• 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.
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
The group’s lawyer, who declined to be named for the record, pointed to nonprofit issue-focused groups like the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club, which can communicate with candidates and convey their views through press releases or on websites, as playing a similar role.
Click to expand...
Um, supporting guns and the environment is a little different than your PAC having a mission statement of:
ABOUT

Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks.
Click to expand...

Also, lol at top item:
GUESS THE GUN RECORD: BERNIE SANDERS OR REPUBLICANS AND THE NRA?
Ahead of tonight’s Democratic town hall in South Carolina, CTR created a quiz to challenge people to see if they can distinguish between Bernie, Republicans and the NRA. Trust us, it’s more difficult than you would think. Sanders has repeatedly echoed Republicans and the NRA on guns—either in rhetoric or with votes.

Whether you can figure out these answers or not, it’s pretty clear that Bernie Sanders sounds just like a Republican. And that’s cause for concern for voters who care about gun safety.

Take the quiz here. Good luck!
Click to expand...
http://correctrecord.org/guess-the-gun-record-bernie-sanders-or-republicans-and-the-nra/
 
T

thehypocrite

Member
benjipwns said:
Why do people talk about Cruz like he's dropping out soon? He's got more cash on hand than Kasich and Rubio combined.

Only Trump has more cash on hand and that's because he's a freakin billionaire.



American hero:
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. She can't be bought. These guys are waisting their money, just like the corporations behind all those trade agreements.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
This site is great:
BERNIE SANDERS: THE FLIP-FLOPPING FEMINIST

SHOT: Tonight during the MSNBC/Telemundo town hall, Senator Sanders said, “I consider myself a strong feminist.”

CHASER: Bernie Sanders in 1981: “I’m not going out of my way to hire a woman.” [Bernie Sanders interview, Commonwoman, 1981]
Click to expand...

1990

Secret Deal with Democrats

Editorials in the Vermont Times accused Sanders of “backroom shenanigans in which Sanders struck a deal to run for Vermont’s U.S. House seat with just token Democratic opposition, in exchange for opting out of a run for governor.” [U.S. News, 2/16/16]
Click to expand...

LOW BLOW? THE REAL LOW BLOW IS BERNIE’S CRITICISM OF PRESIDENT OBAMA
One of the most heated exchanges in last night’s debate came when Hillary Clinton defended President Obama’s legacy and called out Bernie Sanders for being dismissive of the President and his accomplishments.

CLINTON: “I don’t think [President Obama] gets the credit he deserves for being a president who dug us out of that ditch, put us on firm ground and send us into the future. The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president, I expect from Republicans. I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama.”

SANDERS: “Madam Secretary, that is a low blow.”

Low blow? Watch here and see below for the real low blows, delivered time and time again from Senator Sanders on President Obama and his legacy.

BERNIE SANDERS RAVED ABOUT A BOOK THAT ARGUES PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS “LET PROGRESSIVES DOWN.”

Bernie Sanders promoted a book about “the many ways President Obama has failed to live up to either his promises or his progressive potential.” [Politico, 1/30/16]
Click to expand...

THE TWEETS TELL THE TRUTH: BERNIE SANDERS LOST THE DEBATE
For every issue in tonight’s debate, from funding health care to lowering college tuition to building on Obama’s legacy, Hillary Clinton offered a solid answer grounded in thoughtful policy. Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, resorted to overly broad, over-promising talking points. Clinton, not Sanders, came across as best prepared for the presidency, and the commentators seem to agree
Click to expand...

MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the Press Corps
From: David Brock, Correct the Record
Date: February 10, 2016

On this morning after the New Hampshire primary, while parsing the results of last night’s voting will be a major preoccupation of the news media, it’s considerably more important that attention be paid to the real debate happening in the Democratic Party – a debate about our country’s future and about which candidate’s plans can actually move America forward.

The truth is that few serious policy analysts, experts or commentators, take Senator Sanders’ sketchy policies seriously. His proposals, which are little more than a flurry of press releases and empty pronouncements, are not based in fact and empirical evidence, do not accurately describe the present-day economy, fail to account for the progress wrought by the Obama Administration (the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank). And thus, they are not practical solutions to America’s most pressing priorities such as raising incomes and creating jobs, holding Wall Street accountable for its risky bets, or dealing with ISIS. According to a veritable chorus of observers, there is almost no practical, real-world value behind Senator Sanders’ sloganeering. His policies are a Potemkin village.

Over the course of the coming weeks, it is Senator Sanders’ policies that should be evaluated and held to the same scrutiny that has been applied to Secretary Clinton in her public service career.

Attached are some of the headlines of the stories and analyses – many of which you all have written – that crystallize the contrasts between Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders. On the critical issues facing Americans, Secretary Clinton is ready to lead on the first day in office and Senator Sanders is not.
Click to expand...
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
B

brainchild

Banned
Crocodile said:
The bolded is a factual statement along the axis of voting preferences. It's not inherently a bad thing or a good thing, it just is. "Outlier" is an accepted scientific term and I would argue carries less baggage than potential synonyms or near synonyms like "weird". There is no language issue here - I've seen no data nor do my personal life experiences at all suggest there is a significant number of people who are going to be put off if they are included in an outlier group if, along a specific axis, they act of their own free will in a way counter to many people like them along another specific axis. This is a non-issue.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything that you said, which tells me that you still don't understand my argument. The data isn't the problem, just the way it's being talked about in relation to people.

euphemism said:
Again, when someone says an outlier....they are talking about the data. Not the individual. Is it really so simple that you're just hung up on terminology? What does it matter to use the word "unusual" instead of "outlier" just because it's got a less clinical/technical association? Words don't have meanings, they have usages, and sometimes using one word is more succinct than another. What you're asking for is simple,
It's a euphemism.
Click to expand...

No, the use of the term 'outlier' isn't the problem. It's in telling people that they're an outlier; that they're a statistic. You don't see how that can be problematic?

pigeon said:
This is much more a criticism of your posting style than of the posters in the thread.



I dunno. This keeps coming up in various threads, actually. One notable example was the tendency for people to say "as a minority Bernie supporter, stop erasing me." Which is, like, not necessarily unreasonable. But at the same time it's also accurate to say that minority Democrat primary voters are predominantly Hillary supporters, and, frankly, it's also reasonable to draw conclusions about Bernie's campaign from that. Individual Bernie supporters can offer their anecdotal disagreement, and their lived experience is valid, but that doesn't make it representative.

Your position here seems, frankly, a little abstract. I don't disagree that it's weird to refer to a person as an "outlier." But I think it's pretty crazy to say that "Republican Hispanic voters are not particularly representative of Hispanic voters" is racist. There has to be a point at which aggregation is reasonable or it becomes impossible to talk about humans.
Click to expand...

First, when we talk about representation of demographics, we need to acknowledge that there is diversity of that representation. This isn't the same as representation of a statistic. Going with your Bernie supporter analogy, as a gay, black man, I may be in the minority of the population of Bernie supporters, statistically speaking, but I am no less a representation of Bernie supporters in terms of demographics than any other Bernie supporter.

Similarly, when we were talking about the Hispanic voters, the conversation jumped from discussing the statistics of some Hispanics voting for a republican, to those Hispanics not being representative of their demographic. It wasn't outright racist (as I've already clarified), but this extends beyond just talking about the data. We're no longer talking about their voting tendencies, we're now personally commenting on which people make up the Hispanic community, which is a slippery slope; it gives off the vibe that they're not the REAL hispanics, a vibe that was strengthened when dismissing Trumps win of the republican Hispanic vote as inconsequential.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
thepotatoman said:
I like how the opening argument isn't that Republicans care about black people, but that Democrats might care about black people more if more of them voted Republican.
Click to expand...
That's actually the last part of the speech. I cut out all the weird garbage about tax cuts and terrorism and education and health care and other boring nonsense like that.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
One of my favorite things in the OT right now: repeated proclamations that "we've been wrong on how well Trump would do in the primary, so I can't predict what's going to happen."

What's this "we" shit? 😎

..

And I love the narrative provided by MSNBC's banner on TV right now: "Trump Pulling Away from GOP Field"
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Makai said:
"Cut it out!"
Click to expand...

<hands Makai a megaphone>

Once more with feeling!

That PAC might get Clinton into serious trouble come GE time. Heck, if I thought more of Sanders' team - I suspect he might be able to use that as serious ammo against her.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Ziltoidia 9 said:
I went to sleep laughing hysterically last night at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0
Click to expand...

That will never stop being funny. I am totally using that one for the Super Tuesday thread.

HylianTom said:
One of my favorite things in the OT right now: repeated proclamations that "we've been wrong on how well Trump would do in the primary, so I can't predict what's going to happen."

What's this "we" shit? &#128526;
Click to expand...

Seriously, PoliGAF been calling the Trump steamroller for months now. The signs were there if you knew where to look.

I'm almost tempted to try and pull out of my long bet on Trump early and dump the money into my longer Hillary bet. Despite her small bump I still stand to double my money.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Cybit said:
<hands Makai a megaphone>

Once more with feeling!

That PAC might get Clinton into serious trouble come GE time. Heck, if I thought more of Sanders' team - I suspect he might be able to use that as serious ammo against her.
Click to expand...
As a bird law expert I would advise that their defense be that if they were truly coordinating with the PACs they wouldn't seriously allow them to be this terrible would they?
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
HylianTom said:
One of my favorite things in the OT right now: repeated proclamations that "we've been wrong on how well Trump would do in the primary, so I can't predict what's going to happen."

What's this "we" shit? &#128526;
Click to expand...

I especially like the callout, "if you're so confident put money on it!"

Done and done.
 
T

Teggy

Member
Diablosing.

Quinnipiac

1) 2016 Ohio Presidential GE
Asked of 1,539 registered voters
Hillary Clinton (D) 42%
Donald Trump (R) 44%
Wouldn't vote 6%
Other 2%
Undecided 6%

2) 2016 Ohio Presidential GE
Asked of 1,539 registered voters
Hillary Clinton (D) 43%
Ted Cruz (R) 46%
Wouldn't vote 5%
Other 2%
Undecided 5%

3) 2016 Ohio Presidential GE
Asked of 1,539 registered voters
Hillary Clinton (D) 37%
John Kasich (R) 54%
Wouldn't vote 4%
Other 1%
Undecided 4%

4) 2016 Ohio Presidential GE
Asked of 1,539 registered voters
Hillary Clinton (D) 42%
Marco Rubio (R) 47%
Wouldn't vote 5%
Other 2%
Undecided 4%
Click to expand...
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Okay just so you know if you manage to elect Cruz President the rest of the world is going to build that wall of Trump's only bigger and feel grateful for paying for it.
 
U

User 406

Banned
Makai said:
Your mom's an outlier. Ohhhhhhh. :U
Click to expand...

I polled yer mom. Polled her gud.

<crosstabs>


Makai said:
Wow.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/
Click to expand...

feld02cut.jpg
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Brawndo Addict said:
I didn't ask you to restate your conclusions, I asked why one is personal and the other isn't. "Because I said so" isn't an argument. You literally said one is bad because it implies someone is unusual and then suggested we call the person's votes unusual. People have ownership over their statistical information, it's not any less personal because you dropped the reference.

"As a voter, you're an outlier."
"Your voting pattern is unusual"

There is no meaningful difference. Unusual is a synonym for not normal or not expected.

"You're overweight"
"Your numeric weight is above the mean"

It's still "your" weight. People don't think abstractly in relation to personal information like that.



I don't have time to look, but I would like to think I arrived at that conclusion based on posting history osmosis so I'd wager you're not as consistent as you would like to be.
Click to expand...

No, you asked me how they were any different from one another, so I answered your question. Thanks for clarifying what you actually meant to ask me.

Generally speaking, people don't like you when you describe them in ways that make them seem non-human. But more to the point, you've constructed a false equivalency. Telling someone that they are overweight is still not a description of them as a PERSON, but of their physical body. And even so, you'd need to be careful when deciding to tell someone that information.

dramatis said:
This is some super rich steaming pile coming from you. Have you given this equal "sensitive consideration" to women when you said Killer Mike was totally right with his uterus comment?

"Some women, though supporters of Hillary they may be, should not be referred to as 'uterii'. I find (and I'm sure that they would too) that to be incredibly disrespectful and insensitive, and you should be ashamed for even suggesting it's fine to refer to women by their body parts."

"If you wanna call me thin-skinned because I refuse to sit back and watch people discuss women like they can only vote with their vaginas, then I'll just consider you (and anyone who agrees with you) tone deaf."

Apply this to Killer Mike.

"Then you refer to the person's identity as a woman, not her body parts directly. Calling a woman a uterus is a direct descriptor of that woman. It's not right."


Have you asked women how they felt about Killer Mike's statement? Would you like to try and interview female friends and family members and ask them how they felt about that? Maybe you should have thought to ask some women what they think before doubling down on Killer Mike's statement and standing by it.

Imagine if you had afforded women any of this consideration when you defended Killer Mike's statement. I suppose now you can possibly try to think about how they felt.

"Sometimes there can be a disconnect between understanding the place of objectivity vs. social/human sensitivities, and people might not know where to draw the line. In this case, referring to Hillary as a uterus is a lot more personal than just referring to the fact she is a woman. It potentially carries the implication that Hillary supporters are only their womanly body part compared to other women just because they vote differently."

"So the wording is the issue here, not the data. Unfortunately, it has become so common to discuss women without respect to social sensitivities that regardless of how insensitively the data is discussed, many people wouldn't even pick up on it. However, bring this topic up on national television, and you might be surprised to see lots of people who feel the same way that I feel about it. There's lots of things we do unconsciously that don't really receive any kind of backlash until it's brought to public attention."

Good job, brainchild.
Click to expand...

I've already said that it was bad optics and that he could've phrased it better. I was arguing the substance of his statements. It was nearly unanimously agreed upon that Killer Mike's statements were offensive, so you're really reaching here.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
benjipwns said:
As a bird law expert I would advise that their defense be that if they were truly coordinating with the PACs they wouldn't seriously allow them to be this terrible would they?
Click to expand...

Someone, somewhere has the right Harvey Birdman picture for this, preferably photoshopped appropriately too.
 
B

BoboBrazil

Member
Teggy said:
Seriously? The guy who went to Wharton?
Click to expand...

Lol, well he is the one who lumped himself in with them in the next line after saying that.

Also big shock, Fox News is talking about Hillary emails. They showed a 3 second clip of her from last night's town hall obviously chosen to make her look bad in their talking points.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
brainchild said:
I've already said that it was bad optics and that he could've phrased it better. I was arguing the substance of his statements. It was nearly unanimously agreed upon that Killer Mike's statements were offensive, so you're really reaching here.
Click to expand...
Oh for fucks sake. So killer mikes blatantly sexist rhetoric can easily be brushed off to look at the super deep logical meaning behind what he said but here you are arguing page after page over the semantics of the word outlier

Please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
106
9K
Mr Hyde replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
53K
Topher replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
61K
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
78K
zephiross replied
Top Bottom