• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
This has been shown to be untrue many times. Hillary didn't want the SoS job - she had to be talked into it by both Bill and Obama. She was only offered it after he secured his win - there was no discussion beforehand. She went back to the senate and tried to set up a health care reform panel.

Clinton backed him because she put the country ahead of her pride. To suggest she did it because of a job offer is to ignore every single account of what went down, from numerous sources, just to disparage someone's character.

I don't think she did it "just" because of the job. She obviously cared about the country and the party before herself. But, I mean more so the degree of it. If she was someone who wasn't interested in being part of the future of the party, like Sanders, it would be harder to have her make that come around.

Lack of leverage over Sanders is the big issue. He really isn't interested at all in any part of the democratic party that isn't him controlling it all. Its hard to contain someone like that and get them to move closer to you. We are not going to see a Sanders that basically looks like someone who is an arm of the Clinton administration like Hillary was for the Obama administration partly for that reason.
 

Ophelion

Member
:lol

Who here is Sckript? Fess up.

You know it's gotta be some OT rando who got slapped around for talking the talk when they can't walk the walk.

If anyone from r/s4p is reading this, come and join us! We spend all day talking about how best to rig elections and bribe politicians into doing what we want, it's great :p

And, I mean, you're not even American, are you? FRAUD!
 
I don't think she did it "just" because of the job. She obviously cared about the country and the party before herself. But, I mean more so the degree of it. If she wasn't someone who was interested in being part of the future of the party, like Sanders, it would be harder to have her make that come around.

Lack of leverage over Sanders is the big issue. He really isn't interested at all in any part of the democratic party that isn't him controlling it all. Its hard to contain someone like that and get them to move closer to you. We are not going to see a Sanders that basically looks like someone who is an arm of the Clinton administration like Hillary was for the Obama administration partly for that reason.

Frankly he probably at most endorses her about as far as saying she's better than Trump and then fucks off back to Vermont.

I have no faith in him actually working to help defeat Trump if he's not the guy in charge. We'll see though.
 

Cerium

Member
e5DKyUT.png


They're on to us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This warms my heart.
 

Holmes

Member
I would not be surprised if he struggled to get above 30% in the general in any of the West coast States.
The enough rural areas in eastern WA and OR that I can see Trump getting 35-40% in those states. Lots of African-Americans, Asians and latinos here in California that it'll be a bloodbath. Like maybe 65 - 32.
 

royalan

Member
Watching MSNBC...I don't understand how media pundits insist that you should take their opinions seriously as informed in one breath, but in the next breath display astonishingly selective memory.

"As the Democratic front runner, Hillary really should have put Bernie away by now."

1) Do they not remember that the Democratic primary process is formulated to encourage drawn out primaries? And that with an all-proportional system, short of an absolute (and improbable) blow-out, the main thing that makes losing candidates drop out is an acceptance of reality and lack of funds? And, when a candidate isn't constrained by reality and money, they can stay in the race for as long as they want regardless of how badly they're getting stomped by the front runner?

2) Did they forget that Hillary won a string of contests towards end of the primary in 08, and Obama wasn't considered a "soft front runner" for it? If anything, it contributed to Hillary being seen as delusional.

ugh...
 

Armaros

Member
Watching MSNBC...I don't understand how media pundits insist that you should take their opinions seriously as informed in one breath, but in the next breath displace astonishingly selective memory.

"As the Democratic front runner, Hillary really should have put Bernie away by now."

1) Do they not remember that the Democratic primary process is formulated to encourage drawn out primaries? And that with an all-proportional system, short of an absolute (and improbable) blow-out, the main thing that makes losing candidates drop out is an acceptance of reality and lack of funds? And, when a candidate isn't constrained by reality and money, they can stay in the race for as long as they regardless of how badly they're getting stomped by the front runner?

2) Did they forget that Hillary won a string of contests towards end of the primary in 08, and Obama wasn't considered a "soft front runner" for it? If anything, it contributed to Hillary being seen as delusional.

ugh...

They need talking points behind Hillay will easily win even if the primary takes forever as it designed to do.
 
Watching MSNBC...I don't understand how media pundits insist that you should take their opinions seriously as informed in one breath, but in the next breath displace astonishingly selective memory.

"As the Democratic front runner, Hillary really should have put Bernie away by now."

1) Do they not remember that the Democratic primary process is formulated to encourage drawn out primaries? And that with an all-proportional system, short of an absolute (and improbable) blow-out, the main thing that makes losing candidates drop out is an acceptance of reality and lack of funds? And, when a candidate isn't constrained by reality and money, they can stay in the race for as long as they regardless of how badly they're getting stomped by the front runner?

2) Did they forget that Hillary won a string of contests towards end of the primary in 08, and Obama wasn't considered a "soft front runner" for it? If anything, it contributed to Hillary being seen as delusional.

ugh...

And she has put him away, Sanders has been put away for months. What is she supposed to do force him out? Have him killed lol?

She can't exactly force an ideologue who doesn't really give a fuck from shutting down his campaign.
 

Armaros

Member
And she has put him away, Sanders has been put away for months. What is she supposed to do force him out? Have him killed lol?

She can't exactly force an ideologue who doesn't really give a fuck from shutting down his campaign.

No one in the media wants to bring up that any normal politician would have thrown in the towel with this kind of deficit.
 

Maledict

Member
I don't think she did it "just" because of the job. She obviously cared about the country and the party before herself. But, I mean more so the degree of it. If she was someone who wasn't interested in being part of the future of the party, like Sanders, it would be harder to have her make that come around.

Lack of leverage over Sanders is the big issue. He really isn't interested at all in any part of the democratic party that isn't him controlling it all. Its hard to contain someone like that and get them to move closer to you. We are not going to see a Sanders that basically looks like someone who is an arm of the Clinton administration like Hillary was for the Obama administration partly for that reason.

You're not understanding. She wasn't offered the job until after the election was over and Obama had won. There was nothing on the table for her - in fact, she made it quite clear she didn't want anything. She wanted to go back to the senate, lick her wounds and figure out what she wanted.

By implying that she only supported Obama because she'd get something in return you again imply she's somehow corrupt and a lesser person - ignoring both the fact she didn't want this job, nor was offered it (or anything), AND the fact she's spent years of her life volunteering to do stuff, going by decades.

If Bernie wanted the right thing for the country he'd be attacking Trump and the republicans, not engaged in this vile tacit approval of criminal acts that is doing nothing but weaken the democratic nominee and strengthen Trump. As much as she loathed Obama in 2008, and with nothing on the table, Clinton did the right thing - the fact that the morally pure Bernie isn't capable of half as much is telling as to his character.
 

CDX

Member
Posted this over in the May U.S. Primary thread. But thought I'd post it here too.




The votes so far (grabbed the image from Twitter)

4utR9Jo.png


Hillary Clinton: 13.3 million
Donald Trump: 11.2 million
Bernie Sanders: 10.4 million
Ted Cruz: 7.4 million
John Kasich: 3.9 million
Marco Rubio: 3.5 million
 
No one in the media wants to bring up that any normal politician would have thrown in the towel with this kind of deficit.

Someone on CNN did call him Don Quixote yelling at windmills tonight lo and said he was taking his supporters on a fantasy trip.

Too late for that though, media should have been saying this at least since NY if not before.

Ugh they re-aired that Weaver interview and afterwards instead of talking about how he refused to take responsibility vis a vis rhetoric or even really acknowledge what happened to Lange or offer support or an apology and instead tripled down on fraud claims, the CNN people just laughed at themselves and said "heh he's not biting on that" and went to break.... news media is just as accountable in promoting harassment when they refuse to hold people like Weaver to the fire
 
I failed to do so. I set up a sell order in the low 90s and went to go watch a movie. Returning was a traumatic experience.
Amen. I think a lot of this is based on the vote percentage being reported by the New York Times, but that's based on 2008 turnout. No way that's true. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Btw meant 80, not 8.
 

Trancos

Member
Amen. I think a lot of this is based on the vote percentage being reported by the New York Times, but that's based on 2008 turnout. No way that's true. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Btw meant 80, not 8.

The NYT % is from AP who is estimating the total from the number of early voting ballots.
 
I'm sorry but my favorite thing on MSNBC tonight was the Bernie supporter claiming that the NV fiasco was because thy were hungry. Maybe they need a Snickers or something?
 

Maxim726X

Member
And she has put him away, Sanders has been put away for months. What is she supposed to do force him out? Have him killed lol?

She can't exactly force an ideologue who doesn't really give a fuck from shutting down his campaign.

Ratings.

With the Republican nomination wrapped up, Sanders gives the pundits something to talk about.
 

Tamanon

Banned
I'm sorry but my favorite thing on MSNBC tonight was the Bernie supporter claiming that the NV fiasco was because thy were hungry. Maybe they need a Snickers or something?

To be fair, she also said they were drunk too because of the bars!
 

ampere

Member
Rhetorically, sure.

But for all the talk of Clinton's candidacy weakness against a grumpy old socialist her strength is shown in that she has moved in actual policy very little.

Her policy shop formulated her platform a year ago after wide consultation.

Ironically I initially praised Bernie for "bringing Hillary to the left" but she's already been pretty far left and hasn't had to move much.

If not supporting single payer makes you a "conservative" well... it really just makes you a realist.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I am starting to think Bernie is delusional enough to run third party even though he said he wouldn't.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
I'd rather not. Why would anyone listen to those guys on anything? They were incoherent in the written word on IGN and at least then they had editors!
 

ampere

Member

Rikudo

Banned
Summary of what they say? :)

Hillary hate, untrustworthy,etc. 1 or 2 of them think Trump will win the GE and Trump shouldn't be underestimated. Obama was a disappointment. And the hope for a 3rd party run from someone else. Seems like the typical San Francisco white straight liberal type viewpoint ignoring non-whites and LGBT votes/viewpoints.
 

CCS

Banned
Hillary hate, untrustworthy,etc. 1 or 2 of them think Trump will win the GE and Trump shouldn't be underestimated. Obama was a disappointment. And the hope for a 3rd party run from someone else. Seems like the typical San Francisco white straight liberal type viewpoint ignoring non-whites and LGBT votes/viewpoints.

You know what, I'm shocked that not particularly talented straight white male games journalists would have views like that.

Shocked I tell you.

Thanks for the summary :)
 

Rikudo

Banned
I'd rather not. Why would anyone listen to those guys on anything? They were incoherent in the written word on IGN and at least then they had editors!

Yeah...used to like these guys but now I see they have no idea what they're talking about :/
Learned A LOT from reading the PoliGAF threads. <3 ya'll.
 
It's nice Bernie is riding the crazy train now. It means his entire group is pretty much going to be just the niche of the niche, meaning their impact will be negligible. His response yesterday and his "victory" speech last night help paint him as delusional and bitter, and weakens his arguments.

Ultimately, it'd be nice if he dropped out ASAP, but I think his actual influence on the general election is quickly fading away as he proves himself to be more and more irrelevant.
 
How the FUCK did I end up on the wall of shame??!!! Wasn't I banned for most of the time?!!

So much for staying under the radar...
 

gcubed

Member
It's nice Bernie is riding the crazy train now. It means his entire group is pretty much going to be just the niche of the niche, meaning their impact will be negligible. His response yesterday and his "victory" speech last night help paint him as delusional and bitter, and weakens his arguments.

Ultimately, it'd be nice if he dropped out ASAP, but I think his actual influence on the general election is quickly fading away as he proves himself to be more and more irrelevant.

I think his influence is fading yes, but he's damaging his "brand"/ideology. You have the true believers who excuse everything but he's getting all kinds of voters to turn on him and the media is killing him. I just hope he doesn't ruin the movement at this point
 

ampere

Member
So I clicked on one of the old thread links in the OP and was perusing an old article about Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court. I recall when she was being appointed I was quite irritated with a couple of her statements, and it's interesting to reread them with my current perspective, almost 7 years later, and think about how I have a different reaction now.

I considered her qualified to be on the court, but her statement below irked me. I remember discussing it with two of my roommates (both also white males, though I voted for Obama and they voted for McCain) at the time and we were all pretty "ugh".

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life"

I guess I felt... offended. Like that she thinks being a Latina woman made her better than me. I didn't like the thought of someone thinking they were better than me based on who I was born as, which was something I couldn't control.

I certainly realize now that her background and struggles and different situation absolutely give her a different perspective, and honestly I think she would reach a more fair conclusion than someone who has lived a much cushier life. Not actually experiencing poverty, racism, and sexism firsthand can make it a lot more difficult to understand how impactful these barriers can be. I don't think she is trying to disparage white men, she's just trying to say that the voice that she brings is not being heard and it is disenfranchising certain demographics. This is related to my opinion at that time that affirmative action was a negative thing, while now I see the benefit of it.

It's interesting to look at personal growth and view change over time, and I think it's also helpful to look back so that I can remember how I felt to better convey my current stance to someone who may disagree. Just wanted to share
 
Hillary hate, untrustworthy,etc. 1 or 2 of them think Trump will win the GE and Trump shouldn't be underestimated. Obama was a disappointment. And the hope for a 3rd party run from someone else. Seems like the typical San Francisco white straight liberal type viewpoint ignoring non-whites and LGBT votes/viewpoints.
Colin's Twitter handle is @notaxation that tells you all you need to know
 

Emarv

Member
Colin's Twitter handle is @notaxation that tells you all you need to know
Colin's also the only one who would know the name Paul Ryan out of that group, so they all just defer to his "political expertise" on these types of videos. It's really funny and sad. It's basically a freshman dorm room come to life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom