Support NeoGAF

[Macho Madness]

I'd like to congratulate Mike Pence on his re-election: http://www.indystar.com/story/opini...greggs-role-model-mitch-daniels-hmm/82510254/

 

[Jawbreaker]

They held it on April 1st. LOLLL

Quite fitting. It's actually airing in two parts, with the other being broadcast on the 8th. McAfee is a character alright.

 

[Zona]

Why do you always run into idiots?

I just got back from the bar with a bunch of Trump supporters. This fucking island, it's like we want to live up to stereotypes! I think one of the reasons Sanders has no chance in NY is that the people who would in other states be his demographic are here all on the Trump Train. At least on Long Island, the City is obviously a different story.

On the bright side I made about $400 worth of bets on Hillary being the next PotUS, easiest money I'll ever make.

 

[Tubie]

Overheard this evening, hand to god.

Girl; Ya, I want Bernie.
Other Girl: Why?
Girl: Because he gets it. I sent him $100 this month instead of paying my student loan.
Other Girl: Really? Won't that mess you up?
Girl: No. He wants to give us free college. Once he's president, he's going to, like return all that money we borrowed to us.

I've had similar interactions with a couple of friends, and some family members.

In my experience its been people that took out 100k+ in loans for a degree that has no market value or people that think their credit card debt is the fault of the banks and not their own.

 

[KtSlime]

Bernie's entire campaign is basically comprised of:
1. Wall Street is evil and the source of all societal evils.
2. The Establishment is corrupt (what exactly the "Establishment" is changes from day to day)
3. Free Healthcare
4. Free collage

Sanders entire presidential bid, depends on low information voters swallowing as much snake oil as possible.

Most all of the people in the US are going to be fairly low information when it comes to Socialism, there has been a pretty long information blackout when it comes to the concept. And to his stance, how is this remotely surprising for a person with socialistic leanings. The entire viewpoint is most large societal problems are a result of unequal wealth distribution, the solution is to provide the poor with programs to make them competitive with wealthier people. In the US banks and Wall Street are big factors in this inequality and free healthcare and university are ways to make poorer people competitive while giving many of them a little more money to spend on things they may want or need, things older generations took for granted as something everyone gets, house, car in the garage, chicken in the pot. The biggest impediment to redistribution is the influence large companies and impotent media have on the government.

People don't need to know all the ins and outs about why they are getting screwed by the system, just that they want it to change. There is no reason why it can't change unless people relegate all their options to being within the boundaries set up by those in power. There is a time for that, and there is a time for a 'radical' rethinking of the rules. Many of the youth think it's time for the latter.

 

[lednerg]

Running an elite, establishment candidate like Hillary is a mistake.

 

[Gruco]

When people chastise Clinton for changing her position on marriage equality since 2004, they seem to forget that a lot of people, not just politicians, have also changed their views since then.

Similarly, even though I was too young to really be politically aware at the time, I know that crime was much higher in the early 90s than it was today, that many people (falsely, as it turned out) thought it was getting worse, and that a significant factor in Dukakis's defeat in 1988 was that Bush had successfully painted him as soft on crime (Willie Horton, "revolving door," etc.) That's not to say that one can't fairly criticize politicians for their positions at the time, just that so much of the discussion omits that context. People unfortunately are prone to viewing the past as though it were the present.

This is one of the most frustrating things about the campaign right now. Clinton has been a central figure in US politics for over years at this point. A lot has changed in the time frame! It's like....really appropriate that she has changed some views, in part because of responsiveness to the needs of the voters, and in part because she was also a person living in the US from 1992-2016. No where is this more apparent than when people try to smear her for too tough on crime stances in the Clinton white house, or for not jumping on support for gay marriage in 2004 or earlier.

 

[KtSlime]

This is one of the most frustrating things about the campaign right now. Clinton has been a central figure in US politics for over years at this point. A lot has changed in the time frame! It's like....really appropriate that she has changed some views, in part because of responsiveness to the needs of the voters, and in part because she was also a person living in the US from 1992-2016. No where is this more apparent than when people try to smear her for too tough on crime stances in the Clinton white house, or for not jumping on support for gay marriage in 2004 or earlier.

Perhaps I have no say since I have never been a public figure, but my stance on gay marriage has been consistent since at least 92, that they should be able to get married. People praise Obama for 'evolving' his views on the matter, and immediately after, as if over night, a bunch of other politicians changed their tune. Perhaps this could have happened earlier, maybe if the Clintons had stated they were in favor when they were in the Whitehouse, a bunch of other politicians who were secretly in favor, or who didn't care enough to stick their neck out would have gotten on the bandwagon. It's all speculation, but I'd rather politicians say what they think is right, rather than hide their thoughts until someone else with the courage stands up to do so. They are the leaders, they should lead not follow.

Perhaps Hillary really did have a revelation this recently, and she was truly against gay marriage and just now came to the correct side. I'm not against people eventually coming to the right decision, late is better than never, but do you really want to vote for a person who continually comes to the right decision so late?

 

[Y2Kev]

Perhaps I have no say since I have never been a public figure, but my stance on gay marriage has been consistent since at least 92, that they should be able to get married. People praise Obama for 'evolving' his views on the matter, and immediately after, as if over night, a bunch of other politicians changed their tune. Perhaps this could have happened earlier, maybe if the Clintons had stated they were in favor when they were in the Whitehouse, a bunch of other politicians who were secretly in favor, or who didn't care enough to stick their neck out would have gotten on the bandwagon. It's all speculation, but I'd rather politicians say what they think is right, rather than hide their thoughts until someone else with the courage stands up to do so. They are the leaders, they should lead not follow.

Perhaps Hillary really did have a revelation this recently, and she was truly against gay marriage and just now came to the correct side. I'm not against people eventually coming to the right decision, late is better than never, but do you really want to vote for a person who continually comes to the right decision so late?

"Continually" is interesting editorial but I am fine voting for someone who comes to the right position (as opposed to the wrong one) and is currently campaigning on all the right decisions.

 

[OmniOne]

Perhaps I have no say since I have never been a public figure, but my stance on gay marriage has been consistent since at least 92, that they should be able to get married. People praise Obama for 'evolving' his views on the matter, and immediately after, as if over night, a bunch of other politicians changed their tune. Perhaps this could have happened earlier, maybe if the Clintons had stated they were in favor when they were in the Whitehouse, a bunch of other politicians who were secretly in favor, or who didn't care enough to stick their neck out would have gotten on the bandwagon. It's all speculation, but I'd rather politicians say what they think is right, rather than hide their thoughts until someone else with the courage stands up to do so. They are the leaders, they should lead not follow.

Perhaps Hillary really did have a revelation this recently, and she was truly against gay marriage and just now came to the correct side. I'm not against people eventually coming to the right decision, late is better than never, but do you really want to vote for a person who continually comes to the right decision so late?

As a gay person I'm not concerned with the timeline in which you get to the right position. I care that you get to the right position.

I voted for Obama knowing full well his position on gay marriage in 08 was an electoral hedge. And I'm happy he hedged. I preferred him to play the game to win for I am not a single Issue voter. There are countless issues at play i.e. The Supreme Court( we all know he'd pick liberal Jurists). And we all know this issue was never going to be resolved by anyone except SCOTUS.

This purity bs has got to stop.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm a pretty big LGBT ally-- I was legitimately depressed by the passing of DOMA. But I was a "civil unions" guy for the longest time. I was wrong, but legal gay marriage was a big conceptual leap for me.

I don't begrudge any politician for not being ahead of me in their thinking.

 

[Slayven]

I'm really starting to feel like the hatred for Hillary and the propping up of Bernie has a lot to with people desperately wanting to recreate the magic of Obama '08...with someone who's not Obama. As if it should be so easy. As if what Obama did wasn't political magic of the sort we likely won't see for a long time.

Man, '08 was really something. I was a Hillary stan back then, too. But it was impossible to not be inspired by Barack. His campaign really was magic.

And now you have people desperately wanting to pin Hilllary down in the role of Entitled Establishment Front Runner Destined to be Overcome, only this time their hero, their Obama...is Bernie Sanders. And he just isn't close to being as inspiring. As transformative.

I bet it really must be frustrating. Like trying to make Jessica Simpson happen when we already had Christina Aguilera.

If you have to keep telling people every 5 minutes there is a revolution happening, there is no revolution happening. Seems like a lot of people want to make Sanders happen just to be part of something.

 

[KtSlime]

"Continually" is interesting editorial but I am fine voting for someone who comes to the right position (as opposed to the wrong one) and is currently campaigning on all the right decisions.

Continually was probably unfair, there were a few decisions and that does not constitute being continually wrong. I retract it.

As a gay person I'm not concerned with the timeline in which you get to the right position. I care that you get to the right position.

I voted for Obama knowing full well his position on gay marriage in 08 was an electoral hedge. And I'm happy he hedged. I preferred him to play the game to win for I am not a single Issue voter. There are countless issues at play i.e. The Supreme Court( we all know he'd pick liberal Jurists). And we all know this issue was never going to be resolved by anyone except SCOTUS.

This purity bs has got to stop.

I too voted for Obama, I don't think he has been a terrible president, he has done a number of things to advance justice. I do think he is not as progressive as I was lead to believe, I knew he would not be as progressive as Nader, but I chose Obama anyway.

As to the Supreme Court, I hope your right and that Garland is just his poor idea of a joke.

I'm a pretty big LGBT ally-- I was legitimately depressed by the passing of DOMA. But I was a "civil unions" guy for the longest time. I was wrong, but legal gay marriage was a big conceptual leap for me.

I don't begrudge any politician for not being ahead of me in their thinking.

As I said, late is better than never, but I'd rather they were role models.

 

[shinra-bansho]

“Bank has started calling/And the wolves are at my door”. Similar refrains can be heard all over America’s industrial heartland: almost 6m manufacturing jobs were lost between 1999 and 2011.

The scale of these job losses is not itself surprising: America’s dynamic economy creates and destroys around 5m jobs each month. But a recent set of studies by economists at leading American universities has found something disturbing. A fifth of that 1999-2011 decline in factory jobs was caused by Chinese competition, and those who lost jobs generally did not find new ones nearby. Nor did the newly unemployed go in search of work elsewhere. Instead there was almost a one-for-one increase either in unemployment or, more frequently, in people leaving the workforce entirely—often to claim disability benefits, which 5% of Americans aged 25-64 now receive.
...
The worst possible response to such fears is the protectionism that Mr Trump is peddling. The surge in cheap imports of clothing, shoes, furniture, toys and electronics from China has greatly increased the spending power of those on low incomes. It has also added to the variety of goods they are able to buy. One study by economists at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Columbia University calculated that median income earners in America would lose 29% of their purchasing power if America was closed to trade, but that the poorest would forfeit as much as 62%, because they spend proportionately more on goods that are traded. Add to the reckoning the eventual benefits of a richer Chinese market for exporters, the spur to innovation in America from global competition and the low-cost inputs for consumer goods, such as the iPhone, that raise the productivity of American designers, and the arguments in favour of free trade are overwhelming.
...
The safety net provided by trade-adjustment assistance, a federal programme, is threadbare—which is why many displaced American workers opt for more generous disability benefits and leave the job market altogether. In effect, America has imported some of the worst aspects of Europe while ignoring the best. Germany is Europe’s manufacturing powerhouse but has successfully absorbed the twin shocks of competition from China and the accession of countries to its east into the European Union. This is in part because Germany has been able constantly to upgrade the skills of its workforce, thanks to its system of apprenticeships. In America community colleges in depressed areas show promise in bridging the skills gap, but there is still too much emphasis on an expensive four-year university education and too little on vocational training.

America has also lagged behind other rich countries in “active” labour-market policies. More could be done to help workers who lose jobs to find new ones, through job exchanges and courses to add to skills. In America’s panoramic jobs market, there may be a case for providing relocation grants for workers hurt by trade. A big gripe of displaced workers is that an alternative job in the service sector does not pay as well or come with the same health-care or pension benefits that big manufacturers used to provide. That is a strong argument for a system of portable benefits that go with workers when they change jobs. A system of wage insurance might have merit.

Link to the article, and the longer more in-depth one, but I think only Kev can afford the subscription to read it.

Abridged version for the can'tbebotheredreading: Yes, freer trade costs some jobs in some places, we've known this for a long time. The benefits are much more widespread. The solution isn't to throw up barriers again. It's to make sure that those hurt when barriers are taken down get the support they need.

 

[StrangerInTheAlps]

Tried reasoning with some Bernie folks on fb after getting sick of the Tea party-like posts and the Bernie or Bust shit. I learned that not only is Hillary not a viable alternative to Bernie, but that she'd basically be no better than Trump and may even set the country back even worse. This is what it's come to folks. These people are living in a fucking alternate reality.

 

[CCS]

It must be nice to live in this alternate universe of theirs. Maybe the Browns win something occasionally there.

 

[Frank the Great]

As to the Supreme Court, I hope your right and that Garland is just his poor idea of a joke.

Garland is a liberal bruh. And what about Kagan and Sotomayor?

 

[Suikoguy]

Garland is a liberal bruh. And what about Kagan and Sotomayor?

Exactly, Obama has both shifted and diversified the court, it and the ACA will be what he is remembered for.

Did anyone ask the delusional Sanders supporters if its Bernstein or Bernstain?

 

[User 406]

And Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. I don't disagree. It's just weird to me that this is the preferred source of information for people who aren't shy in their disdain, loathing, hatred, disgust polite disagreement with the current frontrunner with her changed positions as a reason for despising not supporting her.

(Also, I think someone posted in one of the PoliGAF threads he's still a denier of the Armenian genocide.)

Well, our brains tend to find justification for our preferences after the fact, and cognitive dissonance is one of our biggest skills.

Similarly, even though I was too young to really be politically aware at the time, I know that crime was much higher in the early 90s than it was today, that many people (falsely, as it turned out) thought it was getting worse, and that a significant factor in Dukakis's defeat in 1988 was that Bush had successfully painted him as soft on crime (Willie Horton, "revolving door," etc.) That's not to say that one can't fairly criticize politicians for their positions at the time, just that so much of the discussion omits that context. People unfortunately are prone to viewing the past as though it were the present.

I was politically aware in the 90's, and yeah, the political climate then was so very different. We had just gotten through the Cold War, which had inflicted a staggering amount of mental stress on the entire population for decades. Our mode of response to the idea that absolutely everything could be destroyed at any moment was constant fear, and when the fear was too much, denial. We were also just coming down from the constant injection of lead into the air we breathed, and the wave of violent crime it helped engender was increasing with no end in sight. It really was a different time.

Even the current view of DADT misattributes things. At the time, that was widely considered a very progressive policy, because not actively hunting down and purging closeted gay people within the military ran counter to all the previous conventional wisdom about homosexuality being nothing but a corrosive and morally degenerative influence. The very idea that gay people could be trusted to do their jobs, as long as they didn't get all obvious and icky, was a novel one! It's difficult to overstate the homophobia of that era.

I don't think there's any problem with acknowledging the very real harm a lot of these policies did, but historical context is important. Yeah, we were backwards back then, and someday who we are now will be correctly considered backwards too. Some of the decisions we make right now which we will be certain are a good idea could have terrible effects down the line. Hindsight is 20/20, and presuming that results imply intentions risks making the same well intentioned mistakes. To keep making the best progress we can it's important to avoid simply dismissing everything that came before with righteous contempt, so we can better learn from our successes and our failures.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Exactly, Obama has both shifted and diversified the court, it and the ACA will be what he is remembered for.

Did anyone ask the delusional Sanders supporters if its Bernstein or Bernstain?

Lot more than just it and ACA man. The foreign policy approach is also very different, no one shoe fits all policy.

 

[User1608]

Tried reasoning with some Bernie folks on fb after getting sick of the Tea party-like posts and the Bernie or Bust shit. I learned that not only is Hillary not a viable alternative to Bernie, but that she'd basically be no better than Trump and may even set the country back even worse. This is what it's come to folks. These people are living in a fucking alternate reality.

Same here. Bunch of uneducated kids. The delusion is hilarious.

 

[lednerg]

If you have to keep telling people every 5 minutes there is a revolution happening, there is no revolution happening. Seems like a lot of people want to make Sanders happen just to be part of something.

There is a revolution happening. In Europe. Americans just aren't up to the task. We're all still praying that our American Dream tickets will be worth something some day. The rest of the world sees us acting this way and rolls their eyes.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

As if there's any more reason to hate Kasich, it turns out he hates Fargo (the movie)

#NotMyPresident

Maybe that's because he talks like Marge, what with all the "oh geez" and "this is nuts" stuff. Or because he hates the idea of a strong female protagonist.

If you have to keep telling people every 5 minutes there is a revolution happening, there is no revolution happening. Seems like a lot of people want to make Sanders happen just to be part of something.

Wait, are you saying that Bernie Sanders is fetch?

 

[FloydtheFathead]

It must be nice to live in this alternate universe of theirs. Maybe the Browns win something occasionally there.

Probably in the universe where president Trump becomes a thing and he makes the Browns great again.

either way

We are boned

 

[Chezzymann]

Damn, /R/the Donald is now a full on hate subreddit. Every other post is about how Islam is evil and is trying to overthrow the west and it will if these liberal "cucks" won't stop bending over. The subreddit was kinda aumising when it was just jokes about trump but now it's just disturbing.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Europe's revolution..?

Where are all the votes going? Many have been hoovered up by populists, typically of the anti-market left in southern Europe and the anti-migrant right in the north. But alternative left parties (feminists, pirates and greens, for example), liberals and the centre-right have also benefited. And so has the Stay On The Sofa party.

On their current trajectory, social democrats may well end up like liberals and greens today: subordinate players confined to regional strongholds whose best chance of influence is to nudge other parties in their direction should they get into coalition. But there are still some who are both in power and relatively popular.

Europe’s social democrats should learn from their North American counterparts, who have so far avoided their gloomy decline by building multifaceted, pluralistic coalitions like that which twice elected Barack Obama, a coalition that ranged from ethnic-minority voters, via urban liberals, insecure service employees and middle-class parents, to industrial workers. To that end Mr Renzi (a former mayor, uncoincidentally) has joined Justin Trudeau, Canada’s new prime minister, to take part in an initiative based in Washington, DC, which aims to reinvigorate the centre left worldwide.

 

[lednerg]

Europe's revolution..?

Look at Portugal. And also what's going on with the UK's Labour Party. Don't turn this into whataboutism.

 

[Armaros]

Look at Portugal. And also what's going on with the UK's Labour Party. Don't turn this into whataboutism.

What? You are the person that brought up Europe.

At least use whataboutism correctly.

 

[shinra-bansho]

What am I supposed to think about UK Labour right now besides omnishambles.

 

[lednerg]

What? You are the person that brought up Europe.

At least use whataboutism correctly.

The revolution is economic in nature.

If a company wants to leave the country and lay off thousands of employees, then those employees should be given the chance to own/buy that business. The Labour Party is fighting to give them that opportunity.

 

[Makai]

Based on the timing, the falloff might be due to a dramatic rise of social media and other ways for smaller parties to advertise.

 

[CCS]

What am I supposed to think about UK Labour right now besides omnishambles.

Omnishambles is right. Corbyn is hopeless, so is most of his cabinet, the infighting is destroying the party, and they have no clue how to counter right-wing narratives. Basically, the problems the Republicans have but possibly even worse.

 

[Armaros]

The revolution is economic in nature.

If a company wants to leave the country and lay off thousands of employees, then those employees should be given the chance to own/buy that business. The Labour Party is fighting to give them that opportunity.

Considering the current political climate and how much the party in power get their way.

They have failed utterly, more and more services are becoming privatized in the UK or getting outright defunded.

 

[lednerg]

Considering the current political climate and how much the party in power get their way.

They have failed utterly, more and more services are becoming privatized in the UK or getting outright defunded.

I'm talking about how the people voted, not how the government failed them. You could just as easily say that Americans voted for a centrist when they got Obama, despite what they thought they were voting for. Bernie is Obama '08 part 2.

 

[Makai]

 

[Armaros]

I'm talking about how the people voted, not how the government failed them. You could just as easily say that Americans voted for a centrist when they got Obama, despite what they thought they were voting for. Bernie is Obama '08 part 2.

So Bernie similarly to the UK Labour will not get into power or if he does, he will be powerless?

And this is the comparison you want to make?

 

[lednerg]

So Bernie similarly to the UK Labour will not get into power or if he does, he will be powerless?

And this is the comparison you want to make?

Bernie is the will of the people. Hillary is it not even trying, like a bunch of apathetics.

Trump cannot win. It's all in the demographics. He'd need 30% of the non-white vote. That's not happening. He's the weakest GOP candidate in decades.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The will of the people has less delegates, by corollary less votes, coming from less diverse populations. So it's more like will of some people who make a lot of memes.

 

[Armaros]

Bernie is the will of the people. Hillary is it not even trying, like a bunch of apathetics.

Seems like Bernie's voters are the apathetics considering turnout and his demographics.

 

[lednerg]

Seems like Bernie's voters are the apathetics considering turnout and his demographics.

What are Trump's demographics? He's got nothing, yet Democrats are acting like he's invincible. It's silly.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

Wait, are you saying that Bernie Sanders is fetch?

Is that fair to fetch? Fetch has become a thing in comparison?

Bernie is the will of the people. Hillary is it not even trying, like a bunch of apathetics.

Did I miss something where the Sanders campaign wasn't losing to Clinton in the popular vote total by 2.5 million I believe?

 

[lednerg]

Did I miss something where the Sanders campaign wasn't losing to Clinton in the popular vote total by 2.5 million I believe?

You missed the part where Bernie is consistently beating Trump by a larger amount than Hillary in the polls, making him the stronger candidate.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Mean Girls made "fetch" happen. #GretchenWinsAfterAll

Also I thought we were talking about the will of the people not generally useless early GE polling. Why does the will of the people involve disregarding actual voting.

 

[dramatis]

Bernie is the will of the people. Hillary is it not even trying, like a bunch of apathetics.

It's cool lednerg, here have a queen

 

[User 463088]

You missed the part where Bernie is consistently beating Trump by a larger amount than Hillary in the polls, making him the stronger candidate.

Uh, well, GE polling is pretty much useless until we actually have nominees. However, the reason he runs slightly better than Hillary is that he hasn't been attacked by anyone yet. The minute he got the nomination, the red scare would start and he would be decimated. A few months ago there was a story about a GOP group who did some field tests with some attacks against Sanders and it was damning.

Also, if Bernie is the stronger candidate, it's amazing he can't seem to beat Hillary.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

You missed the part where Bernie is consistently beating Trump by a larger amount than Hillary in the polls, making him the stronger candidate.

That's good. I remember when Herman Caine was beat Obama in General Election pools too.

Mean Girls made "fetch" happen. #GretchenWinsAfterAll

Also I thought we were talking about the will of the people not generally useless early GE polling.

Exactly Gretchen won in the end..

also something something voter fraud, something something establishment

 

[Hilbert]

Bernie is the will of the people. .

I am starting to get angry when I hear people say this. It is happening all the time in WA right now. They are actively saying some voters just don't count. It is gross.

 

[Macho Madness]

I am starting to get angry when I hear people say this. It is happening all the time in WA right now. They are actively saying some voters just don't count. It is gross.

"He's the will of the people" aka I'm dumb and don't realize not everyone posts memes on their Facebook all day about their favorite candidate

 

[Armaros]

You missed the part where Bernie is consistently beating Trump by a larger amount than Hillary in the polls, making him the stronger candidate.

Bernie is losing to Trump in the popular vote and Trump is still in a 3 person race.

He is losing by all metrics that matter in an primary.

 

[Macho Madness]

Anyway, Kasich is a dork: https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/716282190947028992