• 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 |OT5| Archdemon Hillary Clinton vs. Lice Traffic Jam

Status
Not open for further replies.

sangreal

Member

KuGsj.gif
KuGsj.gif
 

Wilsongt

Member
Lolololololololololol

A man identified only as the “Imperial Wizard of the Rebel Brigade Knights of the Ku Klux Klan” endorsed Donald Trump’s presidential campaign during a video interview with a Richmond news station which was published on Friday.

WWBT 12 news anchor Chris Thomas asked the Klan leader which candidate is best suited for the presidency. The so-called Imperial Wizard responded “I think Donald Trump would be best for the job,” adding that “the reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes in, we believe in. We want our country to be safe.”

The Klan leader cited Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States as an example of a Trump proposal that he supports. He also said that, “if Donald Trump dropped out tomorrow I would support Kasich before I would Ted Cruz” because Cruz “was born in Canada” and is “not an American citizen.”
 

Valhelm

contribute something
So the KKK thinks white Cubans are even more inferior than Slavs?

Maybe he doesn't realize John Kasich's family comes from Eastern Europe.
 

ampere

Member
Reading quotes from Trump about women to women caused Trump's unfavorables with women to jump by 19 points:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/u...s&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

Not too surprised.

Hillary needs that Obama bump to get her favorables up

Lolololololololololol

He also said that, “if Donald Trump dropped out tomorrow I would support Kasich before I would Ted Cruz” because Cruz “was born in Canada” and is “not an American citizen.”

Huelen?
 

NetMapel

Guilty White Male Mods Gave Me This Tag
The awkward truth of 'make America great again'

Listening to the drumbeat of attacks on Planned Parenthood raises wistful memories of 1964, when two former presidents, Republican Dwight Eisenhower and Democrat Harry Truman -- no kidding -- were honorary co-chairs of that organization.

And speaking of presidents who wouldn't pass today's political litmus tests, how many contemporary politicians would dare echo Eisenhower's lament that "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed"?
Instead of using the cop-out "I am not a scientist," Eisenhower, a World War II general, brought a full-time science adviser into the White House and funneled millions of dollars into improving science education. Later, President Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air Act, declaring it was "now or never" to start saving the environment.

Didn't quote the entire piece so please go read it. I thought this is an interesting opinion piece from CNN. Basically, I find the interesting part to be about such a shift in policies in the Republican side. Look at past Republican presidents like mentioned in the article. They were quite progressive on many things. Chaired Planned Parenthood, established Environmental Policy Act/Clean Air Act, supported Assault Weapon Ban... etc etc. I cannot dream of a modern Republican politicians supporting any of those. Bipartisan teamwork seems to be the norm on most things, you know. Oh, and guess what ? Republican poster boy Reagan supported those progressive policies AND worked with far higher income tax rate. For somebody like Ted Cruz who mentions Reagan at every opportunity he can, why does he not seem to support a single policy that Reagan supports ? Why is it that if Reagan runs for a presidential campaign today, he'd be blasted by the Republican base ? What the heck happened ?
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/opinion/wrath-of-the-conned.html

This is basically what I was going for on that George Will piece. People like Will simply don't know who's been voting on their side this whole time. They genuinely believe people like their policies, and they're clearly wrong on that.

Eh....I have to disagree with Kthug here. Where is he getting the idea that Republicans haven't tried to reward Republican voters for voting them in? After 2010, literally over one THOUSAND anti-abortion bills have been passed all over the country. At least fourteen states have enacted voter suppression laws to make sure "those people" don't vote. Republicans continue to make it easy for minorities to be put in jail, and difficult to prosecute police officers who kill them. They support banning muslims from coming into the country, and expand harsher penalties for illegal immigrants. Hell, even with medicare and SS, they tell their base that they'll somehow try to protect THEIR benefits and totally target others.

The only thing one can argue is that their shitty tax policies haven't benefited the base, which may be true. But that's just one policy that didn't work as they promised, out of countless ones that are working exactly as intended.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
On the local level republicans have done a ton in social policy, but national republican media doesn't tend to do victory laps when they achieve it like they did when Scott Walker passed right to work laws. Their progress on social issues would probably be completely ignored if not for liberal media pointing it out.

Nationally it really has felt like Republicans are looking at upcoming demographic changes and trying to slowly shift to solely being the supply side economics party, but as Krugman points out, that's not what republican voters are looking for.

But I wouldn't say they're looking for becoming solely a social party either, or else Cruz, Santorum, and Huckabee would be doing better. It's probably just the fact that racism is the glue that holds the billionaires and religious fundamentalists and everything in between together, and trump best represents that.
 
These things suck every year. Listen to a president deliver deadpan lines for 16 minutes that were written for him. Can you imagine a more soulless affair. Hillary will be as wooden at these as bo and bush were. You know, biden's set would kill though
 
These things suck every year. Listen to a president deliver deadpan lines for 16 minutes that were written for him. Can you imagine a more soulless affair. Hillary will be as wooden at these as bo and bush were. You know, biden's set would kill though

Eh, I thought Obama's delivery was good for the material that he had to work with.

However, Larry Wilmore was clearly the highlight of any year, imo. His speech was 100% SAVAGE and is the kind of excitement, shade, and awkwardness that I expect to come from a roasting.

If there were more speeches like Larry's every year, these dinners would be a hell of a lot more entertaining to watch.
 
It feels like you just say things that are obviously wrong to get people to argue with you. Sad!

Am I not allowed to have my own mind and opinions?

It's interesting that you say this, yet everyone I know personally found Larry to be absolutely hilarious this year.

Sorry if I'm not part of the hive mind. Actually, scratch that, I'm not sorry.
 

Paskil

Member
Diamond Joe da real MVP.

"I love Joe Biden, I really do. And I want to thank him for his friendship, for his counsel, for always giving it to me straight, for not shooting anybody in the face. Thank you, Joe."
 

besada

Banned
I described Larry as hilariously mean, rather than funny. Obama was hilarious, but Larry was brutal, to the point he was fine with being less funny to do so.

I don't think you necessarily have to shit on the crowd in one of these things, but it's hilarious to me when it happens.

And anyone willing to beat Blitzer that hard has my sword:)
 
You can have as many wrong opinions as you want.

Lol, OK


Nah dude, Larry was savage this year. I thought Obama was funnier, but Larry had way more bite.


I think I'd agree with Obama being funnier as well (based on wit and intellect). I just think that what Larry did was something I really enjoy about real roastings, so it was refreshing to see. Also, I actually thought that Larry's jokes were pretty damn funny, on a basic comedic level.

I described Larry as hilariously mean, rather than funny. Obama was hilarious, but Larry was brutal, to the point he was fine with being less funny to do so.

I don't think you necessarily have to shit on the crowd in one of these things, but it's hilarious to me when it happens.

And anyone willing to beat Blitzer that hard has my sword:)


I think the bolded perfectly sums up my impressions of the two.
 
Eh, I thought Obama's delivery was good for the material that he had to work with.

However, Larry Wilmore was clearly the highlight of any year, imo. His speech was 100% SAVAGE and is the kind of excitement, shade, and awkwardness that I expect to come from a roasting.

If there were more speeches like Larry's every year, these dinners would be a hell of a lot more entertaining to watch.

The press would just straight up stop showing up. They can't face that music.
 
I think that Tapper joke was the harshest/best. Willmore was good, but it's still not enough to make me watch his show.

Oh yeah, that Morning Joe joke was good too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom