• 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 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Orbis Tabula

Member
Teggy said:
So Cruz will speak at the convention but won't endorse? I don't see how that works.
Click to expand...

They need speakers and haven't been able to fill the schedule? I mean, the schedule was supposed to come out yesterday, so given that some people are still negotiating for spots, Im assuming they couldn't book it all as quickly as Trump wanted.
 
E

Emarv

Member
Kaine just doesn't satisfy anyone. He doesn't help with any demographic, he doesn't help with progressives and maybe arguable helps with Independents? Although you could make the argument based on this election cycle that Independents =/ moderates. He offers zero excitement. His only pro is really "does no harm".

Hillary has to see these white women numbers. She has to see that's her one major swing opportunity.

As much as I love Warren and don't want her out of the Senate, man, it really does look like she might be it and that has me pretty excited.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
I think perez's work on civil rights is an underrated aspect. Dude has economics, civil rights, latino, etc. Warren is still gonna campaign

After the shooting death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, by George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida in 2012, Perez was brought in by Representative Alcee Hastings and Sanford Mayor Jeff Triplet to investigate the police department's handling of the case.[90] A full-scale investigation was later launched by the Civil Rights Division, where Perez led an inquiry on the shooting investigation. After a thorough investigation was promised by Attorney General Eric Holder, Perez went to Florida, meeting with U.S. Attorney Robert O'Neil, family members of Trayvon Martin and local officials to investigate if the shooting was a racially motivated hate crime.[91] The Justice Department launched a probe into Sanford police chief Bill Lee, where he was later fired two months after the beginning of the investigation.[92]

After homeless Native American woodcarver, John T. Williams, was fatally shot by the Seattle Police Department in 2010, Perez led an eight-month investigation into the use of excessive force by the SPD.[93] After the end of the Division’s investigation, along with Jenny Durkan, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Western Washington, Perez released a report citing “constitutional violations regarding the use of force that result from structural problems, as well as serious concerns about biased policing” by the SPD.[94] A settlement was later reached between the Civil Rights Division and the city of Seattle; requiring the city to create a Community Police Commission, have the SPD under the supervision of an independent, court-appointed monitor and encouraging police officers to de-escalate nonviolent confrontations by decreasing their use of force.[95]


Maricopa County, Arizona investigation

In June 2008, the Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, after allegations that the MCSO was engaged in a pattern of practice of unlawful conduct.[96]
An expanded investigation leading into Perez's tenure over "discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures,"[97] led to a lawsuit by the Justice Department after Arpaio rejected the Department's request for documents regarding the investigation; becoming the first time that the federal government sued a local law enforcement agency concerning Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since the 1970s.[98][99]

Perez released a 22-page report[96] on discriminatory and racial biases against Latinos by the MCSO, and Arpaio.[100] The report found that the MCSO mistreated and used racial slurs against Spanish-speaking inmates; Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely than non-Latino drivers to be stopped in identical non-criminal instances; 20% of stops and seizures, almost all of them involving Latinos, were legally unjustified, violating the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and the MCSO and sheriff's deputies engaged in retaliation against individuals who participated in demonstrations against the office’s policies regarding immigration.[96] Arpaio was also found to have used racial and ethnic description, such as "individuals with dark skin" and "individuals speaking Spanish" as justification for immigration raids on businesses and homes; overlooking criminal activity as vindication for immigration raids led by the MCSO.[101]

In May 2012, after the end of a three-year investigation, Perez led his division in a lawsuit against Maricopa County, the MCSO and Arpaio, for violating Section 14141 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.[102] Though the suit was criticized by Arpaio as a political move by the Obama administration,[103] Perez called the suit an "abuse-of-power case involving a sheriff and sheriff's office that disregarded the Constitution, ignored sound police practices, compromised public safety and did not hesitate to retaliate against his perceived critics."[104]

Voter I.D. laws
The Obama administration directed Perez and the Civil Rights Division in challenging South Carolina’s 2011 voter ID law, over concerns that the law violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[105] Perez successfully blocked the law from taking effect, after the Justice Department alleged South Carolina of failing to prove that the law wouldn't have a disproportionate effect on minority voters.[106] In a letter to South Carolina’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General, C. Havird Jones, Jr.,[107] Perez questioned whether 81,000 registered voters, all of whom minorities who didn’t have government issued or military photo identification, would be able to exercise their right to vote, citing “significant racial disparities in the proposed photo identification requirement."[107]
Perez also oversaw the Obama administration’s efforts in challenging a 2011 voter ID law signed by Texas Governor Rick Perry; being the second voter ID law consequently found to have violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.[108] Addressing the Supreme Court case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, where the court upheld the constitutionality of Indiana’s photo ID requirement, Perez argued that “[Texas’s] submission did not include evidence of significant in-person voter impersonation not already addressed by the state's existing laws.”[109] Perez also stressed data from the Texas Department of Public Safety that found that registered Hispanic voters were 46.5% to 120% less likely than non-Hispanic voters to have a government issued driver’s license or state required photo ID.[110][111][112]
Click to expand...

This is great stuff to use against Trump
 
M

Measley

Junior Member
Emarv said:
Kaine just doesn't satisfy anyone. He doesn't help with any demographic, he doesn't help with progressives and maybe arguable helps with Independents? Although you could make the argument based on this election cycle that Independents =/ moderates. He offers zero excitement. His only pro is really "does no harm".

Hillary has to see these white women numbers. She has to see that's her one major swing opportunity.

As much as I love Warren and don't want her out of the Senate, man, it really does look like she might be it and that has me pretty excited.
Click to expand...

Kaine locks up Virginia for Clinton.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/elizabeth-warren-trade-policies-225237

Elizabeth Warren proved an electrifying partner to Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail last week — but in the heat of vice presidential try-out season, the progressive firebrand on Thursday issued a blunt reminder of her own downsides.

In a five-minute anti-TPP video released Thursday morning ahead of the Democratic party’s platform meeting in Orlando, the Massachusetts Senator rails against the 12-nation trade pact, calling it a part of a “rigged” system that benefits corporations over workers.

Clinton has also come out against the trade deal, backed by President Obama. But Warren’s vehement opposition to the deal doubles as an indictment of U.S. trade policy overall -- and has nothing to do with the issues Clinton has laid out in her own more measured opposition to the agreement she heralded as the “gold standard” of trade deals when she served as secretary of state.

Warren's blunt critique of U.S. trade policy in general was the latest reminder that the progressive standard-bearer, who has spent her career rattling institutions, would not make for an easy partner in the White House.

In the video posted online by Credo, a liberal activist group fighting TPP, Warren highlights the trade advisory committee and the Investor State Dispute Settlement clause, which she says is a key provision that benefits corporations and weakens public safety regulations. "It'll be open season on laws that make people safer but cut into corporate profits," she says in the video.

“Candidate Clinton has focused on a very different set of issues when she talks about why she feels TPP does not meet the bar,” said Mireya Solis, a senior fellow and trade policy expert at the Brookings Institute. “She has mentioned currency manipulation and rules of origin.”

Notable in the two politicians’ differing objections to the deal is that Clinton indicates she could support the deal under different circumstances, while Warren seems to see no fixes.

The trade advisory committee that Warren takes issue with has been in operation since 1974, Solis noted. And almost all of America's treaties contain the Investor State Dispute Settlement clause.

“The fact that they are identifying different issues shows they have very different perspectives on TPP and trade policy in general,” said Solis. “If you look at the objections Warren made in the video, even though they were in reference to TPP, it is an indictment of U.S. trade policy going back decades. That makes it a very important difference."

While Warren would bring excitement to Clinton’s campaign, and is the dream vice presidential pick for many progressives, sources close to the campaign said it is unlikely that she is the kind of no. 2 Clinton is looking for to serve with her in the White House.

"I've known Hillary for 30 years," Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who is pushing Sen. Tim Kaine as a running mate, said in an interview. "She's looking for someone who can be a collaborator."
Click to expand...

Probably not the best word choice by McAuliffe (lol collaborator), but the point stands. Warren would fire up the base, but she and Clinton don't see eye to eye on everything. It is playing with fire to put someone like that on the ticket because they suddenly will have a massive bully pulpit as well and can create TONS of future headaches if their are policy agreements.
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
After seeing Warren campaigning with Hillary, I'm all aboard that train. I think she brings excitement and a segment of the base that may be hesitant otherwise. My only concern is I'm not sure if she's equipped to step into the presidency if need be just yet.

Iolo said:
It just seems so... un-Hillary.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly the reason it should be her.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Hillary is going to win, so she has two choices: The safe Kaine or the less-safe Warren. Warren is higher-risk, but higher-reward, while Kaine is fine.

However, for the future of the Democratic party, it probably would be best to have Warren in a place of power. And she knows this. So I can see why she keeps teetering between the two.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Measley said:
Kaine locks up Virginia for Clinton.
Click to expand...

Honestly I think VA is already locked (it voted for Rubio vs Trump for God's sake), and rather than narrowly focus on a single state, it would be better to raise enthusiasm across the board for downballot voting.
 
P

Paskil

Member
I'm not too worried about her picking Perez for a few reasons. First and foremost, because he's my veepstakes choice. :p Mainly though, Hillary is running against Trump and assuming she isn't hit by a meteor and people turn out, she's pretty much already being sworn in as #45. Any inexperience Perez has will be ironed out in his first 30-100 days and in the lead-up to the inauguration, not to mention that he would maintain her skilled staff for any type of interim period, assuming he had to take over. He might not have really held any elected offices of significance but he is familiar with the inner workings of the Executive branch and government bureaucracy.

Regarding him in a debate, I think he would do alright. Dude is a lawyer and should be able to speak somewhat coherently. One poor interview shouldn't disqualify him or result in any diablosing about his quality as a potential VP pick.
 
A

ampere

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
I think perez's work on civil rights is an underrated aspect. Dude has economics, civil rights, latino, etc. Warren is still gonna campaign

This is great stuff to use against Trump
Click to expand...

He's an amazing dude and a real fighter no doubt. I'm not convinced he's a good debater or attack dog though. Seems a little timid at times

Paskil said:
One poor interview shouldn't disqualify him or result in any diablosing about his quality as a potential VP pick.
Click to expand...

True. I don't have a large sample to assess him from so that does stick out

I definitely like the guy though. I hope he stays in politics.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
Bowdz said:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/elizabeth-warren-trade-policies-225237



Probably not the best word choice by McAuliffe (lol collaborator), but the point stands. Warren would fire up the base, but she and Clinton don't see eye to eye on everything. It is playing with fire to put someone like that on the ticket because they suddenly will have a massive bully pulpit as well and can create TONS of future headaches if their are policy agreements.
Click to expand...

On a more cynical note locking Warren into VP would strip away her power to actually vote on these issues. I'm sure she would be a fiery debater for Clinton when it came to the issues but I don't think she would publicly denounce something Clinton came out for

And even if she did I'm not sure it would be a bad thing. Biden coming out for gay marriage forced Obama to come out in favor as well which had a large positive impact
 
M

minor effort

Banned
Emarv said:
Kaine just doesn't satisfy anyone. He doesn't help with any demographic, he doesn't help with progressives and maybe arguable helps with Independents? Although you could make the argument based on this election cycle that Independents =/ moderates. He offers zero excitement. His only pro is really "does no harm".
Click to expand...

And even that's now being called into question following the Politico story.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
She'll wait and see what Trump does. It makes a *lot* of sense to me. Whoever Trump picks as VP, I think that *type* of person (gender, race etc) becomes a likelier pick for Clinton.

Unless Trump picks someone old. I think that'll make a younger pick more likely for Clinton.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
Paskil said:
I'm not too worried about her picking Perez for a few reasons. First and foremost, because he's my veepstakes choice. :p Mainly though, Hillary is running against Trump and assuming she isn't hit by a meteor and people turn out, she's pretty much already being sworn in as #45. Any inexperience Perez has will be ironed out in his first 30-100 days and in the lead-up to the inauguration, not to mention that he would maintain her skilled staff for any type of interim period, assuming he had to take over. He might not have really held any elected offices of significance but he is familiar with the inner workings of the Executive branch and government bureaucracy.

Regarding him in a debate, I think he would do alright. Dude is a lawyer and should be able to speak somewhat coherently. One poor interview shouldn't disqualify him or result in any diablosing about his quality as a potential VP pick.
Click to expand...

Another huge pro for Perez IMO is that he is nearly universally loved by the Obama White House staff AND the Clinton campaign team which speaks volumes about his character to me.

I think Perez threads the needle of having progressive bonadifes, but not overshadowing the top of the ticket which is an underrated pro for the VEEPstakes. To be clear, I think Warren would be a great choice and a fine VP, I just think she is a truly high risk/high reward choice.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Remember the person she picks will be stuck with her down the hall for 4 to 8 years well pass the campaign and reelect if she gets that far. She will obviously want someone she will be comfortable with.
 
O

Orbis Tabula

Member
There's only one situation in which I see Perez being picked, and that's to count pick against a Trump wild card Arpaio VP. Which would be glorious.

Actually, there's one other situation in which she'd pick him. The one in which I have no idea what I'm talking about! Clinton/Perez 2016!
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
NeoXChaos said:
Remember the person she picks will be stuck with her down the hall for 4 to 8 years well pass the campaign and reelect if she gets that far. She will obviously want someone she will be comfortable with.
Click to expand...

She's already signaled that whoever she wants to be able to get along with whoever she picks, perhaps not to the degree that Obama and Biden get along, but definitely someone who won't be a thorn in her side for 8 years.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
SomewhatGroovy said:
Man, I have a really hard time believing Hillary will pick a left leaning candidate by default.

I anticipate she will wait for Trump to show his cards. He has to because he has to win over members of the party whose platform he is using to rally behind him. To further cement that agenda, he will have to pick a popular candidate within the party to stand by his side.

What I think will happen, is Hillary will go in one of two directions: go for the independent vote, pick a moderate and introduce herself as a republican sub that the Rep party can get behind in lieu of Trump, or pick a left leaning figure to nab the Bernie voters.

I dont know the math of which side she stands to benefit from by pandering to but i suspect getting Bernie to rally his troops behind her will help narrow the gap so she can then focus on bringing in not just independents, but republican voters as well.
Click to expand...

The GOP will never buy that she's a secret Republican. Bill's team used her to convince the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that he'll listen to them (Hey don't worry, you like her and I listen to what my wife says) and she had a very liberal record in the Senate.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
I can't wait to hear Cruz's speech at the convention. I wonder if he'll pull a Buchanan and just shit all over the candidate because he can.
 
E

Emarv

Member
I'm over here freaking out about Perez & Kaine when I should be freaking out about this RNC Convention Speaker list.

Where is ma list, Trump?!
 
H

Hazmat

Member
SomewhatGroovy said:
Man, I have a really hard time believing Hillary will pick a left leaning candidate by default.

I anticipate she will wait for Trump to show his cards. He has to because he has to win over members of the party whose platform he is using to rally behind him. To further cement that agenda, he will have to pick a popular candidate within the party to stand by his side.

What I think will happen, is Hillary will go in one of two directions: go for the independent vote, pick a moderate and introduce herself as a republican sub that the Rep party can get behind in lieu of Trump, or pick a left leaning figure to nab the Bernie voters.

I dont know the math of which side she stands to benefit from by pandering to but i suspect getting Bernie to rally his troops behind her will help narrow the gap so she can then focus on bringing in not just independents, but republican voters as well.
Click to expand...

Clinton can't paint herself as a Republican stand-in. As much as they dislike Trump, Hillary Clinton has been their number one target for over 20 years waiting for just this day. Also, Clinton clearly wants to win over the same people that voted for Obama, and that's enough votes to put her in the White House. She'll lose some because she's a worse candidate, but she might pick some up because Trump is a more-hated opponent.

Basically, she's winning and people vote for the top of the ticket, not the VP, so I don't expect the way that she's being presented to the voters will change whether it's Kaine, Warren, or Hazmat (Clinton/Hazmat 2016!).
 
A

adamsappel

Member
DOWN said:
She gave them access with the intent of sharing classified information and was aware there was classified information in the improperly marked content?
Click to expand...

Weren't these lawyers investigating whether there was classified information in the emails? "If these investigators without Top Secret clearance see any classified information, you're in a lot of trouble!"
 
T

Teggy

Member
Emily MillerVerified account
‏@EmilyMiller
House Republicans who talked to press said meeting with Donald Trump unified the party. They now think he can win the White House.
Click to expand...

07-minister.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
2K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
235
42K
OverHeat replied
Xbox 360 'First Party' dev/pub output DID NOT drop in 2nd half after Kinect, but barely changed. People are likely mixing up TP exclusives with FP.
2 3
148
8K
feynoob replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
59K
DGrayson replied
All Major PlayStation Franchises And Their Current Status
|OT| News Platform
44
3K
dorkimoe replied
Top Bottom