NYCmetsfan
Banned
I mean he's literally a white supremacist.
Treat him like david duke, him saying racist things isn't shocking.
-
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 |OT10| Jill Stein Inflatable Love Doll
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
I mean he's literally a white supremacist.
Treat him like david duke, him saying racist things isn't shocking.
It's weird that no vote or die like campaign has emerged, yet.
With his hispanic numbers nationally he is not ahead in Florida. Ohio and Iowa maybe but most likely by a point or two in both, but those states will flip back to hilary eventually.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Authenticity is overrated bullshit I see no evidence its how people make decisions in a polarized political world. Its a post-hoc justification.
People vote for their tribe which is way beyond the candidates themselves.
Democrats loved Obama's charm in 2008 and 2012, now they want analytics. What's changed? The candidate, the voters haven't shifted beyond "independent millenials" who are likely non-voters or will come home
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Your first point is fair enough. I mean, I think money-laundering is just to get the point across swiftly - getting money for her campaign that she wouldn't be able to the normal route by sneaking it in the backdoor makes money-laundering a pretty natural analogy - but fine, it's more pointed than it needs to be. I don't think there's much room to be holier-than-thou about it, though, because I completely disagree with your second point. State money is for state parties to decide. Not Clinton. The Democratic Party is not her personal fiefdom.
Sanders might yet deliver Clinton his voters; although her supporters aren't helping with the process. The surrogates have barely hit the ground yet and you're being rather premature. And Clinton often crossed the line. Obama did the same back. I mean, we have literally:
Is Obama suddenly some dirty crook out to destroy Clinton? No, he was doing what any (yes, *any*) Democratic challenger does. Clinton did the same back. Her campaign team was the one that leaked the pictures of Obama in Somali garb to the press. The 3 AM ad implicitly said that if you elect Obama, your children will get murdered by the tur'rists. In fact, Clinton did such a good job of implying that Obama couldn't pass the qualification test that the GOP quoted her in attack ads!
I could go through the rest of your stuff. I won't, because a) it's very boring, and b) the cold winds of hell will blow before you admit that you are wrong. And that's fine. We get emotionally attached to our political candidates. Sanders attacked Clinton, you are invested in Clinton, so that hurts you, and so you're getting all bitch-crackers syndrome, to steal from y2kev. But I'm pretty confident that if you stepped back even for a moment, and looked at the tone of past Democratic primaries, you'd pretty quickly realize that Sanders was well within the normal bounds.
You've not understand my point. As far as I understand it, the state makes companies pay a certain amount of money for each employee they have, dependent on how much salary they get, into one big pot. If someone needs maternity leave under the Trump plan, they get paid out of this pot. If I'm a company, and I decide not to hire women, it doesn't change how well I'm doing, because I'm still paying at the same rate into this pot, and because other companies are still hiring women, money is still taken out of the pot at the same rate (assuming my company is too small to make an overall difference to the pot's draw rate). So my not hiring women didn't change anything.
If companies paid the individuals themselves, and had to insure against their own employees, rather than contribute to a general pot that covered all employees, it'd be a different matter. By not hiring women, I don't need to take out as much insurance. But I don't think (and again, willing to be corrected because this varies state by state and I cba to look up e.g. unemployment insurance law in North Dakota) that this is how it works anywhere. Unemployment "insurance" is just a fancy way of disguising what is essentially just a tax on companies.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think you're just looking to argue for the sake of arguing at this point. Do you really want me to respond to this? Are we really arguing that the rise of "outsider politicians" in developed nations across the world doesn't have something to do with the fact they're almost always perceived as straight-talking/honest in contrast to the conventional political class?
Oh, well if the whole thing is predetermined, Clinton may as well not campaign! Gosh, I'm sure she's happy you've finally cracked this. People will vote for their tribe regardless and she can just get a nice cuppa and watch some telly with Bill. Good thing there aren't any voters that place value on authenticity or need further persuasion.
really disheartened by the last week of polling. pretty obvious the election went from a slight hillary lean to at the very least a tie. still thinking her floor is 272 or 273, but the race is stupidly closer than it really ought to be.
just hope that sleepwalking through august in terms of visibility turns into strong support on the got side this month, october and november.
just hope that sleepwalking through august in terms of visibility turns into strong support on the got side this month, october and november.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
huh?
This isn't millenials btw. Gen xers and baby boomers are the reason this happened. Millenials normalized it but gen x and baby boomers were the ones that fought the battles in the 80s and 90s that made it possible. Millenials road on their coat tails. Some of them were born long after ellen and will and grace and never knew the worst of AIDS
I don't hate millenials but I have been supremely frustrated in their complete messianism in change making. They will not fight for things. They will tweet and dox people but act in a real political way? I've yet to see real evidence (this is largely millenials under 25 who didn't fight in Iraq and were not of voting age during the first obama election). They've cheerleaded change but not lead it or put a lot of effort toward it. They are supremely entitled and want everything to be an affirmation of themselves and their self worth.
Their inability to act politically is why we're not going to see student loan reform, single payer health care or legal national weed anytime soon. go in gaf threads or facebook and you'll see posts about how "its gonna come" but zero talk how that happens. Others are supposed to do the work, or its just destined to be that way. This is big reason trump as a non-zero chance. Why would they think a resurgence of white nationalism is possible or political violence? "Its not supposed to be that way" so it won't be.
And I think the baby boomer bashing displays this as well. Its blame shifting and again saying that "its not their fault" they were just left this so they can't be blamed.
I don't think millenials are the worst or bad or anything but these are traits which hurt the goals they espouse
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I believe its not honesty, it's their rejection of liberalism and a desire for their nationalistic/xenophobic policies. It has nothing to do with authenticity.
Voters rejected obama's honest "bitter clingers" but love trumps "rapists." Both were authentic, one appealed to peoples desire to sling hate.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Hillary is going to be fine. Voters are stupid, and polls fluctuate based on how much shit they've accumulated in their pants in the last week or two. They'll be changed soon enough, and we'll be ready to start the process all over again.
whyamihere
Banned
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Seriously. My parents are boomers and even they admit it. That generation pretty much destroyed everything.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The press is gonna latch on to the birther thing.
Remember the horse race works both ways. Whoever's winning gets pulled back down.
Like Mario Kart AI!
RastaMentality
Banned
The pointed birther question at the debate is gonna be a huge deal. Anyone wanna take bets on if Trump says yes or no when Holt asks "Do you believe President Obama was born in the United States?" My friend thinks he ends up saying yes.
He is trying to mess with the media...This is Bannon's strategy. Orange turd is just going to not answer the birther question and keep it vague but during the debates he is going to say that he now believes that Obama was born in Hawaii in order to catch Clinton off guard. It is going to be very reminiscent to what Romney did except with someone that lies a hundred times more.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
October Blue Shell
whyamihere
Banned
I'm sort of wondering this too.
BlastProcessing
Member
We are all products of our past. I was a Nader voter in 2000, (in Iowa, but still) so I am sensitive to how young voters can be sold a empty bill of goods wrapped in a vague distrust of authority.
I understand that emotion will always play a part in these things, but I really think that Sanders attacks against the fundamental fairness of american democracy is something fundamentally different than what happened in 2008. I think it's fair to say that the distrust that he recognized and fostered is a large reason for the relatively strong performance of 3rd parties this year. A lot of that was obviously, pre existing, but I think it's fair to say that Sanders grew it. The word "rigged" has taken on a life of its own this cycle.
The Keeping it 1600 podcast has some great anecdotes from Obama staffers on how Obama constantly had to hold them back in 2008 because he understood that you don't cross certain lines. Campaigns are long and grueling and when you are working 20 hour days for weeks on end you need to develop some level of hatred for your opponent just to keep yourself going. Slip ups will happen, but Sanders campaign fundamentally shifted from one based on issues of social justice to one almost sole focused on litigating the primary system itself. Nobody was able to hold back the tired, overworked, and increasingly desperate campaign staff from crossing the line.
It wouldn't be about the direct financial burden necessarily. It would be the fact that businesses would have to deal with temporarily replacing vital workers. This is obviously not a new phenomenon, but an official federal system would only exacerbate this. It seems like it would be even more difficult for women to get promotions and raises under this system. I think that any newborn, leave plan needs to apply equally to men and women for this reason.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
He'll say "I don't know" attack the moderator for asking a biased question that doesn't get at the issues facing americans.
At least that's what a competent candidate would say.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
LOL I'm using this from now on. In fact, it should be the accepted term around here.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
stop being a pundit bad nate
If he says no. A good moderator or Clinton herself would say that his surrogates have said as much. I know Giuliani has.
I think Trump says yes he does believe it, but you follow that up by asking what changed his mind.
Did anyone poll for that even? Or was the fact that Matt Lauer shitbombed overshadowing Trumps latest look like a clown fiasco?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
NBC has done a horrible job normalizing the racist idiot.
Lauer, Fallon, SNL, Morning Joe
Myers has been good, dude hates Trump with a passion
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
My cousin and her husband wrote personalized thank you letters to all of their wedding guests.
I mean it was nice... But if that were me getting married, I would rather be fucking than writing thank you letters to every rando.
I mean it was nice... But if that were me getting married, I would rather be fucking than writing thank you letters to every rando.
shinra-bansho
Member
Thanks, millenials. For giving women equality. It's all good now.
minor effort
Banned
Trust me, everyone believes it's your hair. Even the cheapest toupee would look better than whatever you got going on up there now.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Okay. Personally, I have absolutely no problems with attacks on the fundamental fairness of American democracy - it isn't very fair.
To the first part of this, I say: it doesn't look to me like Obama held back against Clinton more than Sanders. I mean, say all you want: Obama said Clinton was just like Bush. For all his apparent faults, Sanders never once said Clinton was just as bad as Trump.
To the second part: I will be at the forefront of any attack on the primary system. It is an unfair travesty of an electoral system that brings ill repute on the Democratic party for fostering it.
This is more true, although it's not clear to me that this is worse than the status quo. With no maternity leave, women take much less time out of work, so employees don't bother distinguishing, but the downside is that they obviously have much less time to dedicate to childcare. With maternity leave, they take more time out and can dedicate themselves more to childcare, but employees distinguish more. Whether it benefits you more or less as an individual woman depends on how likely you are to take maternity leave or not. If you are more likely than the average woman to take maternity leave, you benefit, because all the less likely people relatively drag employee willingness above what it would be if they could accurately identify your maternity leave likelihood. If you are less likely than the average woman to take maternity leave, you don't benefit, because all the more likely people drag employee willingness down and because you're not taking maternity leave, you're not seeing the benefits. So it's difficult to say whether this is better or worse than the status quo: it depends on the woman in question; I don't think you could generalize or say "on average, it's better/worse", you have to decide which group you want policies to prioritize: family-minded or career-minded women.
I agree that there are policies which actually allow both family-mindedness and career-mindedness, but they're more than just extending paternity leave. The trouble that countries with equal maternity and paternity provision find is that men just don't take theirs, which means women still end up costing more on average in terms of work output even though men are legally entitled to the same dues. This is because we have such an entrenched sexist culture that pushes child-rearing onto women and away from men. I think the countries that have been most successful in terms of equalizing male/female employment and pay have been ones with what's called compulsory parental leave, which takes the form of "for every week you take off, to get another, your partner must also take a week off" - so if a woman wanted to take six weeks off, her partner would also *have* to take six weeks off. This forcibly equalizes the rate at which partners take leave, and so equalizes the risk from a company's perspective. This is roughly what they do in Finland, Norway and Sweden (and are beginning to implement in Germany); as a rule of thumb if the Scandinavians are doing it, it's the right policy (the bastards! Jag behöver verkligen förbättra min svenska...)
RustyNails
Member
You go off on weird rants sometimes.
Coriolanus
Banned
Somewhat doubt that any "independent" that even remotely leans Trump is on the table. Dude gets so much press that there aint no way around avoiding all the horrid shit he already sed.
All one needs to do to avoid that counter is lead that question with a short preamble about polarized nation, thus linking one to the other.
He'd still go with that answer, democrats would have their gotcha moment, republicans would have their biased media moment, and (nearly) fuckall would change.
All one needs to do to avoid that counter is lead that question with a short preamble about polarized nation, thus linking one to the other.
He'd still go with that answer, democrats would have their gotcha moment, republicans would have their biased media moment, and (nearly) fuckall would change.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
This isn't a rant, I was pleased but confused, lol. This was just a comment.
RustyNails
Member
Anyways, I'm downloading Unreal 4 SDK about to make Witcher 4.
Tarkus
Member
No, it's Trump that hates him. Myers has nothing against him.
Source: Interview - Howard Stern Show 9/13
I think that's everybody that voted for her.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I do actually have a political post: I met with the president of a semi important local bank today about him endorsing carbon taxation. He was ambivalent, but our organization is in contact with a lot of his friends and he was more supportive than not so it might have gone well.
Married people dont fuck ...... each other.
Tarkus
Member
PoliGAF Nights is starting early tonight
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Oh wow.
And they will continue to be soft on him.
Cease and desist incoming.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked