• 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 |OT16| Unpresidented

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

metalslimer

Member
I want Gabbard because she is the best name is have heard and people can finally shut up about her running in 2020

Now Nina Turner can be the presidential candidate
 
A

Abinash117

Member
BreezyLimbo said:
Tbf I'm a bit of an isolationist myself, in that Syria is just simply a power struggle between Russia and American interests. If either the US or Russia could make Syria into their puppet government today, they would. And hey, look at what happened in Afghanistan with the Mujahideen. Government-backed forces fought against soviet-backed forces and it was all just a disaster.

Like yeah it sucks that the citizens are caught inbetween russia, the us, and the dictator.
Click to expand...

It is not simply a proxy war between Russia and US. Russia really on entered in late 2015. It is a civil war mixed with a proxy war and in some cases an ethnic-religious war between Shia and Sunni.

Assad is a brutal dictator and has killed thousands of people and him staying will most likely ensure that the rebellion will continue regardless of scale for years and Russia intervention likely resulted in the war lasting longer and more people getting killed. People don't understand that while the USA supported the rebellion it is peanuts in comparison to Turkey and gulf nations supporting the rebels---whom actually fund the Islamists.

Not having any influence of the conflict will actually make the war even worse because SA and co can exert control over the rebels with the US out of the way. That means more advanced arms and other types of support. With the recent tensions between Iran and Saudia Arabia their could be conflicts that rises between them.

Staying out of wars is not always a good thing because even regional war can have devastating effects globally a.k.a the refugee crisis which was made worse by Syria.
 
L

Lucky Forward

Member
Ether_Snake said:
I agree with what Obama is doing. Keep it cool, be blameless. Once you're out and shit starts hitting the fan, you can attack him, and it will come from someone who helped him out earlier by being professional. He's handling this the right way. If he didn't do this, any criticism he would throw later would have a very
Click to expand...

ampere said:
Obama does have a tricky position. He can't make this look like a resistance to the transfer of power, but once he's a private citizen he can raise hell.
Click to expand...


As much as I dislike Trump, hasn't there always been a tradition that the outgoing president refrains from any criticism or second-guessing of the new administration? It seems to me that H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. all eased into a relatively quiet life after leaving office, and if an ex-president were to have a public profile, it would be with some sort of charity work.

I know a lot of us would like to see Obama open up on Trump, but so far he's handling the transition with class and restraint, and I wonder how much he'll be willing to go against tradition in private life. Is there precedent for a former prez openly criticizing his successor?
 
R

RustyNails

Member
BreezyLimbo said:
Tbf I'm a bit of an isolationist myself, in that Syria is just simply a power struggle between Russia and American interests. If either the US or Russia could make Syria into their puppet government today, they would. And hey, look at what happened in Afghanistan with the Mujahideen. Government-backed forces fought against soviet-backed forces and it was all just a disaster.

Like yeah it sucks that the citizens are caught inbetween russia, the us, and the dictator.
Click to expand...
It was a disaster because as soon as we defeated Soviet Union, we pulled the fukk out. Charlie Wilson's War (movie) shows how greatly we fucked up. The mujahideen including OBL, just uneducated, illiterate goat farmers and warlords with all the weapons we gave them took it upon themselves to create a barely functioning government where they can derive power. We did not have a transistional council, funds for schools, civil institutions, social organizations. If you give a bunch of poor, conservative, rural, uneducated, illiterate farmers a bunch of weapons and a country to govern they will fall back on one thing they all have in common: their religion. And with that, all sorts of wacky things ensue.
 
T

Ty4on

Member
Lucky Forward said:
As much as I dislike Trump, hasn't there always been a tradition that the outgoing president refrains from any criticism or second-guessing of the new administration? It seems to me that H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. all eased into a relatively quiet life after leaving office, and if an ex-president were to have a public profile, it would be with some sort of charity work.

I know a lot of us would like to see Obama open up on Trump, but so far he's handling the transition with class and restraint, and I wonder how much he'll be willing to go against tradition in private life. Is there precedent for a former prez openly criticizing his successor?
Click to expand...
Now I wanna see Trump do that with a Democrat.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
mo60 said:
It looks like John Morgan is now running in the FL Governor race in 2018 now.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-morgan-democrats-florida-20161118-story.html
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about him as a person, but he did put millions of his own money up to push for Medical Marijuana. He got some publicity for his firm, but I doubt that publicity was equal to the money spent.

RustyNails said:
FFXV comes out in 8 days.
Click to expand...

Fuck, I might end up waiting till I can get a PS4 Pro.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Holmes said:
I knooooow but I don't think I have the capital to get my husband to go along with buying a new game after getting a new apartment...booking tickets to Canada for Christmas.... Christmas gifts....

:'(
Click to expand...

That's what an emergency stash of cash is for. I always keep like $100, made up of weekly change, in a sock drawer just in case something pops up I want to buy. Then again I'm not married or in a relationship so I don't know how well that would go over for someone who was.
 
S

StormBrute

Member
FFXV is gonna be so awful. I've been spoiling myself silly out of hope that my expectations would be proven wrong by watching footage, but it's been having the opposite effect. :(
 
R

Retromelon

Member
FFXV-Cup-Noodles-Collab-Ann_007-600x338.jpg


FFXV-Cup-Noodles-Collab-Ann_003-600x338.jpg


FFXV-Cup-Noodles-Collab-Ann_004.jpg


Oh ye of little faith
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
SenorArdilla said:
Anyone care to give a quick history lesson on who thought it would be a great idea to repeal the Voting Rights Act?
Click to expand...

they didn't repeal the voting rights act. its very clearly consitutional under the 15th.

They repealed the specific pre-clearence formula because they felt that it was based too much on the 1960s not today (which was bullshit)

Thomas did though think the entire idea of pre-clearence is wrong.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Seeing the actions of NC GOP, I have to wonder if Dems should not push for a Faithless Elector scenario with the Popular Vote being the primary reason, and Trump's significant conflicts of interest and abuses being the second.

8 years ago, I would have guessed no party would ever consider it. But i'd bet Money, if the GOP won the popular vote and lost the EC, they would push for the same thing.

Violating every single Political Standard and Practice was not the least bit punished, so perhaps it's time we get done what needs to get done.
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
Suikoguy said:
Seeing the actions of NC GOP, I have to wonder if Dems should not push for a Faithless Elector scenario with the Popular Vote being the primary reason, and Trump's significant conflicts of interest and abuses being the second.

8 years ago, I would have guessed no party would ever consider it. But i'd bet Money, if the GOP won the popular vote and lost the EC, they would push for the same thing.

Violating every single Political Standard and Practice was not the least bit punished, so perhaps it's time we get done what needs to get done.
Click to expand...

I would like this, but every time I've mentioned it, people here have squashed all hope. Admittedly, things are worse now than they were 3 or 4 days ago when I last mentioned it, but...

I think, if there's no Faithless Electors, then the Dems should push for a major overhaul of the system. It's quite clear that Trump is going to be the most tyrannical and stupid President ever elected, and if the EC doesn't work as a check against an abusive Presidential candidate, then it's literally worthless. They may as well just abandon the electors, but state that the EC state numbers are what count, because the electoral positions themselves will be a mockery if they don't turn Faithless now.

You don't even have to phrase it as "Lets have the Popular Vote winner be the President", just say "What's the point of this?"
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Suikoguy said:
Seeing the actions of NC GOP, I have to wonder if Dems should not push for a Faithless Elector scenario with the Popular Vote being the primary reason, and Trump's significant conflicts of interest and abuses being the second.

8 years ago, I would have guessed no party would ever consider it. But i'd bet Money, if the GOP won the popular vote and lost the EC, they would push for the same thing.

Violating every single Political Standard and Practice was not the least bit punished, so perhaps it's time we get done what needs to get done.
Click to expand...

Trump picks his own electors. They're not going to be faithless. Attempting to do this will fail, and make the Democrats look both incompetent and undemocratic at the same time. There's doing what needs to be done, and there's being stupid.
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
Crab said:
Trump picks his own electors. They're not going to be faithless. Attempting to do this will fail, and make the Democrats look both incompetent and undemocratic at the same time. There's doing what needs to be done, and there's being stupid.
Click to expand...

I think, after (or during) this 4 years, there's going to be a massive push for changing the EC voting system. To willfully ignore how abhorrent Trump and his administration will be is a total moral failure of the electors, and a systemic failure to stop someone who could do actual harm to millions of people.

I mean, let's be honest - if the worst actually happens, we're talking the equivalent of a Nazi administration in terms of propagation of hate.
 
M

Maengun1

Member
Yeah I know it's not gonna happen, but the faithless elector scenarios have been dancing in my head last couple days too. That or Trump doing something SO bad (as compared to what he's been doing, so, idk...) that he somehow gets booted before inauguration, even if it's to the benefit of Pence. I've also been having dreams where Hillary won now, after 12 straight days of nightmares. So waking up is weird. On election night I went right into depression, so I guess I'm just now bouncing around the other stages.

Anger too. I posted this in an OT thread but ever since 2000, at least like once a month Gore winning the popular vote would really hit me again, and I'd just be like "fuuuck that shiiittttt" and get all worked up over it. It kind of subsided in the Obama years because, well, we had Obama now, but I NEVER got even close to being over 2000. I was always like "this is the great political injustice of Our Time." And now... ... now.....THIS. It's really unfathomable.


The rational part of my brain is kinda telling me like, look, they were gonna tie Hillary's hands and feet behind her back for the next 2 years, 2018 would have been an absolute slaughter guaranteed (instead of just probably, now), and she probably loses in 2020... at least now we can regroup for a redistricting year, and hey, this likely sinks Ryan's presidential ambitions forever. But Trump is just so dangerous and we have literally no way to predict what damage he can do. And the friggin' court...

Sorry lol, I still need to vent over this. Probably forever.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Pixieking said:
I think, after (or during) this 4 years, there's going to be a massive push for changing the EC voting system. To willfully ignore how abhorrent Trump and his administration will be is a total moral failure of the electors, and a systemic failure to stop someone who could do actual harm to millions of people.

I mean, let's be honest - if the worst actually happens, we're talking the equivalent of a Nazi administration in terms of propagation of hate.
Click to expand...

To change it, the Democrats need to win the state legislatures of enough states to have 270-electoral college votes, and then also the governors of those same states, or the governors will veto any bill. It is likely that the NPVIC would then be challenged at the Supreme Court, under Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, and if the Republicans control the Supreme Court, it would be probably be found unconstitutional, so the Democrats would also need to control the Supreme Court. At any point after this, if the Democrats lost both the state legislatures and governorships of any of those 270 electoral votes-worth of states, the NPVIC could be repealed in that state. I also wouldn't be entirely surprised if the Republicans started taking the NPVIC before the Supreme Court as soon as Trump's nominee is appointed to shoot it down now, knowing that makes it more difficult for a later Democratic Supreme Court to change their judgement.

The only people who are going to push to change the EC system are the Democrats. As we've just learnt from this election, that's not enough.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Crab said:
To change it, the Democrats need to win the state legislatures of enough states to have 270-electoral college votes, and then also the governors of those same states, or the governors will veto any bill. It is likely that the NPVIC would then be challenged at the Supreme Court, under Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, and if the Republicans control the Supreme Court, it would be probably be found unconstitutional, so the Democrats would also need to control the Supreme Court. At any point after this, if the Democrats lost both the state legislatures and governorships of any of those 270 electoral votes-worth of states, the NPVIC could be repealed in that state. I also wouldn't be entirely surprised if the Republicans started taking the NPVIC before the Supreme Court as soon as Trump's nominee is appointed to shoot it down now, knowing that makes it more difficult for a later Democratic Supreme Court to change their judgement.

The only people who are going to push to change the EC system are the Democrats. As we've just learnt from this election, that's not enough.
Click to expand...

So the argument here is that it would count as a treaty , alliance or confederation ? That seems kind of risky to get on the books since it nukes any agreement between states not done through the federal government.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Elaugaufein said:
So the argument here is that it would count as a treaty , alliance or confederation ? That seems kind of risky to get on the books since it nukes any agreement between states not done through the federal government.
Click to expand...

I think the supposed argument is that the signatory states would be forming a de facto confederation. I don't think it nukes any agreement; past rulings have established A1.S10. only applies to those compacts which subvert federal supremacy or capability, and I think there's a moderately reasonable case for the latter, even if I don't agree with it. That said, I don't think the Republicans would care about the juridical side of things, it'd be just a useful excuse for them to save the electoral college.

I think the EC is deeply unlikely to be changed at any time in the near future. It would require a Democratic wave election across the country in a manner not seen in a half-century. This sucks because the EC is an atrocious system, and as pigeon (hope he comes back) knows I think it is indefensible, but the US constitution as a whole sucks so what can you do?
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
Bahhhh... One by one my dreams die. :p

On a different topic:


Sarah Kendzior ‏@sarahkendzior 9h9 hours ago

Scholars of authoritarian regimes and cyber-security call for investigation into election. RT and send to your reps
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/800881494524882944

Call for a Congressional Investigation: An Open Letter from Concerned Scholars

Dear Senators and Representatives,

We, the undersigned scholars who conduct research on cyber-security, national defense, authoritarian regimes, and free and fair elections, are deeply troubled by reports of hacking by foreign powers apparently intent on influencing our November 2016 elections. Reports are serious enough that former senior national security aide Michael Allen, as well as Senators Bob Corker and Lindsey Graham, have raised concerns that Russia in particular may have been involved.
Click to expand...
 
C

chadskin

Member
Your daily dose of whining to start the day

@realDonaldTrump:
- I cancelled today's meeting with the failing @nytimes when the terms and conditions of the meeting were changed at the last moment. Not nice
- Perhaps a new meeting will be set up with the @nytimes. In the meantime they continue to cover me inaccurately and with a nasty tone!
- The failing @nytimes just announced that complaints about them are at a 15 year high. I can fully understand that - but why announce?
 
N

nature boy

Member
Trump's attempt #43954893859348 to dodge from a controversial issue:

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 23m23 minutes ago
I cancelled today's meeting with the failing @nytimes when the terms and conditions of the meeting were changed at the last moment. Not nice

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 9m9 minutes ago
Perhaps a new meeting will be set up with the @nytimes. In the meantime they continue to cover me inaccurately and with a nasty tone!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 3m3 minutes ago
The failing @nytimes just announced that complaints about them are at a 15 year high. I can fully understand that - but why announce?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bringing Dune Awakening to the Xbox Series S will be a "challenge", according to Funcom chief product officer
News 2 3
100
4K
mdkirby replied
Modern Game Devs Suck at Community Support
2
60
2K
Reizo Ryuu replied
Dragon Age: Veilguard is first Bioware game to feature full nudity
News 2 3
120
9K
BehemothBlade replied
Shinobi602 on the "lack" of First Party reveals by PlayStation: "I think some still haven't really grasped just how long big games take to make now"
Opinion News Drama 5 6 7 8 9
449
23K
ArtHands replied
Borderlands CEO Randy Pitchford says his hopes on Epic Store were 'overly optimistic or misplaced'
Platform 2
80
3K
DGrayson replied
Top Bottom