-
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 |OT3| You know what they say about big Michigans - big Florida
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
brainchild
Banned
What if they already have?
LMAO
Coriolanus
Banned
And promoted torture. And detention camps of dubious legality. And is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.
But really, these are minor grievances.
I don't at all. Politicians and the political process do a great job of making you think these people all legit hate each other. Maybe that's true of a few people in congress but overall I don't think so.
I've seen people on the GOP side who I know have talked shit about Obama publicly literally shake his hand at every SOTU address. Not only that but they ask for pictures and for him to sign stuff while laughing and joking with him.
RustyNails
Member
Box of Kittens
Banned
Reagan was a very skilled politician.
That having been said, I do think Carter was a relatively poor candidate. In 1976 he very nearly lost to Ford despite Watergate and a weak economy. I'll give him some credit for being the only Democratic presidential candidate to win during a very difficult era for the party, but I still think he should have had an easier time with that one.
I'm sure the MI win juiced Bernie's base, which should lead to increased turnout for him everywhere on Tuesday. Plus he's had a pretty good news cycle. But the pollsters probably made some tweaks too. And they probably needed too.
Totally agree with this.
Honestly, Reagan was a beast of a politician. He probably had more charisma than Obama or Bill Clinton. Carter had no chance.
What we have here is the exception that proves the rule.
Chris Christie hugging Obama was a slur at several Republican debates. The GOP really takes us places.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Yeah, he caused a shit-ton of problems, but the guy was just a dumb schmuck who tried to do the right thing by the world and fucked up big time, not some Machiavellian schemer actively trying to expand U.S. hegemony (though this characterizes some of his advisers pretty well, seemingly). Hell, the guy after him was significantly more pacifistic, and even he has the destabilization of a country into a terrorist haven on his record, because the U.S. political machine is so large and so powerful that errors are WAY more costly, on a human level, than they ever have been for any great superpower. He should have been held accountable for his mistakes, on some level, but he was a fuck-up, not a monster.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Reagan lost to Jerry Ford once. Yes, he was a great politician, but he became famous off accusing LBJ of being against freedom because LBJ supported Medicare and Social Security. Carter shouldn't have lost...
Anyway:
http://esoltas.blogspot.com/2016/03/did-michigan-vote-against-trade.html
So Trump and Bernie may be playing this by ear without any data.
Anyway:
http://esoltas.blogspot.com/2016/03/did-michigan-vote-against-trade.html
So Trump and Bernie may be playing this by ear without any data.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Starting to think maybe Bloomberg was onto something because both parties are beginning to be taken over by ideologues and demagogues.
Coriolanus
Banned
He defends torture.
I understand, he is charismatic. He looks like a doofus. A well-meaning idiot. He is, very likely, indeed that.
He is also a monster.
Macho Madness
Member
The current rhetoric among desperate Rubio supporters is that Trump was too far behind in Florida votes so he's only spending time in Ohio because he has a better chance of winning it.
It's sad. But funny.
It's sad. But funny.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
The entire country after 9/11 was out for blood. If he's a monster, so are we for allowing our blood lust to run free.
Box of Kittens
Banned
It's really hard to primary an incumbent president. Reagan's close loss to Ford is, if anything, further evidence of his political skill.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
That's a bad comparison IMO. Rick Scott is a loathsome person, like Trump, but there are some major differences. For one Scott ran during a wave election during hyper anti-Obamacare hysteria (not to mention the bad economy). Without that I don't believe Scott would have won. He's not a good campaigner nor does he really inspire much energy from supporters or opponents.
Donald Trump currently has the highest disapproval rating of any serious presidential candidate in modern history. He is heavily despised by Hispanics, disliked by black, disliked by women, hated by young people. He inspires so much hatred he's driving opposition against him in a way few candidates have. Hispanics are registering to vote at high numbers just to vote against him, and that's going to increase if he becomes the nominee.
There simply aren't enough white men to make Trump president. I don't buy the idea that people will assume he's going to lose either. Like 2008 this is going to be a historical election. Perhaps even moreso than the opportunity for a female president I think the opportunity to vote against Trump is going to significantly increase turnout among nearly every democrat leaning demographic and independents.
If Trump is the nominee he's going to have to deal with months of ugly coverage. His rallies are ugly now...but wait until the summer when the heat sets in. Or in the late fall when it's clear he's going to lose. Remember those Palin rallies in October 2008?
Another person who will be out of work very soon.
StopMakingSense
Member
If anything it's a testament to GW's inherent likability compared to others, Jeb, for instance.
Coriolanus
Banned
I'm sorry, but im a bit confused. Are you trying to argue that he isn't a monster, even though he defends torture?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Torture was common practice throughout pretty much every society in human history prior to the current one, to the extent that it was performed publicly both to send a message to future offenders and to entertain the masses. Hell, I suspect that if the data suggested that it was an exceedingly effective way of gathering information in a crisis, it would have a lot more support, even among liberals, especially more controlled forms like waterboarding. I detest that Bush used it, and that's absolutely one of the things he needs to be held accountable to, but I also understand that humans tend to take a long time to stamp abhorrent practices out of their behavioral lexicon and that fear and urgency drive humans to make WAY bigger mistakes than they would in times of relative peace and stability.
no he needs a tall person to even out the ticket
Coriolanus
Banned
Macho Madness
Member
The last thing I'm going to do is defend the policies of George W Bush. But another politician hugging him (even though they're from another party) being a bad thing is stupid rhetoric. The lowest common denominator attack. Do you want politicians to just constantly hate each other or work together?
Basileus777
Member
Hillary just won't stop putting people out of business
No one should be reading politics into a hug at a damn funeral.
excelsiorlef
Member
Sanders gets to run a "clean" "positive" campaign because his supports do all the negative dirty work for him.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Yes, George W Bush is not a monster. He was an inept politician who should not have been President and was overwhelmed by the role but he is still a human being. Politicians should be able to move beyond things that happened a decade ago and find each other's humanity. Turning politics into some kind of purity contest leads to the irrational extremism that is currently crippling the country.
Coriolanus
Banned
Yes. Saying that people that defend torture should be ostracized is what is currently crippling the country.
Not supporting torture isn't a purity contest, it is basic human decency.
Indeed, he is a human being. Also a monster. And, as Hillary mentioned in the first debate, the enemy.
Psychoward
Banned
The entire country huh, that's why there were so many protests about going to war even before it started going to shit?
FWIW I don't think that picture should turn politicized but come on, what a stupid statement.
To make Hillary voters or undecided voters not vote for her.
Right? Or should Bernie Sanders be Devito's VP? Just look at them.
Basileus777
Member
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Bush's use of torture was detestable, and he and his administration should have been impeached for it, at a minimum.
I'm just saying that, from a human perspective, misery and bloodshed has been baked into the political process from the very beginnings of human history, and disentangling such things from it is a relatively recent process that is going to see fuckups and backslides, particularly in times of fear and crisis, and while individual actors deserve to be punished for their participation in such things, they don't refute the commonalities that bind us as humans, which is the subject that spurred this conversation in the first place.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Oh lord, lets see:
Obama let Syria fall into anarchy causing millions to flee their country and thousands to starve to death - monster, must be shunned.
Bush approved torture - monster, must be shunned.
Clinton bombed a pharmaceuticals factory directly causing hundreds of thousands of deaths - monster, must be shunned.
Bush the First called on the people of Iraq to overthrow Hussein and then abandoned them - monster, must be shunned.
Reagan had the Contras, sold weapons to Iran, mined harbors in Guatemala, etc - monster, must be shunned.
Maybe we should just have a show trial after every Presidency and then lock the monster up to appease your beautiful soul?
Coriolanus
Banned
Indeed. And what i am saying is that he is an individual actor, and his punishment should, at the very least, include being considered a pariah.
And how many of those refuse to admit that what they did was a mistake? Did Obama want to let syria fall into anarchy? Is he defending that syria falling into anarchy was needed and kept you safe?
You know you're comparing apples and oranges, Roland. Don't.
Macho Madness
Member
Basileus777
Member
Macho Madness
Member
I mean it could be a fine poll but what in the hell
Psychoward
Banned
Many of those events were either condemned after the fact by the President and/or had a second side/consequence/ramification for not acting. I thought GAF was better than defending torture.
JesseEwiak
Member
Oh boy, attempting to explain to otherwise smart people how Hillary Clinton isn't the Worst Campaigner Ever or that no, Donald isn't going to win VA, PA, WI, or OH in the general is exhausting. It's like they don't understand that non-white people don't vote in Republican primaries - they do in general elections. And these people aren't even Sanders supporters.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Waaa? Obama has certainly defended his Syria policy, even after its proven to be a failure. We can agree that torture is horrible, but I haven't seen anything in this thread that explains why its the one, uniquely bad thing that we have to look at.
The best distinction I can come up with was that Obama's Syrian policy was one of inaction, but then there is the example of Clinton bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Africa based on flawed intelligence. That had far greater humanitarian implications than the torture that happened under Bush and it was completely unnecessary. So why aren't you calling for every politician in the US to denounce Bill Clinton?
neurosisxeno
Member
Am I seeing correctly that Sanders is actually competitive in Illinois? I figured that was comfortably Clinton, but it seems he might be competitive in Illinois and Ohio while Hillary leads in NC and Florida.
Macho Madness
Member
Shit like this is why I want primary season to be over: https://twitter.com/DavidKlion/status/709212252717641728
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked