-
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
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Fenderputty
Banned
Wait did I step into a basketball thread and you got info on Lebron?
aspiegamer
Member
Holy crap. This is perfect.
Slurpees are the best thing ever. So good that "slurpee" is in the firefox built-in dictionary, but only with a capital 's'. When I turn 40 and they cart more off to The Home all I ask is for a slurpee machine. And VR. But definitely slurpees.
I was in a good enough mood to write out a huge Sanders rant this afternoon, but realized it'll be far more enjoyable and topical after he gets murdered tomorrow night. Getting rid of "just wait for NY!" is a month of frustration ready to be washed away.
That is so mean.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
No, it's in reference to the GOP Convention. Which they are holding, by some genius idea, in Cleveland.
Fenderputty
Banned
It was a joke, and apparently not a good one, because he left the city once and the local economy tanked. I got the reference ;p
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Oh, sorry. I try to remember that not everybody is a Poligaf regular and may not get some of the references.
You're right. I deleted.
So anyway, the US v Texas argument was pretty interesting, and very long. The standing argument seemed to go relatively cleanly 4-4, which is already kind of a problem. Roberts tipped his hand a little bit at the very end, I think, where he notes that the respondent's argument, if carried to its conclusion, would strip work authorization from millions of people who aren't explicitly granted authorization by statute. That's the kind of practical consequence (and evidence of Congressional intent) Roberts seems to worry about. So I'm medium positive about this case, but I think "lawful presence" is likely to get stricken.
I like the part with Saenz where he's saying that people can sue for discrimination if an employer rejects them because they are an illegal immigrant with work authorization.
Alito: So that means they have a legal right?
Ginsburg: No, it just means they can sue. Anybody can sue.
Saenz: Yeah, and the law isn't clear.
Alito: Well, who do you think should win the suit?
Saenz: Actually we filed this exact lawsuit before and, well, we settled, so. (makes so-so hand gesture)
I also like the lengthy chase scene between Kagan and Keller.
Kagan: So can DHS call a single person up on the phone and say "hey, you are low priority, and BTW due to preexisting regulation you can get work authorization now?"
Keller: The law doesn't specifically say they can, but yeah, they clearly can, but...
Kagan: But I thought your argument was they need statutory authorization, but now you're saying they don't sometimes.
Keller: We think they need authorization but if they don't we think they need to follow precedent of what Congress was okay with in the past.
Kagan: So what if DHS says, okay, all people who have been here for at least 25 years? Way smaller group than DAPA, but still a group based policy.
Keller: Nope, can't do that.
Kagan: But that's like tens of thousands of people.
Keller: Still need Congress.
Kagan: So your argument isn't about DAPA, you're saying that all of the group-based policies DHS has done over and over for the last thirty years were illegal?
Keller: Chief Justice, I think my time is up.
This actually happened! Roberts made him/allowed him to answer.
I like the part with Saenz where he's saying that people can sue for discrimination if an employer rejects them because they are an illegal immigrant with work authorization.
Alito: So that means they have a legal right?
Ginsburg: No, it just means they can sue. Anybody can sue.
Saenz: Yeah, and the law isn't clear.
Alito: Well, who do you think should win the suit?
Saenz: Actually we filed this exact lawsuit before and, well, we settled, so. (makes so-so hand gesture)
I also like the lengthy chase scene between Kagan and Keller.
Kagan: So can DHS call a single person up on the phone and say "hey, you are low priority, and BTW due to preexisting regulation you can get work authorization now?"
Keller: The law doesn't specifically say they can, but yeah, they clearly can, but...
Kagan: But I thought your argument was they need statutory authorization, but now you're saying they don't sometimes.
Keller: We think they need authorization but if they don't we think they need to follow precedent of what Congress was okay with in the past.
Kagan: So what if DHS says, okay, all people who have been here for at least 25 years? Way smaller group than DAPA, but still a group based policy.
Keller: Nope, can't do that.
Kagan: But that's like tens of thousands of people.
Keller: Still need Congress.
Kagan: So your argument isn't about DAPA, you're saying that all of the group-based policies DHS has done over and over for the last thirty years were illegal?
Keller: Chief Justice, I think my time is up.
This actually happened! Roberts made him/allowed him to answer.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Don't worry, I was thinking about you specifically when I made the post.
Just like how Scalia used originalism because it was more politically convenient and then abandoned that philosophy when politically inconvenient. Political philosophies are things no one cares about.
The guy who created hillaryis44.com isn't a democrat and most likely never actually supported Clinton.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/03/a-campaign-mystery-solved-hillaryis44-006689
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
That's very interesting, and fucked up.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Funny, I was thinking about you when I read it. No faster way to tank your credibility on an issue than to admit you don't buy your own argument.
So the Sanders campaign is trying to get these shirts off the internet
https://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeo...e-these-bernie-is-my-comrade-t-shi#.mpbv3xoQ2
https://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeo...e-these-bernie-is-my-comrade-t-shi#.mpbv3xoQ2
So the Sanders campaign is trying to get these shirts off the internet
[/QUOTE] LOL I wonder what the creator's intentions were...what if they were an actual marxist
googleplex
Member
So the Sanders campaign is trying to get these shirts off the internet
https://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeo...e-these-bernie-is-my-comrade-t-shi#.mpbv3xoQ2
Ok... This is equal parts fucked up and hilarious. Well More like 60% fucked up and 40% hilarious.
Honestly, part of me is really tempted to buy one. I mean, if you can't laugh at that...
So the Sanders campaign is trying to get these shirts off the internet
https://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeo...e-these-bernie-is-my-comrade-t-shi#.mpbv3xoQ2
I always though the progressive devolution of facial hair in these profiles was funny.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
?
There's no one in reality that cares about the constitution. The GOP wants to override one of my favorite amendments (the 14th) because they, dealing in the world of reality right here, don't care about the constitution at all and just use the constitution when it fits their political argument better.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
What? she wasn't mocking his stammer. You guys are crazy touchy man. That was a face of frustration at the absolute BS coming out of his mouth.
Atomic Playboy
Member
So the Sanders campaign is trying to get these shirts off the internet
https://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeo...e-these-bernie-is-my-comrade-t-shi#.mpbv3xoQ2
I would wear that shirt. But I'm also in the same boat as that immense (and spectacular) "why I'm anti-Bernie" author earlier, so I guess that's not a ringing endorsement.
Umm...I really don't think that's what she was doing.
To me, it looked like she was restraining herself from cutting him off to get a word in. Which makes sense, considering the utter ridiculousness coming out of his mouth at that moment. Hillary, the candidate actually working to raise money for down-ticket candidates, is the one who needs to invest in the future of the party? THAT'S hilarious. If I had a drink I would have spit it out.
ugaboga232
Member
Didn't watch the video (so idk why I'm responding) but they could have meant it like Hillary should metaphorically invest in the future of the party in terms of literally the future democrats as in the youth that sanders struck a cord with but Hillary did not and not literally that hillary needs to spend more money on rising democratic stars if that makes sense.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
You charged that anti-BDS legislation infringes the freedom of speech, then admitted you don't care about free speech.
And no shit politicians often don't believe the things they claim to, but the same can't be said for everyone else. Many people really do care about free speech, the Constitution, and political philosophies. Why, some--Scalia included--even believe(d, in Nino's case) in originalism as an interpretive methodology!
eBay Huckster
Member
many people also care about black people. george w. bush was not one of them
I understood that's what he meant, but it's still ridiculous. Getting the youth swept up in a movement is no more significant, at least in my mind, than a candidate who is working to lay the groundwork to get more people involved and democrats elected.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
... I charged that anti-BDS legislation infringes freedom of speech and then said it wasn't a dealbreaker for my support of Hillary by noting that no politician cares about freedom of speech.
... I put "no one cares about freedom of speech" right after talking about politicians around the world, I think my intentions are pretty clear here.
ugaboga232
Member
I think the point is not that sanders is doing a great job, but more that Hillary isn't connecting with them for a reason and that is slightly concerning in the sense that she should probably work on figuring out what attracts them to the party. In other words, hillary should try to be capturing the youth (future of the party) along with laying the groundwork for a more liberal democratic party of today or something.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I must have been thrown by your shift from discussing politicians to discussing everyone.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Anyway, CUNY grad students just supported an academic boycott of Israel:
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/2...graduates-endorse-academic-boycott-of-israel/
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/2...graduates-endorse-academic-boycott-of-israel/
I understand that. But I think this goes to one of the core reasons why I really dislike Sanders at this point.
Yes, he's connecting with youth, but I've said this before, I think he's largely doing it by peddling a platform of almost pure fantasy. By pushing this false reality where there's an obvious "good" (largely him), and an obvious evil (mostly Hillary and anyone who doesn't agree with him). A reality where all problems have simple solutions, compromise is the enemy, and only far left ideals (except when it comes to guns, of course) are worth considering. If that's how you appeal to the youth vote today, I have to wonder if it's really worth it.
How does one appeal to youth in elections with pragmatism? With realistic expectations?
ugaboga232
Member
I think you are othering sanders supporters a bit too much and this doesn't have that much to do with sanders. Its more, how can hillary, basically the next champion of the party integrate sanders supporters in a less idealistic way. I don't think its as simple as the youth are dumb, I think theres more to it that the democratic party should try to figure out.
disastermouse
Banned
Much of what he's saying isn't 'pure fantasy' for an astonishingly large percentage of the modern world. Maybe we should do less dismissing and more wondering why the fuck we can afford war but not education or health care.
Because of the political system we live under and how Congress operates. If you didn't know that then you either haven't been paying attention over the last 8 years or you're being wilfully ignorant.
aspiegamer
Member
Not to be 100% cruel to "the youth," but history has shown it's wasted effort and Sanders supporters don't look to be lining up much differently. There's some mythical figure that appears every single cycle to swoop in and grab chunks of voters who have never gone through the process before. This is possible largely because they are gullible and don't know any better. As I prefer to phrase it, they don't understand that this is Serious Business. They're not stupid. Just gullible. It's good they want to be involved in politics. It's bad that they run into charismatic people that manipulate them.
Just as Obama excited "the youth" and got them out to vote in larger numbers than the past, Sanders is bringing them out high than historical norms. Not as much as Obama, but still above average. Just as these people felt crushed and betrayed when Obama couldn't deliver on a lot of the ideological warm fuzzies he talked about in the primaries, Sanders supporters will inevitably feel betrayed, even if he were to miraculously win the nomination and the Presidency. It's really not their fault. As I said, they're gullible. They don't know any better. It's a damn shame their first political experiences end up busts because it means they're less likely to continue to participate in the process.
If anyone's mythical youth movement bothered to vote in a midterm or even the following Presidential election in anything close to the ration that they do for Democratic candidates, Democrats might actually get the House back. They could pursue an actual Liberal agenda after that--Ironically what Sanders is promising--But only after they follow through on their internet rants and $27 contributions. But they don't. They never do. So nothing actually changes in the substantive ways they imagined happening under their dream candidate in the first place. Their gullibility is exploited by selfish politicians and it causes longer-term damage to the party every single time.
I sound jaded, yes, because the Sanders situation is raising red flags everywhere of what Our Lord Satan, Ralph Nader did in 2000. He cost us W because he was more interested in inflating his ego with audiences of gullible college students cheering for him than he was actually interested in trying to find ways to enact anything he believed in.
Maybe if his plans didnt require 5% GDP growth we wouldn't be dismissing it as pure fantasy.
For most of the world what he is selling IS pure fantasy.
No country on Earth offers what he does for the price he's selling it.
I didn't say the youth are dumb. You don't have to be dumb to be misled.
Nor do I think this is all of Bernie's supporters. There are plenty of people (a lot on this board) who aren't necessarily buying everything Bernie is selling but are voting for him anyway for other valid reasons.
But I don't think it can be denied at this point that there are a lot of Bernie supporters who are supporting him because they truly believe that what Bernie is promising will be done, relatively quickly, and that the only reason it hasn't been done sooner is because we've yet to nominate a man as great as Bernie. I come across this group almost every day.
Frankly, I don't think the Bernie model is one worth imitating. If Hillary wants counsel on how to better court the youth, I think she needs to look to Obama and his '08 campaign. Obama didn't become as popular as he did by promising Democrats the world in the way Bernie Sanders is. He did it by doing the legwork required to authentically relate to his coalition. I think Hillary did it with the black vote. It was exactly what Hillary did in the weeks leading up to SC, and really from the very start of her campaign.
I think that a too large and vocal section of Sanders' coalition sees anything but his exact policies, in their current form, as a betrayal of the "true" liberal agenda, or what the Democratic party should be fighting for.
And that frustrates me, greatly. Sanders is well intentioned, but it's clear that when you get into the nuances of his policy, such as how he plans to use a FTT and funds permitted by Governors to pay for everyone's state college tuitions, that something is just off. The numbers don't add up. Revisions or discussions are necessary. Not necessarily on the goals, but the methods.
But any attempts to even broach conversations in that direction get hisses, insults, and blanket claims of insidious corruption. This is only getting worse the longer the nomination process goes on, and I blame a large part of it on Sanders adopting bullshit attacks that lack direct evidence, as him and his surrogates continue to rely on vague claims and insinuations that are hard to definitively refute because of the negative vibes regarding HRC that the Republican's have ingrained into the psyche of the public after decades of smear campaigns against her and Bill.
It's not that a large part of Sanders young voters are stupid. I know they're not. The problem is that they don't want to be challenged in their preconceived notions and assumptions in the first place, because they frame such dialogue as traitorous and obstructive. It's really, really awful, and if this trend continues into the general election it's a horrible portend, especially if the Republicans can coalesce their base and sap even a fair chunk of Sanders' base.
Also, I'm relatively young myself and didn't start paying attention to politics much until this cycle. I actually came in on the Bernie Train around the end of last year, and didn't come over to HRC until I learned more.
And that frustrates me, greatly. Sanders is well intentioned, but it's clear that when you get into the nuances of his policy, such as how he plans to use a FTT and funds permitted by Governors to pay for everyone's state college tuitions, that something is just off. The numbers don't add up. Revisions or discussions are necessary. Not necessarily on the goals, but the methods.
But any attempts to even broach conversations in that direction get hisses, insults, and blanket claims of insidious corruption. This is only getting worse the longer the nomination process goes on, and I blame a large part of it on Sanders adopting bullshit attacks that lack direct evidence, as him and his surrogates continue to rely on vague claims and insinuations that are hard to definitively refute because of the negative vibes regarding HRC that the Republican's have ingrained into the psyche of the public after decades of smear campaigns against her and Bill.
It's not that a large part of Sanders young voters are stupid. I know they're not. The problem is that they don't want to be challenged in their preconceived notions and assumptions in the first place, because they frame such dialogue as traitorous and obstructive. It's really, really awful, and if this trend continues into the general election it's a horrible portend, especially if the Republicans can coalesce their base and sap even a fair chunk of Sanders' base.
Also, I'm relatively young myself and didn't start paying attention to politics much until this cycle. I actually came in on the Bernie Train around the end of last year, and didn't come over to HRC until I learned more.
eBay Huckster
Member
and as i've posted easily a hundred times between here and all forms of social media, that "astonishing large percentage" has had multiple decades and/or at least one catastrophic war to get to that point, so unless you want to leave multiple US cities as actual bombed-out husks or wait a generation...
disastermouse
Banned
I've been paying attention, but when you have people rising up in disgust over this system, you're seeing a vehicle for changing the status quo. That makes the 'fantasy' not as fanciful, IMHO. Are you asleep? Do you not think that another four years of neoliberal political fuckery will mean MORE outrage next cycle? Because HRC isn't going to even try to address the issues that are causing this anger. Sanders didn't invent it, he's just found himself at the head of it. I think that even he's been surprised at the effectiveness of his message.
Even if Hillary wins, she loses. She won't address the unrest, she can't disarm it.
disastermouse
Banned
The energy required to build the first examples is always larger than that required to follow those examples once they are established. We don't need decades and we don't need a war on domestic soil - there are easy to follow examples for how to make these things work and the political will required to follow successful examples just isn't the same as that required to invent them into existence. Late-mover advantage.
And_Gignac
Member
Those countries are also not nearly as large and diverse as ours is.
perfectchaos007
Member
So today is the big day in NY and I haven't heard from Trump in weeks. He has disappeared like Romney in 2012
In other news, Jill Stein is sweeping the Green Party primary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
if someone sweeps an empty room, did they still do chores?
also there have been 15 libertarian party debates?????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
Avon Barksdale
Member
If a tree falls...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked