• 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.
Trump writes a lot of checks he can't cash, then he waffles on them and says the opposite. He's tough on Wall Street but he's going to gut Dodd-Frank and raise money with the RNC.

What a joke.
And Hillary now says she doesn't support TPP after championing it as the Gold Standard. She simply states that things are 'impossible' and then says she's backed them the whole time (Fight for $15). She's not better, she simply spaces her waffling out a little further.
 
And Hillary now says she doesn't support TPP after championing it as the Gold Standard. She simply states that things are 'impossible' and then says she's backed them the whole time (Fight for $15). She's not better, she simply spaces her waffling out a little further.

Yes. And, despite my own extreme reservations about her which are well documented on GAF at this point.

She's the only candidate this cycle who can actually manage to get some legislation through.

What she says during a GE, what she campaigns on, what she does or doesn't do in the next 6 months is utterly irrelevant. She is going to be president, and if you're really a progressive, she's the best candidate available to you and you had better vote D on the local, state, and federal representatives when you go out to vote. Otherwise, you're better off just staying home. Because, and this is important now.

The President is not a King/Queen. They only have as much power as the house and the senate can provide to them.
 
Yes. And, despite my own extreme reservations about her which are well documented on GAF at this point.

She's the only candidate this cycle who can actually manage to get some legislation through.

What she says during a GE, what she campaigns on, what she does or doesn't do in the next 6 months is utterly irrelevant. She is going to be president, and if you're really a progressive, she's the best candidate available to you and you had better vote D on the local, state, and federal representatives when you go out to vote. Otherwise, you're better off just staying home. Because, and this is important now.

The President is not a King/Queen. They only have as much power as the house and the senate can provide to them.
She's the worst candidate available to me, even if it's only by the tiniest bit - so far at least. We'll see how the general goes.

Stein if there's no risk of Hillary winning. That's the best strategy. Hillary is the worst possible solution this year.
 
4chan people are mocking Patton Oswalt's dead wife (she died just months ago) because he defended the new Ghostbusters movie and they aren't banned on Twitter. Jesus Christ, Twitter is trash.
 
She's the worst candidate available to me, even if it's only by the tiniest bit - so far at least. We'll see how the general goes.

Stein if there's no risk of Hillary winning. That's the best strategy. Hillary is the worst possible solution this year.

Donald Trump would turn the SC Hyper Conservative for 30 years.

This is why voting along purely ideological lines is stupid. You have to be pragmatic and think LONG TERM. If Hillary is a bad president, guess what, she only gets the one term. It's really hard to fuck a lot up in four years, but the SC will likely never have this many openings in one cycle ever again, this is a chance to turn it into a machine for progressivism and social and economic change for the better.

You'd sacrifice all that because Hillary is, what, slightly dirty?

This is why politics in this country don't function the way people want, because despite all the bitching and moaning and protests and #feeltheBern'ing, nobody is willing to bite it, and suffer a little short term for long term gain.
 

Clefargle

Member
Clinton doesn't shift to the more liberal poston:

"NEOLIBERAL SHILL for the corporations won't support these progressive policies"

Clinton does shift to the more liberal position:

"FLIPFLOP Can't trust a single thing she says LIES LIES LIES don't believe them!"

Real nice way to get your agenda implemented, shame them if they don't, shame them if they do"
 
Can someone tell what issues Trump is to the left of Hillary on? I keep hearing he's a secret liberal, but everything he says is on par with the GOP platform.
 

jaekeem

Member
Clinton doesn't shift to the more liberal poston:

"NEOLIBERAL SHILL for the corporations won't support these progressive policies"

Clinton does shift to the more liberal position:

"FLIPFLOP Can't trust a single thing she says LIES LIES LIES don't believe them!"

Real nice way to get your agenda implemented, shame them if they don't, shame them if they do"

This is why I hate it when people try to shame politicians for changing their views on hot topics like lgbt rights.

OK? So they said something different ten years ago. Maybe it's pandering. Maybe it's genuine.

What do we gain out of putting someone down for changing their mind for the better? Smh
 
She's the worst candidate available to me, even if it's only by the tiniest bit - so far at least. We'll see how the general goes.

Stein if there's no risk of Hillary winning. That's the best strategy. Hillary is the worst possible solution this year.
Hillary Clinton is worse than Donald Trump? I don't even understand.....how someone can think this way.......and claim to be a progressive?
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
This is why I hate it when people try to shame politicians for changing their views on hot topics like lgbt rights.

OK? So they said something different ten years ago. Maybe it's pandering. Maybe it's genuine.

What do we gain out of putting someone down for changing their mind for the better? Smh

I wasn't following American politics during the 2004 cycle. Was it Republicans who equated "changing your mind" with "flipflopping" with regards to Kerry, and essentially created a stigma on changing your position at all?

For one, "flipflopping" seems more akin to changing your mind, then changing it back again rather than a single shift in a position.

And Hillary moving from $12 to $15 (not that its that simple) barely constitutes a "flip" much less a "flipflop". A "flipflop" on wanting to raise the minimum wage to $12 would be not wanting to raise the minimum wage at all.
 

Paskil

Member
Don't worry guise, there's at least one member of PoliGAF voting for Hillary in Wisconsin.

Also, Disaster, explain. How is Hillary worse than Donald Trump? Nothing she has said or done bears any indication of this. As you mentioned Social Security, she has never made any move towards cutting and has absolutely no rhetoric in her past implying that she would do so.
 
I've never played any version of Doom. It'll never be as good as the god tier fps Red Steel in the Wii.
Absolutely the worst taste in everything.

I have this affinity for like shitty restaurant provided they're not going to give me a disease or something. We have a place here that's been here since the 60s. Like it's just awful. I love it. They bring water and sliced white sandwich bread with every meal. It's so bad. I'd my second favorite place to eat.
Adam387
The Worst Taste in Everything.
 
I wasn't following American politics during the 2004 cycle. Was it Republicans who equated "changing your mind" with "flipflopping" with regards to Kerry, and essentially created a stigma on changing your position at all?

For one, "flipflopping" seems more akin to changing your mind, then changing it back again rather than a single shift in a position.

And Hillary moving from $12 to $15 (not that its that simple) barely constitutes a "flip" much less a "flipflop". A "flipflop" on wanting to raise the minimum wage to $12 would be not wanting to raise the minimum wage at all.

Kerry was a "flip-flopper", Bill Clinton was a "waffler".

The song remains the same.
 
Donald Trump would turn the SC Hyper Conservative for 30 years.

This is why voting along purely ideological lines is stupid. You have to be pragmatic and think LONG TERM. If Hillary is a bad president, guess what, she only gets the one term. It's really hard to fuck a lot up in four years, but the SC will likely never have this many openings in one cycle ever again, this is a chance to turn it into a machine for progressivism and social and economic change for the better.

You'd sacrifice all that because Hillary is, what, slightly dirty?

This is why politics in this country don't function the way people want, because despite all the bitching and moaning and protests and #feeltheBern'ing, nobody is willing to bite it, and suffer a little short term for long term gain.
She's not SLIGHTLY dirty. She's completely not on the side of my class and she's completely against my interests and she's completely corrupt. Thing is, I don't give two shits about corrupt (within reason) as long as she's playing dirty in the interests of my issues, but she's not. She's dirty AND she's completely at odds with my views.

The bolded part is where you contradict yourself in the same sentence. As for the SS and Medicare stuff, that's come pretty recently (May 11th) and I genuinely wasn't aware of it. His Supreme Court nomination prospects bum me out too. However, he's STILL better if he ends NAFTA and stops TPP. Although admittedly, less so than before the SS and SC reveals.

If he energizes the left and center left, perhaps his appointees can be blocked as can SS and Medicare cuts. Hillary's SC noms are likely to be neoliberals. It's depressing that even on the grounds of SC noms, hers may only be marginally better than Trump's.

Lastly, I can't in good conscience vote for her in light of her and the DNC's behavior during this primary. Just like Bill, she's MORE dangerous than Trump or a conservative. Just like Bill, she will spout the rhetoric of traditional democratic economic values but she'll push against them, and she'll get less resistance because she's 'our guy'.
 
Trump writes a lot of checks he can't cash, then he waffles on them and says the opposite. He's tough on Wall Street but he's going to gut Dodd-Frank and raise money with the RNC.

What a joke.

We don't need people to be "tough". The DoJ has gone after and prosecuted nearly 3,000 individual borrowers, appraisers, and brokers who are small fish. That's an embarrassment to the public interest of accountability for the financial crisis.

All Trump has to do is apply common sense during his term and allow his team to use federal authorities that makes much of Dodd-Frank redundant. And let the courts decide if people seriously believe virtually every major financial institution can get away with pervasive fraud exemplified by the Clayton reports and not be subject to federal intervention. If Trump went to Wharton, graduated, and managed to beat all GOP challengers, then he's clearly not a complete dummy and can enforce laws.
 
Hillary Clinton is worse than Donald Trump? I don't even understand.....how someone can think this way.......and claim to be a progressive?
The same way someone can think that Bill Clinton was a more disastrous president than either of the Bushes.

The economic policies that led to 2007/2008, the war on the poor initiated with welfare reform and the crime bill that led to an exploding prison population - those were all Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton ALMOST made a massive push for privatized Social Security until the Monica Lewinsky scandal derailed him. NAFTA, one of the most disastrous trade deals in our nation's history for the working class and industrial sector - Bill Clinton.
 
The same way someone can think that Bill Clinton was a more disastrous president than either of the Bushes.

The economic policies that led to 2007/2008, the war on the poor initiated with welfare reform and the crime bill that led to an exploding prison population - those were all Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton ALMOST made a massive push for privatized Social Security until the Monica Lewinsky scandal derailed him. NAFTA, one of the most disastrous trade deals in our nation's history for the working class and industrial sector - Bill Clinton.

By having their head up their ass?
 
What is with the Republicans hard-on to privatize everything?

I find it mind boggling that anyone could ever be confused about this in the age of the internet.

Privatization = business control of "everything" = profit off of everything, regardless of social consequence. Republicans are the party of business and profit and personal gain, even where personal gain shouldn't be put ahead of the public good.

I've heard people characterize the political conflict in the U.S. as the GOP vs. Democrats. That isn't what it is at all.

The conflict is business, profit, and lining one's pockets versus actually having a functioning and useful government. If the government gets ahead of MY needs to become wealthy or MY wants for society, then it is wrong and horrible and I will put it down because MY needs are really important.

The conflict has always been exactly this, it has simply taken on different communications to the public so as to have a chance at being successful. And unfortunately, from Reagan onward, it has worked about as much as it has failed. Let's hope 2016 is a failure in the long running strategy.
 
What is with the Republicans hard-on to privatize everything?
Because Republican theology states that government cant run anything. Let private sector take over. It's also a mere coincidence that fatcats looking to run these private entities are in Wall Street and friends of GOP.


Edit: I had a dream that I was banned after posting a racist gif...wtf.
 

Farmboy

Member
And Hillary moving from $12 to $15 (not that its that simple) barely constitutes a "flip" much less a "flipflop". A "flipflop" on wanting to raise the minimum wage to $12 would be not wanting to raise the minimum wage at all.

This. Meanwhile, Trump has gone from 'wages are to high' to 'wages are too low but maybe leave it to the states'. Does anyone truly believe that he'll make this a priority? That a minimum wage hike of any proportion is more likely under Trump than it is under Clinton? Come on now.
 
She's the worst candidate available to me, even if it's only by the tiniest bit - so far at least. We'll see how the general goes.

Stein if there's no risk of Hillary winning. That's the best strategy. Hillary is the worst possible solution this year.

She's not a good candidate at all. She should be destroying Trump but there was a poll out this morning showing him leading 45-42. Sure, its a FoxNews poll but others have shown a very close race as well.

The aggregate on Talking Points Memo is Clinton 44.1 to Trump 43.7

This shouldn't be a close election and hopefully won't, but here we are.
 
She's not a good candidate at all. She should be destroying Trump but there was a poll out this morning showing him leading 45-42. Sure, its a FoxNews poll but others have shown a very close race as well.

The aggregate on Talking Points Memo is Clinton 44.1 to Trump 43.7

This shouldn't be a close election and hopefully won't, but here we are.

She has at least three bumps she's bound to receive:
Sanders dropping out; indictment not happening; Obama endorsing her. The polls are concerning but it's not hair on fire time yet
 
She's not a good candidate at all. She should be destroying Trump but there was a poll out this morning showing him leading 45-42. Sure, its a FoxNews poll but others have shown a very close race as well.

The aggregate on Talking Points Memo is Clinton 44.1 to Trump 43.7

This shouldn't be a close election and hopefully won't, but here we are.

Clinton had a 6 -7 point lead on the Huffington Post tracker until the GOP consolidated around Trump while Sanders decided to burn the Democratic party down. Maybe that has something to do with it?
 
She's not a good candidate at all. She should be destroying Trump but there was a poll out this morning showing him leading 45-42. Sure, its a FoxNews poll but others have shown a very close race as well.

The aggregate on Talking Points Memo is Clinton 44.1 to Trump 43.7

This shouldn't be a close election and hopefully won't, but here we are.

Republicans have fallen in line, like they always do. Now while Hillary is far from a strong candidate, Bernie is helping fuck things up right now
 

royalan

Member
I think Hillary's is a strong candidate. That she might end the primary close to her 2008 numbers, and that we're almost three weeks into Trump still trying (and failing) to make the Lewinsky scandal happen again, tells me she's a strong candidate.

Problem is she can't flex what makes her a strong candidate while she's still in a primary against a guy that is lying to a significant portion of the Democratic base by screaming she's corrupt every time there's a microphone in front him. Sanders is actively looking to damage her as much as he can. He'd be a pest for any candidate running against him, and not in the sense that he could win, but because he's displayed no qualms with damaging you as much as possible on the way out.
 

Clefargle

Member
The same way someone can think that Bill Clinton was a more disastrous president than either of the Bushes.

The economic policies that led to 2007/2008, the war on the poor initiated with welfare reform and the crime bill that led to an exploding prison population - those were all Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton ALMOST made a massive push for privatized Social Security until the Monica Lewinsky scandal derailed him. NAFTA, one of the most disastrous trade deals in our nation's history for the working class and industrial sector - Bill Clinton.

If you think that what happened in the 90s under Clinton harmed more people than the Wars on terror under bush then I can't think of you as anything other than extremely callous and narrow minded. Sure, his crime bill hurt many minorities, but it wasn't as if the prison/judicial/police system wasn't already terrible before. Sure economic inequality and welfare reform hurt many over the decades, but it only added to the already bad state of affairs. You can't throw all of it at Clinton's feet. But with the Bush admin, their decisions ruined lives and killed thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people globally. And it isn't like the Bush tax cuts helped economic inequality any. What you're pushing is straight up revisionism.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Since when is Wisconsin a swing state? Trump will not come close to winning there.
It's adorable that folks think we should cower or retch at the whole pullstring doll "I'm voting Green!" act.

...

Aside:
PPP has Hillary up 14% over Bernie this morning in New Jersey. She'll be called the "presumptive nominee" before California polls close.
 

Drek

Member
She's not a good candidate at all. She should be destroying Trump but there was a poll out this morning showing him leading 45-42. Sure, its a FoxNews poll but others have shown a very close race as well.

The aggregate on Talking Points Memo is Clinton 44.1 to Trump 43.7

This shouldn't be a close election and hopefully won't, but here we are.

1. The only thing Romney got right in 2012 was that 45% of the electorate is ideologically locked in to either side of the isle already.

2. She is "not a good candidate" because she has been the target of a 30 year smear campaign by the right that the far left have joined in on for the last several months because fuck winning, purity uber alles.

This is the real damage Sanders is doing. He's convincing people (like disastermouse in this very thread) that the problems with the middle class stem from free trade deals, simple, cut and dry, NAFTA stole your middle class career track.

In reality those jobs were already being exported and NAFTA was getting something back for an already unstoppable trend. The plight of the middle class actually stems from the Right to Work movement killing unionization, the acceleration of urbanization draining wealth from rural communities, and a general reticence towards change presented by the general population.

Economists rarely agree on anything. The majority agree that the U.S. free trade deals have been a net positive for the U.S.. That's just the reality of the situation here. A tariff isn't going to make $7.65/Hr. competitive with $0.50/Hr.. Calling for an increase in the minimum wage while also calling for trade protectionism is just fucking absurd, as it would result in massive deflation and economic collapse. But then nothing Sanders has ever said made good policy sense.

3. This will be an incredibly close election because it is the last chance for white supremacy to push back before minority group populations are too large to be stopped.
 
New polls

Politics polls ‏@politics_polls 14m14 minutes ago
New Jersey General Election:
@QuinnipiacPoll 5/10-16

Clinton 45% (+7)
Trump 38%
.
Sanders 49% (+12)
Trump 37%

Politics polls ‏@politics_polls 11m11 minutes ago
National General Election:
@Rasmussen_Poll 5/17-18

Trump 42% (+5)
Clinton 37%
 
PoliGAF, since you people know a lot about this stuff, I'd thought I'd ask here.

There is a new poll from today by Rasmussen reports. (White House Watch: Trump 42%, Clinton 37%, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch)

I am assuming the poll is highly flawed, since I have heard that Trump doesn't have the demographics to win the nomination. I just don't know why it is flawed, can you tell me? Bad source, bad methods, bad sample size?
 
PoliGAF, since you people know a lot about this stuff, I'd thought I'd ask here.

There is a new poll from today by Rasmussen reports. (White House Watch: Trump 42%, Clinton 37%, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch)

I am assuming the poll is highly flawed, since I have heard that Trump doesn't have the demographics to win the nomination. I just don't know why it is flawed, can you tell me? Bad source, bad methods, bad sample size?

Rasmussen.

Polls republicans use to feel better about themselves.

(Part of the reason Romney and others thought they were going to pull 2012 out was that they believed Rasmussen was seeing things all the other pollsters weren't. they have a heavy R tilt)
 

HylianTom

Banned
Rasmussen requires us to register and sign-in to see crosstabs? Sad!
(Joe Trippi just pointed-out the crosstabs on that Fox poll. 41% Republican? Hashtag lol.)
 

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
I'm not a fan of a lot of things Bill Clinton did including nafta, and deregulation but welfare reform was not one of them. Welfare was out of control in the 80s early 90s. I saw it first hand how badly it was being abused.

I knew one lady who had 5 kids because she knew she would get more welfare, of course she also owned a house in Dominican Republic.

I knew more than a few business owners and drug dealers who were getting welfare in the early 90s. I know it's annecdotal but that shit doesn't happen anymore.
 

Wilsongt

Member
As if you needed any more evidence that the GOP is literally against anything that Obama does simply because it's Obama...:

Hours after the White House announced a final rule that will change overtime protection so that it covers millions more Americans, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) vowed to fight it. But just months ago, Ryan was calling for the very sort of raises that the new rule will ensure.

After Ryan was elected to the Speaker position in October last year, he gave a speech outlining the challenges he hopes to address in the role. First on the list was the financial struggles American workers face.

“Here’s the problem. They’re working hard. They’re paying a lot. They are trying to do right by their families. And they are going nowhere fast,” he said. “They never get a raise. They never get a break… They are working harder than ever to get ahead. Yet they are falling further behind.”

This is the very problem that the Obama administration has said it wants to address by updating the overtime rule. Because the threshold that currently stands at $23,660 — meaning anyone earning less than that it is owed time and a half for working more than 40 hours a week — hasn’t been updated since 1975, the number of salaried workers who were guaranteed extra pay for extra work has dropped from 12 million to 3.5 million.

The new rule, when it goes into effect in December, will increase that threshold to $47,476. The administration has estimated that 4.2 million workers will become newly eligible for extra pay, leading to a $12 billion increase in wages over the next decade. The other option employers have is to cut down the ever-expanding workweek back to 40 hours and give workers more time.

That doesn’t work for Ryan, however. In a statement he released on Wednesday, he argued that the overtime rule “hurts the very people it alleges to help” because employers will eliminate salaried jobs. “We are committed to fighting this rule and the many others that would be an absolute disaster for our economy,” he said.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/05/19/3779735/paul-ryan-overtime/
 

Maledict

Member
Rasmussen always has an in house leaning towards republicans, because it's a republican pollster. They were one of the worst pollsters in 2012 because of this - they constantly overstate Republican voters.

However, regardless there has definitely been a tightening of the polls over the last couple of weeks. This is to be expected as Donald is now the REpublican nominee, so a lot of people in the party are falling into line behind him. This hasn't happened on the democrat side, and indeed it's becoming increasing acrimonious, as unlike on the republican side Sanders isn't dropping out despite having lost the nomination.

You should expect to see a bump once Hillary secures the nomination that should show her ahead of Trump in the poll aggregators. What I would echo is what another poster said earlier, in that it's not going to be a blow out - simply because roughly 40 to 45% of the American electorate *is* that racist, or willing to tolerate racism to "beat the other side" (which is the same thing in mine and many people's eyes.

It's a sad reflection on some of the failings of democracy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom