-
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 |OT6| Delete your accounts
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Dammit, I nearly chocked on my lunch laughing at this!She's out of control
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Them some 🔥🔥🔥🔥 takes.
nature boy
Member
Tag team Trump, Clinton takes the sane people and Johnson steals the crazies.
If wonder if the Trump campaign will want to change the moderators.
Box of Kittens
Banned
They often go hand-in-hand because a lot of Bernie or Busters have decided that the SCOTUS only matters for those "irrelevant" social issues.
RastaMentality
Banned
Or maybe the campaign gave her that language *wink*
hammysaurusrex
Member
FOIA certainly has some problems; for example, special interest groups using FOIA requests to harass and produce a chilling effect on researchers and scientists they dislike. That being said, it is an important feature for promoting transparency in government too.
There does need to be some kind checks and balance, and I think intention of how the information will be used should matter. Actual political entities need to be held accountable, but we shouldn't let, say, the Food Babe use FOIA requests to torpedo the career of a GMO researcher.
There does need to be some kind checks and balance, and I think intention of how the information will be used should matter. Actual political entities need to be held accountable, but we shouldn't let, say, the Food Babe use FOIA requests to torpedo the career of a GMO researcher.
I really wish I could get inside of the head of so called undecided voters. Warren delivers an articulate speech with specific evidence about Trump's qualifications and Trump's response is essentially "she's a stupid dummy head and she smells amirite?"
At this point in the game how can anyone be undecided? You either think that person should be president (and his followers comments on YouTube are just amazing - "whoa, Donald totally buried her!") or you are horrified.
At this point in the game how can anyone be undecided? You either think that person should be president (and his followers comments on YouTube are just amazing - "whoa, Donald totally buried her!") or you are horrified.
"Small man" definitely stood out to me...
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Independent != undecided/non partisan
People were complaining about Bernie's "down-ticket support" but fucking rofl at Trump's
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...maybe_ill_run_for_governor_of_new_mexico.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...maybe_ill_run_for_governor_of_new_mexico.html
nature boy
Member
Clinton +12 Wisconsin.
Abinash117
Member
I think that is what mostly makes up many young liberals. I honestly think that this isn't a new thing we just no seeing it expressed and it being more obvious now. There are liberals whom are 100% focused on economic injustice and think that it trickles down later to social issues. The progressiveness portion is that as time moves on things naturally get more progressive. There are liberals that are sympathetic to social issues, but still think socioeconomic issues should be the prime focus and then everything falls into place. I bet this people think that focusing hugely on social issues distracts from economic issues.
I bet those two groups are what makes up Bernie's support and the rhetoric from so-called liberals that support Donald Trump. It makes sense in a way that to them Hillary represents crony capitalism, neoliberalism, big business, and the establishment. They are prioritizing economic issues over social issues by a lot. That is what you get some posters who excuse his racist/fascist/bigoted speak or they just ignore either brushing it off as him not be serious, or something like that.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
post dem sources
Sorry, undecided is really what I meant.
To be clear, it's not specific to young liberals. MLK complained about this in a jail cell in Birmingham like half a century ago.
People are bad at understanding privilege. We would like to imagine we have overcome this but we only get temporary victories, because new people with privilege keep turning up.
Armoured Priest
Member
That's interesting...other than Bush Jr's first election, the one with the higher unfavorables ended up winning the election.
Hopefully, trump's are so bad that he loses in spite of that observation.
balladofwindfishes
Member
So on Facebook it's now "the State Department says Hillary will be indicted!"
ugh...
ugh...
Aaron Strife
Banned
Sanders may not be too concerned with the downticket but hey, at least he doesn't actively antagonize them like Trump does.
Now there's someone who really doesn't have any skin in the game. Sanders at least nominally needs Democrats in the Senate if he wants to pass anything.
That's considerably better than Obama did in 2012. I don't think the speculation about Trump being really strong in the rust belt is going to matter all that much - I could see him doing better than Romney in those areas but there's not much population there anyway compared to the suburbs and cities where Clinton would be expected to pick up votes en masse.
Yup. A lot of people see the economic issues as the end-all-be-all despite the fact the reason we make little to no progress on them is due to social issues.
Thats not true, economic issues and divides between income have widened in the past couple years while some progress has been made on social issues. They are related, but one does not depend on the other
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
If Trump isn't closing the gap or ahead in places where he absolutely needs to win with
1) Clinton still kinda dealing with Sanders and his supporters
2) Trump clinching the nomination weeks ago gaining the support of basically every republican who was "I don't like Trump but I'll make suer Clinton isn't in office" in polls
3) Clinton not having the nomination and having Obama and Co. actively stumping for her
then what chance is he going to have once #1 and #3 kick into motion and we go into full GE mode?
1) Clinton still kinda dealing with Sanders and his supporters
2) Trump clinching the nomination weeks ago gaining the support of basically every republican who was "I don't like Trump but I'll make suer Clinton isn't in office" in polls
3) Clinton not having the nomination and having Obama and Co. actively stumping for her
then what chance is he going to have once #1 and #3 kick into motion and we go into full GE mode?
And Bush sr's reelection against Clinton...
Hobbestetrician
Member
Very little to none would be nice.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah if polling still looks like this in October then I'll be worried. But it's silly to diablos about it now when Trump is benefiting from total party unity and Clinton is not.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
And Gore
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Who gives a shit about Whitewater?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-target-hillary-clinton-whitewater-223570
Spicer translated: "I want to die."
User 463088
Banned
Although she has gotten better on her shitty LGBT stances, I have not seen her have a massive come to Jesus moment when it comes to her comments on Islam. I'm not comfortable with her leading the DNC. If the argument is DWS is too partisan, than swinging in the opposite direction towards Gabbard is not the solution.
I don't think that DWS should be replaced before the convention, to be honest. I have no issue with us getting rid of her once all is said and done, though. I'd prefer to see someone with the requisite experience in the role. Putting Gabbard in there to make Bernie feel good is not the direction we should take the party, in my opinion. I would prefer to see a DNC chair that has some clout on the national stage. DWS didn't, and I don't see Gabbard having it either.
And, I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a problem with the Independent Senator from Vermont trying to decide who leads the Democratic party.
Edit: To be clear, this is not a cross I'm willing to die on. I've been critical of her prior to her endorsement of Bernie.
This ignores a lot of facts. A big part of the reason people fight against the social safety net is racism. Remember Reagan and the Welfare Queens? Or how about how Social Security didn't cover African-Americans when it was first passed since they couldn't get it done otherwise.
A huge part of the reason we go nowhere on economic issues is racist people don't want black people to get those benefits and are willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Only 90s kids will remember this
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
I'm a 90's kid and I definitely don't remember it
balladofwindfishes
Member
I was too, and I still don't know what Whitewater is. But I was 10 in 2000 when the 90s ended, so maybe that's excusable.
Is Trump just following a checklist of 90s "scandals" day by day? Is that his plan, to just barrage her with as many scandals from a bygone era that he can?
Is Trump just following a checklist of 90s "scandals" day by day? Is that his plan, to just barrage her with as many scandals from a bygone era that he can?
He's burning through these topics awfully fast and we haven't even gotten to the convention. Is he going to rotate them over and over so they stay fresh or something?
Whitewater?
Comedy or not, SNL did the BEST Whitewater explainer video ever. One of my favorite SNL songs of all time.
Rockers Help to Explain Whitewater
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/cold-opening-whitewater-explained/n10559
(Be on the lookout for Phil Hartman as Elton John, Chris Farley as Jerry Garcia, Kevin Nealon as Michael Bolton, and Sarah Silverman doing a fantastic Cher impersonation.)
After this, you'll actually come away with a better understanding of the issue. It's downright impressive.
User 463088
Banned
Hillary's picked up 12 more Super Delegates making her 78 delegates short of securing the nomination.
Yeah but it doesn't explain why ceo income has gone up 300% while avg worker income has barely gone up at all, income inequality is the highest it's been, millinals have the most percentage of people living with parents since others in the same age group since the 1880s, the huge student loan debt, the lack of fulfilling jobs, the destruction of unions etc etc. There has been no progress on economic issues, we are going backwords
Is trump going to continue to bring stuff that happened in the last 25 years or so to beat Hilary Clinton in GE? The good thing is Clinton's not going to answer to anything he brings up about her past.
User 463088
Banned
I'll pray for you.
He has a checklist lol.
Abinash117
Member
I don't think it is specific to young liberals. It is just that many young liberals think that and it makes up a good portion of Bernie's support, and explains reasons why some might vote Trump over Hillary. If they brought that up they might be viewed as racist. I say they might be more stubborn about since they lack the true understanding of it; many older Americans have all seen it or went through experiences of it. I also think that that young white liberals know of privilege they just think solving economic problems is the solution to everything else. I believe it is simplistic, dangerous, and ignorant.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Gabbard's foreign policy stances are pretty strange. She's simultaneously strongly isolationist and hawkish. She wants immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria and the like, and while she constantly attacks Obama for being weak on radical Islamism, I don't think she has any definite policy proposals - what does she even want the US to do if she doesn't think it should give reconstruction funds and shouldn't use force but at the same time thinks the problem has to be tackled? It's not even like I can disagree with her views as whole because they're not coherent, they simply don't sit together and you can't meaningfully hold all of them at once, you have to piecemeal out where she has a point and where she's gone completely AWOL. It's a real shame, because foreign policy aside, she has a sterling stances on other issues. She's a real puzzler, I'm certainly interested to see how her career progresses.
Mind you, that makes the chairship not a bad place, because let's face it, foreign affairs is the one issue in American politics that is thankfully relatively unifocal - if you're not the president or part of their clique, you're just a voice in the wind.
I'm not even sure she'd take it if she has presidential ambitions, though.
Mind you, that makes the chairship not a bad place, because let's face it, foreign affairs is the one issue in American politics that is thankfully relatively unifocal - if you're not the president or part of their clique, you're just a voice in the wind.
I'm not even sure she'd take it if she has presidential ambitions, though.
nature boy
Member
Yeah that's the Trump effect. Don't think he's going to waste a lot of time with Wisconsin.
PA is going to be a big fight, it's critical in any path for Trump and it's close. Both campaigns are going to spend a lot of time there.
Don't think he has a shot in Michigan, home boy Romney lost by 10.
Ohio is another battle. Hopefully there's a distance in FL so the Dems can save resources for Ohio and PA.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked