• 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.
C

Captain Pants

Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
Black Mamba said:
So nobody cares that Trump wants to nominate a SCOTUS judge who will investigate Hillary's e-mails?

:(
Click to expand...

It is pretty amazing to see that he thinks he can just order the Supreme Court to do shit for him, or that he knows his supporters are too dumb to know that he can't do that.
 
S

Sianos

Member
Black Mamba said:
So nobody cares that Trump wants to nominate a SCOTUS judge who will investigate Hillary's e-mails?

:(
Click to expand...

We need a supreme court justice who understands the inconceivable power of cyber and can therefore defeat electronic mail!
laugh.gif
 
T

tmarg

Member
Officerrob said:
He's gotta be trolling at this point, right?
Click to expand...

I mean, if you think abortion should be illegal, then you kinda have to believe that there should be a legal penalty for breaking that law. Using the word punish was fucking stupid, but there is no actual difference between him and the rest of the republicans here.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
tmarg said:
I mean, if you think abortion should be illegal, then you kinda have to believe that there should be a legal penalty for breaking that law. Using the word punish was fucking stupid, but there is no actual difference between him and the rest of the republicans here.
Click to expand...
Actually a good number of the anti choice laws don't allow for prosecuting women. I can't remember where the most recent was passed, but it only allowed for legal action against the doctor who performed it.

I know a lot of them do, but I don't think punishing the women is a universal policy among prolifers
 
K

kess

Member
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...bortion-ban-should-carry-punishment-for-women

“I would say it’s a very serious problem and it’s a problem we have to decide on. Are you going to send them to jail?” Trump said.
“I’m asking you,” Matthews said.
“I am pro-life,” Trump said. Asked how a ban would actually work, Trump said, “Well, you go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places but we have to ban it,” Trump said.
Click to expand...

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
 
I

Infinite Stars

Member
Coming this fall to Netflix

Donald Drumpf is "The Punish Her"

"Megyn Kelly is has blood coming out of her you know where"

"I'll spill the beans on your wife Ted, don't make me!"

"Any woman who gets an illegal abortion is going to be punished"
 
S

Sianos

Member
blackaroni said:
What if Trump is doing all of this to make Cruz look more appealing to Republicans? Think about it.
Click to expand...

I was worried about this happening with Kasich being able to play his counterfeit "nice guy card" in juxtaposition with Trump, but I really don't think this will apply to Cruz. Cruz is a true believer who continually attacks Trump from the right on the record.
 
J

JHoNNy1OoO

Member
tmarg said:
I mean, if you think abortion should be illegal, then you kinda have to believe that there should be a legal penalty for breaking that law. Using the word punish was fucking stupid, but there is no actual difference between him and the rest of the republicans here.
Click to expand...

I've been following the pro-life movement for a very long time and this whole "punish women" thing has only existed in the extremes of the extremes of the movement. It has only ever been about prosecuting the "murderers" aka Doctors and nurses performing the procedures. Never in my life have I seen a Presidential Nominee with such support ever say anything even remotely close to this.

It also doesn't help that there are current abortions that are illegal so if you wanted to implement law to punish women who have those abortions currently it is entirely possible if one were so inclined.
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
adam387 said:
Actually a good number of the anti choice laws don't allow for prosecuting women. I can't remember where the most recent was passed, but it only allowed for legal action against the doctor who performed it.

I know a lot of them do, but I don't think punishing the women is a universal policy among prolifers
Click to expand...

Yup. The pro-life leaders know that the idea of sending women to jail for abortion is massively unpopular, even among people who oppose abortion. It's why they twist themselves in pretzels when pushed with the idea to talk about women as being also the victims of the abortion industry, etc., etc.

I mean, I honestly think there's a 50/50 split where a lot of the pro-life leadership would be perfectly OK with sending the "right" women to jail for procuring an abortion (spoiler alert - they'd be poor and brown), but they're politically smart about it and another half who legitimately think women are being tricked by society and PP to kill their babies.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
I'd love to know what Reince is thinking right about now. His party's candidates are going to have to answer questions about this such that they don't anger moderates, while also kowtowing to a base that eats this kind of thing up.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
HylianTom said:
I'd love to know what Reince is thinking right about now. His party's candidates are going to have to answer questions about this such that they don't anger moderates, while also kowtowing to a base that eats this kind of thing up.
Click to expand...

I don't see Cruz moderating at all if he is the nominee either.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
HylianTom said:
I'd love to know what Reince is thinking right about now. His party's candidates are going to have to answer questions about this such that they don't anger moderates, while also kowtowing to a base that eats this kind of thing up.
Click to expand...
There's a reason the GOP is desperately trying to avoid having their downticket candidates being connected to Trump and have to respond to shit like this.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
I don't really see that the media has done a notably poor job of handling Trump. He does newsworthy stuff. When a leading candidate for a major party's nomination says that we should keep a registry of Muslims or encourages violence at his rallies or talks about how big his penis is that's something the media probably should report on. The point of failure is the voters.

Silver says that part of the problem here is that the media hasn't been clear enough about Trump being a terrible person, but I'm pretty sure everyone understands that the media thinks that Trump is a terrible person. Trump himself brings this up at his rallies.

Yeah, part of the issue is that Republicans are very ready to believe that unflattering media coverage is politically motivated, but his running against the media is just another example of Trump being the natural evolution of what Republicans have been doing for quite a while. I mean, Cruz talks about the media in basically the same way.

The only really novel thing about Trump in the media is that he'll show up anywhere anytime to do an interview. But that's probably a good thing! We should want more politicians to be that willing to talk without carefully considering what they're likely to be asked and trying to make sure the interviewer is friendly and all that.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
Corporations Grow Nervous About Participating in Republican Convention
Some of the country’s best-known corporations are nervously grappling with what role they should play at the Republican National Convention, given the likely nomination of Donald J. Trump, whose divisive candidacy has alienated many women, African-Americans and Hispanics.

An array of activist groups is organizing a campaign to pressure the companies to refuse to sponsor the gathering, which many of the corporations have done for both the Republican and Democratic parties for decades.

The pressure is emerging as some businesses and trade groups are already privately debating whether to scale back their participation, according to interviews with more than a dozen lobbyists, consultants and fund-raisers directly involved in the conversations.

Apple, Google and Walmart are among the companies assessing their plans for the convention, which will be held in Cleveland from July 18 through July 21.
Click to expand...
In addition to the strong feelings Mr. Trump generates, there are fears that fewer elected officials, to whom sponsors like to gain access at conventions, might attend if Mr. Trump is the nominee.

The question of corporate involvement is not the only challenge: In past campaigns, the Republican standard-bearers and their loyalists have played a big role in shaping and underwriting the party and its convention. But the Republican primaries are not over, and even if Mr. Trump emerges as the nominee, he lacks a traditional fund-raising base.

And for the first time since the Nixon era, federal funds will not be provided to defray the cost of the conventions, putting a greater burden on the parties to raise money.

Conventions are unwieldy productions that often exceed their budgets. In 2012, Mitt Romney’s national finance team helped raise money to cover the costs of the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., and in 2004, when the Republican Party had its convention in New York, Michael R. Bloomberg, the mayor at the time, wrote a personal check to cover the host committee’s shortfall.
Click to expand...
The Republican brand is becoming so toxic that people are afraid to have their businesses associated with the disaster to come that is Cleveland.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
tmarg said:
I mean, if you think abortion should be illegal, then you kinda have to believe that there should be a legal penalty for breaking that law. Using the word punish was fucking stupid, but there is no actual difference between him and the rest of the republicans here.
Click to expand...

You can have something be illegal and not be pro-punishment, or at least towards a certain group.

Assisted Suicide is illegal in most states (regrettably, imo). However, if someone attempts it, we don't punish that person. Sure, we may punish the doctor but the person seeking out death isn't put in jail.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
tmarg said:
I mean, if you think abortion should be illegal, then you kinda have to believe that there should be a legal penalty for breaking that law. Using the word punish was fucking stupid, but there is no actual difference between him and the rest of the republicans here.
Click to expand...

No, usually pro-life politicians stop short of wanting punishment for women. Usually they want to target the providers. They're often asked about this. Trump's position is notable because it is something that pro-lifers usually say they're not willing to do.
 
V

Voysa Reezun

Banned
A couple of thoughts on the stuff people are talking about here that are (probably) not very interesting:

That Hillary tweet needed to be worded slightly differently. "Their idea of perfect" would have been the right way to phrase that so that she's not unintentionally accepting the idea that Bernie is the "perfect" candidate.

I don't see, at this point, how the GOP survives. Look, I'd agree that they have to let Trump run and lose, but those Trump voters will just blame anyone but their candidate. When you train your party to believe that everyone is out to get them, they'll believe that everyone is out to get them. Same with Cruz.

In '64, the GOP had the luxury of letting Barry Goldwater get his ass kicked and then using that loss to whip the True Believers back into shape. They don't have that luxury now. If they let Trump lose, or for that matter, Ted Cruz win the nomination and then lose, they'll get blamed for it by a sizable part of their base. This fight within the party is going to be perpetual until they split.

I am at the point where I think the GOP is going to be essentially non-viable at some point in the next decade or so no matter what they do. Actually, the GOP shouldn't even bother having an open convention so that they can avoid violence. They might as well abscond to a hotel ballroom somewhere where no one can find them and choose a non-Trump, non-Cruz nominee like Romney who is desperate and will run for POTUS in that role. Either that or visibly leave the GOP and start their own party.

The other option is to turn the party over to the base and at least keep the house for the next few years, but if the Democrats gerrymander any advantage away in 2020 + start to actually run competent campaigns for House seats (that second one seems less likely than the first), they won't have that either.
 
K

kess

Member
NSQuote said:
I was worried about this happening with Kasich being able to play his counterfeit "nice guy card" in juxtaposition with Trump, but I really don't think this will apply to Cruz. Cruz is a true believer who continually attacks Trump from the right on the record.
Click to expand...

About that...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...overturning-roe#sthash.DoMstU4q.EXhYIdEy.dpuf

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said last month that Congress could “absolutely” criminalize all abortion by passing a law giving 14th Amendment protections to fetuses and zygotes, thus bypassing a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade.

This represents the Republican presidential candidate’s strongest endorsement yet of the radical anti-choice “personhood” strategy, which, based on a questionable interpretation of Roe, holds that Congress can simply outlaw abortion by classifying fertilized eggs as persons under the law. If successful, personhood would outlaw nearly all abortions and could even criminalize certain types of birth control.

Cruz made the comments in a November 25 interview with influential social conservative commentator Robert George as part of a series of candidate interviews that George is hosting on the the Catholic television network EWTN.

After outlining the personhood strategy, George asked Cruz, “Do you believe that unborn babies are persons within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and, if so, will you call on Congress to use its authority under the 14th Amendment pursuant to Section Five, to protect the unborn? Or do you take the view, as some do, that we can’t do that until Roe v. Wade is overturned either by the court itself or by constitutional amendment? Where do you stand on that?”

“Listen, absolutely yes,” Cruz responded.

“I very much agree with the pope’s longstanding and prior popes’ before him longstanding call to protect every human life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death,” he added.

“And we can do that by Congressional action without waiting for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade?” George asked.

“Absolutely yes, under the 14th Amendment,” Cruz responded.
Click to expand...
 
S

Slayven

Member
GOP running a master class on how to alienate large swaths of voters. Didn't a good chunk of women were like "Nope" to Romney?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Voysa Reezun said:
A couple of thoughts on the stuff people are talking about here that are (probably) not very interesting:

That Hillary tweet needed to be worded slightly differently. "Their idea of perfect" would have been the right way to phrase that so that she's not unintentionally accepting the idea that Bernie is the "perfect" candidate.

I don't see, at this point, how the GOP survives. Look, I'd agree that they have to let Trump run and lose, but those Trump voters will just blame anyone but their candidate. When you train your party to believe that everyone is out to get them, they'll believe that everyone is out to get them. Same with Cruz.

In '64, the GOP had the luxury of letting Barry Goldwater get his ass kicked and then using that loss to whip the True Believers back into shape. They don't have that luxury now. If they let Trump lose, or for that matter, Ted Cruz win the nomination and then lose, they'll get blamed for it by a sizable part of their base. This fight within the party is going to be perpetual until they split.

I am at the point where I think the GOP is going to be essentially non-viable at some point in the next decade or so no matter what they do. Actually, the GOP shouldn't even bother having an open convention so that they can avoid violence. They might as well abscond to a hotel ballroom somewhere where no one can find them and choose a non-Trump, non-Cruz nominee like Romney who is desperate and will run for POTUS in that role. Either that or visibly leave the GOP and start their own party.

The other option is to turn the party over to the base and at least keep the house for the next few years, but if the Democrats gerrymander any advantage away in 2020 + start to actually run competent campaigns for House seats (that second one seems less likely than the first), they won't have that either.
Click to expand...
GOP is a regional party in high turnout elections at this point.

If you didn't include the South the Democrats would have a majority in the House.

Through gerrymandering, voter suppression, low turnout etc. they've been able to maintain power in the Midwest but the moment SCOTUS gets a liberal majority that shit is gonna go down fast.

Socially liberal/fiscal moderate business types will move into the Democratic Party which may splinter off into a Progressive Party while the GOP delegates itself to the fringe crazy asshole party that can barely muster 20% of the national vote.
 
A

ampere

Member
Holmes said:
There's only one House seat in South Dakota and it's very winnable for Democrats with a good candidate.
Click to expand...

Didn't think about that, they do have an ultra-low population. I'll agree that the Dems should absolutely try to compete there then.

LyleLanley said:
AkV3D9G.png


Solid self-burn from Hilary.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't call that a self-burn. She put it in quotes and it's directly referencing some of the "Bernie is a perfect savior candidate" nonsense
 
B

Basileus777

Member
Aaron Strife said:
GOP is a regional party in high turnout elections at this point.

If you didn't include the South the Democrats would have a majority in the House.

Through gerrymandering, voter suppression, low turnout etc. they've been able to maintain power in the Midwest but the moment SCOTUS gets a liberal majority that shit is gonna go down fast.

Socially liberal/fiscal moderate business types will move into the Democratic Party which may splinter off into a Progressive Party while the GOP delegates itself to the fringe crazy asshole party that can barely muster 20% of the national vote.
Click to expand...
You're dreaming too big. The courts alone won't fix midterm turnout.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
1) As each day passes I become more and more convinced Trump won't be the GOP candidate.

2) Those abortion comments by Trump and Cruz are going to be a disaster in a general election.
 
H

Holmes

Member
BanGy.nz said:
Bernie filed on time but someone in the office messed up. shecantkeepgettngawaywithit.gif
Click to expand...
Who cares? It's the last contest of the primary season. Literally the last 20 odd delegates to distribute, in an area that has (NoVA) and will (Maryland) go very heavily for Clinton, and Clinton will have clenched the nomination by then. Sanders not being an option to caucus for in DC might save his campaign the $1 million he was going to spend trying to win it.
 
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