• 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.
P

pigeon

Banned
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
The average liberal does not know what intersectionality is, let alone support it, even unconsciously. It's a comparatively new concept, and, frankly, one that could end up being a flash in the pan.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. Intersectionality is literally the basis of Obama's coalition, so yeah, most American liberals absolutely support it. Nor do I think the likelihood of it being a fad is particularly high, since it is simply a very straightforward recognition of the fact that there are multiple overlapping areas of privilege. It may be a new concept, but it's not a new thing. People just didn't talk about it in the same way. But for the same reason that Marxist economics isn't going anywhere because nobody else has come up with a good way to explain why being a peasant sucks, I wouldn't expect intersectionality to go anywhere.
 
E

Emarv

Member
He's a progressive. Fluent in Spanish. Policy wonk. Doesn't lose them a Senate Seat. Decent enough orator. The only two downsides I hear from people when I pitch it are "who?" or "he's not handsome enough". Then I just end the conversation.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Oh look, the right begins eating their own

erikpaulsen_zps2f6wiuop.png


Get fucked, asshole
 
S

smurfx

get some go again
TheLostBigBoss said:
So why is Trump in California right now?

Has anyone actually explained what he's doing there instead of being in places like

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida...
Click to expand...
wasn't some intel guy supposed to be throwing a fundraiser for him but cancelled it? trump might have been coming over for that and decided to come anyway even if it was cancelled. although i'm sure there are still people in cali that are willing to help fund him or his super pacs.
 
N

Nazgul_Hunter

Member
Plinko said:
Sadly, this probably doesn't hurt him much.
Click to expand...

People keep saying this because of the Republican primary, but the GE electorate is way different.

What's the definition of hurt? I think these statements have lowered the likelihood that he will become president by a noticeable bit.
 
T

Teggy

Member
If every week leading into the convention is a tire fire like this one, I wonder if Priebus just says fuck it and changes the convention rules to oust Trump. I seriously think that could be less damaging to the party than letting him run if this stuff continues.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Emarv said:
He's a progressive. Fluent in Spanish. Policy wonk. Doesn't lose them a Senate Seat. Decent enough orator. The only two downsides I hear from people when I pitch it are "who?" or "he's not handsome enough". Then I just end the conversation.
Click to expand...
They're good reasons. Every Democratic vice presidential candidate has had national recognition since...

Wow, it goes way back. Yeah, and all have been Senators.

The Vice Presidency is a position with none of the responsibility but nearly all of the authority of the Presidency itself. When Joe Biden goes to handle projects for Obama, it's as if the president is there himself. So yeah, Perez would be historically unprecedented (in recency). I would expect a governor or a senator (and most probably a senator) before a... cabinet member. What you have to ask yourself before you pick a VP is "is this man fit to be president". Perez is a sidekick. Biden, Edwards, Lieberman, Gore, and Bentsen were all well qualified to be presidents. For that reason, I don't know if even Warren makes the cut.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Teggy said:
If every week leading into the convention is a tire fire like this one, I wonder if Priebus just says fuck it and changes the convention rules to oust Trump. I seriously think that could be less damaging to the party than letting him run if this stuff continues.
Click to expand...

Everyone who endorsed him would look like a complete moron if that happens.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Candace SmithVerified account
‏@CandaceSmith_
Trump to a black rally goer: "Look at my African American over there! You know what I’m talking about?"
Click to expand...

Jeremy Diamond ‏@JDiamond1 10m10 minutes ago
Trump points to black supporter in crowd: "Look at my African american over here…look at him!"
Click to expand...

Am I in some kind of elaborate Twilight Zone episode!?!?
 
E

Emarv

Member
Kristoffer said:
They're good reasons. Every Democratic vice presidential candidate has had national recognition since...

Wow, it goes way back. Yeah, and all have been Senators.

The Vice Presidency is a position with none of the responsibility but nearly all of the authority of the Presidency itself. When Joe Biden goes to handle projects for Obama, it's as if the president is there himself. So yeah, Perez would be historically unprecedented (in recency). I would expect a governor or a senator (and most probably a senator) before a... cabinet member. What you have to ask yourself before you pick a VP is "is this man fit to be president". Perez is a sidekick. Biden, Edwards, Lieberman, Gore, and Bentsen were all well qualified to be presidents. For that reason, I don't know if even Warren makes the cut.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. The problem is that mostly rules everyone out not named Tim Kaine. There's some decent Representatives but all suffer from lack of exposure or experience. Most of the other Senators aren't right either.

The only real two picks in my mind are Kaine or Warren.

Just get Biden back. Or Michelle! Make Republicans go nuts
 
G

Grexeno

Member
Emarv said:
I totally agree. The problem is that mostly rules everyone out not named Tim Kaine. There's some decent Representatives but all suffer from lack of exposure or experience. Most of the other Senators aren't right either.

The only real two picks in my mind are Kaine or Warren.

Just get Biden back. Or Michelle! Make Republicans go nuts
Click to expand...
There's also the other former Virginia governor-turned Senator
 
R

RastaMentality

Banned
This woman on CNN talking about how the protestors are Mexican youth because they don't know how it feels to be under an oppressive government. I'm sick.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Emarv said:
I totally agree. The problem is that mostly rules everyone out not named Tim Kaine. There's some decent Representatives but all suffer from lack of exposure or experience. Most of the other Senators aren't right either.
Click to expand...
I think that's untrue. I could see Durbin running for VP. But you're mostly right.

Just get Biden back. Or Michelle! Make Republicans go nuts
Click to expand...
Wow. I'm not unopposed to the idea. But Hillary and Michelle are not friendly with one another. Come to think of it, neither are Gore and Hillary. Man, she makes enemies out of a lot of Democrats.
 
C

Cipherr

Member
Vigilant Walrus said:
I came across this to day- From 08 a debate between Hillary and Obama. My god, is Obama powerful. He totally takes control. Notice how he Wolf phases him out with "his time is up" and how he turns the whole thing around; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb3JHexXljk

It's clear that neither Hillary or Sanders has this level of linguistic brilliance.
Click to expand...

Jesus the ether. I love 3:20 and onward for that 8 second period:

"I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

Fucking DESTROYED! Man oh man if Bernie had half of the charisma and ability (debate-wise) that Obama has he would have hit her with a similar line for how close she sticks to Obama. He tried it with the "Do you disagree with the President on anything?" but it lacked the punch that Obama's line did in that old debate. Although it wouldnt have gone over well for Bernie because the situation is quite different. Still its amazing to see the contrast.

Man oh man...
 
A

ampere

Member
pigeon said:
I don't agree with this. Intersectionality is literally the basis of Obama's coalition, so yeah, most American liberals absolutely support it. Nor do I think the likelihood of it being a fad is particularly high, since it is simply a very straightforward recognition of the fact that there are multiple overlapping areas of privilege. It may be a new concept, but it's not a new thing. People just didn't talk about it in the same way. But for the same reason that Marxist economics isn't going anywhere because nobody else has come up with a good way to explain why being a peasant sucks, I wouldn't expect intersectionality to go anywhere.
Click to expand...

Yea I don't buy that people who have realized that marginalized groups deserve fair treatment are going to stop thinking that when Obama leaves office. I'd expect it to become even more widespread since we're about to elect a woman to the highest office in the world

Aaron Strife said:
Oh look, the right begins eating their own

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y217/Yashouzoid/erikpaulsen_zps2f6wiuop.png[img]

Get fucked, asshole[/QUOTE]

Have some compassion and they turn on you. Sad.

It's going to be a battle for awhile to get people to accept trans people as... people. At least we can stack the Supreme Court
Click to expand...
 
E

Emarv

Member
I forgot Sherrod Brown, too. Sherrod Brown is a solid choice, I think. Again, you just lose a senate seat. But I think he's fit to be President.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Emarv said:
The only real two picks in my mind are Kaine or Warren.

Just get Biden back. Or Michelle! Make Republicans go nuts
Click to expand...

I'm happy with either one at this point. It's pretty obvious that Team Clinton believes in the strategy of baiting Trump and using his own words against him, and Warren has demonstrated great competence in that arena. I'd like to see more of Kaine trying to engage Trump.
 
S

Snowman Prophet of Doom

Member
pigeon said:
I don't agree with this. Intersectionality is literally the basis of Obama's coalition, so yeah, most American liberals absolutely support it. Nor do I think the likelihood of it being a fad is particularly high, since it is simply a very straightforward recognition of the fact that there are multiple overlapping areas of privilege. It may be a new concept, but it's not a new thing. People just didn't talk about it in the same way. But for the same reason that Marxist economics isn't going anywhere because nobody else has come up with a good way to explain why being a peasant sucks, I wouldn't expect intersectionality to go anywhere.
Click to expand...

Marxism is still around, but it's largely been relegated to the fringes of contemporary intellectual life after reaching astonishing heights in the previous century. Marxism is actually the perfect example of a concept that was once seen as fundamental to correctly understanding the world by many of the most-educated people (especially in Europe and Asia), only to recede to the margins - where, I suspect, it will (and imo deserves) to stay. I could easily see contemporary social justice rhetoric (though not, of course, the need and desire for social justice, itself) similarly falling by the wayside as time goes on, for this or that reason. Isms come and go, in politics as in other human spheres.

As for the rest - the Obama coalition is functionally intersectional, as any political coalition exists to cater to its members' varying needs, but outside of the more educated parts of it, do you think the average person voting for modern Dems wouldn't vote for them if this or that other group they weren't a part of got cut out of the mix? Perhaps I'm more cynical, but I see most human political action as basically myopic.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Emarv said:
I forgot Sherrod Brown, too. Sherrod Brown is a solid choice, I think. Again, you just lose a senate seat. But I think he's fit to be President.
Click to expand...
Yeah, him, too. I found a pretty good article talking about potential options and he's on that list:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/06/who_should_hillary_clintons_vp.html

I think there are a lot of strong options that are not feasible because they could turn the Senate seat red, which is really unfortunate. Corey Booker (would love this guy just so I could make Corey in the House jokes) has very strong ties with Wall Street. And once again, I think Warren is just unqualified to be VP, not to mention that there would be fundamental friction between her and Clinton over financial issues.

The only option for a candidate who is both qualified to be vice president (by being qualified to be president) and not holding a vital, irreplaceable Senate seat is Tim Kaine.

EDIT: By the way, probably the most damning circumstance for Warren is that realistically speaking, Clinton is going to mostly pass legislation during her first term from coalitions with Republicans in the house, which almost certainly precludes anything but centrist policy. So stuff like trade deals, defense issues, and mostly weak financial reforms are going to be the most important issues for the administration. The vice president HAS to be on the president's side on these important issues and Warren definitely will not be. It's just not an intelligent choice.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
This might have hit the thread already, but Trump isn't consolidating support so much as suppressing dissent:

nyt said:
A wave of prominent Republicans have announced their intention to skip the party’s national convention in Cleveland this summer, the latest sign that Donald J. Trump, who last week secured the delegates needed to clinch the Republican presidential nomination, continues to struggle in his effort to unite the party behind his candidacy.

The list of those who have sent regrets includes governors and United States senators — almost all facing tough re-election fights this year — and lifelong party devotees who have attended every convention for decades. Some are renouncing their seats like conscientious objectors....

Even the two highest-ranking Republicans in the convention’s host state of Ohio — Gov. John Kasich and Senator Rob Portman, who is fighting to hold onto his seat — say they do not know if they will set foot in the convention hall....

Among those staying away include some major corporations like Coca-Cola, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard....

Scheduling conflicts seem to be a surprisingly common excuse for missing an event that was announced a year and a half ago. Others offered mushy noncommitments.

“Just as they’re firming up the schedule, it kind of looks like there’s a lot of stuff for me to do,” said Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, explaining why he probably couldn’t make it...

Mr. Snyder is one of at least nine Republican governors who are noncommittal or skipping the convention: Mr. Kasich, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, Bruce Rauner of Illinois, Larry Hogan of Maryland, Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina, Matt Mead of Wyoming and Nathan Deal of Georgia...

Just about every Republican senator in a difficult race is staying away, fearful of what the association with Mr. Trump might do to reputations back home. Senator John McCain of Arizona will join four of the five living former Republican nominees in skipping the convention. “I’m in a very tough re-election campaign,” he said last week, explaining his expected absence.

Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, two of the most endangered Republican incumbents, will also be nowhere near Cleveland that week.

Mr. Portman, another senator in a tight race, said his time would be better spent holding a miniconvention of his own in Cleveland, which he plans to do with events for veterans, the homeless and his volunteers.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/u...republican-convention.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

This kind of "sure, I support Trump, just not too closely" stuff I don't think is really going to protect them. But it shows how far Trump still is from getting solid support from the GOP.
 
E

Emarv

Member
Like I said in the other thread, Trump won't apologize. He'll just say more "not that there's anything wrong with that" stuff.

But, reports of inner turmoil are more important overall because if there's one thing a media cycle loves, it's a campaign in chaos. A statement like that gives it even more reason to be in the cycle and for people to come out on it.

If even his own aides are wobbly on it, it might give congressional GOP members room to semi-condemn or at least have to take a position.
 
C

Crayons

Banned
This new interview isn't gonna matter because he's just gonna distract the media with something new and get people to forget it
 
C

cogent

Banned
pigeon said:
This might have hit the thread already, but Trump isn't consolidating support so much as suppressing dissent:



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/u...republican-convention.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

This kind of "sure, I support Trump, just not too closely" stuff I don't think is really going to protect them. But it shows how far Trump still is from getting solid support from the GOP.
Click to expand...

As long as he gets the support of the GOP voters it doesn't really matter what the party thinks though.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
Crayons said:
This new interview isn't gonna matter because he's just gonna distract the media with something new and get people to forget it
Click to expand...
It'll hit where it needs to hit. And that's all that matters.

Also, please try to not normalize this. This should not be normal. Saying this doesn't hurt him normalises it.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Marxism is still around, but it's largely been relegated to the fringes of contemporary intellectual life after reaching astonishing heights in the previous century. Marxism is actually the perfect example of a concept that was once seen as fundamental to correctly understanding the world by many of the most-educated people (especially in Europe and Asia), only to recede to the margins - where, I suspect, it will (and imo deserves) to stay. I could easily see contemporary social justice rhetoric (though not, of course, the need and desire for social justice, itself) similarly falling by the wayside as time goes on, for this or that reason. Isms come and go, in politics as in other human spheres.

As for the rest - the Obama coalition is functionally intersectional, as any political coalition exists to cater to its members' varying needs, but outside of the more educated parts of it, do you think the average person voting for modern Dems wouldn't vote for them if this or that other group they weren't a part of got cut out of the mix? Perhaps I'm more cynical, but I see most human political action as basically myopic.
Click to expand...
A lot of the not-very-good/useful liberal/feminist theory seems to have its roots in an era in which Marxist concepts/models of class dynamics were actually taken seriously.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
pigeon said:
This might have hit the thread already, but Trump isn't consolidating support so much as suppressing dissent:



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/u...republican-convention.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

This kind of "sure, I support Trump, just not too closely" stuff I don't think is really going to protect them. But it shows how far Trump still is from getting solid support from the GOP.
Click to expand...
If you look at his pollster average, it doesn't seem like anyone has come home, really.

Before he was the nominee, polling was about 50-40 Hillary. Now it's 45-40 Hillary. All that happened was that undecideds spiked up and that seems to be attributable to Bernie supporters who are on the fence about their intentions in November.

Maybe that 40% is more firm, but for all the talk of tightening polls and general election pivoting (the latter of which is quite delusional, Trump clearly has no intention of moderating his message) he's really in no better shape than he was before. His supporters still support him, people who don't like him but were already willing to settle still support him, people who are deeply uncomfortable with him are still non-committal.

Also don't see how "oh well his future shenanigans will just make people forget about this" is a net positive for Trump. It doesn't matter if people remember every single offensive thing he's done or said, but each time a story like this pops up it just reinforces the already negative perception of him. Furthermore the Clinton camp will likely be dregging these up throughout the campaign.
 
C

Crayons

Banned
Macho Madness said:
It'll hit where it needs to hit. And that's all that matters.

Also, please try to not normalize this. This should not be normal. Saying this doesn't hurt him normalises it.
Click to expand...
Every time I've said that something he's said was going to hurt him he only went up in the polls.

Doubling down on racism only gets him more support
 
P

pigeon

Banned
cogent said:
As long as he gets the support of the GOP voters it doesn't really matter what the party thinks though.
Click to expand...

The party refusing to support him is directly connected to their view of the willingness of GOP voters to support him, and in turn GOP voters will take their cues, in many cases, from the party.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Crayons said:
Every time I've said that something he's said was going to hurt him he only went up in the polls.

Doubling down on racism only gets him more support
Click to expand...
In the primary when people were sympathetic to this message? Sure. Those rules went out the window as soon as he became the nominee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom