against him, when he was a Senator, not a sitting President. No one is going to consider that the same.
Click to expand...

It's also painfully common knowledge, and a rift people know has largely healed given she was his Secretary of State.

Yeah I'm amazed he and his team didn't tune up that line a little bit.
 
Yoda

Yoda

Member
adam387 said:
DOMA was the least bad option that we had at the time. Had the GOP wanted to get a Constitutional Amendment passed, they would have. They would have had the votes.

Again, though, marriage equality is not the end all be all of everything. If I held it against every single person who was at one point on the wrong side of the issue (as Bernie was, as he supported unions more than marriage), there would be about six people in the world I could consider voting for. All I care about is they are on the right side now.

When I look at policies that have made an actual effect on LGBT people, Hillary's done a hell of a lot more in her role at State, let alone on visibility issues to the community. I do not trust Bernie on this issue. I simply do not. He has yet to prove that he understands how our community is impacted outside of income inequality, which is not as powerful an issue among gays and lesbians. (Our trans brothers and sisters suffer from income inequality at far greater levels than queer people do, though. I will give him that.)
Click to expand...

A constitutional amendment on an issue like marriage? There is no way that would have been ratified by a majority of that states. Imo it was more like guns; the democrats wanted to take the issue "off the table" so they caved (way to easily) for the bigoted bill aka DOMA. A sound short-term political strategy perhaps, but the same willingness to comprise to far in the other party's direction is why the Republicans felt emboldened on dragging out the ACA fight, which sadly worked to their advantage politically.
 
A

Armaros

Member
Yoda said:
A constitutional amendment on an issue like marriage? There is no way that would have been ratified by a majority of that states. Imo it was more like guns; the democrats wanted to take the issue "off the table" so they caved (way to easily) for the bigoted bill aka DOMA. A sound short-term political strategy perhaps, but the same willingness to comprise to far in the other party's direction is why the Republicans felt emboldened on dragging out the ACA fight, which sadly worked to their advantage politically.
Click to expand...

Thinking that means you dont remember the political climate of the time.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Why in the world did Nixon do Watergate when his opponent was almost certain to be George McGovern?

Nixon had a 60/30 approval rating at the time of the Watergate break-in and was probably going to go against one of the worst presidential candidates in the country's history. What was he thinking?

It's not wrong to point out amoral or immoral liberal foreign policy. This may come as a shock to people who just cheer for the team.
Click to expand...

Right, but... focusing on forcing out dictators to promote morality is literally the backbone of neoconservatism... which is the thing Hillary has been criticized the most for supporting.

It's just odd to both attack her for intervening in Libya to prevent human rights abuses and also to attack her for not intervening in Egypt to prevent human rights abuses.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Jay-Hova said:
His voting record totally goes against any arguments that he'd be any worse than Hilary Clinton on civil rights issues rhetoric aside, period
And Bernie's advocacy for rights for LGBT issue's doesn't end at marriage, I don't know why you'd even claim that when he's advocated for removing workplace discrimination against gay's as well.
Can you find me anywhere that he pivoted from lgbt issues to income inequality/wall street like he did in that terrible answer in the debate on profiling Muslims?
Click to expand...

Here's Bernie's LGBT policy positions on LGBT issues.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-for-lgbt-equality/

Seven points. His 2nd point is basically telling gay people we'll get universal healthcare like everyone else. Item 3 is continuing part of the plan that Hillary Clinton started at State! His mention of trans issues is in passing and shows a lack of understanding on the complexity of the issues transgender individuals actually face.

And here's Hillary's:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/17/fighting-for-full-equality/

To call these comparable is laughable. Bernie is free to go into more details, but Hillary's is a well presented argument over the issues that my community face. She acknowledges how we have an aging gay population that is being left behind due to institutional homophobia. She discusses trans issues at depth. She talks about ending trans bans in the military, about reclassifying LGBT service members who were dishonorably discharged. She focuses on HIV/AIDS issues. It is more comprehensive, and shows a better understanding of the complexity of being queer in this country.

Also, for the record, I didn't say he'd be worse. However, I see Hillary as an advocate and Bernie as an ally. I don't trust Bernie to not throw queer issues under the bus if it furthers his economic ones. I'm sorry, I just don't. He's shown an unwillingness to engage with racial issues outside economic ones, and I have seen nothing to suggest that he would do more (or as much) as Hillary would.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Why in the world did Nixon do Watergate when his opponent was almost certain to be George McGovern?

Nixon had a 60/30 approval rating at the time of the Watergate break-in and was probably going to go against one of the worst presidential candidates in the country's history. What was he thinking?
Click to expand...

Well it's not clear that he ordered it. And he had obvious motivation to cover it up.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Why in the world did Nixon do Watergate when his opponent was almost certain to be George McGovern?

Nixon had a 60/30 approval rating at the time of the Watergate break-in and was probably going to go against one of the worst presidential candidates in the country's history. What was he thinking?
Click to expand...
*lights benji signal

It was less about politics but more about him. He was a paranoid crazypants.
 
Yoda

Yoda

Member
Armaros said:
Thinking that means you dont remember the political climate of the time.
Click to expand...

No I'm fully aware of the climate, but amending the constitution is an extremely hard task. The last one to be proposed and added was the 26th, which was prompted by the Vietnam War... So a very dramatic time to say the least. There was nothing at the time which was endemic in the entire nation lead a sound political observer to believe enough states would ratify sound a proposal.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Yoda said:
A constitutional amendment on an issue like marriage? There is no way that would have been ratified by a majority of that states. Imo it was more like guns; the democrats wanted to take the issue "off the table" so they caved (way to easily) for the bigoted bill aka DOMA. A sound short-term political strategy perhaps, but the same willingness to comprise to far in the other party's direction is why the Republicans felt emboldened on dragging out the ACA fight, which sadly worked to their advantage politically.
Click to expand...

Uh, they definitely could have gotten 2/3s of the state to ban same sex marriage. California banned it in 2008 for goodness sake!
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
Kyosaiga said:
And then the denial that other countries don't ration.

:lol
Click to expand...
We ration too. If you don't have money, you die.

Housing is rationed this way (and waste fully too).
Food is rationed this way (no money, you don't eat).

So...big secret - we are already rationing the fuck out of basic and essential needs. We just don't call it rationing because denying people access to life d/t lack of money is unquestionable. We don't even think about it.
 
E

East Lake

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Right, but... focusing on forcing out dictators to promote morality is literally the backbone of neoconservatism... which is the thing Hillary has been criticized the most for supporting.

It's just odd to both attack her for intervening in Libya to prevent human rights abuses and also to attack her for not intervening in Egypt to prevent human rights abuses.
Click to expand...
It's not odd because Hillary's fp has very little to do with human rights. It's pointing out inconsistency.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Yoda said:
No I'm fully aware of the climate, but amending the constitution is an extremely hard task. The last one to be proposed and added was the 26th, which was prompted by the Vietnam War... So a very dramatic time to say the least. There was nothing at the time which was endemic in the entire nation lead a sound political observer to believe enough states would ratify sound a proposal.
Click to expand...

They would have been able to do it after the ruling out of Hawaii. Public opinion was 68% against marriage in 1996. It would have been fairly easy to get 2/3s of the states on board.

Kyosaiga said:
Bill Clinton CAMPAIGNED on OPEN SERVICE for gays in 1992, ffs.

Do you have any idea how fucking ballsy that was 23 years ago?
Click to expand...

But he didn't champion a rainbow in every garage and a Cher DVD in every pot.
 
Yoda

Yoda

Member
adam387 said:
Uh, they definitely could have gotten 2/3s of the state to ban same sex marriage. California banned it in 2008 for goodness sake!
Click to expand...

On a bullshit ballot initiative. They'd also need 2/3rds of both houses of Congress, the Republicans would not spend every dime of political capital they had on "solving" a wedge issue which they abuse for turnout.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
adam387 said:
They would have been able to do it after the ruling out of Hawaii. Public opinion was 68% against marriage in 1996. It would have been fairly easy to get 2/3s of the states on board.
Click to expand...

Fairly easy is a bit much. It wouldn't be easy to get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree that 2+2=4.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
adam387 said:
They would have been able to do it after the ruling out of Hawaii. Public opinion was 68% against marriage in 1996. It would have been fairly easy to get 2/3s of the states on board.



But he didn't champion a rainbow in every garage and a Cher DVD in every pot.
Click to expand...
DVD in 92?! I am more interested in this time machine you have.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Yoda said:
On a bullshit ballot initiative. They'd also need 2/3rds of both houses of Congress, the Republicans would not spend every dime of political capital they had on "solving" a wedge issue which they abuse for turnout.
Click to expand...

There would have been no capital to spend. This would have been fairly simple, honestly. The public, including congress, just wasn't there in the 90s. DOMA passed the House 342 to 67. It passed the Senate 85 to 14. The votes would have been there, they really
would have.

Edit: It would have been more difficult than DOMA, obviously, but I'm not seeing a path where it wouldn't have been more likely to pass than not.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
adam387 said:
There would have been no capital to spend. This would have been fairly simple, honestly. The public, including congress, just wasn't there in the 90s. DOMA passed the House 342 to 67. It passed the Senate 85 to 14. The votes would have been there, they really would have.
Click to expand...

No capital to spend? Fairly easy? Getting 38 states to pass anything is never like that.
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
disastermouse said:
We ration too. If you don't have money, you die.

Housing is rationed this way (and waste fully too).
Food is rationed this way (no money, you don't eat).

So...big secret - we are already rationing the fuck out of basic and essential needs. We just don't call it rationing because denying people access to life d/t lack of money is unquestionable. We don't even think about it.
Click to expand...

It's not really the same thing, there's a difference between rationing and restricting. We have enough supply of housing/food for everyone but we restrict access. We don't have enough doctors for everyone to get care on demand though. There's only so many MRIs that can be done in a day.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Why in the world did Nixon do Watergate when his opponent was almost certain to be George McGovern?

Nixon had a 60/30 approval rating at the time of the Watergate break-in and was probably going to go against one of the worst presidential candidates in the country's history. What was he thinking?
Click to expand...
"To this day I still don't know why that was done." - Nixon's Former Chief of Staff, 1987

I've read a lot of things that suggest it was mostly paranoia. We'll probably never know. I wish disgraced politicians would understand that in the future, people want to know the truth not to judge them, but to understand them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
235
42K
OverHeat replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
59K
DGrayson replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2022 Edition
3 4 5 6 7
333
76K
zephiross replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
Top Bottom