• 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.

royalan

Member
Right it's not about policy - except for the instances where she is challenged on her commitment to environmental issues. Do you honestly want me to start posting articles of climate scientists, environmental advocates and activists challenging her policy because I can.

YES, because that would be a substantive case to make, instead of this bullshit "B-b-but money!" argument that really tells you nothing about a candidate. This is a lazy and damn dishonest way to smear a candidate. Show actual proof that Hillary isn't committed to the environment.

Also, contributions to Hillary's campaigns and PACs from the Fossil Fuel industry are low, and Sanders' own campaign is guilty of receiving their contributions as well.
 
Is this a joke post?
I hope it's a joke post.
When your ideology is "fuck y'alls, I got mine" and "corporations are people my friend" it's really easy to pass a purity test while taking money from anyone and everyone willing to give it.

Yes, that is the entirety of republican ideology. Well done.
 
215,000 jobs added in March. Keep chugging along!

Powered by a burst of hiring in recent months and an uptick in wages, the huge army of workers that had been on the sidelines of the recovery is slowly returning to the job market.

The Labor Department said on Friday the proportion of Americans in the labor force crept up slightly to 63 percent — the highest level in two years. Although still well below where it should be, that represents a move in the right direction and extends a trend that began last fall.

Over all, the economy added 215,000 jobs in March, as employers continued to hire at a robust pace, despite volatility on Wall Street and turmoil overseas.

The unemployment rate rose to 5 percent, compared with 4.9 percent in February. But that was a positive indication, analysts said, since the increase in participation accounted for the jump.

Although other economic data has been mixed recently, the Labor Department report paints a picture of a remarkably steady job market. Since the beginning of 2015, the economy has added well over 200,000 jobs a month on average.

Indeed, Friday’s report suggests an economy gradually returning to a normal trajectory, like the one that prevailed before the Great Recession began in December 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/b...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
 

royalan

Member
Is this a joke post?

I hope it's a joke post.

When your ideology is "fuck y'alls, I got mine" and "corporations are people my friend" it's really easy to pass a purity test while taking money from anyone and everyone willing to give it.

Exactly. Purity tests are pointless on the right when a vast majority of their voters fall in line with the idea that the ends justify the means when it comes to elections. It's how a man like Trump was able to carry the Evangelical vote.

It's tough winning elections against Republicans when the paying field is level, but for some reason the far far left insists on wanting to try on rocky terrain WITH our hands tied behind our backs...blindfolded! And it's damn stupid.

Far left purists can go sit in a corner and count their moral victories. The rest of us will try for actual victories so we can keep our damn healthcare and right to marry, and keep the country on the road to progress that Obama started us on.
 

Diablos

Member
I'm just afraid they will go in the corner and deduct 1/3 of the vote from Dems in the general by not showing up or having some stupid movement where they write in someone over Hillary.
 

Slayven

Member
These pure liberal pissing contests remind me of a story from the Book of Swords

There was a sword called Farslayer, all you had to do is think the name of the person you want to kill and the sword would fly straight into that person's heart. Problem was that the sword left a brightly colored rainbow leading back to the person that had sent it. The sword eventually fell into the hands of 2 feuding families who happened to have detailed family trees of each other. They started snipping at each other until there was just babies left.

Is there a point to this, I don't know. It is too damn early in the morning
 
Which completely ignores that republicans have become massively successful at the local level while pushing consistently more Xtreem Purity candidates, but hey.

Its much easier to do that when 38% of the population believes in your ideology versus 24%. The idea that liberals can be successful in the US by copying conservative methods completely mis-understands the political situation here.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx
 
Its much easier to do that when 38% of the population believes in your ideology versus 24%. The idea that liberals can be successful in the US by copying conservative methods completely mis-understands the political situation here.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx

That... is actually a good point.

Now i kinda want pre-reagan data.

As for the bolded, my main point is that dudes need to not do the same that they did last time.
 

noshten

Member
YES, because that would be a substantive case to make, instead of this bullshit "B-b-but money!" argument that really tells you nothing about a candidate. This is a lazy and damn dishonest way to smear a candidate. Show actual proof that Hillary isn't committed to the environment.

Also, contributions to Hillary's campaigns and PACs from the Fossil Fuel industry are low, and Sanders' own campaign is guilty of receiving their contributions as well.

Her family’s charitable foundation takes lots of oil money. Big oil companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips have given millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, as have Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich nations in the Middle East. Thursday brought the latest exposé on this issue from the International Business Times, which reports on donations from Pacific Rubiales, a Canadian oil company accused of human rights violations in Colombia. Pacific Rubiales’ founder, Frank Giustra, now sits on the Clinton Foundation’s board. IBT reports, “After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation — supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself — Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it ‘strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.’” A cynic would say oil companies are buying influence with the Clintons without being subject to campaign finance laws. A Clinton defender would point out that the foundation gives away this money, it isn’t going into Hillary Clinton’s pocket or her campaign account.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-climate-change/

Ancient-Aliens.jpg
 

T'Zariah

Banned
...so, the only thing you could come up with is one bullet point from an article that spends most of its time talking about Hillary's commitment to fighting climate change?

You just proved the point that money does not on its own imply that a politician is corrupt.
Also why would a corporation, unless in extremely specific circumstances, try to buy out national politicians? That's an extreme waste of time long term.

Local politicians is where we need to be focused on.
 

noshten

Member
...so, the only thing you could come up with is one bullet point from an article that spends most of its time talking about Hillary's commitment to fighting climate change?

You just proved the point that money does not on its own imply that a politician is corrupt.

The only thing you've come up with to disapprove me is that I only gave you one link, mkay royalan
 

royalan

Member
The only thing you've come up with to disapprove me is that I only gave you one link, mkay royalan

You're the one, like several others I've asked, that is insisting that Hillary Clinton is one of the most corrupt figures in left wing politics. The burden is on you to prove that, Boo Boo Kitty. And if you can't, and so far you haven't, don't be upset or surprised when your positions aren't taken seriously.
 
You'd find very few that'd disagree with that assesment here.

The discussion on how to make such politicians thrive after 10 years of democratic presidential control, however, is another matter entirely.

The biggest problem, at least what I see locally, is actually getting people to run. I don't even care about electability. We had to pull teeth to find someone who wanted to run for Mayor here last year. Several county wide offices didn't even have anyone running in the primary. I could have spent a few hundred bucks on flyers and ran myself, if I was so inclined. (I'm not.) We need to star pushing people to run in these races. They're only going to be competitive, at the local level, if we field people. That's like the bare minimum we should be doing.
 
Who owns Drummond? Goldman Sachs. You know who won't release their Goldman Sachs speeches? Hillary Clinton.

Can you substantiate this? Goldman isn't known for owning non-financial companies. It's not like Bain, a huge holding company.

If they do own Drummond, I'd like to know when the acquired them. Goldman went public in 98 and only really starting buying companies then. And at that time and for a while afterwards, they were just buying financial companies. Seems unlikely they owned an energy company at the time of the allegations.

Never mind the nonsense that a person who gets paid to speak to such a company is somehow bought by them, and also culpable for their actions. Does Malcolm Gladwell also have blood on his hands?
 
The biggest problem, at least what I see locally, is actually getting people to run. I don't even care about electability. We had to pull teeth to find someone who wanted to run for Mayor here last year. Several county wide offices didn't even have anyone running in the primary. I could have spent a few hundred bucks on flyers and ran myself, if I was so inclined. (I'm not.) We need to star pushing people to run in these races. They're only going to be competitive, at the local level, if we field people. That's like the bare minimum we should be doing.

I am now horrified that that might actually be a widespread problem and trying to find data on it.

But yes, that is indeed the bare. freaking. minimum.

Anytime myself or anyone else goes on Reddit to suggest that politician X may be just a standard politician as opposed to a bribe loving ice hearted shill that innovates in corruption you get downvoted and yelled at.

Well yes, because that is true of all politicians.
 

Clefargle

Member
God I'm glad this thread exists,

Anytime myself or anyone else goes on Reddit to suggest that Clinton may be just a standard politician as opposed to a bribe loving ice hearted shill that innovates in corruption you get downvoted and yelled at.
 
I am now horrified that that might actually be a widespread problem and trying to find data on it.

But yes, that is indeed the bare. freaking. minimum.



Well yes, because that is true of all politicians.

I live in a safe R district. We've been represented by a Republican for all but 2 years since 1939. However, we have had Democratic mayors and council members. Our council is split, at the minute I believe. However, the Democratic party failed to put people up for a couple things in the primary. I don't just mean a Democrat ran unopposed...we didn't bother to put anyone up at all. It actually happens quite often. It's why Dean's 50 State Strategy was supposed to be so important.

IF we don't run, we can't win.
 

Diablos

Member
rsJ89rR.png


I made this for the OP but I guess he didn't want to edit it in. Anyway, there's your wall of shame from the last thread. 200 posts and up. I beat cartoon_soldier by like 7 posts or something. Just made the cut. Lol.

Macho Madness broke 1K!
 
If you're going to call what I'm doing retarded at least fix your typos. If you placed Ted Cruz into my post instead of Hillary everyone would be nodding their heads in agreement.

I even gave links where the Clintons basically starved Haiti's economy!

Just so we're clear, your argument is that if you posted links to a couple of papers that had nothing specifically to do with Ted Cruz to show how corrupt he is, that everyone would be nodding their heads in agreement? Even given what I know about cognitive biases, that's more than just a bit of a stretch.
 

noshten

Member
You're the one, like several others I've asked, that is insisting that Hillary Clinton is one of the most corrupt figures in left wing politics. The burden is on you to prove that, Boo Boo Kitty. And if you can't, and so far you haven't, don't be upset or surprised when your positions aren't taken seriously.

It's not my goal to change your or anyone's views on the candidates royalan. Hills is better than anyone in the GOP, whether she is corrupt or not is irrelevant to me in the grand scheme of things if she becomes the nominee.
But this is not the general, this is the primary and Hillary is the candidate who has decided not to sign the pledge which GreenPeace has been advocating, Martin and Bernie both signed it no questions asked.
The criticism from Green Peace is valid, her platform not being aggressive enough on environmental issues is also valid, her decision to lead from behind is also a valid issue, her lack of commitment on carbon taxes is also a valid issue, her position and selling fracking to the World is also a valid issue, her flipflopping on Keystone is a valid issue, her history working with Republicans on offshore drilling is also a valid issue, being pro-ethanol production is also a valid issue.
 

Drek

Member
Indeed.

(show responses from: republicans)

So by this rationale the Tea Party is not running party purists as all of their candidates are in favor of Citizen's United, SuperPACs, and far more deregulation of campaign finance reform.

How do you reconcile this with your previous post claiming they're winning by running purists? You've constructed an impossible scenario here.
 
Mississippi Ban on Same Sex Adoption Ruled Unconstitutional

Jordan wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing gay marriage included other benefits associated with marriage, such as adoption.

“It also seems highly unlikely that the same court that held a state cannot ban gay marriage because it would deny benefits — expressly including the right to adopt — would then conclude that married gay couples can be denied that very same benefit,” he wrote.

Obergefell is the gift that keeps on giving!

29% of same sex couples in Mississippi have children. It's the largest percentage of any state. That's....interesting, I gotta say.
 
Always hard to make predictions given you never know what might happen (scandal, economic collapse, terrorist attack, etc) but it's looking like Obama will leave office pretty popular. I'd venture to say the two presidential nominees will make people appreciate him even more during the coming months.
 
So by this rationale the Tea Party is not running party purists as all of their candidates are in favor of Citizen's United, SuperPACs, and far more deregulation of campaign finance reform.

How do you reconcile this with your previous post claiming they're winning by running purists? You've constructed an impossible scenario here.

My posts, as they pertain to you, are designed to show that your views of the republican base are incorrect. This has been done.

i've also never said the bolded.


(gee, it is almost as if, much like democrats, the republican base runs on some sort of bizarro pragmatism where they are willing to ignore some things in favour of [sometimes just lip service paid to] others)
 
This is like proudly saying you only eat at chain restaurants, or only listen to music played on Top 40 radio, or exclusively read books that are sold at grocery stores.
I like playing AAA games, I like to eat at PF Chang's and dammit I dont change my underwear often. Its who I am. Cant we all just get along?
 

Yoshi

Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt

Isn't this assuming that his Facebook friends are constantly primed to sexual topics when they are on Facebook, posting about politics?

Nevertheless, it is really amazing they could find a 24% difference there, because one would think that almost all americans by now have an opinion on the candidates and the difference between Clinton and Trump is rather big in regards to political views and style. Interestingly, in German politics, Merkel being female has often been cited as a marked advantage with staying supremely popular within the country - she has consistently been very popular in Germany and even though her refugee policies are under massive attack even from the own party, she retains a staggering 50% of Germans who would vote for her if there was a direct vote for the chancellor next Sunday, for comparison, her likely rival, social democrat Gabriel sits at 13%; even among the ones who would vote for Gabriel's party, 38% would want Merkel to stay chancellor, compared to 36% for Gabriel.

So, since I doubt Germany is less sexist than the US, I wonder if
(a) Merkel's sex actually is also a disadvantage (keep in mind that the talk about Merkel's sex being an advantage is speculation, not backed by evidence) and her popularity would be through the roof if she was male
(b) Being female alone is not sufficient to be at a disadvantage, but there is a property Clinton has and Merkel does not that is negatively judged and somehow associated to the question.
One option would be that a question concerning money could also trigger associations to the establishment, so people might not only be primed to sex, but also perceived closeness to establishment. Another one would be that Merkel maybe is less associtaed with her sex than Clinton, but I don't know what could cause this effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom