• 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.
My life and my theoretical children's lives are worth far more than a negligible effect on trends that are completely outside my control. The GOP wins state elections here by 30+ points. Our state legislature is less than 20% Democratic and when my local college town even considers something marginally progressive (a small increase to the minimum wage or a plastic bag ban) the state legislature writes laws to prevent that from happening. If my kids are LGBT, they will be faced with a state where the vast majority of the residents do not want them to exist. Why the fuck should I stay in Idaho?

I mean, wasn't everyone cheering about how North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona are inevitable blue states?

Edit: I mean if Democrats want to flip a small state, it should probably be Montana. It could probably have a Colorado-esque shift in the future. But I'm not sure I should base my life decisions on the negligible potential of trying to reverse trends.

Idaho is like Mississippi, which you didn't read, I guess. I'm precisely talking about those states; red states that can flip if liberal migration actually happens. If you're already planning on moving to a metro area, I'm saying you should pick Phoenix, Charlotte, or Atlanta over Seattle, Portland, or Burlington.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I mean if Democrats want to flip a small state, it should probably be Montana.
Oh sure, like a state that small could ever elect two Democrats as governor back to back, have at least Democratic Senator in every Congress since 1911 and a few years back have a Democratic legislature along with pockets of the state that would make the average blue stater blush.

Next you'll claim they've spawned a progressive hero like Burton K. Wheeler or a 16 year Senate Majority Leader.
 
This is the wrong time to screw with process. It makes Democrats looks disorganized, stupid, and weak -- and unlike the primaries, this shit is recorded for posterity.

"Daddy, what did you do when fascism came to America?"

"I voted for Colin Fucking Powell."
Pretty much.
 
Idaho is like Mississippi, which you didn't read, I guess. I'm precisely talking about those states; red states that can flip if liberal migration actually happens. If you're already planning on moving to a metro area, I'm saying you should pick Phoenix, Charlotte, or Atlanta over Seattle, Portland, or Burlington.

How about when people take their lives and move into trendy places? That's privilege. You could probably find a similar job to the one you landed in Portland, but in a smaller city in the Midwest. And given the lower populations in these places, your impact is already worth more than in populated states. If half of the yearly migrants to California went to Cheyenne, WY instead, you'd add almost 50% to their population, mostly liberal. Stuff like this flips states. Sure, the EC votes aren't much, but two blue Senators would be, plus a governor's mansion.

But a young person's vote in Seattle is quite literally worthless. It's just math (most votes are worthless too, but especially so in this case). It is also worthless here in Mississippi. But those low population states? Less worthless.
You were literally just suggesting people move to low population state because we can overtake them with sheer numbers, not "move to major urban hubs in purple trending states". This is a strategy that might work in Montana and that's about it.
 
Oh sure, like a state that small could ever elect two Democrats as governor back to back, have at least Democratic Senator in every Congress since 1911 and a few years back have a Democratic legislature along with pockets of the state that would make the average blue stater blush.

Next you'll claim they've spawned a progressive hero like Burton K. Wheeler or a 16 year Senate Majority Leader.
Benji if progressive history matter people wouldn't be suggesting we give up on Wisconsin :p
 
You were literally just suggesting people move to low population state because we can overtake them with sheer numbers, not "move to major urban hubs in purple trending states". This is a strategy that might work in Montana and that's about it.

After looking at its population, I'm going to rescind that too. Idaho is small enough to flip too if encouraged as a destination. Giving up on states is what we've been doing and it's a miserable failure.
 
I mean, step back and ask why someone would want to move here in the first place. Idaho has like two reasons someone would want to move here: either they get a job in Boise with Micron or something or they're super wealthy and want a house in Sun Valley. I don't think Micron is going to suddenly expand to offer 250k tech jobs that will be taken by a bunch of liberals from the coasts. Otherwise, there's INL I guess, if you want to live in a place where 90% of your neighbors are Mormon. There's some outdoor adventure stuff in pockets I guess but most of the state is a boring-ass desert. How exactly is the migration program going to make it swing?
 

Odrion

Banned
any of you democrats in st. paul want to move like 40 minutes east to help get wisconsin blue again

we got beer, and red letter media

edit: and bon iver
 

benjipwns

Banned
A lot of those Western small state Republicans are better than their equivalents in larger states. The state-wide elected ones tend to be more socially libertarian and less gungho for military adventures than even ones in a "purple" state like Michigan where they can run up the total with enough hardcore social conservatives, politicos or whatever.

Dick Cheney's political positions were much better when he was trying to win over just the state of Wyoming.

Same for their Democrats often imo too. Less running up the totals via corrupt urban machines they have to pay back later and so on.

EDIT: No PD on Brian Schweitzer.
 
A lot of those Western small state Republicans are better than their equivalents in larger states. The state-wide elected ones tend to be more socially libertarian and less gungho for military adventures than even ones in a "purple" state like Michigan where they can run up the total with enough hardcore social conservatives, politicos or whatever.

Dick Cheney's political positions were much better when he was trying to win over just the state of Wyoming.

Same for their Democrats often imo too. Less running up the totals via corrupt urban machines they have to pay back later and so on.

EDIT: No PD on Brian Schweitzer.
I mean if PD had his way 2016 would have been Schweitzer vs. Rick Snyder. Drink up.
 

benjipwns

Banned
It's impossible for you to be contractually obligated to do anything as that would imply ascribing meaningful authority to enforce to some third party

You can only be contractually incentivized
Respecting the rule of law as established by any declared authority is the most important thing we can do. Especially at a time like this and the next four years at minimum.
 

Christine

Member
This is the wrong time to screw with process. It makes Democrats looks disorganized, stupid, and weak -- and unlike the primaries, this shit is recorded for posterity.

"Daddy, what did you do when fascism came to America?"

"I voted for Colin Fucking Powell."

It's not "the wrong time" that's the problem, it's the scale. A friend of mine recently mentioned that anyone who advances an argument on the basis of process is probably lying, and that if the argument is to their benefit that they are definitely lying. My hot take on this is that if you're thinking of fucking about with process, either go big or go home. None of the faithless electors had a functional coalition backing their action so their action was empty and useless, lacking even of symbolic value.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Respecting the rule of law as established by any declared authority is the most important thing we can do. Especially at a time like this and the next four years at minimum.

1eb3b4cb444ffb0a1e760137a4625209d7795354c5e0424ca08bbe6a10546ca8.jpg
 
It's not "the wrong time" that's the problem, it's the scale. A friend of mine recently mentioned that anyone who advances an argument on the basis of process is probably lying, and that if the argument is to their benefit that they are definitely lying. My hot take on this is that if you're thinking of fucking about with process, either go big or go home. None of the faithless electors had a functional coalition backing their action so their action was empty and useless, lacking even of symbolic value.

I thought the vote for Spotted Eagle was symbolic, and topical. Kinda makes the Electoral College seem like a joke though, which if thats what those voters were trying to do they succeeded. Aren't dems wanting to do away with the EC anyway?
 

Christine

Member
I thought the vote for Spotted Eagle was symbolic, and topical. Kinda makes the Electoral College seem like a joke though, which if thats what those voters were trying to do they succeeded. Aren't dems wanting to do away with the EC anyway?

What does the symbol refer to? Remember that your framework for interpretation must accommodate both Ron Paul and especially Colin Powell.

I'd eliminate the Electoral College, but that's irrelevant as these votes don't advance that cause. Disorganized and irrelevant protest votes do not impede the desired rubber stamp function of the institution.
 

benjipwns

Banned
What does the symbol refer to? Remember that your framework for interpretation must accommodate both Ron Paul and especially Colin Powell.

I'd eliminate the Electoral College, but that's irrelevant as these votes don't advance that cause. Disorganized and irrelevant protest votes do not impede the desired rubber stamp function of the institution.
I believe the voter who voted for Spotted Eagle did so with the intent of drawing attention to her activism against the Keystone and Dakota pipelines along with Native American issues.

He had actually warned all the way back in October he was going to do this.
Satiacum, an activist member of Washington’s Puyallup Tribe, says he isn’t aware of any truly “criminal” activity by Clinton but distrusts her environmental policies, which he calls “crimes against our mother, this Earth.” He suggests that the plight of Indian country has become removed from discussions between two parties who “gripe about first-world problems.” He hosts a Native American radio show called “Tribal Talk” that airs in the Tacoma area, and he says he has vented about his disillusionment with the election for months.
Satiacum got involved in this election cycle as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia for Bernie Sanders. He was among the delegates who stormed the press tent after Clinton was formally nominated. Satiacum was picked as a delegate, he said, largely by chance – after delivering brief remarks at a local convention decrying the lack of concern for Indian Country. Later, Patsy Whiteout, a prominent Native American education advocate, nominated him to be an elector.

Satiacum said his culture requires him to respect his elders, and that Whitefoot’s decision to nominate him also weighs against any consideration he has about potentially dropping out. Though he said he was aware that rejecting Clinton as an elector would anger his political allies, he said that he’s worried the party – which he says he has been active in since only about 2009 – has gone off course.

“That’s where I’m stuck,” he said. “I talked to my mom late last night about this. I talked to my wife … My wife says I’m overthinking it. She said, you don’t have to vote.”

Whitefoot did not respond to a request for comment. Satiacum worried she might be offended if he gave up his seat in the Electoral College. But mostly, he said, he thinks about his six children and 10 grandchildren.

“My hands are tied. I’ve been elected. I can’t walk in on that day and do what my wife did: act like I’m happy to be there and elect the first woman president,” he said. “There’s 16 souls that have the future ahead of them … 16 other lives and souls I’m considering when I say ‘no, I’m not going to vote for her.’”
 

benjipwns

Banned
https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf

Anyone reads this, yet? It is an analysis of the impact of his economic proposals. Three likely scenarios from getting what he wants to compromising on some of his plans; recession to stagnation.
I obviously don't endorse Trump's policies other than to the extent that they are the result of the proper democratic processes that express the will of the people for the benefit of the nation as a whole and thus should be respected and treated as legitimately agreed upon by society.

But isn't Mark Zandi like, absolute shit, at predicting well..anything? Like doesn't he have a decade long track record of being horribly wrong or something?

Him endorsing them as a disaster makes me afraid they'll work.
 
I obviously don't endorse Trump's policies other than to the extent that they are the result of the proper democratic processes that express the will of the people for the benefit of the nation as a whole and thus should be respected and treated as legitimately agreed upon by society.

But isn't Mark Zandi like, absolute shit, at predicting well..anything? Like doesn't he have a decade long track record of being horribly wrong or something?

Him endorsing them as a disaster makes me afraid they'll work.

Well I am not that knowledgeable so maybe he is. I just thought it was an interesting article. However, he isn't the only one to say that Trump's proposals aren't good. Although, OECD said that the economy will grow.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
His platform was literally trying to appeal to white people.

Sticking those two words together was probably a bit sensationalist, but those are the two main things I don't like about him. 1: His white working class people first platform. 2: His anti globalism stance.

I wasn't saying he was a "white nationalist". I was saying he was a "white" "nationalist". But you know, clearly my message was horribly tone deaf to the connotations of that.

At least I didn't call him a nationalist socialist, because you know, he is.

But he isn't a Nazi. And I sure as shit wouldn't call him one.

And maybe it's horrible of me to not like the idea of two white guys battling it out for the presidency in the wake of Obama, but I still don't like that idea.

I can see that poligaf is back to being "completely" "unhinged" again.

For the record, when you say that someone is a national socialist you ARE calling him a national socialist.no matter how much you claim that you aren't. And when you say that someone is a national socialist you are calling him a nazi. That's what those words mean when you put them together.

And where i come from it's "offensive" as "fuck".

If you don't think he is a nazi, don't call him a national socialist. And don't call him a "national" "socialist" either, because it doesn't fucking change anything.
 

Christine

Member
I believe the voter who voted for Spotted Eagle did so with the intent of drawing attention to her activism against the Keystone and Dakota pipelines along with Native American issues.

He had actually warned all the way back in October he was going to do this.

I'm not blaming him for the lack of cohesion or saying that his choice was without meaning. I respect his conviction to duty on behalf of the sixteen souls he feels responsible to. It's as good a political motivation as any, and better than most. But I don't think that this answers the question that I asked. Symbolism is a specific thing. What does his vote, as expressed in the system of the electoral college, communicate in the language of that system?
 

benjipwns

Banned
I'm not blaming him for the lack of cohesion or saying that his choice was without meaning. I respect his conviction to duty on behalf of the sixteen souls he feels responsible to. It's as good a political motivation as any, and better than most. But I don't think that this answers the question that I asked. Symbolism is a specific thing. What does his vote, as expressed in the system of the electoral college, communicate in the language of that system?
Faithless electors are rare and thus it's an opportunity for someone to get outsized media attention for their views?

Oh wait, you mean the non-cynical explanation.
 

Pixieking

Banned
I can see that poligaf is back to being "completely" "unhinged" again.

For the record, when you say that someone is a national socialist you ARE calling him a national socialist.no matter how much you claim that you aren't. And when you say that someone is a national socialist you are calling him a nazi. That's what those words mean when you put them together.

And where i come from it's "offensive" as "fuck".

If you don't think he is a nazi, don't call him a national socialist. And don't call him a "national" "socialist" either, because it doesn't fucking change anything.

Slight issue with this is how do you describe him? He's obviously a socialist, but socialist by itself doesn't necessarily encompass everything about him. So, anti-globalist, maybe? But everyone knows globalist is code for Jew, so, no, that doesn't work.

Personally, I think your reading of national socialist is both historically accurate, and not quite correct for modern usage. In the 1930s, Nazism wasn't yet a thing, but now that it is, people are more apt to use Nazi/neo-Nazi, or White Nationalist, because they're all recognisable ideologies.

I'm willing to be corrected, though, by people with more knowledge of both Bernie, and the etymology of the words being used here. :)
 

pigeon

Banned
I'm surprised that sphagnum hasn't turned up by now to note that protectionism is actually a mainstream part of the socialist (as opposed to social democratic) platform and so doesn't technically need to be qualified at all

Admittedly there are no longer any major political parties in the world advancing the socialist platform but hey
 

mo60

Member
Oof, that third table (Mr. Trump Lite). Good luck getting reelected with 9% unemployment, bub (should that come to pass).

It's kinda crazy how mr trump lite may actually end up being the most damaging to the US economy in the short term. I don't see mr trump lite as an ideal scenario with trump as president. In the third scenario the government deficit increases by a crazy amount in four years to over a trillion and stays there.In the Mr trump lite scenario the government deficit increases to over 2 trillion dollars 10 years from now which is insane.It reachs over 1.65 trillion in 2020 in that scenario which is also insane.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom