• 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 |OT13| For Queen and Country

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Boke1879

Member
Iolo said:
No. Putting aside for a moment that this is simply negative campaigning and not "voter fraud". I mean, their strategy for "vote suppression" is to bring up Clinton accusers at the debate to discourage women, to say that Clinton has been horrible for black people, and to hammer on Wikileaks to discourage Bernie supporters. None of this is working in the first place! And they have no data to indicate it will.
Click to expand...

The fact they call it voter suppression is fucking stupid. But yea this shit isn't working and it's too late for this.

And instead of telling your base to go out and vote you resort to this. This is the only way they can "win"
 
K

kadotsu

Banned
March 2017 will be the next time the debt ceiling will need to be negotiated. Get ready for the opposition to demand their nomination for a Supreme Court Judge to be taken to get that solved. PARTY OF THE CONSTITUTION #notalivingdocument
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
joebruin said:
so it really is gonna be 4 more years of obama
Click to expand...
In all likelihood, yup.

I said a long time ago:
2016 is a fight for the court. Any progress that we make in the short term will be via executive action or judicial ruling. Congress will only act on things that are necessary to keep the lights on, and in the face of national emergencies. Our large fundamental problems will remain unaddressed.

I am an ideological progressive, but even if we win big 12 nights from now, I remain a pessimist about the future.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Communicator-in-chief

Speaking alongside the Republican presidential nominee during a sit-down interview broadcast Thursday morning on “Good Morning America,” Melania Trump said she fully supports her husband.

“And I’m there for him every time he needs me. And I might join him,” she said, referring to the campaign trail as Election Day nears. “We will see.”

“She’s actually going to make two or three speeches,” Donald Trump announced.

“Oh,” a startled Melania Trump interjected, prompting ABC’s George Stephanopoulos to observe he “made some news right there.”

Well, it is. It’s, it’s — she’s amazing when she speaks,” Donald Trump said. “She’s an amazing public speaker so she’s agreed to do two or three speeches, and I think it’s going to be big speeches, important speeches, and I think it’s gonna be great.”
Click to expand...

Donald: "Nice prenup you have there, would be a shame if something happened to it"
 
D

dramatis

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
This article has some good bits but again, its an article which completely divorces civil rights and the potential beneficiaries of that policies. How many black store owners were protected in that mom-and-pop store bill, what about the giant expansion of government that probably did more to lead to prosperity rather than anti-monopoly power (medicare, medicaid, Social security, military expansion, war contracts and subsidies, the dearth of Asian and European competition due to the war)

Again, this is a conclusion in search of some historical justification for their claim to being the real Democrats

The economic populists never left (again, these always ignore that Black legsilators have constantly been one of the strongest voices for these same things but they're ignored in favor or the white leaderships view), the country movie right as a whole not some sell out democrats.

These analysis really really want to ignore so much of the world in favor of the idea that anti-corporate stuff is going to unite the working and middle class and lead to... hell I don't even think they know what... its just about reducing power.
Click to expand...
Read it two days ago, but I think the thrust of the article was centered around economic populism, so I didn't dock it point for not talking about civil rights. The writer concedes that there was significant progress on the social front, and says that these gains have to be kept.

While Wright Patman was praised for his populism in the piece, the author noting that Patman supported segregation stained Patman plenty in my eyes. In a way, by arriving to the diverse coalition of today, we have the mind and care to implement economic policies and legislation with careful thought for minorities as well from this starting point, which is better than what it was before. I think that's a good thing and the author encourages thinking about economic policies with the Democratic coalition in mind as well.
 
B

Blader

Member
Far be it from me to understand GOP strategies, but do Senate Republicans like Cruz and McCain openly talking about blocking Hillary's SCOTUS nominees indefinitely not see how that bites them on the ass when the shoe's on the other foot? If a Republican president ends up with SCOTUS seats to fill but a Democratic Senate outright refuses to hold hearings for partisan reasons, don't Cruz et al. see that said Dems would be completely justified by the precedent they themselves set?

I don't know if this is general Repubicans are better than Democrats thing, or something particular to Hillary being an illegitimate president therefore her nominees are illegitimate, or what. But I just don't understand how blocking SCOTUS nominees indefinitely doesn't immediately set a president that allows any opposition party to indefinitely block SCOTUS nominees.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
Iolo said:
Communicator-in-chief



Donald: "Nice prenup you have there, would be a shame if something happened to it"
Click to expand...

That sounds like a hard negotiating tactic. "Dont want to do speeches? Ok." Then proceeds to say she will be doing it anyway during a high profile interview. God i hope Melania gets all of Trump's money.

sturgboski said:
God I hate the GOP, fucking terrible.

Edit:
@Blader above:

That's assuming Dems get and keep Senate. With all the gerrymandering, good luck.
Click to expand...

You meant the house. Dont need to worry about Senate gerrymandering
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I mean, Hillary will never get a Supreme Court judge appointed if they don't nuke it for appointments.
Click to expand...

The filibuster was already nuked by Reid in regards to judges and similar appointments. The issue right now is that the Senate, which is controlled by the GOP, refuses to even hold a hearing since if they did that they'd have to allow a vote at some point. If the Dems take back the Senate it stops being an issue.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Blader said:
Far be it from me to understand GOP strategies, but do Senate Republicans like Cruz and McCain openly talking about blocking Hillary's SCOTUS nominees indefinitely not see how that bites them on the ass when the shoe's on the other foot? If a Republican president ends up with SCOTUS seats to fill but a Democratic Senate outright refuses to hold hearings for partisan reasons, don't Cruz et al. see that said Dems would be completely justified by the precedent they themselves set?

I don't know if this is general Repubicans are better than Democrats thing, or something particular to Hillary being an illegitimate president therefore her nominees are illegitimate, or what. But I just don't understand how blocking SCOTUS nominees indefinitely doesn't immediately set a president that allows any opposition party to indefinitely block SCOTUS nominees.
Click to expand...

They'll nuke it, they have no qualms about playing by different rules.

See Ryan saying how Obama using reconciliation justifies GOP behavior (that was literally 6 years ago) today while he himself is talking about ramming everything in an omnibus bill if Trump wins (they already did this earlier this term)
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
B-Dubs said:
The filibuster was already nuked by Reid in regards to judges and similar appointments. The issue right now is that the Senate, which is controlled by the GOP, refuses to even hold a hearing since if they did that they'd have to allow a vote at some point. If the Dems take back the Senate it stops being an issue.
Click to expand...

It didn't nuke SCOTUS appointments.

There is no reason not to nuke with a majority unless moderates play ball. But it will be used as causi belli for literally opposing every thing clinton wants done

But if the house stays IDK why you'd nuke legislation which hasn't been nuked
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Blader said:
Far be it from me to understand GOP strategies, but do Senate Republicans like Cruz and McCain openly talking about blocking Hillary's SCOTUS nominees indefinitely not see how that bites them on the ass when the shoe's on the other foot? If a Republican president ends up with SCOTUS seats to fill but a Democratic Senate outright refuses to hold hearings for partisan reasons, don't Cruz et al. see that said Dems would be completely justified by the precedent they themselves set?

I don't know if this is general Repubicans are better than Democrats thing, or something particular to Hillary being an illegitimate president therefore her nominees are illegitimate, or what. But I just don't understand how blocking SCOTUS nominees indefinitely doesn't immediately set a president that allows any opposition party to indefinitely block SCOTUS nominees.
Click to expand...

If Democrats tried to block their appointments indefinitely, they'd pretend it was the grossest attack on democracy, ever, and would have every network in the country running 24/7 stories about how obstructionist the Democrats are and how this is all terrible and they are terrible people.
 
E

Emarv

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
If Democrats tried to block their appointments indefinitely, they'd pretend it was the grossest attack on democracy, ever, and would have ever network in the country running 24/7 stories about how obstructionist the Democrats are and how this is all terrible and they are terrible people.
Click to expand...

They already used the Alito "filibuster" by the Dems as an excuse for this unprecedented Garland stuff. Essentially, the GOP is always willing to take it further and crazier than the Dems ever could, because the Dems have the CRAZY idea of trying to maintain a semi-functional government.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
why nuke the whole thing if the House stays R anyway? Paul Ryan will be the fillerbuster in the house since he's the one who gets to decide what bills make it on the floor.
 
Z

Ziltoidia 9

Member
johnsmith said:
That's called diversity
Click to expand...

Id rather it be diverse for all hate than be selective on what hate can be on it, regardless of the person/groups philosophy. But its a private business and can do what it want. Though, I've always thought its best to have the idiots out in the public with their hate speech so there is a track record.
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
why nuke the whole thing if the House stays R anyway? Paul Ryan will be the filler buster in the house since he's the one who gets to decide what bills make it on the floor.
Click to expand...

If democrats end up VERY close to a majority in the house, Paul Ryan will have too much pressure. Beohner had to break the hastert rule in 2013 and Democrats only had 10 more seats than they had after 2011-2012 congress. There is no way Paul Ryan doesn't end up breaking the Hastert rule.

And it'll be a lot easier to keep the pressure on Paul Ryan if the Senate can keep passing numerous bills.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
balladofwindfishes said:
If Democrats tried to block their appointments indefinitely, they'd pretend it was the grossest attack on democracy, ever, and would have ever network in the country running 24/7 stories about how obstructionist the Democrats are and how this is all terrible and they are terrible people.
Click to expand...

To be fair, if the democrats were effectively marketing this whole thing, they'd probably be in a much better position. The republicans have been obstructing for years, yet they somehow let the republicans keep pushing the mantra that democrats are the real problem. I'd like to see 2018's midterm really start pushing this angle that if somebody wants something done, they have to vote republicans out. If the campaign was effective, it could push a higher midterm voter turnout among millennials and minorities.
 
J

JHoNNy1OoO

Member
+3 for Hillary/Murphy down here in Miami, FL.

While there was no wait time it was packed as hell. No Trump or Hillary signs that I saw, most were all for the local races.
 
B

Blader

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
They'll nuke it, they have no qualms about playing by different rules.

See Ryan saying how Obama using reconciliation justifies GOP behavior (that was literally 6 years ago) today while he himself is talking about ramming everything in an omnibus bill if Trump wins (they already did this earlier this term)
Click to expand...

Right, but I don't mean nuking the 60-vote threshold so that Dems can confirm Garland next year (assuming they flip the Senate), I mean this:

balladofwindfishes said:
If Democrats tried to block their appointments indefinitely, they'd pretend it was the grossest attack on democracy, ever, and would have every network in the country running 24/7 stories about how obstructionist the Democrats are and how this is all terrible and they are terrible people.
Click to expand...

In the minds of Cruz, McCain, et al. does it really just boil down to, Republicans block Democratic appointments indefinitely because we're better, but how dare Democrats try to do the same thing?
 
V

Voysa Reezun

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
why nuke the whole thing if the House stays R anyway? Paul Ryan will be the fillerbuster in the house since he's the one who gets to decide what bills make it on the floor.
Click to expand...

Also, we need to get that justice on the Supreme Court, so...

I don't think Paul Ryan is still speaker next year anyway. I give it 75/25: 75% the Freedom Caucus types do to Ryan what they did to Boehner and force Ryan to leave the position by essentially giving him a vote of no confidence, and 25% Nancy Pelosi ends up speaker because Hillary winning by eleven points is enough to flip the House by two or three seats.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
This article has some good bits but again, its an article which completely divorces civil rights and the potential beneficiaries of that policies. How many black store owners were protected in that mom-and-pop store bill, what about the giant expansion of government that probably did more to lead to prosperity rather than anti-monopoly power (medicare, medicaid, Social security, military expansion, war contracts and subsidies, the dearth of Asian and European competition due to the war)

Again, this is a conclusion in search of some historical justification for their claim to being the real Democrats

The economic populists never left (again, these always ignore that Black legsilators have constantly been one of the strongest voices for these same things but they're ignored in favor or the white leaderships view), the country movie right as a whole not some sell out democrats.

These analysis really really want to ignore so much of the world in favor of the idea that anti-corporate stuff is going to unite the working and middle class and lead to... hell I don't even think they know what... its just about reducing power.

I mean paragraphs like this illistrate the point


None of these are issues the American people want fixed. None of these are things people complain about or even believe need to be fixed by and large. In fact many of these HAVE lowered prices (especially Amazon) and just randomly smashing them up isn't going improve lives even if it improves competition, its a type of vanity project of having your goals and pretending people care.
Click to expand...

If many people overestimate the issues with corporationism and the same goes with the upper class. It is not something people care about too much overall. I actually do not think that economic populism is going to dominate the Democratic Party considering that it was more or less rejected by Hillary Clinton's coalition and Hillary herself mostly focused social issues, foreign policy, or if it was about economic issues it was mostly centered around how to deal with it in variety of ways. Bernie was more hyper focused on the wealthy, Wall Street, and big businesses when it comes to the economy. I think the party see's the benefits on focus on those issues that their base cares about.

So far I think the left has ultimately failed at uniting people at being very much anti-corp, but they did highlighted as an issue that needs to be solved, even if it is not a huge concern for many people too.


Of course that does not take into the consideration of how the newcomers to the party will change things, but I think it depends on how she handles her presidency and what she gets accomplished.

It something that is interesting after the primaries that is was largely dominated by rhetoric of Trump and Hillary countering it, foreign issues, and some cases immigration.
 
D

Dany

Banned
I can't wait for the election to be over so the stupid Crossfire that airs during AC360 and Lemon-time is put to an end.
 
P

Protein

Banned
Also, it's easier to run on a platform of negativity, hatred, and fear. Republicans are also good and controlling the narrative.

WELFARE. TAXES. ILLEGALS. MUSLIMS.

These words drive conservatives to the polls. Of course, it has backfired on them immensely.
 
T

Thunder Monkey

Banned
Blader said:
In the minds of Cruz, McCain, et al. does it really just boil down to, Republicans block Democratic appointments indefinitely because we're better, but how dare Democrats try to do the same thing?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's true implicitly for most of them. But to a good chunk of Reps, Dems being elected at all calls into question the election and their legitimacy. Pretty sure Cruz falls into that crew. McCain... I don't know. His 2008 concession was actually beautifully written, and tried to mend fences, but then he returned to the Senate and immediately jumped on the Turtle-train.

To some though I can say yes. They view the opposition as a harmful actor. So anything they do to stop them is okay. Given Dems are the villains, using Rep tactics against them just proves how evil they are.
 
D

dramatis

Member
NY Times has a nice feature with photographs of the offices of people in Washington. It's not only the politicians.

Carla D. Hayden, the first woman and first African-American to serve as the librarian of Congress, in her ceremonial office. Her name has been chiseled into a wall outside. The safe in the office, above right, once contained Abraham Lincoln's possessions.
Click to expand...
Julian Castro
“Two weeks before I started as secretary, in the summer of 2014, in an article in BuzzFeed,” the HUD building “was voted the second ugliest building in Washington, D.C. But the redeeming quality of the office is the view. It has a great view, one of the best of Washington, D.C., looking out upon the southwest Washington neighborhoods.”
Click to expand...
The pictures do indicate his office is pretty depressing-looking.
Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce
First impression: The place was in need of a good cleaning and some redecorating.
“There was a fish tank, because the National Aquarium was here, and I didn’t know what the National Aquarium had to do with the Department of Commerce. For me, it wasn’t working. So we moved the fish to another office.”​
Click to expand...
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Dems will have a powerful argument for deploying the nuke:
The GOP said repeatedly, for months on end, "Let the American people decide. Let the next President pick."

Then, when they didn't like who the voters picked, the GOP goes back on their word.

It's a pretty easy argument, although I could see the Dems screwing it up, hehe..
 
S

shiba5

Member
HylianTom said:
Dems will have a powerful argument for deploying the nuke:
The GOP said repeatedly, for months on end, "Let the American people decide. Let the next President pick."

Then, when they didn't like who the voters picked, the GOP goes back on their word.

It's a pretty easy argument, although I could see the Dems screwing it up, hehe..
Click to expand...

They only work for 38% of the country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
234
42K
Bloobs replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
58K
DGrayson 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
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
Top Bottom