-
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
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
I'm familiar with the concept. It's why I enjoy Marxist philosophy so much.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
They don't have a vote or a policy to bash so they need transcripts. If the transcripts don't have the smoking gun, they'll demand a polygraph test.
And_Gignac
Member
His interpretation of whites is flawed. Iowa and NH have more white liberals and Iowa apparently has lots of people who describe themselves as socialists. This image might as well be posted the at the top every page. Look where Nevada falls.
That graphic again...its like the socialism gallup poll all over again that Iowa kind of made irrelevant. I am looking forward for the same to happen after Nevada.
Retromelon
Member
i quit a couple days ago but I didn't want the pic to go to waste
And still it won't be enough.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Attack her for the speechs and the price. Demanding you know what she said is infringing of privacy.
If someone wants to leak audio or whatever but demanding a right to private citizens speech is wrong. Should all meetings with politicians and stakeholders be released? Every meeting with their staff?
JesseEwiak
Member
Hey, sometimes, you need to show the facts over and over to those who refuse to accept it.
RastaMentality
Banned
People don't really like any of the republican candidates in here either. There wouldn't be a fuss about John Kasich speaking to Merill Lynch.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
You asked for an argument and it has been delivered my friend. The guy just says reduces "whites" down to a more simplistic interpretation than what is actually the case. That's where the article goes off the rails. He also completely ignores the closed caucus factor. Sanders didn't win Democrats in Iowa, his strength came from independents.
Veritigo_X
Member
Aren't socialism poll numbers usually used in the context of Bernie's chances in the general election?
ugaboga232
Member
Well it seems like everyone is going reductio ad absurdum so I'm gonna drop this matter.
disastermouse
Banned
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Again, I think Ted Cruz should also be open about these things. Also, when you're using whataboutery on the scale of 'at least Clinton isn't as bad as Ted Cruz', you should be ashamed of yourself and your argument.
Rafa=FedKilla
Banned
Trump's latest ad. Absolutely love it. Can't be Trust Ted.
http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/category/ads
http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/category/ads
He might win them tonight though
ugaboga232
Member
Because we hate him already, I don't get what you are arguing. I would love to see the transcripts of republicans but hillary's matter more in the context of the election. The argument of everyone else is doing it is a shitty argument to justify things.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Staff is (probably) unnecessary, but I am 100% okay with all meetings between politicians and their donors being public content by law.
Aren't you? Why not?
disastermouse
Banned
"Leave Hillary alone!" *sniffles*
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Can't counter the truth with stupid memes.
I'm sorry, I'm not used to Marxists defending Socialists. I'm more used to them arguing with each other more furiously than they do with the Capitalists
benjipwns
Banned
Speaking of releasing things, I'd like to see Hillary's long form birth certificate.
GILMOREMENTUM
RastaMentality
Banned
Your original claim was that people would be calling out republicans in the way people are calling out Hillary but I don't think people here would care much.
JesseEwiak
Member
So, if a politician and a donor are at the same party, should said politician have to being out the record function on their iPhone if they come over and ask about the kids?
disastermouse
Banned
Hillary Clinton: "I'll rise to a higher standard when everyone else does. Or the polls say that it's suicidal not to. Whichever comes first. Whatever." *Hillary shrug*
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Move that goalpost! A minute ago you claimed that she only recently blamed them.
Also, breaking up the banks is only one aspect of a solution. It's essentially as deep a policy as "free college." We'd be better off starting with regulating (or just taking over) the ratings agencies, but that would put everyone to sleep on the stump.
All breaking up the banks does is limit the impact of one of them shooting themselves in the foot in blind greed. it doesn't stop the blind greed or help the victims of it.
benjipwns
Banned
Bob Avakian's synthesis is the only true path to real revolution.I'm sorry, I'm not used to Marxists defending Socialists. I'm more used to them arguing with each other more furiously than they do with the Capitalists
John Kasich worked as an investment banker for Lehman Brothers.
Atomic Playboy
Member
As long as we're wishing for the moon, can't we just switch to publicly-funded elections already and get rid of all this bullshit surrounding private donations and SuperPAC money from corporate interests? Seems like that would solve all these problems since you'd no longer have private money interests influencing politicians, and it's got about as much chance of passing as requiring full disclosure of every meeting between every politician and everyone who gives money to them.
disastermouse
Banned
Me tooI'm sorry, I'm not used to Marxists defending Socialists. I'm more used to them arguing with each other more furiously than they do with the Capitalists
I'm not popular with most other Marxists. I think that workers need to elevate themselves to the level of worker self-management before any sort of revolution is going to be effective.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
No, Because concepts like chilling effects are real.
Retromelon
Member
dont talk to my boy metsfan like that. and don't you know you can be banned for that type of salty language
Me too
I'm not popular with most other Marxists. I think that workers need to elevate themselves to the level of worker self-management before any sort of revolution is going to be effective.
I must express admiration for Marxists. In all sincerity, I have respect for anyone who can remain dedicated to such an ideal despite decades of evidence that the vast majority of the workers either don't care about it or are actively opposed to it.
Crab can't help it, he spends his life immersed in salt
disastermouse
Banned
What I'm saying is that she has recently sharpened her rhetoric.
Bernie's rhetoric has always been sharp on this. Go back to attacking him on guns.
Also, there needs to be a Godwin's law for 'moving the goalposts' accusations.
I ran into a familiar name in a game I was playing and I decided to abandon any pretense of dignity and plea for my pet cause
im starting to think it wasnt even her
It wasn't. The player you're looking for is Thrillary Clinton.
This is going to be the noobiest, most out of touch question, but I'm curious - what is it about Goldman Sachs that makes it such a vilified bank? Like I think it's the go-to name for financial corruption. I was around 14 when the housing crisis occurred and I don't know too much about it. Is it because of the housing crisis? Did it play a large role in it? I thought that the ratings agencies were giving inaccurate ratings, and that some people were able to predict that the housing bubble was about to happen and shorted the market, but did Goldman hold a larger role than other banks in perpetuating the deception? Also, Goldman's net assets and total income are lower than banks like JP Morgan and Citi. Does it wield more influence than those banks? Thanks in advance!
RastaMentality
Banned
Kasich is trending in NH on Google searches - https://www.google.com/trends/explo...ty&geo=US-NH&date=now 1-d&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT+5
Maybe the polls story helped him or he's doing something there we're not aware of. Really interesting though.
Maybe the polls story helped him or he's doing something there we're not aware of. Really interesting though.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think that's because everyone knows Cruz doesn't give a toss so there's no point in asking, and also they don't want to draw attention to Clinton's failings.
I mean, there'd be limits on the degree of donorship - if someone donated $3 and you've raised $20 million, they're too insignificant a proportion to be able to influence your judgement. I think mostly this would be restricted to companies, unions, large advocacy groups, and their official representatives. There'd obviously be some non-enforceable settings, like casual encounters, where you can't reasonably expect people to record, and they would have to be excluded. I expect the response would be a noticeable rise in "casual" encounters; but at the very least it would be more difficult once these are no longer in private settings and the social norm has been entrenched that one should not talk with moneyed interests outside the public eye.
Wasn't he especially trending early this morning? I am wondering if it was a side effect of him winning Dixville Notch overnight. I.e. "who the F is this guy?"
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
You said she only recently started blaming the wealthy class. And you said she blamed the homeowners. Both wrong.
Now you are saying she's "recently sharpened her rhetoric."
Yes, that's goalpost-moving.
I expect in a few days you will be back to repeat the same lies, be called on them, and move the goalposts again.
We get enough active distortion and reality-ignoring from the GOP, we really don't need it in the Democratic primary.
I can't tell if you are self-deluded, uncritical in your thinking, or just willing to lie to get what you want. All options suck, and you make your candidate of choice look bad.
I'm not uncritical of Hillary, but the distortions are off the hook lately thanks to people like you.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Brother, you have no much idea I want publicly funded elections. Every citizen gets a $30 voucher from the state to divide between electoral campaigns of their choosing, and that's the only source of money in politics. Would be excellent. Something for the future, perhaps.
benjipwns
Banned
Compare the names of Treasury, Fed and White House officials and Goldman Sachs executives over the last three decades.
benjipwns
Banned
Why should I pay for your donation to a political campaign?
Just for that I'm giving my $30 voucher to Hillary for a speech.
Oh wait, you're eliminating the government, nevermind.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Benji let's not play the contractualist game. It always ends with someone vetoing the state.
And_Gignac
Member
Sanders isnt even yet winning with whites overall (just white males and younger whites). What bothers me about that graphic is that it assumes Sanders voters are only white and that he will unable to gain any significant number with non whites, which I think is not correct as if minorities where just unable to respond to campaign changes/momentum and pre-primary bombing of propaganda. He has made significant gains with minorities and he is not particularly disliked by non white voters according to polls (his favorables are actually pretty good).
What Nevada will show is that maybe his numbers right now are a problem of recognition, not so much of minorities disliking him. South Carolina may confirm that, if his problem is with racial divides or age divides.
The primary problem I see with publicly funded elections in the way you describe is self-reinforcement. An ideology becomes dominant, more people support it, more money for candidates that follow it, go to one.
I found a sneak preview of what we might see in Hillary's transcripts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u79hDi6XBwQ&t=20s
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
A few things.
1) They manipulated instrument ratings and pricing to protect themselves when mortgages went to shit as a security. There was a rule implemented later to address this ("mark to market") but without it, they were just acting unethically, not illegally.
2) Once things began to accelerate, they took opposite sides on deals of their clients on fraudulent terms. Basically, once they saw the mortgage-backed stuff was crap, they pushed it on customers and got it off their own books.
^^^ The above is a somewhat sloppy shorthand and I may have some details a little off, but that's the gist of it. Essentially they avoided losing in the crisis, and then actively profited, by being unethical (and in the second case, illegal-- they were fined for it IIRC).
FWIW, I used to work there in IT, but all this is so far removed from the part of the business that I was involved in and largely after I left.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked