-
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
- Thread starter Retromelon
- Start date
- Status
Bah on the last point.
Can they put a thing in that says "absolutes are dumb and so are the people who peddle in them?"
The platform is completely worthles and unimportant. They could give him carte blanche and it wouldn't matter.
daveweigel
‏@daveweigel
Bernie supporters shout SHAME as DNC platform committee votes down amendment to create a new cost of living index for Social Security.
‏@daveweigel
Bernie supporters shout SHAME as DNC platform committee votes down amendment to create a new cost of living index for Social Security.
whyamihere
Banned
It's pretty obvious regardless that Bernie is still going to endorse on Tuesday. I don't think he cares that much anymore about platform concessions than about actual concessions he can get from Hillary's platform. Which makes more sense, since party platforms are stupid!
I'd be bummed that it weren't Newty (a far superior comedy option), but still.. Pence would be yet another Trumpy decision where I'm more relieved than anything. It wouldn't change anything, and Hillary would retain wide leeway when weighing her picks.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I'm still waiting on a solid editorializing-free layman's version before I form an opinion, but in the abstract I'm very pro-trade, so there is that.
I am, but I'm a Kiwi so that doesn't help you.
I meant in a more general "give him time and space to land the plane" kind of way, not just these platform antics.
I'm weakly in favor of it, mostly because trade is important and valuable and Obama is generally trustworthy to me.
My biggest concerns center on the SOPA stuff.
It's not a make or break issue for me. I mean it's mostly about IP rights as in protecting them even more AND increasing the autonomy of corporations to litigate internationally. However, it positions the US as a partner for the pacific rim and those economic and diplomatic ties are important for the future.
brianmcdoogle
Member
Is my memory poor, or was the Republican Party beaten up for not mention or supporting the troops in their official party platform?
It's too long for me to have read much of it, but I understand the desire to levy our power against China's and think there's definitely value in that.
VendettaRed07
Member
As far as TPP goes, I don't see enough actual economic benefits as its currently negotiated that most Americans would feel the effects of for it to be even worth it. Too much of it focuses on IP nonsense and copyright law
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I'm not reflexively against it. There's stuff I've heard of in it that worries me, but also stuff I approve of
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Violent anarchist counter protests are deeply confusing to me since all the anarchists I know (and I know a few) are against all force, not just state force.
They just ended the Democratic platform meeting for the night. They'll resume tomorrow morning and maybe get to debating the TPP.
If you're crazy like me and want to see all the amendments that were debated, Christie Zizo posted pictures of them and whether they passed or failed on Twitter.
If you're crazy like me and want to see all the amendments that were debated, Christie Zizo posted pictures of them and whether they passed or failed on Twitter.
It really depends on the type. I know a few that are burn it all down dudes.
I think the Sanders side is crazy if they think the party is going to do something or word something that effectively embarrasses President Obama when it comes to TPP. If he was unpopular maybe but not now. Sanders doesn't give a fuck because of who he is. The Clinton side is not going to do that or allow that.
SciencePilot
Member
I'm generally in favor of it. I'll definitely admit to not fully understanding all the details (does anyone?). But overall its big ideas seem important enough to be worth it.
Do you only know ancaps or something?
The argument right now is really just on the lame duck. Everybody seems to assume that Clinton is willing to oppose the TPP because she expects Obama to pass it in the lame duck. That's why Sanders's goal is an explicit commitment that Democratic senators shouldn't vote for it during the lame duck, and why Hillary just wants to say "some people hate the TPP" so that there's some cover.
Obviously Obama needs GOP votes to get anything through the Senate in any case, so presumably he thinks he has those or this wouldn't be happening, but I guess he doesn't want to have to pass the bill with only GOP votes (or worse, have a Dem filibuster block it).
Ultimately I think they'll put some more general trade language in the platform and stop short of saying not to vote it through so that it can squeak by.
the only issue I see is what exactly would the general trade language be? What exactly is wrong with TPP as it is?
I wont pretend to understand TPP in its entirety. But Obama's reasoning for it makes sense and, most importantly, opponents of it don't seem to be able to spell out exactly what's wrong with it. At least from what I've read.
Yeah, this is primarily why I'm against it based on the info we know. Were it not for that, trade on away!
Ugh. How did we get to this point? How do we go from Barack Obama to Donald Trump as being the Presidential candidate who gets tons of coverage on the news...
Yup, these are my biggest grievances from what I know about it. The medical IP aspect, in particular, really makes me feel uncomfortable. If those issues were slightly remedied, I'd be fully in rather than somewhat in.
It was reported that Trump said Jack Nicklaus would be speaking at the convention during his meeting at the capital last week. Nicklaus says he isn't and never was. Speakers still haven't been announced other than Trump family, Joni Ernst and Ted Cruz, who apparently had to make a deal that he wouldn't use the opportunity to shit on Trump.
Bernie has to endorse next week. We're done here. We're at a point where we cannot drag this on any longer. It makes Democrats look really bad. I'm tired of it.
We're starting to see the beginning of Trump 2.0 with his latest FB video and Democrats should not be underestimating that.
I saw an article last night with the headline: "Relax, world. Trump won't be President". It's happening again. No one said he'd go anywhere after insulting Hispanics. Same thing after he insulted women. On and on and on. Then they said he'd eventually stop being the frontrunner. Then they said he'd only win a couple primaries. Then he kept winning and now he's going to be the nominee. Now we are saying he can't be President... I know that he will be dealing with all Americans and not just Republicans in the fall, but this guy has a way of defying expectations (and to his benefit) every single fucking time when it comes to actually winning something.
Honestly Trump has said so many negative things that you forget and I think that ends up working to his advantage. He essentially got a free pass on it at crucial points within the debate schedule and primary season, and people hear it so much that it almost desensitizes them.
We're starting to see the beginning of Trump 2.0 with his latest FB video and Democrats should not be underestimating that.
I saw an article last night with the headline: "Relax, world. Trump won't be President". It's happening again. No one said he'd go anywhere after insulting Hispanics. Same thing after he insulted women. On and on and on. Then they said he'd eventually stop being the frontrunner. Then they said he'd only win a couple primaries. Then he kept winning and now he's going to be the nominee. Now we are saying he can't be President... I know that he will be dealing with all Americans and not just Republicans in the fall, but this guy has a way of defying expectations (and to his benefit) every single fucking time when it comes to actually winning something.
Honestly Trump has said so many negative things that you forget and I think that ends up working to his advantage. He essentially got a free pass on it at crucial points within the debate schedule and primary season, and people hear it so much that it almost desensitizes them.
can you and cartoon soilder switch bodies again.
Mr. Lemming
Member
The game has been around since the 80s and was rereleased when the Apprentice was popular. It's actually not a terrible mass market board game https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1824/trump-game outside of the subject.
The freedom caucus and the internal destruction of the Republican party.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Much as I want to laugh at Trump, don't underestimate him or the stupidity of voters, until the Election is won.
Pretty much all anarchists and communists are vaguely pacifist. Even Stalin's ideal society would be nonviolent -- as there would be no need for violence.
Anticapitalist violence is generally always a means to an end. Marxism is very consequentialist, so unethical actions (such as killing people) are often considered acceptable if it means the abolition of an even less ethical system.
Nestor Makhno, for instance, likely did not see himself as a violent person. But he believed that the creation of an anarchist society was so important that it was worth killing statist agents who tried to stop it. After all, are the deaths of a couple hundred soldiers really more tragic than the abuse those same soldiers would otherwise inflict upon many more people, and civilians at that?
Oh yeah, nearly all violence is for some consequence, like money or safety or some kind of political aim.
But a lot of right-wing philosophies celebrate violence. Mostly,it's the notion that fighting for your team is always glorious (although some leftists, particularly Maoists, do this a lot), but literal fascists tend to see violence as inherently a good thing. I think some libertarians also feel this way, when they gleefully talk about defending their marijuana plantations with assault rifles and howitzers.
I don't care what's in it. In favor.
- Status