-
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
Jane Lynch.
Eugene Levy.
Bob Balaban.
Catherine O'Hara.
I don't understand how it's possible to pick anyone other than Larry David.
E: Just realized what you were going for there.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Y2Kev, do you have kids?
Too old for Hollywood imo
I have two dogs.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The Federalist has got a #take
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?postshare=9311463843952700&tid=ss_tw
Black peop-I mean, poor peop-I mean, the overall public is too stupid to pick good leaders so we need quizzes before people can vote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?postshare=9311463843952700&tid=ss_tw
Black peop-I mean, poor peop-I mean, the overall public is too stupid to pick good leaders so we need quizzes before people can vote.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Hmmm I seem to remember something like this in history.....
Aaron Strife
Banned
Was a little historical event. You might have heard about it. It was called
World War I
There was also a large protest movement over such laws. You may know it as
The Cuban Missile Crisis
Hellsing321
Member
Thank God. I remember caucusing for Obama in 08 and afterwards I said never again.
I assume this has already been discussed, but I am very pleased to see Nate Silver finally admitting the obvious:
@NateSilver538 said:
Yea, he wrote an entire article on where they went wrong with Trump a week or so ago. The fact he's able to admit it and knows where he went wrong is a damn good thing since it means he won't make the same mistake again.
Beyond "we tried this and it was really racist", I think that people who suggest trying to weed out bad voters aren't really understanding the problem that they think they see and don't understand why it's a good thing that people can vote. I think they have this sense that people are voting for what's "best for the country", and so if we can weed out people who are bad at figuring out what's best for the country then the electorate will be better at voting and less vulnerable to politicians who making terrible arguments that their terrible policies are best for the country. Even people who would never advocate some sort of test like this often complain about voters being dumb and not voting correctly.
But the main reason why it's important that, say, black people have the right to vote is not really that they might have a different and useful perspective on what's best for everyone else in the country. The main reason why it's important that black people have the right to vote is so that they can vote against the government trying to hurt them, specifically - voting is mostly about making sure your interests are represented in government.
And what's striking is that Americans are actually pretty good voters, if what they're supposed to be doing is making sure their interests are represented. Like, black people are obviously exerting pressure on the political center to not be so hostile to black people when they vote 9:1 for Democrats. Likewise white people who resent black people or who really truly think abortion is murder or whatever don't have much trouble figuring out that they should be voting Republican even though they often favor things like a higher minimum wage and higher taxes on the rich. For all that they want to privatize everything and hate socialized medicine the Republicans have often been forced to tiptoe around Medicare because their socialized medicine hating base of old people understands that they benefit from Medicare. It really doesn't look like the voters are doing a bad job to me - I would say that it's just that some of them understand their interests as so opposed to certain other people's interests that they basically just line up opposite them no matter what. But if they're right about their interests being so opposed this is actually a pretty smart strategy!
As to politics just being really dumb, I think mostly you can blame the media for this, and disenfranchising people wouldn't fix it because votes have nothing to do with ratings.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The most "voter stupidity" I saw was that Republican voters near unanimously thought Trump was more electable than Kasich in polls. But that's not something that's solved with high school history knowledge, that's a problem with being around people who all have the same political views.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Trump is pivoting far to the right and Hillary hasn't pivoted at all since the primaries finished up. Not going as expected for many pundits so far.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Trump's pivot was always going to be downward, into the muck, not lateral, though he'll hit her with jabs from both directions (which I guess is a kind of centrism, albeit an incoherent one). I said months ago his strategy was going to be trying to torpedo enthusiasm for Hillary by making her look like a cynical politician who is the embodiment of everything people hate about Washington and how Washington relates to their lives, and thus far, that seems to be correct, given he's going to go after her for being someone who covered up rape, broke the law, broke the trust of her office as Secretary of State, took money from special interests the average person hates, wants to impinge on your cultural inheritance by taking your guns away, etc.
Joeys_Rattata
Neo Member
that's because Pandillary knows the primaries aren't over yet!!!! Bernie's retroactive momentum and REVOLUTION are nipping away at her heels, so of course she's still pretending to be a liberal!!!
im team hilldawg and the fact that i even have to say this after those two sentences makes me upset
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Trump has already shifted on money in politics and entitlement cuts though (though this depends on the day). That's a shift to the right.
Why did you make yourself upset? You didn't have to say that.
jack_package_200
Banned
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-americans-see-clinton-as-lesser-of-two-evils
Sanders: Americans see Clinton as 'lesser of two evils'
Thanks for the party unity, Bernie.
Sanders: Americans see Clinton as 'lesser of two evils'
Thanks for the party unity, Bernie.
whyamihere
Banned
THANK YOU, WHITE MEN
https://twitter.com/BernersUnited/status/734135022903537664
https://twitter.com/BernersUnited/status/734135022903537664
@BernersUnited
We're Ready for Bernie Sanders and Tim Canova To Help Take Back Our Country!
#feelthebern #SeeYouInPhilly #Bernie
jack_package_200
Banned
They really do have zero concept of optics.
jack_package_200
Banned
I don't disagree.
The primary process should only take no more then two months. We have the internet. Info on the candidates is not hard to find.
aspiegamer
Member
The Trump people don't seem to be any better, even with something as elaborately set up as that alleged SCOTUS pick list where they could 100% frame it to their liking. 11 judges, zero minorities, 3 women. You'd think it wouldn't be that hard for him to at least look like he's trying, yet look at where we are. Not even bothering with a Token Black? It's either incompetence or raw, open and overt racism. Or both, I guess.
That's another aspect of the poor optics. For someone who is supposedly going to win the nomination based on Very Convincing Arguments™ that Totally Aren't Threats to Supers, shitting on the head of the party isn't a good look. I know he just wants to make a point, but using one's brain before speaking isn't hard.
I think we can probably argue Bernie has been worse for the party thus far, since Hillary and Obama's attacks on each other weren't really attacks on the party
Bernie can make some things right with how he exits the race, but he seems so damn angry I dunno if he will. On Keepin' it 1600 it was interesting hearing those guys talk about how much they hated Hillary in 08 and how it took a long time to cool off, I guess things do get heated in an election, but Bernie hasn't even been close for months! So it's not really as reasonable for him to be in it
Bernie can make some things right with how he exits the race, but he seems so damn angry I dunno if he will. On Keepin' it 1600 it was interesting hearing those guys talk about how much they hated Hillary in 08 and how it took a long time to cool off, I guess things do get heated in an election, but Bernie hasn't even been close for months! So it's not really as reasonable for him to be in it
jack_package_200
Banned
I predict that his campaign will end with a lot of fucking debt he won't be able to pay.
I bet he will turn to the DNC to help him and offer to pledge support to Hillary.
I doubt he would support her of his own volition at this point.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
He's also said the U.S. can't go bankrupt because it prints its own money, that transgender people peeing where they like is a matter of discrimination vs. non-discrimination, claimed she covered up for a rapist, will hit her with a populist jab over her support of globalization, etc.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Don't worry, "retroactive momentum" is a pretty clear wink around these parts.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
He had just under $6 million at the start of May, was expecting to raise about $25 million in May, and has a projected spend of under $21 million for May, so I don't think his campaign will end in debt unless he somehow blows $10 million in June without raising anything.
I'm pretty confident Sanders will (eventually) support Clinton. He's just going to raise a lot of issues at the convention and try and get them passed on a minority report so that they become part of the Democratic platform, or at least gain further prominence for them. I suspect he would have folded some time ago, except that Clinton hasn't really been very responsive to his wing of the party, so he's having to force some issues on her. She'll just have to suck it up and compromise her platform a little, which is a fair exchange for Sanders bringing his support with him.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Care to give some examples on what Clinton and the DNC should compromise on?
I keep hearing about compromising, but never on what.
RastaMentality
Banned
People keep mentioning we should put Sanders' stuff in the platform but he has a lot of just plain old bad policy.
BlastProcessing
Member
I mean we (all of us on Poligaf) have the internet, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that all of your electorate does. I also fear that compressing the process too much disadvantages smaller/less known candidates too much. It's a big country and a lot of campaigning is still about boots on the ground. I don't want to lose that.
User 85168
Banned
lol
Box of Kittens
Banned
I was too young to vote in 2000, but I wanted McCain to win. Basically I was at a point where I had started to question a lot of what the Republicans were doing, but having grown up in a Republican family, wasn't quite ready to see the Democrats as something other than the enemy. So, "maverick Republican" sounded pretty good to me, even without knowing too much about the details beyond campaign finance reform.
I don't really recall having much of an opinion on Bill Bradley.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
What Clinton should compromise on and what the DNC should compromise on are largely separate issues. There's a number of issues that Sanders might want Clinton to compromise on - financial reform, tuition reform, security issues like the Patriot Act - but given his intellectual background I suspect he'll be more likely to focus on change in the DNC and trying to get some Sanderistas into at least relatively key positions; the same way that Obama appointing DWS rather than Rybak was one of Clinton's conditions of support in '08.
Bernie doesn't want compromise.
Hillary has extended an olive branch and offered to negotiate the platform with Bernie multiple times. His response has been to turn up his rhetoric against her.
It seems that if he can't have the nomination, he wants completely control of the platform and the Democratic agenda. But it's like...you lost, dude. Having the king's say over the convention and the platform has always been reserved for the winner. That ain't you, and it wouldn't be fair to Hillary or her voters for her to concede that much to him. We voted for HER ideas, after all.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
He doesn't want complete control. If he did, he'd be openly threatening to run as an independent. He wants the control that he's due - in other words, whatever policy proposals he can get passed at the Convention. That's pretty fair. If he can persuade enough of Clinton's delegates combined with his own to get something passed, then that's not a Clinton concession, that's the Democratic party democratically deciding to adopt it, as have been the rules for an awfully long time. He's been turning down the olive branch because he reckons he can turn up with ~42% of the delegates and Clinton sure isn't giving him ~42% of the platform.
You're all much too worried about Sanders. He's brought in a demographic that Clinton didn't have the political or personal capacity to reach, and will give them to Clinton when the time is right. That benefits her in the long-run; she'll do better than she would have if he'd never run. She just has to wait a little longer, be gracious in her victory, and then move on to Trump. Besides, the Democratic party, while of course better than the alternative, is staggeringly undemocratic. A greater level of skepticism and scrutiny is a good thing.
Well good luck to him with his current strategy.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Exactly. He's not going to get his way on "free" college, $15 minimum wage, etc etc and his response is essentially to take his ball and go home. Hillary won, she gets to add her views to the platform...that's how it goes.
Sanders and his ilk remind me of when you try to play a board game to kids and they want to make up their own rules instead playing the game as it's meant to be played. That's funny/cute behavior when you're six years old...but less so when you're halfway to 80 and know better.
I wouldn't mind allowing him to change the rules on certain primary deadlines and rules, for instance. But that's about it.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Were he merely playing nice, all he'd get is a symbolic nod. What he's hoping is that the DNC is conscious of being scrutinized by a decent chunk of people they'd like to have vote for them, and acting with that consideration in mind. It's cynical, but I gotta give the man credit, it's probably his best bet.
Edit: Also, welcome back, Crab.
Also also, all primaries should either be open, or closed but with same-day registration, for both parties. If they are not, the DNC and GOP can fund them, themselves, instead of leaving independents on the hook for a process they're not allowed a say in without compromising their sense of political identity.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked