Roland_Gunner
Member
Supposedly Murphy made $15M just from his cut of Jeb's SuperPac spend. So he's doing alright.
-
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
Supposedly Murphy made $15M just from his cut of Jeb's SuperPac spend. So he's doing alright.
Sure a recount is possible, but otherwise the results are in. I don't think I've ever heard an election that has standing results but could get a recount referred to as "too close to call".
One of my favorite political cartoons because it is so spot on.
It's not bad but it's one of those where it would work a lot better with much less text.
Sounds like a typical user to be honest .. Doesn't get what they want, circumvent the system and get what you want. Regardless of whether or not it was okay within the law to use private email, using an unapproved device is not okay from a security perspective.
Macho Madness
Member
Yeah. That's why I like how NBC News has an "apparent winner" status. Someone's the winner until we're told otherwise.
Macho Madness
Member
lol that video of Rubio arriving back to the Capitol had the air of "ugggh well let's get this over with"
Macho Madness
Member
I kind of want to have a discussion about Hillary's vote for the Iraq War. Obviously I don't consider it disqualifying, but most of the arguments I see in terrible debate threads about why it's not a big deal strike me as pretty poor arguments.
But I'm not sure there's anybody in PoliGAF to take the other side of the position
But I'm not sure there's anybody in PoliGAF to take the other side of the position
Black Republican
Member
smh
You have to admire the sheer bloody mindedness of a man who will argue that FOX NEWS called the election too early for Obama.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Rubio complaining about Trump using the politics of fear when Rubio will go down in history as that guy that kept repeating a scripted line about Barack Obama intentionally trying to destroy the United States was my favorite moment of his campaign.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I'm pretty sure Sanders will announce he's dropping out on April 30th, 2016. Then, slowly, the nation will collectively realize what he actually meant when he kept saying "revolution."
And he's up with current technology!If we're going for a VP that speaks Spanish, maybe Hillary should go with this guy:
Also appeals to the youth.
https://vine.co/v/erX66WYXx6p
I kind of want to have a discussion about Hillary's vote for the Iraq War. Obviously I don't consider it disqualifying, but most of the arguments I see in terrible debate threads about why it's not a big deal strike me as pretty poor arguments.
But I'm not sure there's anybody in PoliGAF to take the other side of the position
My argument would be that, given the information at the time, it was very difficult to make the correct decision. After all, particularly for someone whose party was not in government, the information that Hillary had access to indicated a much greater threat was posed by Iraq than we now know to have been the case. With senior officials falsifying information and reports, it is unfair to expect her to have know the truth of the situation. When considering her vote, you have to try and think of it in terms of the information available at the time rather than the information we now have.
Macho Madness
Member
I do not like that she voted for it.I kind of want to have a discussion about Hillary's vote for the Iraq War. Obviously I don't consider it disqualifying, but most of the arguments I see in terrible debate threads about why it's not a big deal strike me as pretty poor arguments.
But I'm not sure there's anybody in PoliGAF to take the other side of the position
One argument I hear is that she didn't actually vote for the war, just to give Bush the power to go to war in case Saddam did not comply with the UN. And that in her speeches at the time, she made that case. She also claims now that Bush lied and pushed his agenda and that she trusted him not to go to war for fictitious reasons.
Do these things have basis in fact?
I feel mixed on it anyway, having lived through the time. I don't agree with it now but I also think that's easy to say in hindsight. I don't know. It's one of those things that will never be looked at favorably in history but I feel context does matter. What's left out of the picture looking back is often how popular the war was for a few years. That's a long time, and people against it were labeled liberal sissies. I remember all of that.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Rubio thinks that Cruz is the only conservative left in the race because if you expand Medicaid, even if you're conservative in every other way, you're a pinko.
http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/1...tive-frustrated-electorate-hurt-his-campaign/
http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/1...tive-frustrated-electorate-hurt-his-campaign/
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I don't think anyone is trying to say that nationalistic warmongering wasn't being used to coercively build support. I think people are saying that it is a serious problem of character for a leader to cave in the face of nationalistic warmongering. The evidence was there for anyone who was willing to research and with the backbone to stand firm. You didn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand the Bush Administration was grossly misrepresenting the evidence to support the war. Plenty of Senators and Congressmen/women saw the war for what it was and opposed it. If everyone got hoodwinked I would be more sympathetic, but that's not what happened.
Not only that, but even if the evidence had solid, the political debate surrounding the war was anything but substantive. Putting aside questions of the war's merit, there's a way to authorize a war slowly and deliberately and this was the opposite of that. Politicians should try to neutralize a populace that's been whipped into a blood frenzy, not encourage it. Arguing that you didn't fully understand the ramifications of what you were voting for is probably one of the worst things you could say about a war resolution. It's probably the most sober distillation of the entire Iraq War, "We didn't understand what we were doing". That's no one's fault but their own.
There's a right choice and there's an easy choice. Hillary has found herself on the easy side far too often.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
I like comparing it to a game of hopscotch. The lines have been drawn and Trump has jumped to the farthest box to the right. Cruz and much of the party are only a couple boxes away, with the establishment being two boxes away from them. Let's say Trump is down significantly all summer/fall. If you're the average extreme House member you might not jump to Trump's box...but you're still in Cruz's extreme box. The establishment folks remain where they've been for awhile.
So let's say Trump loses badly and his box is erased...that just makes Cruz and his ilk the farthest right now. And the party has shown little aversion from that level of extremism. I guess the short of what I'm saying is that Trump's defeat will simply return things to the 2010 level of extremism, which still turns off voters.
But here's where things could get even uglier, post-2016: now the entire party is tied to Trump regardless of whether they supported him. So when Paul Ryan refuses to bring President Hillary's immigration bill to the floor in the House, voters will automatically associate that type of behavior with the party of Trump. When republicans threaten a government shut down, once again the spectre of Trump will loom.
FloydtheFathead
Member
I wish we were a fly on the wall for this secret meeting among the GOP. I honestly wonder what they are thinking...
This is exactly what the GOP has been afraid of in regards to Trump. His shadow looming over the party and tainting anything and everything they try to oppose. Trump's shadow will be wreaking havoc on the GOP's House and Senate members for the next decade at least. The Dems will tie anything and everything the GOP tries to him and it won't be all that hard to convince the voters of it.
RustyNails
Member
Here's my take from debate threadI kind of want to have a discussion about Hillary's vote for the Iraq War. Obviously I don't consider it disqualifying, but most of the arguments I see in terrible debate threads about why it's not a big deal strike me as pretty poor arguments.
But I'm not sure there's anybody in PoliGAF to take the other side of the position
I think her vote on Iraq was a total mistake. But bear in mind that Joe Biden and John Kerry also voted for Iraq war: the two most elder democratic statesmen in America. Kerry has accomplished so much, from securing Iran nuclear deal to saving Afghan government on the brink of collapse, staring into the eyes of another civil war (Ghani and Abdullah both claimed victory in elections). Biden has been with Obama inside the situation room multiple times. What I'm saying is that they all got the Iraq vote wrong, but since then have admitted it was a mistake. Hillary moreso. Her argument was that Hans Blix requested the war authorization in order to convince the Baath government that America will invade if they dont allow the inspectors in. And then you see one of the most respected generals in military Colin Powell arguing for the same in UN. Needless to say, Dick Cheney overtook the reins and started beating the wardrums instantly.
I dont completely agree with her reasoning, as she's a politician and should have known better to trust a neohawk Republican cabinet with authority to invade an oil rich country. But you can see there was more to it than simply Hillary, Biden, Kerry voting for the war and then rubbing their hands with glee. I think her saying it was a mistake flat out makes me trust her, rather than saying silly things like John Kerry did in 2004.
Coriolanus
Banned
I kind of want to have a discussion about Hillary's vote for the Iraq War. Obviously I don't consider it disqualifying, but most of the arguments I see in terrible debate threads about why it's not a big deal strike me as pretty poor arguments.
But I'm not sure there's anybody in PoliGAF to take the other side of the position
We had folks legit trying to defend that torture apologists arent scum the other day, so anything seems possible.
Found here.
Choice quotes from Senator Clinton:
Yep. Sounds like a super bloodthirsty warhawk, guys.
Probably wondering who would be worse, Cruz or Trump.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
It's important to remember she only called it a mistake relatively recently. Back in 2008 that was not being said.
I mean, he's not wrong.
George Bush doesn't sound super bloodthirsty according to that first quote also. He even tried to seek a UN resolution to avoid war.
RustyNails
Member
Thats why I didn't support her in 2008. Realizing and admitting you were wrong and facing the music takes a lot from you. There was simply no other way out of it other than calling it a mistake. Being wishy washy cost Kerry 2004 and arguably Hillary in 2008.
W was just the face. Dick Cheney was running the damn war out of his office.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
She knew the consequences of what she was voting for. If she didn't then she was either incompetent or didn't bother to spend enough time thinking about the obvious repercussions it could have. Either option is a pretty strong indictment. Remember, plenty of elected officials recognized what was apparently impossible to figure out: Saddam had no connection to 9/11, there was no good evidence of WMD, and the war authorization would give the administration the unilateral power to invade.
I don't consider it a defense to say that other smart people got fooled when the whole point is that they shouldn't have been fooled in the first place. The only thing the 'fooled' supporters have in common is they feared a no vote would be used against them when they ran for President later on. It was absolutely a politically motivated decision in my mind on the parts of Kerry/Clinton/Biden. I think it's disgusting to vote for war because you're afraid doing otherwise might cost you the presidency and such an act reveals a lot about one's character.
FloydtheFathead
Member
He said yesterday Trump was the new Obama.
woah bernie
GuyKazama
Member
So I think this is an excellent argument against many of the easy defenses for Hillary. There were definitely people who opposed the Iraq War back then, at political cost to themselves. They were right! The fact that it was politically popular to go to war with Iraq does not mean that it should have been done. We are explicitly looking for military leaders with the judgement to not invade countries just because people want to do so. Most people are very poor generals.
Note, also, that there was one easy direction to go in terms of political opposition, which is waiting for a UN resolution before acting (see the Spratt Amendment), and people chose not to take that position. This hurts Hillary's contention that she voted for it in the expectation that Bush would be rational -- there were other options that would have had more teeth in terms of enforcing rationality.
I think my position is basically that it was clearly a grave mistake and I think everybody has a full perspective on that now. Overall I trust that Hillary understands it was an error -- she has said so now -- and I would hope that making that error would improve her caution and judgement in the future. It's been 13 years, she's served as Secretary of State, and she's had a lot of opportunity to reflect and develop.
I don't know that it is reasonable to say that anybody who voted for the Iraq War should be forever ineligible for President. I mean, we didn't even do that for the people who fought against us in the Civil War! So I think that's mainly where my concern lies. Like, Hillary did a lot of stuff in the 90s and 00s that I would not want her to do now. I guess the person I'm seeing now doesn't look like a person that would do that stuff again.
Let's say Hillary wins and serves four years without getting us into a war in the Middle East. In 2020, do the people arguing against her because of the Iraq War now want to primary her because of the Iraq War? At what point do we consider Hillary "rehabilitated?"
TheLaughingStock
Member
Stephy Curry has made 15/17 3 pointers, 4 of which were from half court, and is sitting out the 4Q. You're down 45 pts.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
This is the closest, someone may have made a new projection by now:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/
I was hoping that would be updated with new "Requirements" but they did not go that route.
It's the fourth quarter in a football game and Clinton is ahead by 15.
All she has to do is run out the clock every time she gets the opportunity. Sanders needs to get two touchdowns AND SOMETHING ELSE MAGIC.
lmao someone caught Ben Carson waking up from a nap on that
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I talked about this in the post on this page but I do believe it was a decision of political calculus for Hillary/Biden/Kerry. They feared a no-vote would prevent them from winning the presidency later on. Why is that kind of calculus defensible but not the reverse? Why shouldn't a yes-vote have the same result if they're the ones gambling people's lives for politics? Shouldn't they have to deal with the repercussions regardless of how it plays out if they're the ones making the bet?
Sure, Hillary says it's a mistake now, but what prevented her from saying that during the 2008 election like the rest of the field? Once again, she made a politically motivated decision to do the easy thing rather than the right thing. Now for some people, this kind of political thinking might be a positive. It means that she understands the material privately but is making a different public decision for personal reasons. The implication being that once she is president she will have no longer have to make these kind of compromises, and that's most likely true. But not everyone is so enamored with the end over the means.
So yeah, I have no problem with people who refuse to support candidates who make those kind of decisions. Personally, I'll still vote for Hillary but she doesn't exactly have much competition (or didn't have I should say). I will always vote for someone who didn't vote for the Iraq War over someone who did because I do believe it is that serious of a decision (assuming otherwise equivalent credentials). It is probably the defining geopolitical event of our time. You look at the global consequences in terms of lost lives and political instability and it's hard to stomach the argument that we shouldn't be punishing the politicians who allowed it to happen too harshly.
That's going to depend entirely on the person and how strongly they feel about that vote. As someone who has had to evolve politically even further than Hillary seems to have, I think I give her more leniency on this issue than some others. I'll be honest and say potentially more than she actually deserves as an elected official. I'm willing to forgive her for it now.
Other people even in your hypothetical will argue that just because nothing happened in those four years that triggered President Clinton to go on the offensive, doesn't mean nothing will in the next four and that she still can't be trusted because she's still, inescapably, Hillary Clinton. I think that argument will be much less persuasive should that come about, but people will make it all the same.
And of course, if we do end up embroiled in any kind of military conflict, all bets are off.
Yep. People are complaining about them stealing it for her lead right now even though you can type "Democratic Primary" into Google and it will show you in both numbers and a nice little bar charts if they need a visual aid that Clinton is ahead in pledged delegates before super delegates are even considered. She needs under 50% pledged to clinch it without needing super delegates. I think it could be done. Guess we'll see.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Man I like Bernie and all but at this point I really hope Hillary gets enough pledged delegates for the nomination because the amount of complaining and bitching about superdelegates "stealing" it for her (even if she's well ahead in pledged) is going to be fucking insufferable.
Not that it would stop it anyway.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked