• 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.
To be fair, the pussy tape did drop Trump by three points after it came out... It's just that the three points evaporated over time as Republicans rationalized being a sexual predator.

But if a tape is released four or five days before the election, there's not enough time for Republicans to rationalize horrible things Trump said.

This is why Hillary should have had oppo ready for November :mad:

Wikileaks also dumped the remaining 50,000 Podesta e-mails within hours of that tape coming out. Convenient eh?
 
Oh my god, can you imagine if this is one of Trump's first responsibilities as the country's statesman

I mean, he should be able to get through a simple condolence tweet without insulting the citizens one of our more valuable allies... right?

The Crown season 2 is gonna be weird.

More like The Crown Season 5. By which point, we may have a new president-elect. (Not holding my breath for that. Actually, I'm not even sure Netflix will keep The Crown around long enough.)
 
lol, which one of you lurker losers sent me a death threat?



I have no idea who's alt "Atom Playboy" is, but come on, this is so cowardly to send a death threat to someone and then not put your actual user name on it.

lmao.

What the fuck? I want to say, on the record, I never sent this or anything close to it to anybody. That's just vile.

-EDIT- Sounds like it was a bot. I wish it wasn't a bot that was trying to steal my identity.
 

studyguy

Member
Stimulus shmimulus, we're gonna trickle down the wealth by stimulating JOB CREATORS. Lowering their total costs and in turn they'll GIVE BACK to the country. Or some other bullshit like that is what I expect to hear come the 20th. Anything to justify tax breaks to corps.
 
Yes. That's determined by law, by Congress. And the current laws on the book say 9. Congress could pass a law to lower that, or they could pass one to to raise the number. But as the laws stand, it's 9. Ergo, that being the case, the President has a duty to appoint a replacement and the Senate has a duty to confirm that appointment. Congress could pass a law to lower the number of justices to get out of that through that method if they wished, but they have not chosen to do this, and ergo not relevant to the discussion at all.

I don't recall any laws requiring 9, but regardless it's not a constitutional mandate that congress add a 9th.
 

Azzanadra

Member
lol, which one of you lurker losers sent me a death threat?



I have no idea who's alt "Atom Playboy" is, but come on, this is so cowardly to send a death threat to someone and then not put your actual user name on it.

lmao.

This reads a lot like "What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch?", this can't be real. Sounds like a parody.

Anyways, my conspiratorial friend keeps sending me this piece of armchair political analysis in efforts to prove that the democratic primary was rigged.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/elec...wed-2016-democratic-primaries/923891901070837

Now obviously I know it wasn't, but at the same time I don't have as intimate an understanding of how counting votes works as Americans would, so could someone help me point out why this "analysis' is bogus because I know it clearly is, but I can't really point out the reasons myself other than a significant portion of it relying on (flimsy) anecdotes, the dubious sources used and the mental gymnastics required to arrive at the conclusion.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
This reads a lot like "What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch?", this can't be real. Sounds like a parody.

Anyways, my conspiratorial friend keeps sending me this piece of armchair political analysis in efforts to prove that the democratic primary was rigged.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/elec...wed-2016-democratic-primaries/923891901070837

Now obviously I know it wasn't, but at the same time I don't have as intimate an understanding of how counting votes works as Americans would, so could someone help me point out why this "analysis' is bogus because I know it clearly is, but I can't really point out the reasons myself other than a significant portion of it relying on (flimsy) anecdotes and the dubious sources used.

Ok, that whole thing just hurt my eyes. If their argument hinges on Bernie being cheated out of New York, that's about as far into the nonsense as I bothered to wade, then they deserve to be laughed at and nothing else.
 
Elections have consequences unless Mitch McConnell decides they don't is the correct version of the saying.

I'm back.

Anyway, why do far left people defend Russia so much more than Israel? Neither country likes Muslims at all and both smear their opposition as terrorists but Russia is far more horrifically brutal about it. Israel killing 1000 Palestinians over the last 15 years has been horrible and a series of war crimes, but Russia is going to kill a few hundred thousands people in one year... And Israel is far further to the left of Russia in basically everything.

Because they hate the West and any West allies.
 
Republicans have been using this method for over a decade and now control all three branches of government as well as the vast majority of local offices. But, please, by all means: stick with your "Communications theory." It is working so well.

Democrats have tried to take the elitist highbrow "high road" recently and it has bit them hard. This past election should make them think a little harder about actually playing politics considering how easy it is to get people in this country to believe anything.



After tape releases:

"It's about time we took that word back from the politically correct liberals who hijacked it away from what we want to use it for. Trump stands up for us real Americans."

--Republicans

If there's any strategy that should be adopted from Republicans, it should be "attack their strengths".

Democrats focus in on their opponents weaknesses. Republicans do the opposite.

The didn't give a shit that John Kerry was a war vet. Or how qualified Hillary was or w/e. They attacked both.

Where as we focused on Trump's constant mistakes. Really I think one of Hillary's moments that were actually effective wss when she called him a puppet.. because you can't be tough on foreign policy if your agenda is appeasement... and she laughed at how all other Republicans were ditching him and his campaign was falling apart after the pussy tape, etc.

Trump's "masculinity" and supposed toughness was his strength. Hillary was at her best when she went after that. But didn't do it enough and only briefly touched on it in the debates. Her ads on TV did the complete opposite and made him big bad and scary.
 
I havent seen many leftists defending Russia, more like mocking how Russia is being used as a scapegoat by some Dems, and that some liberals are resorting to vintage red scare tactics. Emotions run high, but I swear I havent seen a single Intercept reporter claiming how amazing Russia is.

I would to see some examples if you have any, though.

Red is communist. Russia ain't red.

Knock this red scare tactics commentary off. It belittles an actual concern and is rather unbecoming.
 

avaya

Member
Pro-Russia trolls are going to have their jerbs taken by robots and it's gonna be great to see their tears.

They wouldn't even realise machines using convoluted neural networks and stochastic gradient ascent have made their existence an irrelevance since they do not have the mental faculty to process that information.
 
I like how just hours after Meta linked to The Federalist, The Federalist publishes Nazi propaganda.

Jews Are Fixating On The Alt-Right So They Don’t Have To Confront Themselves

Note: The Daily Caller is also a Nazi site so don't link to that either.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/21/jews-fixating-alt-right-dont-confront/

The Federalist tries to argue that the Alt-Right is "Fringe" ignoring that the PEOTUS' main adviser is... a member of the Alt-Right according to... himself.

It does so by... not mentioning Bannon at all.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Donald Trump has given Carl Icahn the power to do regulatory policy while not divesting from the $20 billion of investments that Icahn has.

http://www.vox.com/2016/12/21/14046118/trump-carl-icahn-conflict

Icahn is just going to suggest repealing regulations that hurt his own investments and it's going to be fucking epic and the destruction of the United States' economy as an institution.
Oh my god. Icahn's going to crank up his activist investing while being able to leverage direct White House access and private regulatory advisement.

The drain is clogged. The levees are breaking. The swamp is flowing everywhere.
 

avaya

Member
wont be a need for infrastructure stimulus since once the repeal of the onerous taxes within the ACA start flowing through the blood of this dying economy this thing is gonna take off. basically it'll be the fiscal stimulus democrats were craving for back in 2009
 

Debirudog

Member
If there's any strategy that should be adopted from Republicans, it should be "attack their strengths".

Democrats focus in on their opponents weaknesses. Republicans do the opposite.

The didn't give a shit that John Kerry was a war vet. Or how qualified Hillary was or w/e. They attacked both.

Where as we focused on Trump's constant mistakes. Really I think one of Hillary's moments that were actually effective wss when she called him a puppet.. because you can't be tough on foreign policy if your agenda is appeasement... and she laughed at how all other Republicans were ditching him and his campaign was falling apart after the pussy tape, etc.

Trump's "masculinity" and supposed toughness was his strength. Hillary was at her best when she went after that. But didn't do it enough and only briefly touched on it in the debates. Her ads on TV did the complete opposite and made him big bad and scary.

Right, the one thing Americans don't like is a loser and it's a very vulnerable "strength" that Trump espouses on.
 
The fact that Trump is returning to the exact financial regulatory policies that were in place in 2008 does not seem to alarm many people for some reason.

Even though... you know, bad stuff happened in 2008.
 

FyreWulff

Member
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
As a banker let me lol at the Icahn news. Bonuses are going to be so big soon omg

You're a banker?

I always knew your views lined up with wall street democrats, but I didn't expect you to litterally be one.
 
The fact that Trump is returning to the exact financial regulatory policies that were in place in 2008 does not seem to alarm many people for some reason.

Even though... you know, bad stuff happened in 2008.

Because many people don't know why the crisis happened or how it happened. Republicans believe in deregulation like a religion; they won't learn at least the ones in power.

What Democrats need to do is once a new crisis happen they need to roast the Republicans and Trump to the rest of the term.
 
Carl Icahn just has economic anxiety.

The Senate being so pro-democracy should probably hold off on confirmation of any of Trump's nominations without some sort of referendum on each.
 

Slime

Banned
The fact that Trump is returning to the exact financial regulatory policies that were in place in 2008 does not seem to alarm many people for some reason.

Even though... you know, bad stuff happened in 2008.

Fox News has succeeded in hammering into people's heads the idea that regulation is the source of America's economic woes. I've heard that line from all my Fox News-watching American relatives now, and it's fucking sad.

Post-truth propaganda has convinced people that the cure is the source of the disease.
 

Diablos

Member
If they're spending the first 9 months on health care then I see repeal and delay as less likely. I think they will just outright repeal it -- consequences be damned. It makes sense anyway, do it when you have the most political capital.
 
National Review - Freedom Caucus to consider supporting Trump infrastructure bill even if it's only 50% paid for

Consider Trump’s stated intention to seek a $1 trillion dollar infrastructure package soon after taking office. At a conservative forum one week after the election, Labrador told reporters that any such bill “has to be paid for” with spending cuts or revenues from elsewhere, “and if Trump doesn’t find a way to pay for it, the majority of us, if not all of us, are going to vote against it.” Otherwise, conservatives reasoned, it would be no different than the Obama stimulus package they once railed against. But their thinking has shifted in the weeks since. According to several members, there has been informal talk of accepting a bill that’s only 50 percent paid for, with the rest of the borrowing being offset down the road by “economic growth.” It’s an arrangement Republicans would never have endorsed under a President Hillary Clinton, and a slippery slope to go down with Trump.

Another example is the repeal of Obamacare. Pro-life leaders met quietly in Washington the week after Election Day and plotted to pressure Republican leaders to defund Planned Parenthood in the process of repealing the outgoing president’s signature health-care law early next year, and the idea has conservatives’ support. “This will be a good test: Can we really defund Planned Parenthood?” Jordan tells me. “We have to. I mean, come on. . . . It had better happen.” But congressional leaders, and Trump, who sang the group’s praises during the campaign, might not want that particular fight at that particular time. If they don’t, expect a showdown between social conservatives and the president they helped elect.
 

Odrion

Banned
If there's any strategy that should be adopted from Republicans, it should be "attack their strengths".

Democrats focus in on their opponents weaknesses. Republicans do the opposite.

The didn't give a shit that John Kerry was a war vet. Or how qualified Hillary was or w/e. They attacked both.

Where as we focused on Trump's constant mistakes. Really I think one of Hillary's moments that were actually effective wss when she called him a puppet.. because you can't be tough on foreign policy if your agenda is appeasement... and she laughed at how all other Republicans were ditching him and his campaign was falling apart after the pussy tape, etc.

Trump's "masculinity" and supposed toughness was his strength. Hillary was at her best when she went after that. But didn't do it enough and only briefly touched on it in the debates. Her ads on TV did the complete opposite and made him big bad and scary.
Ehh, Hillary needed to attack less and promote her political platform more.

When two candidates run negative campaigns, the winner isn't who have the smallest negatives, the winner is the Republican candidate because in that scenario you are effectively suppressing voters with "both choices are bad" and that always benefits the GOP.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Carl Icahn just has economic anxiety.

The Senate being so pro-democracy should probably hold off on confirmation of any of Trump's nominations without some sort of referendum on each.
We are less than 4 years from an election. The people should have a voice in all cabinet and SC noms via the election of the next (next) president.
 

pigeon

Banned
This is basically it but I would like to state that hating "the West" is fine. The problem is that they associate anti-West with good when anti-West can be just as bad or worse.

I was actually just thinking the other day that we kind of screwed up way back in WWII considering Stalin's USSR to be communist at all when he was clearly a fascist. The only reason he got a pass was that he helped us fight the other fascist.

Calling the USSR communist for like forty years really screwed up our understanding of a lot of political issues.
 

kess

Member

Maledict

Member
Hating "The West" is stupid and terrible when you look at the alternatives.

The alternatives are only bad because of the wests interference. The west interferes with any prospective alternate state because if it were successful it would demonstrate a better model than capitalism, so therefore they are never allowed to exist.

Is what a lot of left wingers I know say. I think it's a load of rubbish personally. It removes agency from everyone else in the world - everything ether happened because the west did it, or as a reaction against the west.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom