Support NeoGAF

[NeoXChaos]

who is keynote this year?

Kamala Harris?

 

[bananas]

The correct solution is to blow [...] white men

If it must be so...

 

[olympia]

Another reason the media is useless trash, all the news channels discussing the 911 transcripts for the Orlando shooting, and they're all like, "He mentioned ISIS, but nothing about hating gay people. Guess it really was radicalization and not a hate crime!"

I mean... if he really was using ISIS to cover up his own self-hating homosexuality, of course that's what he's going to say to police. Am I alone here in the land of common sense?

unless i'm forgetting something, the fact that he was closeted seems to be from pure conjecture but there isn't any real evidence that he was gay outside of what his wife said. his frequency of pulse and browsing the gay dating site still might have been informing his designs to do something evil.

i haven't heard anyone claim that it was radicalization instead of a hate crime (as if those things are mutually exclusive). i think it's fair to discuss why he did what he did as a mixture of his own personal (sexual, mental or otherwise) frustration and his possible influence from isis' prominence.

 

[Thequietone]

The correct solution is to blow off white men, they are the worst.

Lewd.

 

[pigeon]

unless i'm forgetting something, the fact that he was closeted seems to be from pure conjecture but there isn't any real evidence that he was gay outside of what his wife said. his frequency of pulse and browsing the gay dating site still might have been informing his designs to do something evil.

I mean, if you are super strongly invested in believing that he's not gay then sure, you can make an argument that he's not gay.

I feel like a normal, rational human being, based on the evidence of him visiting a gay nightclub for years, using multiple gay hookup apps (gay guys don't have "dating" sites, they are generally more direct), telling coworkers he was gay while at gay nightclubs with them, and making his wife think he might be gay, would probably conclude that yeah, he was gay.

So I think that the people making the argument that "there's no evidence" are basically like living in a Humean froth where it is impossible to really know anything. Maybe he didn't shoot up the club at all, how could we be sure?

 

[B-Dubs]

Moody's Analysis: Trump's Policy Plans Would Trigger A 'Lengthy Recession'

That sounds a bit like the best case scenario tbh.

 

[Link]

unless i'm forgetting something, the fact that he was closeted seems to be from pure conjecture but there isn't any real evidence that he was gay outside of what his wife said. his frequency of pulse and browsing the gay dating site still might have been informing his designs to do something evil.

i haven't heard anyone claim that it was radicalization instead of a hate crime (as if those things are mutually exclusive). i think it's fair to discuss why he did what he did as a mixture of his own personal (sexual, mental or otherwise) frustration and his possible influence from isis' prominence.

I guess I needed a little more context. FBI investigations have not found any evidence so far linking him to ISIS. It feels like the news channels are using these transcripts to say "Well, I guess he really was with ISIS."

I'm not saying it's definitive that he was gay and that's why he did it, even though there's a lot of variables suggesting that he likely was. Maybe he was with ISIS. It just seems shortsighted to use these transcripts to assume his true motives so definitively.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Trump's campaign shows how much of/what kind of a business man he is. It shows he only relies on his name, and doesn't know how to make an actual organization.

 

[ampere]

White men are the worst indeed. Except me, I'm only... sorta the worst.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ur-part/?postshare=4531466444898910&tid=ss_tw

Article by a guy who knew the Orlando murderer, and actually reported him to the FBI because of radicalized videos the shooter had said he watched. I hope people who are borderline anti-Muslim read this and rethink their prejudices. Anyone who is already really bigoted probably won't be swayed though.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Wow. I just read some things I wrote a couple of years ago and compared it to my current outlook on politics. What dejected fatalism I suffer. What happened to grandiose visions of a better future? What happened to society building and rulebook changing? What happened to our countrywide embarrassment over not being Europe (which I guess now only includes Scandinavia and Germany)? Did it die with that gremlin Bernie Sanders?

I want single payer healthcare in California. Brown will probably veto it forever, and so will the next governor. I want to overturn the Citizens United decision. Not a chance in hell of this happening because it requires constitutional amendment. I want a repeal of the 2nd amendment and a replacement of it with fragile gun privileges. No chance in hell. I want a president who demands action in Palestine, either in the establishment of a two-state solution or a one state solution that ends their hellish apartheid. Our next president for 8 years will never pressure against the status quo because the alliance is to valuable. I want free or reduced tuition college! That probably WILL happen, but it depends on the House.

But really, I have nothing to be excited about for at least... 4 or 6 years besides "securing the gains". Nab some justices, make sure Obamacare remains in full force, make sure gay people don't become 2nd class citizens, maybe (but only maybe) some criminal justice reform (but that's mostly a states thing anyway, barring a new bill of rights for those interacting with law enforcement). Sometimes people forget, here, but I'm like, you know, a liberal!

This election is so lame I could be fighting for revolutionary societal changes but instead we're all collectively babysitting this fucking braindead country making sure it doesn't ban Muslims and deport established immigrant families, causing a nuclear war in the process. What the hell!

I love Clinton. I do! I was very dismissive last summer (remember the media coverage about her roping off people during a parade/march?) but I have come to adore her. But holy christ almighty, what a dismal experience it is to vote in America. "If we don't vote, gay people will be second class citizens and Muslims will be put in internment camps." Wtf, why is that even a real possibility?!

Upon reflection, there will be much to rejoice over in a few meager years: the continued march to green energy, a continuation of world stability and the global balance of powers, all the things gaffers like to mention are at stake this election, etc. But God, do I miss my delusions that liberal pipe dreams were even remotely possible within the next decade. Who am I kidding!

I'm moving to Hamburg.

 

[Y2Kev]

So this doesn't really surprise me but I'm annoyed because this is already creating a framing that if Hillary doesn't pick Warren it's because she's corporate.

There are lots of reasons why Hillary might not want to pick Warren as VP!



The correct solution is to blow off white men, they are the worst.

Including Bernistas, I suppose? So then she should pick Booker or Perez or Bercerra.

 

[Hilbert]

Join the Becerra train.

Choo choo, motherfucker!!

I am definitely on the train!

Feel a little guilty about it, my reasoning is completely shallow. I want to see a west coast mexican-american on the ticket.

 

[itschris]

Join the Becerra train.

Choo choo, motherfucker!!

Agreed! Either Becerra or Kaine would be the best choices, I think. Kaine's a little boring, but also the obvious, safe pick (his biggest negative is probably his pro-life past).

Becerra's more exciting, and still experienced enough for VP. I'd say his biggest negative is a scandal where he wrote a letter to Bill Clinton to consider the commutation of a cocaine dealer whose family donated to his campaign. Though since the scandal also involved Bill and Hillary's brother (!), it maybe doesn't matter as much since it can be brought up whether Becerra is VP or not.

 

[Valhelm]

No Warren VP would make me sad, but I'll survive

 

[olympia]

I mean, if you are super strongly invested in believing that he's not gay then sure, you can make an argument that he's not gay.

I feel like a normal, rational human being, based on the evidence of him visiting a gay nightclub for years, using multiple gay hookup apps (gay guys don't have "dating" sites, they are generally more direct), telling coworkers he was gay while at gay nightclubs with them, and making his wife think he might be gay, would probably conclude that yeah, he was gay.

So I think that the people making the argument that "there's no evidence" are basically like living in a Humean froth where it is impossible to really know anything. Maybe he didn't shoot up the club at all, how could we be sure?

um, we're talking about claims that the media is making, not some average chucklefuck, or me as a person. it is journalistically irresponsible to say that he was surely closeted without hard, cold evidence. i don't think what his wife says means much because she has repeatedly changed her story.

i personally think that he was closeted, but i'm not going to say that the media is trying to dodge the question of his sexuality because they aren't outright saying that he was surely closeted especially when details are still forthcoming.

I guess I needed a little more context. FBI investigations have not found any evidence so far linking him to ISIS. It feels like the news channels are using these transcripts to say "Well, I guess he really was with ISIS."

I'm not saying it's definitive that he was gay and that's why he did it, even though there's a lot of variables suggesting that he likely was. Maybe he was with ISIS. It just seems shortsighted to use these transcripts to assume his true motives so definitively.

yeah, i agree with you for sure in that respect that he wasn't linked to isis, that seems apparent. i get what you mean.

 

[ampere]

I want to overturn the Citizens United decision. Not a chance in hell of this happening because it requires constitutional amendment.

Are you sure this is the case? What's to stop another FEC case from reaching the Supreme Court and a different decision creating opposite precedent? I guess that an amendment is more "permanent", but surely it's not the only way possible

 

[biosnake20]

Cory Booker it is.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Are you sure this is the case? What's to stop another FEC case from reaching the Supreme Court and a different decision creating opposite precedent? I guess that an amendment is more "permanent", but surely it's not the only way possible

Supreme Court decisions are only overturned in very extreme circumstances. It's pretty well established at this point. And the decision isn't wrong; unlimited campaign contributions to superPACs is consistent with US law, free speech, etc. So we need some serious legislation, and it's the only way.

 

[cogent]

Still gotta be Kaine.

 

[B-Dubs]

Supreme Court decisions are only overturned in very extreme circumstances. It's pretty well established at this point. And the decision isn't wrong; unlimited campaign contributions to superPACs is consistent with US law, free speech, etc. So we need some serious legislation, and it's the only way.

It's not though, even Roberts has expressed regret with how the aftermath of the case has turned out. The idea that the court could overturn it is not something that's completely out there.

 

[Brinbe]

Yeah, it's gonna be Kaine.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

It's not though, even Roberts has expressed regret with how the aftermath of the case has turned out. The idea that the court could overturn it is not something that's completely out there.

Didn't know re: Roberts. When a case is overturned, the circumstances are usually dramatically different from the original time of ruling. There hasn't really been a lot of change in the past decade. I mean, it's possible, but I would bet against it.

 

[Y2Kev]

Priorities USA raised $12MM in May, accelerating after Trump got presuminated. Probably rich people (like me) tired of looking at Turdie too.

 

[kadotsu]

Kaine is fine but I would like for Clinton to strongly advise the DNC to encourage a mixed gender ticket for future elections.

 

[Valhelm]

Still gotta be Kaine.

gross

 

[B-Dubs]

Didn't know re: Roberts. When a case is overturned, the circumstances are usually dramatically different from the original time of ruling. There hasn't really been a lot of change in the past decade. I mean, it's possible, but I would bet against it.

Well, there has though. We've seen the aftermath of the ruling and how the landscape has changed. Unless you think the four that dissented are going to change their stance for reasons there's no reason to think a court that's shifted left wouldn't strike it down given the chance.

 

[Iolo]

I thought we were done with anonymously-sourced Politico shitpoop.

 

[aspiegamer]

How is Trump supposed to survive through the convention? Ugh.

How many times can one train crash

Metaphorical question, I know, but I actually tried to research it. The closest I could find was a women who nearly got hit by a train twice at the same intersection within 2 weeks though it's unclear if it was the same train or not. It was a passenger train on a regular route, so it's theoretically possible.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Well, there has though. We've seen the aftermath of the ruling and how the landscape has changed. Unless you think the four that dissented are going to change their stance for reasons there's no reason to think a court that's shifted left wouldn't strike it down given the chance.

Huh. I guess you're right. Yeah, that does seem possible.

 

[thcsquad]

Now that Clinton is rising even without consolidating Bernie stans, I'm off the Warren VP train. She doesn't offer anything we need. The Democratic flank is nailed down.

The issue I can't reconcile is how to be respectful of the minority communities that support Hillary with someone that appeals to white men. I don't think I can square this circle. Is it Tom Perez?

Jill Stein at 4% is too high. I fear her % will rise if Hillary rejects Warren for the sake of campaign money. Keep in mind these donors are voting for Hillary either way: it's just a matter of getting their money. So I think after that letter, ditching her for someone like Tim Kaine would be a bad look. Jill Stein at 5-6%...hell, even at 4% could mess up some swing states.

I say Warren, maybe with that choice we'll replace some of that Wall Street money with ramen money.

 

[Y2Kev]

I don't think Hillary is going to not-pick Warren because of donors. I think she's going to not-pick Warren because she wouldn't be a great pick.

Jill Stein will get like 1% and is annoying.

 

[B-Dubs]

Jill Stein at 4% is too high. I fear her % will rise if Hillary rejects Warren for the sake of campaign money. Keep in mind these donors are voting for Hillary either way: it's just a matter of getting their money. So I think after that letter, ditching her for someone like Tim Kaine would be a bad look. Jill Stein at 5-6%...hell, even at 4% could mess up some swing states.

I say Warren, maybe with that choice we'll replace some of that Wall Street money with ramen money.

Stein is going to get all of jack shit of the vote. She's only polling that well because we're this far out, the hardcore Berners aren't home yet, and the convention hasn't happened. Seriously, don't be worried about the Greens.

 

[Paskil]

Bah! Becerra and Kaine are trash. Get on the Perez train.

 

[User 463088]

Kaine is the most boring unexciting pick possible. Listening to him speak during the filibuster was boring. He didn't move the needle in the PPP poll of Virginia. Such a waste if she goes that route.

 

[Valhelm]

I don't think Hillary is going to not-pick Warren because of donors. I think she's going to not-pick Warren because she wouldn't be a great pick.

Jill Stein will get like 1% and is annoying.

The whole donor thing is really frustrating, because when Clinton doesn't pick Warren (or Bernie, lol) a sizable contingent of Hillary-leaning Bernie fans will see this as "proof" of her corruption, and might not vote.

 

[Abinash117]

Some insight about Hillary Clinton on how she handle foreign policy related issues and where she stands.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...at_orlando_reveals_about_her_approach_to.html

The widespread wisdom is that Clinton is a hawk. A recent headline in the New York Times Magazine blared, “How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk,” as if the question of whether she is one had long ago been settled. But there are many species of hawks. What kind is she? Compared with her predecessor and her rival, will Hillary’s brand of hawkishness make us safer or less secure—raise or reduce the odds of plunging us into war?

And are these the right questions, or in any case the only ones, to ask? During one of her first briefings on China as secretary of state, Clinton asked, to the surprise of everyone in the room, highly detailed questions about several dam projects that Beijing had begun—referring to them by name—and wanted to know how neighboring India was reacting to them. “She understood that water resources were a national-security issue in the region,” the briefer recalls.

It was a small moment, but it reveals something important about how Clinton sees the world, beyond the hawk-dove binary. It suggests that, in much the same way she sees domestic policy as a series of interlocking problems, Clinton takes a more expansive view than most hawks (or doves) of what “national security” entails.

Hillary’s hawkish reputation is not undeserved. In the high-level debates over war and peace in Obama’s first term, when she served as secretary of state, Clinton almost always aligned herself with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and his generals. She supported their case for sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan (Obama reluctantly approved 30,000 and then only with a pullout-date attached). She advocated keeping 10,000 troops in Iraq (Obama decided to bring them all home, in part because an agreement signed by George W. Bush required a total withdrawal). She sided with Gen. David Petraeus’ plan to arm “moderate” rebels in Syria (Obama rejected the idea, concluding it would have little effect on Bashar al-Assad’s regime or much else).

The only issue on which Clinton parted ways with the Pentagon was Libya, and in that case, she was more hawkish: she favored armed intervention to help resistance fighters who wound up toppling Muammar Qaddafi, while Gates and the top brass opposed getting involved.

Yet in her time as secretary, Clinton also took positions anathema to most hawks. She launched the “reset” with Russia (which accomplished a great deal, in nuclear arms-reduction and counterterrorism policies, until Vladimir Putin resumed control of the Kremlin). She was a champion of international women’s rights and children’s welfare, seeing these causes as vital for development, diplomacy, and global stability. She grasped the gravity of climate change earlier than most senior officials.

Even in her support for sending arms to Syrian rebels, one of her more conventionally hawkish positions, she opposed still more aggressive proposals to deploy tens of thousands of U.S. troops as an occupying force. And while she called for a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians, she linked the proposal to consultations with Russia, in order to minimize the risks of escalating conflict. (By contrast, some Republican presidential candidates who supported a no-fly zone salivated at the prospect of shooting down a Russian combat plane.) Similarly, on Libya, she called for armed intervention by a coalition, not by the United States alone. (Like Obama, she accepted assurances from NATO allies, especially France and Italy, that they would take the lead on reconstruction and “stability operations” after the fighting stopped—assurances that proved hollow.)

Another former State Department official who worked with Clinton says, “She is inclined to take action—not necessarily military action, but she believes American inaction can leave a power vacuum, which could make us less safe in the long run.”

This is a key distinction between Obama and Clinton. Obama’s recognition of the limits of power, and his reluctance to act just for the sake of acting, has kept the nation from doing (as he put it) “stupid shit.” But this trait has also sometimes made him appear ambivalent, an apt pose for a scholar-statesman but riskily indecisive for a president. Clinton’s confidence in American power may make her look more resolute as president—but it may also lead the nation more determinedly into war.

Which leads to a larger point—that, in their basic policies and outlook on the world, the differences between Obama and Clinton are relatively minor. Even Mark Landler, whose book chronicles their competing views on military power, acknowledges in his first chapter that, during her time as secretary of state, she and Obama “agreed more than they disagreed. Both preferred diplomacy to brute force. Both shunned the unilateralism of the Bush years. Both are lawyers committed to preserving the rules-based order that the United States put in place after 1945.” Their disputes, he writes, stemmed mainly from their “very different instincts for how to save” this post-WWII order as it has fractured in the aftermath of the Cold War.

She is more hawkish than Obama on some things and less than neocons. She doesn't think the military is a last resort, but any other tool to use like diplomacy and will do diplomacy first most likely and will use military force( not necessary for combat) if it is deemed to be more effective. Otherwise she is the same as Obama and agree with him most of the time. However, she might be less cautious than him, and might take more risky actions in the same situations to achieve the same goals that Obama wants or would want. Hopefully as president she'll be a little more cautious as she and the country has much to lose and she has more to worry about.

 

[Emarv]

The only reason Warren is still being talked about is because of Harry Reid. Reid 1) wants to spite Sanders and 2) may be a little scared of Bernie stans, so he pushed the Warren stuff. Otherwise, she'd be as talked about as anyone else.

 

[itschris]

Bah! Becerra and Kaine are trash. Get on the Perez train.

I like Perez, but it would be pretty unusual to choose a VP that's never held elected office higher than county council.

 

[Emarv]

Becerra was on Buzzfeed's Politics podcast a couple of weeks ago and was very well-spoken, on-message and had a cool background. Dude's a solid company man.

That said, I still believe it all comes down to chemistry. That's the #1 reason why I think Warren would never happen.

 

[maabus1999]

Well, one thing I will say for Warren is she has got the "VP should be the attack dog" part of the equation aced.

Everything else strategically is another discussion.

 

[RastaMentality]

Kaine will probably change all of nothing in the end if picked. And tbh, I wonder if Becerra's name not sounding as good in Clinton/Becerra is playing a role lol.

 

[User 463088]

The only reason Warren is still being talked about is because of Harry Reid. Reid 1) wants to spite Sanders and 2) may be a little scared of Bernie stans, so he pushed the Warren stuff. Otherwise, she'd be as talked about as anyone else.

Eh, team Queen is doing a good job of keeping her in consideration. She's taken over her social media presence. She gave a very Veep like speech at HQ. She's the only one really gaining attention/presence.

 

[B-Dubs]

Some insight about Hillary Clinton on how she handle foreign policy related issues and where she stands.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...at_orlando_reveals_about_her_approach_to.html



She is more hawkish than Obama on some things and less than neocons. She doesn't think the military is a last resort, but any other tool to use like diplomacy and will do diplomacy first most likely and will use military force( not necessary for combat) if it is deemed to be more effective. Otherwise she is the same as Obama and agree with him most of the time. However, she might be less cautious than him, and might take more risky actions in the same situations to achieve the same goals that Obama wants or would want. Hopefully as president she'll be a little more cautious as she and the country has much to lose and she has more to worry about.

The bit on the Bin laden raid was an interesting read, as were the parts where they spoke about her objections to drone strikes in certain situations.

 

[ampere]

Tim Canova (challenger to DWS) is doing a Reddit AMA, and even Reddit isn't buying his shit lol. Top voted question is "why do you criticize the Iran deal?" and he didn't answer it. He did answer some jibberish about why he only eats organic! https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4ozqk9/hi_reddit_im_tim_canova_im_challenging_debbie/

I like Perez, but it would be pretty unusual to choose a VP that's never held elected office higher than county council.

I'm feeling the same way at this point. Does he inspire confidence to voters as someone "ready for the job on day 1"? Probably not

I feel like Warren is still most likely at this point, and I think the "bu-but two women on the ticket?!" worries are oversold.

 

[Emarv]

Eh, team Queen is doing a good job of keeping her in consideration. She's taken over her social media presence. She gave a very Veep like speech at HQ. She's the only one really gaining attention/presence.

I think you're right. And I think she's gonna play a very important role in this election. I just don't think VP will be that role, ultimately.

 

[Abinash117]

Hillary doesn't need Warren, but she provides a different imagine to the Democrats that they would want. Firing up progressives and liberals to vote. She is also can be very exciting and that works well for young people. She is also a lot experience outside Congress and gives here a lot of knowledge that does not have to do with politics. Plus, her views would align her with Hillary of socioeconomic issues as she is very knowledgeable about it. Plus, as she is extremely popular with progressives in politics this will help Hillary gain influence over progressives through Warren. It would make it easier for the progressives to vote on bills and gain support in Congress and outside. Long term wise Warren would probably be really valuable, the fact of gaining influence over progressives is probably the biggest reason to get her as the VP. If economic progressivism is the driving force of the next generation of democrats and dominates issues, she would be there as a voice and help control and work with progressives. As vice president she would be much closer to Hillary than she would be from the Senate.

 

[Link]

Wow, CNN hitting a new low. They have Buck Sexton on trashing the administration about the FBI redactions, and they have him listed as "Former CIA Counterterrorism Analyst."

Talk about disingenuous.

 

[User 463088]

Oh, god, not again....

 

[Diablos]

Oh, god, not again....

I almost want to take a pic of a bird on a Trump sign just to kill this stupid craze.

 

[mo60]

Republicans in Utah are starting to panic about the general election.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4022055-155/utah-republican-chairman-talks-with-donald