• 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.
O

Orbis Tabula

Member
Is there a name or phrase that describes when something is legal, but it's basically assumed to be illegal by so many people that it may as well be illegal? I could swear there was a name for this.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
CiQRfmdUoAAVyrT.png


This map is brutal. Hopefully we can win a cushion this year.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Kristoffer said:
I do need to apologize to everyone in here, and especially to pigeon, after seeing this graph (white resentment toward blacks):

tgCUm1V.png


And also experiencing racism, personally, towards me, here in my hometown. Completely shocked me. Most white Republicans are racist on a significant level. Quantitatively.
Click to expand...

I wanted to go back and say sorry that you experienced that :(

Basically, like, the point I was originally trying to make in this discussion is that Donald Trump is meaningfully different from past candidates.

Every four years the GOP nominates a bunch of white men who are willing to quietly carry out implicitly racist policies while advocating for anodyne middle grounds like "worry about the deficit" or "stop crime."

This year they didn't do that. This year the GOP chose instead to nominate the guy who advocated for, and pushed, explicitly and aggressively racist policies.

That is a qualitative difference! That's a trend breaker. I think you could vote for, like, Mitt Romney, because you cared about taxes or whatever and only implicitly be supporting super racist policies that you didn't have to think about. I think that's still pretty racist but, you know, I get it. But Donald Trump isn't that guy. You actually have to make the affirmative pro-racism choice now. It's not the same as it was last time.
 
T

TheLostBigBoss

Banned
I know we shit on Sanders because he completely ignores the caucus shit, but I mean he's openly hinging his campaign on stealing Supers (somehow) to go to his side and go against the will of the party in both pledged delegates and popular vote because of polling against Trump.

"he's the stronger candidate!!!", yea well what about the will of the people?

It's funny watching the script flip and the tables turn etc.
 
J

jack_package_200

Banned
TheLostBigBoss said:
I know we shit on Sanders because he completely ignores the caucus shit, but I mean he's openly hinging his campaign on stealing Supers (somehow) to go to his side and go against the will of the party in both pledged delegates and popular vote because of polling against Trump.

"he's the stronger candidate!!!", yea well what about the will of the people?

It's funny watching the script flip and the tables turn etc.
Click to expand...

Its a "its okay if our guy does it" situation. Thye don't care if they ignore the will of the people as long as it gets Bernie the nom.
 
F

Four_Chamber

Member
More idiocy from Shaun "I'm trying to become HA Goodman" King

It seems like the meaningless GE polls are what is keeping those few diehards going

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/king-hillary-clinton-avoid-reality-polls-article-1.2634602

That's four polls released in 48 hours which all show Hillary struggling against Trump and Bernie performing significantly better.

Yesterday, FBI Director James Comey was forced to clarify that the Clinton campaign's characterization of their investigation into her email scandal as a "security inquiry," instead of a full fledged investigation, was simply wrong. Embarrassingly, Comey was then forced to say that he didn't even know what a "security inquiry" was — basically stating that the Clinton campaign made it all up.
Click to expand...

Oh look, more mentions of the FBI.
 
A

ampere

Member
pigeon said:
Every four years the GOP nominates a bunch of white men who are willing to quietly carry out implicitly racist policies while advocating for anodyne middle grounds like "worry about the deficit" or "stop crime."

This year they didn't do that. This year the GOP chose instead to nominate the guy who advocated for, and pushed, explicitly and aggressively racist policies.

That is a qualitative difference! That's a trend breaker. I think you could vote for, like, Mitt Romney, because you cared about taxes or whatever and only implicitly be supporting super racist policies that you didn't have to think about. I think that's still pretty racist but, you know, I get it. But Donald Trump isn't that guy. You actually have to make the affirmative pro-racism choice now. It's not the same as it was last time.
Click to expand...

This makes it even harder to talk about politics in work environments here in the south lol. I know a number of white "republicans" who probably support the nominee no matter what and do not want to be called a racist, or even that they're supporting a racist.

Gonna be an awkward bit of time for Dems in southern areas
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
jack_package_200 said:
They go for Bernie. Clearly those are more democratic and representitive of the will of the people /s
Click to expand...

I've actually heard this argument on reddit, and they weren't being sarcastic.

Their thought was that caucuses were uncorruptible, and more fair because there's no chance for fraud in a caucus. And that it was better because it showed the more dedicated candidate wins, versus one that wins on name recognition alone.

It was nonsense.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
whyamihere said:
So The Intercept thinks that Trump is more dovish than Hillary.

Are they now the National Review?
Click to expand...

They've been crap for a long time. From what I've heard and seen they're unwilling to publish anything that goes against their slant, no matter how dumb they need to be.
 
O

Orbis Tabula

Member
pigeon said:
I wanted to go back and say sorry that you experienced that :(

Basically, like, the point I was originally trying to make in this discussion is that Donald Trump is meaningfully different from past candidates.

Every four years the GOP nominates a bunch of white men who are willing to quietly carry out implicitly racist policies while advocating for anodyne middle grounds like "worry about the deficit" or "stop crime."

This year they didn't do that. This year the GOP chose instead to nominate the guy who advocated for, and pushed, explicitly and aggressively racist policies.

That is a qualitative difference! That's a trend breaker. I think you could vote for, like, Mitt Romney, because you cared about taxes or whatever and only implicitly be supporting super racist policies that you didn't have to think about. I think that's still pretty racist but, you know, I get it. But Donald Trump isn't that guy. You actually have to make the affirmative pro-racism choice now. It's not the same as it was last time.
Click to expand...

And, despite all that, some people are still trying to justify voting for him by brushing it away just like they would with Romney. It's pretty common now to hear "When has Trump ever done anything racist? Give me specific, quoted examples!" They use wiggle room with "he only hates the illegal Mexicans, that's not racism" and "technically, Muslim isn't a race. That's not racism!"

For a lot of people, they can't call something racism unless the person in question says the n-word.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
adam387 said:
Lawd of she wins Oregon I will lose my shit for real. I still think Bernie takes it just because the universe doesn't love me. Sad
Click to expand...

These numbers make no sense to me, the polling must be off somehow. It just seems like such fertile ground for Bernie, if he can't pull out a win there he really is dead.
 
T

TheLostBigBoss

Banned
B-Dubs said:
These numbers make no sense to me, the polling must be off somehow. It just seems like such fertile ground for Bernie, if he can't pull out a win there he really is dead.
Click to expand...

I honestly think his campaign is more dead than we all think and next week is going to be a big wake up to how fast everything fell apart.

When your campaign is dependent on interest and a constant flow of donations, and the donations is directly tied to interest... well then good luck when the interest dries up.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
The "HIllary is an extreme hawk" meme has really picked up steam.

Apparently because she's been in favor of the use of military forces in certain contexts.

This equates her with the "nuke em until they glow" and "let's go to war with Iran" crowd somehow.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
Baltimore's primary has been decertified

Linda H. Lamone, the administrator of the State Board of Elections, said officials became concerned when city officials found 80 provisional ballots that had not been analyzed, and an unusually high numbers of voters who checked in at polling places but never cast ballots.

"Baltimore City was not able to investigate and resolve this issues to our satisfaction," Lamone said. "We are doing a precinct-level review. We are doing this in fairness to the candidates and the voters."

Baltimore's primary elections produced a number of close races. State Sen. Catherine E. Pugh narrowly defeated former Mayor Sheila Dixon in the Democratic primary for mayor, and three City Council races were decided by a few hundred votes.
Click to expand...
 
U

User 463088

Banned
B-Dubs said:
These numbers make no sense to me, the polling must be off somehow. It just seems like such fertile ground for Bernie, if he can't pull out a win there he really is dead.
Click to expand...
Benchmarks said that Oregon has a relatively older population. It is closed which makes it harder for him. I also wonder if there reality of a Trump presidency pushes people towards the safer choice. If he's going to stay in it may no longer be safe to vote for him out of protest. Shit got real.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...blican-nomination-priebus-mcconnell/84271042/

WASHINGTON — Paul Ryan and Donald Trump pledged Thursday to work together to defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton in the fall general election -- though the Republican House speaker again stopped short of formally endorsing his party's presumptive presidential nominee.

"The United States cannot afford another four years of the Obama White House, which is what Hillary Clinton represents," Ryan and Trump said in a joint statement issued after their private meeting. "That is why it’s critical that Republicans unite around our shared principles, advance a conservative agenda, and do all we can to win this fall."

Ryan and Trump also said they were "honest about our few differences," and more discussions will be scheduled. They said they "remain confident there’s a great opportunity to unify our party and win this fall, and we are totally committed to working together to achieve that goal."

Speaking later with reporters, Ryan declined to answer directly whether he expects to endorse Trump, though he described his session with the New York businessman in unfailingly positive terms and gave every indication that this process is headed toward support.

“We’re off to a very good start,” Ryan said, and aides to him and Trump will be meeting "to just walk through the details” of their issue agendas. The House speaker said it is "no secret" that he and the presumptive nominee have their differences and full unity "takes more than 45 minutes."
Click to expand...


Sounds to me that there will be token support, but no real support. I also think that Trump will run on generic Republican policies plus his own.
 
S

sdijoseph

Member
I talked with my 86 year old grandfather the other day. He is super conservative, and gets all his news from Fox. He has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1952, and he isn't voting this year.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
TheLostBigBoss said:
I'm not in the know on this, is this a big deal in a way that could do major damage to ACA?
Click to expand...

Macho Madness said:
Any way that makes the law less effective will do that, yes. This will be appealed, though I don't know what the issues specifically is.
Click to expand...
The Affordable Care Act rewards insurers for pooling risk by paying them a subsidy. Congress never approved this spending and in fact has explicitly removed it from the budget. Thus the administration has illegally been spending money. This will be appealed but the court is correct because the administration has not been appropriated these funds.

This will raise premiums and the PPACA is looking more and more like the PPA.
 
D

digdug2k

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
The "HIllary is an extreme hawk" meme has really picked up steam.

Apparently because she's been in favor of the use of military forces in certain contexts.

This equates her with the "nuke em until they glow" and "let's go to war with Iran" crowd somehow.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand how much of a power hungry bitch she is. Its all she thinks about. "How can I attain the more power". Once she's obtained the presidency, I don't think there's really any doubt that the first thing she'll do is attack Canada at least.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
digdug2k said:
I don't think you understand how much of a power hungry bitch she is. Its all she thinks about. "How can I attain the more power". Once she's obtained the presidency, I don't think there's really any doubt that the first thing she'll do is attack Canada at least.
Click to expand...

Vince Foster saw this coming, obvs.

Look what happened to him.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
A U.S. judge on Thursday ruled in favor of congressional Republicans who challenged the Obama administration's implementation of President Barack Obama's healthcare law.

Washington-based U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, appointed by Republican former President George W. Bush, ruled that the administration, in implementing the law known as Obamacare, cannot spend funds that Congress did not appropriate. The ruling will not have an immediate effect on the 2010 law because the judge stayed the ruling pending appeal.
Click to expand...
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0Y32BB
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Kristoffer said:
The Affordable Care Act rewards insurers for pooling risk by paying them a subsidy. Congress never approved this spending and in fact has explicitly removed it from the budget. Thus the administration has illegally been spending money. This will be appealed but the court is correct because the administration has not been appropriated these funds.

This will raise premiums and the PPACA is looking more and more like the PPA.
Click to expand...

This is the same argument of the other case. It was never explicitly stated thus not word for word approved. This is also a decision by a former Reagan appointee to the NLRB and a Bush appointee

I mean this is pretty silly intentionally misconstruing one line in king v burwell because the court ended up siding with the government in its interpretation that. How can you not infer it ment to dispurse money when it authorized the program but left it out in authorization in another part? Congress's intent is clear and she's being obtuse.

“If the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms.”
King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2489 (2015). Although the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context,” id., the statutory provisions in this case are clear in isolation and in context. The Affordable Care Act unambiguously appropriates money for Section 1401 premium tax credits but not for Section 1402 reimbursements to insurers. Such an appropriation cannot be inferred. None of Secretaries’ extra-textual arguments—whether based on economics, “unintended” results, or legislative history—is persuasive. The Court will enter judgment in favor of the House of Representatives and enjoin the use of unappropriated monies to fund reimbursements due to insurers under Section 1402. The Court will stay its injunction, however, pending appeal by
either or both parties.
Click to expand...

anyways if this will be appealed to the SCOTUS it will be decided easily in favor. I doubt this even gets past an en banc ruling or circuit court.

That line she uses says yeah if its clear we enforce but when its not you side with the government if congresses intent can be inferred, she just says intent be inferred because reasons and that appropriations are different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DOTA2 |OT14| i give up like your pubs do
396 397 398 399 400
20K
906K
gai_shain replied
NeoGAF PlayStation Trophy Thread | 2016 Edition
17 18 19 20 21
1K
109K
Tizoc replied
XCOM: Enemy Within |OT| Your Soldiers Never Asked For This
16 17 18 19 20
959
118K
Nordicus replied
  • Locked
Best Buy to reduce anime inventory in 80% of stores
2 3 4 5
203
20K
djtiesto replied
  • Locked
Top 1000 Internet Searches (short term)
NSFW 2
77
27K
CabbageRed replied
Top Bottom