• 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 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn't have healthcare without Obama and would've either been in medical debt for the rest of my life (or, like, dead) without it, so I'll take "isn't change" any day of the week.

ditto. i saw firsthand what the previous status quo did to my brother (my family literally just finished paying off medical debt from when his kidneys failed a decade and a half ago, which was only accrued because he couldn't get insurance)

nowadays, someone like me (since i have the same disorder he did) has the option of going on medicaid or getting heavily subsidized individual insurance that'd prevent basically all medical debt from needing to go on dialysis while waiting for a transplant

(and that's all with me still being on my parents' group plan for another year because i'm still not even 25)

and if that doesn't constitute change, then change is a worthless fucking term
 

Hindl

Member
Yea this latest comment isnt the best but he could be hitting hillary on bill or the emails or a bunch of other more character based things. I don't really know what you mean by real chance for real change given hillary is running on obama 3rd term style policies and republican congress will still have some power at least in the house. What adds to sanders appeal is that its not like he crafted a persona for this race, this is how hes always been for better or for worse.

So I don't want to get into the whole Sanders thing, people much smarter than I in here have articulated my points better than I could, and I also think in the long run this isn't a big deal. I just want to focus on the bolded.

I see this come up a lot, where people say Hillary is just Obama's 3rd term is just keeping the status quo and there won't be real change. And I think that's ignoring all of the positive change that has happened under Obama. I think the big focus on the economy and Wall St this election is coloring this view, and I can understand it. Wages are stagnant and the middle class is hurting. And stuff like Dodd-Frank works more behind the scenes to regulate, so most average citizens see no benefit and don't even really know about it.

But I there's been tons of other progress made! Yes, economic policy under Hillary probably won't bring about massive reforms, mostly due to the Republicans maintaining some control. But over the last few years, here's what has happened in the "status quo":

Gay Marriage is legal

Millions of Americans have access to Healthcare

Nuclear Arms deal with Iran

Opening relationships with Cuba

The challenge to corporate inversion

Created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Wound down the war in Iraq

Among a ton of other things. All of the above don't completely solve the problems they try to address, but real progress has been made in the past 8 years. And although economic reform hasn't happened as quickly as some would like, we've made baby steps. So I'm ok with 4 more years of this "status quo". Do I wish things would move faster? Yes, but I'm not going to ignore how far we've actually come

Edit: Seems I've been beaten but my point still stands
 
I wouldn't have healthcare without Obama and would've either been in medical debt for the rest of my life (or, like, dead) without it, so I'll take "isn't change" any day of the week.

Same here. Without the ACA, I'd have probably been dead or burried under thousands of dollars of debt that I'd never gotten out from under.
 
"real chance for real change" may also refer to a stronger coattail effect allowing for a bigger change even if her policy positions are markedly closer to the center

given the fact that she's actually and actively donating time and volunteers to getting people elected downticket, and doing this now instead of coming up with every excuse in the book to wait until june or later

Now this is a better point but wasn't the public option stopped because of democrats? hopefully these downticket races are more progressive. The mindshare effect of electing sanders would be big too (as incompetent as you may think he would be)
 
Now this is a better point but wasn't the public option stopped because of democrats? hopefully these downticket races are more progressive. The mindshare effect of electing sanders would be big too (as incompetent as you may think he would be)

frankly speaking, the public option was stopped because of an independent who got his ass whooped the last time he tried to lay claim to the democratic nomination in his state. that independent has since retired and been replaced by chris murphy, who has a fuckton more progressive bona fides

assuming the democrats literally max out their possible gains (which would be either 55-45 or 58-42 depending on how bad you think the downticket's gonna get for the GOP), that's a significantly more liberal 55 or 58 than even 2013-14
 

Azzanadra

Member
I wouldn't have healthcare without Obama and would've either been in medical debt for the rest of my life (or, like, dead) without it, so I'll take "isn't change" any day of the week.

Obama was a disappointment, I think Michael Moore's words on him are probably how I feel too. The one thing I can say that I really liked about him was his feud with Bibi, though in the end he was still a lapdog, albeit a grudgingly complacent one.

I am genuinely surprised at GAF's love for Clinton, though. Even if you care about social minorities, don't any of you realize that race and class are linked? Anyone watch The Wire? People like Clinton are responsible for those horrible conditions not only in Baltimore, but many cities for black people and other minorities. Voting Clinton is the epitome of privilege, its like saying you care, but don't care enough to actually contribute to help to solve the problem through tax dollars.

In the end, if Trump does get elected (god forbid), I can't really feel bad. Because this hyper-capitalist, super patriotic warmongering image that America likes to project to the world, it is what Trump represents. America and Trump deserve each other.
 
So I don't want to get into the whole Sanders thing, people much smarter than I in here have articulated my points better than I could, and I also think in the long run this isn't a big deal. I just want to focus on the bolded.

I see this come up a lot, where people say Hillary is just Obama's 3rd term is just keeping the status quo and there won't be real change. And I think that's ignoring all of the positive change that has happened under Obama. I think the big focus on the economy and Wall St this election is coloring this view, and I can understand it. Wages are stagnant and the middle class is hurting. And stuff like Dodd-Frank works more behind the scenes to regulate, so most average citizens see no benefit and don't even really know about it.

But I there's been tons of other progress made! Yes, economic policy under Hillary probably won't bring about massive reforms, mostly due to the Republicans maintaining some control. But over the last few years, here's what has happened in the "status quo":

Gay Marriage is legal

Millions of Americans have access to Healthcare

Nuclear Arms deal with Iran

Opening relationships with Cuba

The challenge to corporate inversion

Created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Wound down the war in Iraq

Among a ton of other things. All of the above don't completely solve the problems they try to address, but real progress has been made in the past 8 years. And although economic reform hasn't happened as quickly as some would like, we've made baby steps. So I'm ok with 4 more years of this "status quo". Do I wish things would move faster? Yes, but I'm not going to ignore how far we've actually come

Edit: Seems I've been beaten but my point still stands

I think you are mistaking my point, how can you say hillary is real change given how much has happened under obama? She isn't trying to revolutionize the status quo which is ok (I would rather have someone willing to change the status quo now but can't always get what you want).

ditto. i saw firsthand what the previous status quo did to my brother (my family literally just finished paying off medical debt from when his kidneys failed a decade and a half ago)

nowadays, someone like me (since i have the same disorder he did) has the option of going on medicaid or getting heavily subsidized individual insurance that'd prevent basically all medical debt from needing to go on dialysis while waiting for a transplant

(and that's all with me still being on my parents' group plan for another year because i'm still not even 25)

and if that doesn't constitute change, then change is a worthless fucking term

I'm really glad the obamacare changes have helped, I think what the poster your responding to was saying the same thing (why is hillary real change when obama wasnt). But at the same time, a lot of people in states that refused the expansion or just cant afford insurance or are underinsured (30+ million) are still getting screwed by the status quo so there is mountains of work to be done.
 
and to that i'd say Obama's impact WAS change, if incremental (to provide frameworks for future reform), and Clinton's platform IS ALSO change, if also incremental (to fix at least some of the issues that were brought up as a result of those reform frameworks being kind of skeletal)

basically, the fundamental point of disagreement is whether Obama's record represents change. if you don't think it did, then Clinton being a third term represents "more of the status quo". if you do think it did, then Clinton being a third term represents "more efforts at change"
 
Obama was a disappointment, I think Michael Moore's words on him are probably how I feel too. The one thing I can say that I really liked about him was his feud with Bibi, though in the end he was still a lapdog, albeit a grudgingly complacent one.

I am genuinely surprised at GAF's love for Clinton, though. Even if you care about social minorities, don't any of you realize that race and class are linked? Anyone watch The Wire? People like Clinton are responsible for those horrible conditions not only in Baltimore, but many cities for black people and other minorities. Voting Clinton is the epitome of privilege, its like saying you care, but don't care enough to actually contribute to help to solve the problem through tax dollars.

In the end, if Trump does get elected (god forbid), I can't really feel bad. Because this hyper-capitalist, super patriotic warmongering image that America likes to project to the world, it is what Trump represents. America and Trump deserve each other.

I can't beleive this is the post that stops me lurking in PoliGaf.

But you clearly missed the point of The Wire.


Edit: Bernie is super popular in Canada though, at least among the millennial set.
 

hawk2025

Member
Obama was a disappointment, I think Michael Moore's words on him are probably how I feel too. The one thing I can say that I really liked about him was his feud with Bibi, though in the end he was still a lapdog, albeit a grudgingly complacent one.

I am genuinely surprised at GAF's love for Clinton, though. Even if you care about social minorities, don't any of you realize that race and class are linked? Anyone watch The Wire? People like Clinton are responsible for those horrible conditions not only in Baltimore, but many cities for black people and other minorities. Voting Clinton is the epitome of privilege, its like saying you care, but don't care enough to actually contribute to help to solve the problem through tax dollars.

In the end, if Trump does get elected (god forbid), I can't really feel bad. Because this hyper-capitalist, super patriotic warmongering image that America likes to project to the world, it is what Trump represents. America and Trump deserve each other.

I'd argue the epitome of privilege is making an argument by just pointing to a (brilliant) HBO TV show, and largely missing its point.
 
Obama was a disappointment, I think Michael Moore's words on him are probably how I feel too. The one thing I can say that I really liked about him was his feud with Bibi, though in the end he was still a lapdog, albeit a grudgingly complacent one.

I am genuinely surprised at GAF's love for Clinton, though. Even if you care about social minorities, don't any of you realize that race and class are linked? Anyone watch The Wire? People like Clinton are responsible for those horrible conditions not only in Baltimore, but many cities for black people and other minorities. Voting Clinton is the epitome of privilege, its like saying you care, but don't care enough to actually contribute to help to solve the problem through tax dollars.

In the end, if Trump does get elected (god forbid), I can't really feel bad. Because this hyper-capitalist, super patriotic warmongering image that America likes to project to the world, it is what Trump represents. America and Trump deserve each other.

I mean read this again and then look at the post you quoted and tell me how this isn't shit
 

Holmes

Member
I'm not going to read a post about how Obama was a disappointment by whiny Canadian who doesn't even live under Obama's administration when this Canadian was able to marry his husband, move to California, get a green card and access to health insurance because of Obama and his administration. It's easy to criticize when you're on the outside looking in. Obama changed my life for the better and frankly I don't give two shits about Michael Moore or his opinions.
 
Obama was a disappointment,

RuPauls+Drag+Race+No.gif
 
Cruz getting squashed in NY is such a delight. Trump should've cut an ad with the debate comments about New York values and 9/11 and ran it across the state. Push cruz below 15%.
 
Obama was a disappointment, I think Michael Moore's words on him are probably how I feel too. The one thing I can say that I really liked about him was his feud with Bibi, though in the end he was still a lapdog, albeit a grudgingly complacent one.

I am genuinely surprised at GAF's love for Clinton, though. Even if you care about social minorities, don't any of you realize that race and class are linked? Anyone watch The Wire? People like Clinton are responsible for those horrible conditions not only in Baltimore, but many cities for black people and other minorities. Voting Clinton is the epitome of privilege, its like saying you care, but don't care enough to actually contribute to help to solve the problem through tax dollars.

In the end, if Trump does get elected (god forbid), I can't really feel bad. Because this hyper-capitalist, super patriotic warmongering image that America likes to project to the world, it is what Trump represents. America and Trump deserve each other.
As an American in Canada, I am getting pretty fucking sick of all the Canadian sanctimony surrounding this election. As if Stephen Harper never existed.

And remember, you guys still have the Queen of fucking England. Get rid of her and then you can act all high and mighty.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
also, lol, fuck Kasich and his administration

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/u...etta-ohio.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Democratic lawmakers in Ohio called for an investigation into the hiring process at the state Department of Transportation after a politician said in a Facebook post that young Republicans would get preference for summer jobs at the agency, raising questions about cronyism in its hiring.

A Republican member of the Marietta City Council, Cindy Oxender, wrote a Facebook post on March 29 that advertised six summer jobs for high school and college students with the Ohio department. Young Republicans who applied would have a leg up, she said.

“It’s good money, good experience, and a very nice résumé builder,” she wrote, adding between parentheses, “Preference is given to Republican youth on this!”

Ms. Oxender deleted the post after criticism from news media in Ohio and a request from the city’s legal director, Paul Bertram. But it brought unwelcome attention to the city where Gov. John Kasich, the Republican presidential candidate, delivered his State of the State address on Wednesday night.

State Representative Nicholas J. Celebrezze, the assistant minority leader of the Ohio House, and State Representative Michael P. Sheehy, both Democrats, asked the state inspector general, Randall J. Meyer, on Wednesday to open an investigation into how the Transportation Department hires seasonal workers.

“Employment based on political affiliation, when it is not required for the effective performance of a position, is generally prohibited by state and federal Civil Service laws,” they wrote in a letter to the inspector general.

In a statement, Mr. Celebrezze said, “Any indication that state job opportunities near Marietta are awarded based on political affiliation is deeply troubling.”

Ms. Oxender apologized for the post in a statement on Wednesday and said the episode had taught her about the “requirements, limitations and restrictions” placed upon public servants. She also shifted the blame, saying she had not written the post, but had merely shared something that was written by someone else.

“I made an error in judgment in sharing a post made by a colleague on my private Facebook page which was a summer job notice, and indicating there might be a political preference in the selection process,” she said in the statement.
 
Democratic lawmakers in Ohio called for an investigation into the hiring process at the state Department of Transportation after a politician said in a Facebook post that young Republicans would get preference for summer jobs at the agency, raising questions about cronyism in its hiring.

fucking hell, if this is why i keep getting passed over for internships despite being ridiculously fucking qualified...
 

Hindl

Member
I think you are mistaking my point, how can you say hillary is real change given how much has happened under obama? She isn't trying to revolutionize the status quo which is ok (I would rather have someone willing to change the status quo now but can't always get what you want).

I think you're right, I am mistaking your point then. If you are saying Hillary is running as a 3rd term Obama, wouldn't it then follow that you can say that the change Hillary would bring could be expected to be a continuation of the change that has happened under Obama? Unless you're asserting that things haven't changed that much under Obama, in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 

Emarv

Member
Obama was a disappointment, I think Michael Moore's words on him are probably how I feel too. The one thing I can say that I really liked about him was his feud with Bibi, though in the end he was still a lapdog, albeit a grudgingly complacent one.

I am genuinely surprised at GAF's love for Clinton, though. Even if you care about social minorities, don't any of you realize that race and class are linked? Anyone watch The Wire? People like Clinton are responsible for those horrible conditions not only in Baltimore, but many cities for black people and other minorities. Voting Clinton is the epitome of privilege, its like saying you care, but don't care enough to actually contribute to help to solve the problem through tax dollars.

In the end, if Trump does get elected (god forbid), I can't really feel bad. Because this hyper-capitalist, super patriotic warmongering image that America likes to project to the world, it is what Trump represents. America and Trump deserve each other.

First, class and race are linked, but class isn't the magic fix towards fixing race issues. There's tons of evidence on this.

But mainly, don't forget there is huge privilege in the notion of wanting a huge revolution of our economic system and hitting reset on so many issues and so much progress that many minorities feel like they're already barely hanging onto (myself included). That is why pragmatism and incrementalism resonates so much with underprivileged people who just want progress, even if it's slow.
 
Why? Disagree with his points but a lot of people are upset with obama (majority likes him not counting republicans who we shall ignore for sanitys sake) and its a valid opinion.

To put it bluntly, I've had my fill of holier than thou liberal Canadians, who couldn't feel the change Obama brought because they are not even in the U.S. I've heard WAY too much progressive snobbery from up north for my liking.
 
Try eBay! :p

If you don't mind my asking, what do you study/have studied in the past? I have a hunch.

i'm currently studying urban/regional planning (with a major focus on transportation planning) and public policy

which are generally the exact fields (alongside civil engineering) that these job openings tend to ask for
 

Azzanadra

Member
As an American in Canada, I am getting pretty fucking sick of all the Canadian sanctimony surrounding this election. As if Stephen Harper never existed.

And remember, you guys still have the Queen of fucking England. Get rid of her and then you can act all high and mighty.

Stephen harper is practically Karl Marx compared to Clinton. I hated the man, but at least he didn't try to take away my free health care. And what does the Queen have to do with anything? Lol. She's just there for symbolism, she don't do shit with our policies.

And who exactly did I miss the point of The wire? On season 2, Mr. Simon says:

"a meditation on the death of work and the betrayal of the American working class ... it is a deliberate argument that unencumbered capitalism is not a substitute for social policy; that on its own, without a social compact, raw capitalism is destined to serve the few at the expense of the many."

And the entire point of characters like D'Angelo and Wallace, who are so wrapped up in the game because thats all they know. Don't you think its a bit strange we only saw a grand total of like 2 white drug dealers in the entire show?

Finally The Wire is more than a TV show. Even Obama considers it an important work of art and social commentary. I may not be his biggest fan, but thats big coming from a President.
 
I'm not going to read a post about how Obama was a disappointment by whiny Canadian who doesn't even live under Obama's administration when this Canadian was able to marry his husband, move to California, get a green card and access to health insurance because of Obama and his administration. It's easy to criticize when you're on the outside looking in. Obama changed my life for the better and frankly I don't give two shits about Michael Moore or his opinions.

The Bush era superiority complex never went away up here, some people have managed to convince themselves that Trudeau is closer to Sanders then Clinton despite appointing a former CEO to minister of Finance.

I've even heard Sanders fans up north talk shit about NAFTA from the American perspective like it had the exact same effects. It's a weird culutral hegemony thing I guess.

Edit:
Stephen harper is practically Karl Marx compared to Clinton. I hated the man, but at least he didn't try to take away my free health care. And what does the Queen have to do with anything? Lol. She's just there for symbolism, she don't do shit with our policies.

This is such a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the relative political contexts of our two countires. Firstly the federal government isn't responsible for healthcare administration, they're bonund by agreements with the provinces to engage in a cash transfer scheme to provide funding equalisation. Given that we have had this single-payer with provincial exceptions model it would be suicide for any government to deny that funding since it would alienate the region in question and your base are rural voters across the nation.

If you have any doubt how the former Reform members and Harper Tories feel about Socialism just look at the last two supreme court appointments Harper made or the hiring of tea party era RNC strategists by Tim Hudak in 2014
 

hawk2025

Member
i'm currently studying urban/regional planning (with a major focus on transportation planning) and public policy

which are generally the exact fields (alongside civil engineering) that these job openings tend to ask for

Bah, I thought it was Economics. Take that as a compliment :p

Good luck on the search!
 
Stephen harper is practically Karl Marx compared to Clinton.

you literally have a toddler's grasp of comparative politics and that's probably being insulting to toddlers.

that's the extent to which i'm gonna address that.

Bah, I thought it was Economics. Take that as a compliment :p

Good luck on the search!

i actually minored in econ in undergrad, though that basically amounted to taking a couple classes in econometrics and one class in economic history (beyond 101 + basic macro)

also, thanks - i'm actually waiting to hear back on a couple positions right now and we'll see where that goes, but otherwise next year's kinda do-or-die
 
I think you're right, I am mistaking your point then. If you are saying Hillary is running as a 3rd term Obama, wouldn't it then follow that you can say that the change Hillary would bring could be expected to be a continuation of the change that has happened under Obama? Unless you're asserting that things haven't changed that much under Obama, in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I guess im just bad at saying what i meant. I just find it weird to say clinton is finally a chance at real change as if she is hugely different than obama (not that its a bad thing). Things progressed decently under obama.

My thoughts on incrementalism though, it assumes all problems can be solved by slow incremental change (i think most things can but some changes simply arent incremental). I don't think everything can be solved that way and some structural problems will become pretty clear i think in the next decade or two.
 

Drek

Member
Why? Disagree with his points but a lot of people are upset with obama (majority likes him not counting republicans who we shall ignore for sanitys sake) and its a valid opinion.

And this is the problem with politics in America. He isn't your ideological soulmate so it's valid to act like he's been a big disappointment.

Barack Obama is the single best POTUS since FDR without anyone else even coming close. He is going to go down in history as an icon.
 
First, class and race are linked, but class isn't the magic fix towards fixing race issues. There's tons of evidence on this.

But mainly, don't forget there is huge privilege in the notion of wanting a huge revolution of our economic system and hitting reset on so many issues and so much progress that many minorities feel like they're already barely hanging onto (myself included). That is why pragmatism and incrementalism resonates so much with underprivileged people who just want progress, even if it's slow.

Agreed. I feel Bernie's anti-Wall Street rhetoric totally misses the point when trying to appeal to minorities, esp. the south
 
I guess im just bad at saying what i meant. I just find it weird to say clinton is finally a chance at real change as if she is hugely different than obama (not that its a bad thing). Things progressed decently under obama.

My thoughts on incrementalism though, it assumes all problems can be solved by slow incremental change (i think most things can but some changes simply arent incremental). I don't think everything can be solved that way and some structural problems will become pretty clear i think in the next decade or two.

my thoughts on it: there are some issues to which all you can really do is implement things piecemeal (and a lot of those are the "big" issues in question), whereas there are other issues where the movement will be incremental but the implementation of any change will be massive (LGBT rights being one of these, and anything related to basic income may well wind up being another)
 

Holmes

Member
I've lived 10 years under Stephen Harper and if you think he's Karl Marx compared to Clinton then fucking wow. Jesus fucking christ. We must be getting trolled.
 
Stephen harper is practically Karl Marx compared to Clinton. I hated the man, but at least he didn't try to take away my free health care. And what does the Queen have to do with anything? Lol. She's just there for symbolism, she don't do shit with our policies.
A true progressive nation, as many Canadians on this board suggest the US is not, would not still entertain an 18th century institution such as a monarchy, even if it is just a symbol.

And if you are suggesting Harper is more progressive than Clinton, you are truly beyond reproach. Hillary isn't trying to take away health care (or other social programs) so your comparison makes zero sense. And health care is not free in Canada, you pay for it elsewhere.
 

Drek

Member
I guess im just bad at saying what i meant. I just find it weird to say clinton is finally a chance at real change as if she is hugely different than obama (not that its a bad thing). Things progressed decently under obama.

My thoughts on incrementalism though, it assumes all problems can be solved by slow incremental change (i think most things can but some changes simply arent incremental). I don't think everything can be solved that way and some structural problems will become pretty clear i think in the next decade or two.

Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau weren't incremental change. That is dramatic change in how banks are allowed to operate and the firewalls between them and any kind of public bailouts in the future.

I'm pretty sure 17 million people would disagree that the ACA was just incremental change.

A nuclear de-escalation deal with Iran despite active Israeli campaigning for further conflict is not incremental change.

An economy that rebounded from the second worst economic calamity in U.S. history to now be one of the few growing economic powers on the world stage is not incremental change.

Gay marriage nationwide is not incremental change.

Staging the Supreme Court to reverse about two decades of conservative control with the next nominee is not incremental change.

But sure, it's all incremental change. Right...
 

Azzanadra

Member
A true progressive nation, as many Canadians on this board suggest the US is not, would not still entertain an 18th century institution such as a monarchy, even if it is just a symbol.

And if you are suggesting Harper is more progressive than Clinton, you are truly beyond reproach. Hillary isn't trying to take away health care (or other social programs) so your comparison makes zero sense. And health care is not free in Canada, you pay for it elsewhere.

Ah yes, the good republican rhetoric of "its paid for in taxes, so its not really free". Love it. Clinton is not trying t take it away, but she has no interest in implementing it so that guy with 30 million can have 31 million, because that difference is oh-so-important.
 
Ive yet to have a conversation with any one who starts out a conversation with the baseless statement the Democrats are a right party that goes anywhere productive. Let them bask in their faux moral superiority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom