• 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.
#4 in the house, serving for 20+ years isn't enough? While Warren who just took office a few years ago is? So the only qualification you care about is 'are you a senator?'
I didn't know that about him. I thought he was just some optics pick floating around. Touché, and I take it back.
 

Cerium

Member
Saw this article from the OT thread about Xavier Becerra being a possible VP pick. Have to say that I think he would be an excellent choice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/us/politics/as-xavier-becerra-stirs-crowds-hispanic-democrats-see-a-running-mate.html

I agree. Becerra or Perez as far as I'm concerned.

Same with Becerra. He's not qualified. At all.
24 years in congress, #4 Democrat in the House Leadership. I can understand someone saying this about Perez but if you're claiming that about Becerra too then something seems off.
 
What's weird is that Trump just a few days ago was getting hit really hard with Trump University criticism.

But ever since his comments about the Judge, no one is talking about it anymore.

There's no way it isn't intentional. He must have legitimately planned, and thought if he makes some racist comments about the judge, it'll help distract from the purpose of the trial and this story blow over quicker.

Like I mean, I guess it sort of worked..

But what kind of plane of existence are you on where that is actually a preferable narrative.

That's like if I said to my self in school one day " Well if I shit on my principals face, it'll help that rumor about how I was the guy who farted in the stairway on the way to the lunch period blow over quicker"

Trump was accused today of bribing the Florida AG to bury the Trump U case so I don't think it's going away. It will be brought back in between his racist tirades.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I'm a journalist.

It's not really standard to give them all the questions. We might let the know what we're interested in talking with them about, but they don't get to see all the questions before.

What kind of journalist are you? Video game? Sports?
 

Holmes

Member
It is strange, I hope someone investigates their ties to Wikipedia too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

I'm really disappointed to find that Wikipedia is so easily manipulated by elite establishment forces. I'm going to start being really careful about believing what I read on there. Especially when citing it in my research papers.
Sorry but lol @ people putting the third party candidates on the wiki page for the general as if they'll get any sort of meaningful result.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Sorry but lol @ people putting the third party candidates on the wiki page for the general as if they'll get any sort of meaningful result.
Wikipedia rules include any candidate that has a chance to win, aka, on the ballot in states worth 270+ EVs. When both get less than 5% of the popular vote, they'll be dropped from the box which will just feature President Trump and Corrupt Hillary.
 
The new thread title is awesome. Way to go, AP! Dicks. Speaking of a 6/7 release date, dammit Amazon, I paid for release day shipping, not shipping ON the release date. You're usually great about this!
It is strange, I hope someone investigates their ties to Wikipedia too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

I'm really disappointed to find that Wikipedia is so easily manipulated by elite establishment forces.
No joke, there's a massive infrastructure of astroturfing and career scrubbing on Wikipedia from law makers wise enough to understand its power. It's corrupt as all holy fuck, mind you, and it's a battleground of public opinion that few people know there's a battle for and thus it goes entirely under the radar. Some of the shit you can get away with on Wikipedia procedure-wise is terrifyingly effective.

However! "Establishment" Wikipedia is bureaucratic Wikipedia who spends more time talking about what shit they should waste their time talking about than actually doing anything constructive. In that regard an "insurgent" force can come in and make a big splash if they organize. Gamergate, for example, practically held the place hostage for months on any policy decisions until they got what they wanted (which was some feminist editors banned and mods bullied out, myself included).
Sorry but lol @ people putting the third party candidates on the wiki page for the general as if they'll get any sort of meaningful result.
Now, these people aren't from the campaigns proper. They're just psycho fans convinced they know what's best for the country and want to try to stick their nose in.
 

mo60

Member
Sorry but lol @ people putting the third party candidates on the wiki page for the general as if they'll get any sort of meaningful result.

Wikipedia is going to get rid of both third party candidates on the page currently by election night unless they get over 5% of the vote.
 

Wallach

Member
Buchanan also thinks that Britain should've pursued peace with Hitler in 1940 so they could keep their colonies.
He's an idiot.
A well read idiot, but an idiot nonetheless.

This was the book where he argued that Britain should not have given the war guarantee to Poland, right? I'm pretty sure he also argued that the Holocaust may not have happened either, as if the war is what caused Nazi antisemitism.
 

Chichikov

Member
This was the book where he argued that Britain should not have given the war guarantee to Poland, right? I'm pretty sure he also argued that the Holocaust may not have happened either, as if the war is what caused Nazi antisemitism.
Yep, it's called Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War.
I gave up the 1940 example there because I think that's the most egregious. It should be noted that he does make some arguments in that book that I agree with, like that Britain had no business getting involved in WWI (though I think he mischaracterize the reasons why they did).

Man, that whole book is a giant cognitive dissonance from me - on the one hand, I fucking Hate Churchill and I always love to see someone shit on him, but on the other hand, some of his arguments... ugh.
 

pigeon

Banned
CcBuiOVW4AEzimh.jpg


Yeah, I'm not sure about that, Michael.

That quote is actually just a sad reminder of how far his Alzheimer's had progressed.
 
Why are you a registered Republican?
Whoa what's that behind you!

rcrB2yT.gif

Works every time

Literally cackled aloud at bliv's description of hannity. Perfect two words to sum up his entire career
He spent 20 years being a smug prick on national television. Before I knew anything about politics, the first time I watched a show of his I didn't like him. He is a conservative pandering and liberal smear machine
This clip of pat and hannity is making me like pat. He is telling this pander machine facts while the smug prick makes condescending faces at him and shouts him down. Fuck hannity
I want to say pat fucking rules in this interview because he keeps clowning Sean who I hate dearly, but they are both terrible
 

itschris

Member
Saw this article from the OT thread about Xavier Becerra being a possible VP pick. Have to say that I think he would be an excellent choice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/us/politics/as-xavier-becerra-stirs-crowds-hispanic-democrats-see-a-running-mate.html

Yeah, I hadn't considered him much before, but I do think he would be a great pick if there's a concern about Tom Perez's lack of elected office experience. And on the superficial side of things, he's pretty photogenic, which couldn't hurt.

LlufcOk.jpg
 

Wallach

Member
Yep, it's called Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War.
I gave up the 1940 example there because I think that's the most egregious. It should be noted that he does make some arguments in that book that I agree with, like that Britain had no business getting involved in WWI (though I think he mischaracterize the reasons why they did).

Man, that whole book is a giant cognitive dissonance from me - on the one hand, I fucking Hate Churchill and I always love to see someone shit on him, but on the other hand, some of his arguments... ugh.

I don't remember it too clearly to be honest. Churchill deserves a lot of shit though, I'll give you that.

On a different note, I just read that Trump is considering bringing Dick Morris into his campaign? Is this real life?
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Uh oh. Looks like Morning Joe hurt Trump's feelings one too many times and now he says he's not going on the show anymore.

Yep, it's called Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War.
I gave up the 1940 example there because I think that's the most egregious. It should be noted that he does make some arguments in that book that I agree with, like that Britain had no business getting involved in WWI (though I think he mischaracterize the reasons why they did).

Man, that whole book is a giant cognitive dissonance from me - on the one hand, I fucking Hate Churchill and I always love to see someone shit on him, but on the other hand, some of his arguments... ugh.

That and he obliterated that smug prick, Hannity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RGgpwqFpPw

The part at the end where Hannity is speechless is just perfect.
 
I agree. Becerra or Perez as far as I'm concerned.


24 years in congress, #4 Democrat in the House Leadership. I can understand someone saying this about Perez but if you're claiming that about Becerra too then something seems off.

I'm fine with either or even Elizabeth Warren. As long as it's one of those three, I'm game.
 
LOL Clinton Derangement syndrome hit peak infection in a comment I saw on one of the subreddits I'm on.

Person said Margaret Thatcher is a saint compared to Clinton :|
 
ANCHOR BABY

The one reason I'm very inclined to put a Latino on the ticket this year (even though the voting block will be solidly anti-trump no matter what) is that you KNOW Trump will not be able to resist making attacks like that. And that kind of outright racism against not just a Latino, but the first Latino nominee ever will put that voting block in Dem hands for a generation. Although that might happen anyway even without Becerra/Perez on the ticket.

Perez could be Attorney General material down the road, but I don't really like picking someone with no track record of winning elections as the Veep. And since Becerra is from a safe dem seat and is blocked in the leadership, it makes a whole lot of sense...
 

benjipwns

Banned
LOL Clinton Derangement syndrome hit peak infection in a comment I saw on one of the subreddits I'm on.

Person said Margaret Thatcher is a saint compared to Clinton :|
Well, she is the only one of the two that is dead.

That we know of.

I'll wait for the FBI Investigation to complete before I say for sure.
 

itschris

Member
Hillary Clinton walks the line after winning nomination

CNN tried to ask Clinton about the race being called seven times on the rope line. Not once did the former secretary of state respond.

Clinton's campaign was not happy the race was called on Monday and had hoped most news networks would wait until Tuesday -- when voters go to the polls -- to make the official call. That was part strategy -- they don't want the vote to be suppressed -- and part planning in that Clinton has an event in Brooklyn on Tuesday night where her campaign had hoped she would be able to react for the first time to the race being called.

Instead, Clinton reacted at Long Beach Community College.

But aides say, however, that Clinton will deliver a speech that directly addresses the historic nature of her candidacy on Tuesday and begin to offer olive branches to Sanders' supporters.

Also, Tuesday's New York Times:

 

Paskil

Member
The one reason I'm very inclined to put a Latino on the ticket this year (even though the voting block will be solidly anti-trump no matter what) is that you KNOW Trump will not be able to resist making attacks like that. And that kind of outright racism against not just a Latino, but the first Latino nominee ever will put that voting block in Dem hands for a generation. Although that might happen anyway even without Becerra/Perez on the ticket.

Perez could be Attorney General material down the road, but I don't really like picking someone with no track record of winning elections as the Veep. And since Becerra is from a safe dem seat and is blocked in the leadership, it makes a whole lot of sense...

I feel that Perez is also SCOTUS material, but his Labor appointment was contested. I imagine that it would be very difficult to get him on the court. He's my dream RBG replacement if he doesn't get the VP nod.
 

benjipwns

Banned
This book has maybe been mentioned here:

51RMSpX769L.jpg


It's framed around Dukakis in the Tank but covers every Presidential campaign since. Bush at the scanner, Dole falling off the stage, Dean's scream, Romney's bad singing, etc.

51zpW6pdi4L.jpg


This has lots of Bobby Jindal (tons, seriously), Jeb!, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio in it. Also not a single mention of HUELEN endorsed Ben Carson. And briefly mentions Trump at the end. It does have these endorsements though:
"Slimebag... true garbage."―Donald Trump

"A nervous geek... not fit to tie the Donald's wingtips."―Sarah Palin

Also, Ted Cruz played Sonic The Hedgehog.
 

Maledict

Member
Is anyone else concerned that this news breaking early may depress Clinton votes in that last few states, making Bernie stay in for longer?
 

Zornack

Member
Is anyone else concerned that this news breaking early may depress Clinton votes in that last few states, making Bernie stay in for longer?

Clinton has a huge early vote lead. Unless the news disproportional affects her voters than this will either end up helping her or have no effect.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Is anyone else concerned that this news breaking early may depress Clinton votes in that last few states, making Bernie stay in for longer?
How will he stay in longer than the convention he intends to contest?

I mean, obviously, he should launch an independent campaign after Corrupt Hillary steals the Convention from the voters but even that will end come November.
 

Cerium

Member
I'm so so so hyped for this.

Obama, a White House source said, is chomping at the bit to get out and "get people fired up."

He's "ready to go," the source said, adding Obama would "explode onto the scene" once the Democratic race is tied up.

"It's driving him crazy" remaining on the sidelines, the source said.
The Emperor is about to remind all these lesser politicians how it's done. 2008 and 2012 were magical, and I've no doubt that Obama's got at least one more master class performance left in him.
 
Gonna have to cop that book. Love me some bobbeh. Ted Cruz playing sonic the hedgehog on its own is not a very interesting fact though. Why, did Jimmy Carter put a quarter into a donkey Kong machine once? Saucy!!
 

Paskil

Member
Tell me

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/hillary-clinton-is-too-ambitious-to-be-the-first-f-11229

That you

240.jpg



Hillary Clinton Is Too Ambitious To Be The First Female President
COMMENTARY
May 24, 2006

I think it's about time we had a female president of the United States. I don't care what anyone says: Women can be just as smart and qualified as men—especially the clowns we've had in Washington lately. But Hillary Clinton? She's just a little too ambitious to do what no woman before her has ever done.

Hillary seems to think she knows what our country needs better than anyone else, and believes that she, among the hundreds or thousands of qualified politicians, is the only one who can do it. Is that really the sort of person we want at the helm of our federal government?

...

What's more, nobody asked her to run. In fact, a lot of people on both sides of the aisle don't even want her to run, and many other politicians are planning on running against her. Yet she's stayed in the race, blatantly ignoring the wishes of some people. Shouldn't the first woman to break the gender barrier of the American presidency be the type of woman who listens to those who doubt her and bows to public opinion more often?

Don't


See it

Hahahaha
 

Cerium

Member
I feel that Perez is also SCOTUS material, but his Labor appointment was contested. I imagine that it would be very difficult to get him on the court. He's my dream RBG replacement if he doesn't get the VP nod.
Replace Scalia with Srinivasan to make that go down easier.

When it comes to RGB, replace her with Goodwin Liu. RGB should be replaced by a true liberal champion and Liu is the best we have.
 

studyguy

Member
WHAT WERE HER VOCALS LIKE?

Christina was coming off a cold sucking on cough drops(as she said during an intermission). She didnt sing nearly as often as even my girlfriend could admit but she was super impressive for someone who apparently had 'no voice' as she put it.

Oh my phone was dying and this was on my quote list. Shot that was a while back...
 

Paskil

Member
Of course he did.
Fucking Sonic fans, ya'll gonna act like him being the Zodiac killer is a joke?

We all know the Zodiac Killer wouldn't have been a Mario or Crash player. When Dahmer was arrested, his Genesis was turned on with Sonic in the system. Released a month earlier, he was a huge fan of the game.
 
It looks like the approved talking point is Hillary, maybe through the clever use of McDonalds, forced the AP, CNN, BBC, NBC, ABC and CBS to illegally declare her the winner, so that when she loses California and New Mexico tomorrow no one will notice. And also fraud. Etc.

Also, this somehow means that whoever voted today didn't matter and blah blah blah.
 
Let's talk about something that's been perplexing me for a bit.

We've sort of had a collective shrug that Hillary is the first woman to ever be on a major party's ballot as the presidential candidate. This could be for a few reasons -- she came so close in 2008, she was considered sort of a shoe-in this time, Clinton fatigue.

But I started wondering -- what if this were Elizabeth Warren? Amy Klobuchar? Jeanne Shaheen? Would there be this huge excitement about a first female nominee? And I don't think there would've been, and I'm trying to figure out exactly what that is. Is it because this has been a long time coming we've assumed it to be a "well, duh" moment? Is it because it didn't seem improbable? I don't know. I can't quite figure out why I feel like no one would be seen as a uniquely historic candidate outside of the fact that, "oh yeah, they are I guess". A collective shrug.
 

mo60

Member
It looks like the approved talking point is Hillary, maybe through the clever use of McDonalds, forced the AP, CNN, BBC, NBC, ABC and CBS to illegally declare her the winner, so that when she loses California and New Mexico tomorrow no one will notice. And also fraud. Etc.

Also, this somehow means that whoever voted today didn't matter and blah blah blah.

There's also the talking point where people are saying that Hilary won;t get the nomination because she will be indicted by the FBI and as a result the democratic convention will become contested and Bernie will win.

I'm having so much fun with this.
 

Zornack

Member
Let's talk about something that's been perplexing me for a bit.

We've sort of had a collective shrug that Hillary is the first woman to ever be on a major party's ballot as the presidential candidate. This could be for a few reasons -- she came so close in 2008, she was considered sort of a shoe-in this time, Clinton fatigue.

But I started wondering -- what if this were Elizabeth Warren? Amy Klobuchar? Jeanne Shaheen? Would there be this huge excitement about a first female nominee? And I don't think there would've been, and I'm trying to figure out exactly what that is. Is it because this has been a long time coming we've assumed it to be a "well, duh" moment? Is it because it didn't seem improbable? I don't know. I can't quite figure out why I feel like no one would be seen as a uniquely historic candidate outside of the fact that, "oh yeah, they are I guess". A collective shrug.

I think your premise is wrong. I'm excited, my mom's excited, plenty of people are excited, just not the sort of people who are regulars on the internet.

I'm sure there were a lot of middle aged white women who weren't excited when Obama got the nomination, they were just drowned out by the more plentiful young internet denizens who were excited.
 
I think your premise is wrong. I'm excited, my mom's excited, plenty of people are excited, just not the sort of people who are regulars on the internet.

I'm sure there were a lot of middle aged white women who weren't excited when Obama got the nomination, they were just drowned out by the young internet denizens who were excited.

Maybe. I guess you're right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom