-
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
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Aaron Strife
Banned
Owowowowowow.
If that held Hillary would have a lead of more than 400 pledged delegates after all's said and done.
Bernie would need to win almost 80% of the superdelegates to overturn that. Yeah keep fucking that chicken.
Good Economist article on trade costs:
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ly-trade-its-costs-have-been-amplified-policy
Well researched article on mitigating the sectors negatively impacted by trade.
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ly-trade-its-costs-have-been-amplified-policy
Well researched article on mitigating the sectors negatively impacted by trade.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I want to know this too, as I thought the same thing.
brainchild
Banned
The problem is that the money was transferred almost immediately to the DNC from the state parties, not that the DNC is spending the money. It's not like the state parties wouldn't want to keep that money to help the downticket, which is the whole point of the money going to them in the first place.
The other problem is that most of the money spent directly by the Hillary Victory Fund was used to the direct benefit of the Clinton campaign, either in online advertisements or campaign staffing.
These actions can be seen as exploitations of campaign finance laws and allows the Clinton campaign to circumvent campaign contribution limits.
Of course, all of this is perfectly legal, but it's a question of ethics more than anything else.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
You did not address any of the questions asked.
Box of Kittens
Banned
But if he doesn't have the support of enough delegates (he doesn't) then Hillary still wins on the first ballot and it's not a contested convention in any meaningful sense.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Sanders doesn't seem to realize this, considering he's throwing around accusations of money laundering.
brainchild
Banned
You do not seem to understand any of the points I addressed, like this one
brainchild said:
The Sanders campaign isn't complaining that the DNC is spending money on Hillary.
I agree. Money-laundering is a false allegation. 'An equivalent to money laundering' would be more appropriate.
Hobbestetrician
Member
Old white men who made tons of money yelling at unpaid, young (mostly) black men support Trump? No way.
Box of Kittens
Banned
I don't disagree. But if he wins Indiana (and it looks like he's going to) then Cruz's battle in California becomes even more uphill and his numbers are looking terrible there too. Barring major polling error or a collapse, the question seems to be just how far Trump will blow past 1237.
Basileus777
Member
Cruz is toast, the question is whether he can recover from this to compete in 2020.
eBay Huckster
Member
i mean that he's guaranteeing something that flat-out isn't happening because clinton's winning on the first ballot, though
The Lamonster
Member
He's going to be laughed out of the group early on next time, just like the other Republican jokesters that ran last cycle and tried again this cycle.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
That doesn't make any sense. She's not money-laundering she's just doing the equivalent of money laundering? If it's equivalent then it's the same. It would be one thing if money laundering was a generalized term or a catch-all, but it's kind of the opposite, it's a very specific term for a very particular crime.
It always bothers me when discourse defaults to hyperbole when you can something factual that retains the same impact. She's exploiting gaps or loopholes campaign finance laws. That's bad enough as written.
Box of Kittens
Banned
It's the media's fault for not spinning his strategy of trying to steal the nomination more positively.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I hope he does. I have concerns for Hillary's viability in 2020.
God I hope not. I want Cruz to crash and burn so hard he dares not run again. I've had to look at that human blobfish's face enough for one lifetime.
brainchild
Banned
'Equivalent' simply means 'having equal value or effect', not that two or more things are exactly the same.
You and I could have equal value as human beings, but it wouldn't make us the same person.
Brainchild is just splitting hairs here for the sake of perception, it's very Bernie like of him.
I don't think the freedom caucus like group that surrounds cruz will have the sway to get him elected to office.
Trump taking over the way that he did I think is proof that religiously backed social conservatism may win you Iowa in January but it isn't going to get you a seat at the table.
The Lamonster
Member
The post-Trump GOP is going to give her a free reelection either way.
BOY THE SUPERS ARE GOING TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE NOW
Black Mamba
Member
You mean 22?
Obama beat Romney 60-37. Basically the same as Obama-McCain.
I could see Hillary beating Trump by more by sheer fact of increased hispanic turnout + effectively over race and the late hours seeing a lack of GOP voters.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that one of the defining characteristics of humanity (racism and misogyny) is not caused by black women saying that thug is racist.
Was Andrew Jackson empowered by minority identity politics when he massacred all of those Native Americans or something?
Was Andrew Jackson empowered by minority identity politics when he massacred all of those Native Americans or something?
Basileus777
Member
Eh, it's not hard to imagine the GOP getting a candidate through the primary that could contend with what is likely to be a vulnerable Democratic incumbent in 2020. It'll be another dangerous year especially as the GOP is likely to walk away with control over both houses of Congress in 2018.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The genie isn't going back in the bottle. They're never going to be able to power Ben Sasse through the primary when some asshole like Duncan Hunter will probably run on the "take benefits away from black people and give them to white people" platform. People know that open and loud bigotry can win them a primary and they'll exploit that now.
brainchild
Banned
Lol, no. I would never accuse the Clinton campaign of money laundering, for starters.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
That's a contortion dependent on a limited mathematical definition. Yes 2+2 = 4 and that is equivalent to 6-2 = 4. The thing we're interested in though is not 2+2 or 6-2, it's the resulting value of four. Language operates on a larger scale and just about any layman's use of the word would implicitly invoke "having the same meaning/use", see Miriam Webster.
And even if we took your rather limited definition it still doesn't make sense. If she's doing something with the same value or effect of money laundering, then it should have the same effect as it no (it should add up to "four")? Please explain how her actions have transformed the proceeds of criminal conduct to mask their origin.
We may have equivalent value as human beings, but you wouldn't describe us as equivalent human beings because that's comparing two very different things. You would say our value is equivalent, not ourselves. Similarly, you would not describe Hillary's actions as being equivalent with the actions of money laundering. Perhaps motivation or intention, but not the actions themselves.
Macho Madness
Member
I just got a call from the Bernie campaign.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Oh, nevermind.
BotoxAgent
Member
*gasp* establishment shill! follow the money!
Aren't you voting for Trump
GAF, as a voter in tomorrow's IN primary, I have SUPREME POWER in shaping the outcome of this race (or so the media would have me believe). How best to utilize my vote?
I want a dem in the White House, and I realize that Hillary is destined to get the nom. I like a lot of what Sanders has to say, and I like that he's helped to get Hilldawg talking about the issues he's been championing, but I don't like the way he's been handling his campaign for the past month or so.
On the GOP side, I mostly don't care who gets the nom (since I expect any of them to get wrecked come Nov), but I really, really don't want it to go to Cruz. Dude is human garbage.
Right now I am leaning toward voting for Bernie, but maybe I should vote for Trump to help make sure he gets things pretty much locked up? But I also sort of abhor the idea of engaging in this kind of political gamesmanship.
I want a dem in the White House, and I realize that Hillary is destined to get the nom. I like a lot of what Sanders has to say, and I like that he's helped to get Hilldawg talking about the issues he's been championing, but I don't like the way he's been handling his campaign for the past month or so.
On the GOP side, I mostly don't care who gets the nom (since I expect any of them to get wrecked come Nov), but I really, really don't want it to go to Cruz. Dude is human garbage.
Right now I am leaning toward voting for Bernie, but maybe I should vote for Trump to help make sure he gets things pretty much locked up? But I also sort of abhor the idea of engaging in this kind of political gamesmanship.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Trump it up.
I don't see that we're much more poorly equipped to handle a demagogue now than we've ever been. The basic argument seems to me to fail the Mad Libs test - you could find and replace Trump with a bunch of other historical candidates and come up with equally convincing pieces.
(2) in particular strikes me as questionable, or at least non-noteworthy. Every few decades we have very large segments of the population experiencing deep resentment being a big factor in politics. Actually I think right now this is at something of a low point. The resentment is just more visible because the people experiencing it are feeling a loss of control - there used to be more of them.
On (3) I think it's just as easy to argue that stealing the nomination from him fails to discredit him in a way that him getting his ass kicked by the voters would.
Honestly I think the real danger here is that lots of people who really don't like Trump very much nevertheless end up voting for him because of political polarization. The problem is that the official Republican position is that, yes, Trump is a con-man, a racist, a liberal, and basically Hitler, but he's better than Hillary Clinton. And most of the prominent people saying this don't believe it - I bet Romney and Rubio vote for Clinton. Trump really wouldn't be dangerous at all if mainstream Republicans were allowed to say that they think he should absolutely not be president even if the alternative is a Democrat. Sullivan's idea that the Republicans should do absolutely everything they can to deny Trump the nomination is a total non-starter if they can't do that, but it's also totally unnecessary if they can.
Just vote for who you want to.
Or if you want to engage in PURE FUCKERY go for Trump.
Seriously though, vote for whoever you want. Just be sure to check and see if there's any congressional primaries on your ballot and vote in those as well. Go check here. There's a lot of people in various congressional primaries this year.
- Status