• 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.
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
God I am sick of facebook. My feed is filled with Bernie articles that are filled with half-truths and inaccuracies. Do people not realize our free trade agreement with Panama is part of the reason there's no US citizen's involved so far? Christ above I cannot wait until this is all over.

Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Hillary's not a neoconservative, but she was, by all accounts, one of the biggest champions of intervention in Libya, which Obama now looks back on as his greatest mistake as POTUS. She also was against Obama's decision not to enforce the red line in Syria, has doubled down on the "special relationship" with Israel, etc. She's definitively a humanitarian interventionist, which is not the kind of batshit crazy neoconservative brings to the table but definitely IS easily her biggest weakness.
Click to expand...

The bold isn't true and you know it. He said his greatest mistake was not planning for the aftermath better, not the intervention itself.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
Latest Here and Now from NPR is pretty dang revealing on Merrick Garland.

Yes, he was picked because Obama thought the GOP senate would confirm him.

Senate Democrats do not respect Bernie and would not heed his request to wait for him to nominate someone new.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
My problem with propping up Bernie and Warren as bastions of progressive ideals is that it's pretty easy to do that when you stay in liberal areas.

I mean, imagine their conservative counterparts (say Roger Wicker) talking about how they've always kept to conservative ideology and never budged to liberals. Does it seem pretty obvious why Wicker would be able to do that as a senator from Mississippi? Can we all say that we'd probably not be giving Wicker brownie points for that?

I live in a really red state, so that colors my view of ivory tower liberals.
 
A

Armaros

Member
Macho Madness said:
Latest Here and Now from NPR is pretty dang revealing on Merrick Garland.

Yes, he was picked because Obama thought the GOP senate would confirm him.

Senate Democrats do not respect Bernie and would not heed his request to wait for him to nominate someone new.
Click to expand...

Everyone has been ignoring how he was the runner up in both other Supreme Court Justice picks Obama has had.

You don't become runner up unless you are someone the President wants to actually confirm onto the bench.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
AntraxSuicide said:
My problem with propping up Bernie and Warren as bastions of progressive ideals is that it's pretty easy to do that when you stay in liberal areas.

I mean, imagine their conservative counterparts (say Roger Wicker) talking about how they've always kept to conservative ideology and never budged to liberals. Does it seem pretty obvious why Wicker would be able to do that as a senator from Mississippi? Can we all say that we'd probably not be giving Wicker brownie points for that?

I live in a really red state, so that colors my view of ivory tower liberals.
Click to expand...

i live smack in the middle of ohio, so it colors my view about as much

like, sure, warren/sandersites, please try campaigning on all that shit like you would in vermont or massachusetts when you need to appeal to a state that favors your political party by less than 20 points
 
S

Snowman Prophet of Doom

Member
B-Dubs said:
The bold isn't true and you know it. He said his greatest mistake was not planning for the aftermath better, not the intervention itself.
Click to expand...

Knowing what he knows now (namely, that the rest of the coalition wasn't going to pull their weight), I doubt Obama would go for it. In that Obama Doctrine essay, he's quoted as saying that Libya went about as well as could have been expected, and it's still a disaster.
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
Kangi said:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/404
Click to expand...

Oh, I guess the algorithm has been refined for max millennial appeal.

tumblr_o4wlgsEnSc1tmpls6o1_540.gif
 
T

T'Zariah

Banned
Macho Madness said:
Latest Here and Now from NPR is pretty dang revealing on Merrick Garland.

Yes, he was picked because Obama thought the GOP senate would confirm him.

Senate Democrats do not respect Bernie and would not heed his request to wait for him to nominate someone new.
Click to expand...

Surely Obama isn't that naive.

What's it going to take for him to get that the GOP literally, and personally, hate his fucking guts?
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Knowing what he knows now (namely, that the rest of the coalition wasn't going to pull their weight), I doubt Obama would go for it. In that Obama Doctrine essay, he's quoted as saying that Libya went about as well as could have been expected, and it's still a disaster.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go with what he said though if only because he actually said it.
 
R

royalan

Member
Watching CNN tonight, I think this week's debate will be really telling about what things are going to be like on the Dem side going forward.

Bernie can go on the attack all he wants, but if he doesn't start walking it back specifically on "Hillary is untrustworthy/Establishment is corrupt" attack lines, if he doubles down on that this deep into it? I think we'll reach a point of no return with a sect of his voters, and not even Bernie's eventual endorsement will be able to convince them to support Hillary, who have already been convinced that she's evil incarnate.

This is probably the most high stakes debate for the Dems all primary. I better spring for wins and some good vodka.
 
T

T'Zariah

Banned
royalan said:
Watching CNN tonight, I think this week's debate will be really telling about what things are going to be like on the Dem side going forward.

Bernie can go on the attack all he wants, but if he doesn't start walking it back specifically on "Hillary is untrustworthy/Establishment is corrupt" attack lines, if he doubles down on that this deep into it? I think we'll reach a point of no return with a sect of his voters, and not even Bernie's eventual endorsement will be able to convince them to support Hillary, who have already been convinced that she's evil incarnate.

This is probably the most high stakes debate for the Dems all primary. I better spring for wins and some good vodka.
Click to expand...

If it reaches the point of no return, fuck it.

Bury him six feet under, on national T.V.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Kristoffer said:
Remind me which war the Clintons put a generation into. Was it the war they didn't fight in Yemen after the USS Cole bombing? What about Bush's war in Somalia that Clinton ended? How about the war we didn't start in Haiti or Rwanda? How about the inclusion of Eastern European countries in NATO, signaling to Russia that no nuclear weapons would ever be present in those countries?

Those Clintons, always starting wars.

If I could vote Bill Clinton into a third term, I would. Oh wait, we basically can!
Click to expand...

Hence why I said it was their generation - not just the Clintons, that was willing to send us in to war in Iraq to protect their own political credibility as being "tough". Don't be surprised that the generation most impacted by that decision may not be as kind on towards HRC and politicians who voted for Iraq (and many in the military already dislike Bill Clinton for the military cuts in the 90s).

On the whole, I think it's incredibly dismissive and intellectually lazy to be "Sanders voters are just dumb and naive, hur durr durr, and are just seduced by free shit!". Honestly - if someone wants to reduce his voters to that much of a single block because you don't want to admit that it is more nuanced and that Sanders might actually have some points; then congratulations, they are demonstrating the intellectual capability of Trump voters. Hell, maybe even less, because at least the Trump voters generally know they're not educated.


AntraxSuicide said:
My problem with propping up Bernie and Warren as bastions of progressive ideals is that it's pretty easy to do that when you stay in liberal areas.

I mean, imagine their conservative counterparts (say Roger Wicker) talking about how they've always kept to conservative ideology and never budged to liberals. Does it seem pretty obvious why Wicker would be able to do that as a senator from Mississippi? Can we all say that we'd probably not be giving Wicker brownie points for that?

I live in a really red state, so that colors my view of ivory tower liberals.
Click to expand...

As someone who moved from Central IL to Seattle; it's definitely something I keep in mind. As much as I like Sanders and am glad he pushed Clinton hard to the left in terms of public campaign promises - I am not a fan of this entire "One True Scotsman" thing that goes on. (For instance: see people freaking out about De Blasio? Seriously?)

There is a definite disconnect between folks who live in the coastal cities and folks who live in the rest of the country, and part of the rise of Trump is predicated on the disdain and arrogance that comes from many of those who live on the coasts towards the middle of the country. The most hateful people I know are all progressives, alas (though some of my friends who came back from Iraq come damn close). But that comes from living in such a crazy echo chamber like Seattle, from what I can tell.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
Officerrob said:
I really find the Sanders tax return thing kinda odd. You can't find them? That's a serious answer?
Click to expand...

Honestly, as long as he doesn't again try to claim that he has been more open about them than anyone else this cycle, I really don't care about seeing them. IMO, tax returns are a sideshow, much like the transcripts from the GS speeches Hilldawg gave. They don't matter in the grand scheme of things.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
royalan said:
Watching CNN tonight, I think this week's debate will be really telling about what things are going to be like on the Dem side going forward.

Bernie can go on the attack all he wants, but if he doesn't start walking it back specifically on "Hillary is untrustworthy/Establishment is corrupt" attack lines, if he doubles down on that this deep into it? I think we'll reach a point of no return with a sect of his voters, and not even Bernie's eventual endorsement will be able to convince them to support Hillary, who have already been convinced that she's evil incarnate.

This is probably the most high stakes debate for the Dems all primary. I better spring for wins and some good vodka.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter that much. As much as it gets brought up on here, never forget about the PUMAs in 2008. As much as 25% of Hilldawg's supporters swore they'd never vote for Obama and only around 5% actually didn't. The Bernie supporters that go into a Hillary vs. Cruz election and vote for Cruz were never a major part of the Democratic coalition to begin with. If it ends up being Hillary vs. Cruz or Trump, turning out hispanic voters and women will matter more than the youth vote.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
royalan said:
Watching CNN tonight, I think this week's debate will be really telling about what things are going to be like on the Dem side going forward.

Bernie can go on the attack all he wants, but if he doesn't start walking it back specifically on "Hillary is untrustworthy/Establishment is corrupt" attack lines, if he doubles down on that this deep into it? I think we'll reach a point of no return with a sect of his voters, and not even Bernie's eventual endorsement will be able to convince them to support Hillary, who have already been convinced that she's evil incarnate.

This is probably the most high stakes debate for the Dems all primary. I better spring for wins and some good vodka.
Click to expand...

This still isn't even close to GWB / McCain 2000 or Clinton/Obama 2008. We just live in much stronger echo chambers and places that need to publish articles every day. With Trump and Cruz on the other side, there's darn well near nothing either Sanders or Clinton could say to get their supporters to go away in any kind of mass scale.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
Cybit said:
There are downsides to purity tests, unfortunately. Basically, even the left is not immune to being attacked by their own outrage machines.



My understanding is that the US was putting a lot of diplomatic pressure on Egypt that caused him to step down.

The biggest example is Iraq in terms of direct intervention to "protect the citizens"; and I'm not sure we really did it for totally humanitarian reasons.

Some of the recent examples aren't the best - but they are the best we have to use in modern times, especially post-Iraq.

Going to the original point, which is, "how do we intervene in a situation that may turn into Rwanda 2.0" - and I think the problem is that right now, on a purely military sense, we can intervene just fine. Airstrikes, troop deployments, counter-intelligence, etc - we're fine on that part. But the reason the post-intervention is so hard is because often times the precipitating causes of said terrible event are something that is ingrained in the country. Take Iraq for example. On a basic level, Iraq shouldn't be a single country. It is three countries smushed into one. Iraq wasn't formed organically; it was formed by Europe a long time ago, who had no concerns for regional stability.

Fundamentally, that's where the issues lie.

Maybe it comes down to a situation where we can only protect them, and then once that happens, we have to let them fall. I don't like the idea of sitting back - but history has shown that when we interfere, we, ultimately, cause more deaths. At some point, you have to realize that as good as your intentions are, they will lead to worse things. I think the US can't be the police of the world. If we can't tackle the fundamental issues causing the divisiveness; we're just delaying the inevitable. In a lot of cases, tackling those issues would be require breaching the sovereignty of the country; which is in of itself an even more dangerous path. That's basically the "we know what's best for you" argument that they used during colonialism. From what I remember - generally regional powers can often lead to much better end results - but then that really puts us in a position of being someone else's hammer when called upon. (Why I think Kosovo worked out better is because the entire region was invested in a solution). When it comes to some parts of the world - the local powers give no crap about making the situation better. I don't think it works without the regional powers being genuinely invested - and if they're not; I think we have enough evidence that foreign involvement, even with the best intentions, leads to larger issues down the road, unless we are willing to remove that area's self-determination.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they didn't "leave" Egypt Obama tried to punish Egypt didn't work out and that was that the status quo is still there and US is still allies with Egypt somewhat. That is what happened in Libya. But the Obama administration repeatedly says that it leaves the people to decide their fate on how the countries run. That is the goal when it came to interventions since the current presidency. During the current events in Iraq and Syria the administration uses local powers to fight that is also something the administration repeatedly stresses. The after the Iraq war the occupation was to help forge the government and let the people decide more less, that is the current objective in Afghanistan as we are still there. It will probably take decades after everything turned out right.
 
H

Hilbert

Deep into his 30th decade
Macho Madness said:
You guys want to get really mad at a news segment?

https://twitter.com/morning_joe/status/719474959286800385
Click to expand...

This has been blowing up on my facebook.
People I really respected are turning into conspiratorial fear mongers over this primary. I mean my old Math professor, my history professor, my philosophy teacher, I looked up to them for years, and they are posting things like "elections by the people are dead", and "$uper delegates".

Argh. I need this primary to end.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
Hilbert said:
This has been blowing up on my facebook.
People I really respected are turning into conspiratorial fear mongers over this primary. I mean my old Math professor, my history professor, my philosophy teacher, I looked up to them for years, and they are posting things like "elections by the people are dead", and "$uper delegates".

Argh. I need this primary to end.
Click to expand...
Post a link to Joe Scarborough's Wikipedia and ask them if he might have any incentive to disparage the Democratic Party and cause a split in it

And then link them to a pledged delegate counter
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
There's also political news out of Indiana as Republicans already picked their national delegates.

And now they're getting threats from Trump supporters. This is good and cool I love the Internet
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Abinash117 said:
Yes, but they didn't "leave" Egypt Obama tried to punish Egypt didn't work out and that was that the status quo is still there and US is still allies with Egypt somewhat. That is what happened in Libya. But the Obama administration repeatedly says that it leaves the people to decide their fate on how the countries run. That is the goal when it came to interventions since the current presidency. During the current events in Iraq and Syria the administration uses local powers to fight that is also something the administration repeatedly stresses. The after the Iraq war the occupation was to help forge the government and let the people decide more less, that is the current objective in Afghanistan as we are still there. It will probably take decades after everything turned out right.
Click to expand...

The problem is that we are happy to let the people in the country to decide how they are ran...unless they want an Islamist state or a communist state or something we don't like. :D
 
C

Cerium

Member
I literally just moved back to NYC proper but I realized I'm technically registered Independent and can't vote.

Oh well, it's a nice novelty seeing political ads here for a change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom