• 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 |OT8| No, Donald. You don't.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Ziltoidia 9 said:
Im suprised DWS said she was going to resign so quickly. It makes her and the DNC look even more guilty. Up until now it could just be opinion based.
Click to expand...

The volcano demands tribute. The reason the Melania plagiarism story went on so long is that Trump refused to give the volcano tribute. The Dems aren't making that mistake.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
dramatis said:
I feel like all this postulating about fairness, but not one person ever questioned if the process of selecting a presidential nominee is fair to women or to minorities. A woman wins and suddenly there's loads of complaints about how the system is rigged. When has a political system ever been rigged for a woman or minority? What about fairness to women or minorities who have had all the disadvantages that being female or minority has awarded them in public life and politics?

I mean, it's very silly to argue whether this is fair to Sanders supporters when this subject was not raised for Hillary supporters in 2008, or whatever losing supporters were in previous primaries. No fairness was awarded to Hillary or to Obama, or to their supporters. Nobody would be saying "is this fair to Hillary supporters?" if Hillary had lost, they'd be telling the AA and Latinos to get in line and vote for Sanders. It's really shitty to be complaining about how rigged the system is against an old white man.
Click to expand...

I may not be remembering 2008 well enough, but I feel like concerns about the process not being fair are pretty common. Definitely both Obama and Clinton supporters in 2008 talked about racism/sexism in the other campaign, and McCain picked Palin in part because he was hoping to appeal to women mad that Clinton didn't win. It was going to be a pretty hard sell in 2008 that the DNC itself was biased against Clinton because Clinton was the establishment choice early on, but I bet we saw some of this in the arguments over Michigan. There probably wasn't a whole lot of talking about how the process was biased against female and minority candidates before that just because the much more pressing problem would have been the voters being so biased against such candidates - you just didn't have female and minority candidates with significant support among people whose opinions were widely distributed.

But, like, the whole cliche of "smoke-filled rooms" is all about party elites choosing the candidate they want regardless of what the voters want. The system has steadily gotten less rigged over time, presumably in response to pressure from people who didn't like that the system was rigged. I don't think these concerns are new, and it's pretty natural that supporters of the losing candidate are most concerned.
 
8

8 X 11 Printer Paper

Member
Ziltoidia 9 said:
Im suprised DWS said she was going to resign so quickly. It makes her and the DNC look even more guilty. Up until now it could just be opinion based.
Click to expand...

It seems Obama, Clinton and Sanders had to literally force her to resign....DWS ego is....big and needed to be stroked with the "honorary" chairman position (just sit in the corner and not talk position) on Clinton's campaign to get her to give in.
 
T

TheFatOne

Member
adam387 said:
The Cuban vote is not as partisan as it used to be. Plus, the overall percentage of Cubans making up the Latino/Hispanic vote is down. It was like 40% in 1990, and it's in the upper 20s now. The PR vote share is increasing. The GOP needs to figure out another niche to carve out for itself among Florida's demographics. There arent enough white people to sustain them.
Click to expand...

Yup. There aren't going to be enough angry white men in Florida to offset the Hispanic vote. It's a beautiful thing. Just to back up your point since.

Less than half (47%) of Cuban registered voters nationwide now say they identify with or lean toward the Republican Party—down from the 64% who said the same about the GOP a decade ago, according to 2013 survey data. Meanwhile, the share of Cubans who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party has doubled from 22% to 44% over the same time period, according to the survey of Hispanics.

...

The impact of younger Cubans is reflected in those figures. Over half (56%) of Cubans ages 18 to 49 identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party compared with 39% of those 50 years and older. Conversely, older Cubans tend to identify with or lean toward the Republican Party more than younger Cubans, by 44% to 23%. Even so, the share of older Cubans who are Republican has declined over time. In 2002, among all Cubans, some 68% who were 50 and older said they identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-cubans-shifting-toward-the-democratic-party/
Click to expand...

This right here is why I think we are in my wildest dream scenario. If the Democrats can paint Trump as the Republicans then they are absolutely fucked long term.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Sibylus said:
One objection I'd like to expand upon (because I'm biased and think it's interesting) is that of multiple executives in a system with equal powers.

There are examples of how this can break down in practice, and my favourite is an old one that I feel still has a lot of relevance to the hypothetical. Republican Rome's system of two executive consuls broke down in spectacular fashion during the Second Punic War, with military command and strategy vacillating on a daily basis between two executives who didn't much care for each other. That sort of vacillation lost battles and nearly resulted in the collapse of the nation. The fix? One executive vision and strategy to recover, avoid further debilitating losses, and win the war in the long run through attrition and opportunity. In the Roman case that was through the invocation of a dictator term (then a political office of emergency, not yet the legal justification for permanent dictatorship), but what I'm getting at is the massive disadvantages of investing equal powers into multiple executive figures and the comparative strength of one executive vision. Think long on that one, and good luck in your thought experiments.
Click to expand...

If you go back and read my proposal you will see that the executive officers would NOT have equal power; it would be weighted for each officer based on proportional distribution.

I know your next question is, "how exactly would you distribution the power?" but I really don't have the time right now to do that kind of detailed breakdown. I do have ideas for when the council comes to an impasse in times of war/emergencies, but nothing concrete at the moment.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
adam387 said:
Jesus, the chemistry between the two as compared to Trump and Fence is insane.
Click to expand...
They look SO comfortable together.

He's gone from being my "yeah, he makes sense intellectually" pick to a "yeah, he's hitting me in the feels" pick.

Tears in his eyes right now..
 
P

Piecake

Member
Bit old, but just saw this

If he wins the presidency, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would seek to purge the federal government of officials appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama and could ask Congress to pass legislation making it easier to fire public workers, Trump ally, Chris Christie, said on Tuesday.

Christie, who is governor of New Jersey and leads Trump's White House transition team, said the campaign was drawing up a list of federal government employees to fire if Trump defeats Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 presidential election.
Click to expand...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-purge-exclusive-idUSKCN10003A

Man, the dude really is Andrew Jackson. Though at least Jackson didn't have disturbing ties to foreign governments.

Looks like Trump wants the spoils system to return. Make America corrupt again!
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
HylianTom said:
They look SO comfortable together.

He's gone from being my "yeah, he makes sense intellectually" pick to a "yeah, he's hitting me in the feels" pick.

Tears in his eyes right now..
Click to expand...

They really look good together, Clinton really nailed this pick. I can see why Obama wanted him too.

Piecake said:
Bit old, but just saw this



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-purge-exclusive-idUSKCN10003A

Man, the dude really is Andrew Jackson. Though at least Jackson didn't have disturbing ties to foreign governments.

Looks like Trump wants the spoils system to return. Make America corrupt again!
Click to expand...

He's not Jackson, he's Mussolini.
 
S

Sibylus

Banned
brainchild said:
If you go back and read my proposal you will see that the executive officers would NOT have equal power; it would be weighted for each officer based on proportional distribution.

I know your next question is, "how exactly would you distribution the power?" but I really don't have the time right now to do that kind of detailed breakdown. I do have ideas for when the council comes to an impasse in times of war/emergencies, but nothing concrete at the moment.
Click to expand...

I recognized the element of PR in your postulated system, but a proportional system still allows for competing executives with roughly the same amount of power. That's a fatal flaw that needs comprehensive solutions to work around it.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Sibylus said:
I recognized the element of PR in your postulated system, but a proportional system still allows for competing executives with roughly the same amount of power. That's a fatal flaw that needs comprehensive solutions to work around it.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, which is why I don't have a definitive answer for you right now.
 
P

Piecake

Member
B-Dubs said:
They really look good together, Clinton really nailed this pick. I can see why Obama wanted him too.



He's not Jackson, he's Mussolini.
Click to expand...

Jackson also had a dictatorial personality and tendencies. If Trump becomes president lets all hope that Trump follows the example of Jackson by not trying to turn America into some sort of pseudo fascist state.
 
T

TheFatOne

Member
Whenever Kaine speaks at the DNC he needs to be speaking in Spanish for a good five plus minutes with subtitles in English. The republicans won't be able to help themselves, and it will give you great material for ads targeted at Hispanics across country.
 
O

Officerrob

Banned
I don't know if it was editing or the sequence in which the questions were asked, but it's odd that all the questions were for Hillary in this segment
 
T

Teggy

Member
adam387 said:
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but chains and whips excite me. :p



Of course she did, but she doesn't admit to it.

FUCK YES

"He calls you Crooked Hillary, what are you going to call him?"
Hillary: Absolutely nothing. I'm not going to engage in that.
Click to expand...

This was the but they shared earlier. The way Kaine jumps in at the end and compares Trump to a 5th grader was perfect.
 
D

Diablos

Member
The sequence of questions weren't that great.

Like, finally at the end they talk about policy. After Benghazi and emails for the billionth fucking time.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Teggy said:
This was the but they shared earlier. The way Kaine jumps in at the end and compares Trump to a 5th grader was perfect.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Kaine was like "She ma be fine with it but not in my house."

Which he did with grace and charm. It didn't come off as mean spirited or angry. Just like "We're better than this."

I enjoyed that interview a great deal.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
That interview illustrated why Warren really would have been a bad choice. Warren couldn't (and wouldn't) have been able to pull back. A VP really should be a yes person who manages to have sparks of personality when it's beneficial.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Y'all coming back around to the old white dudes now huh? Vindication. #thestruggleisreal #stalecrackersarepeopletoo
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
brainchild said:
- Every four years, do a mail-in survey of the American people similar to a census to gauge political leanings and categorize the equivalent of temporary parties accordingly. The number of parties for the election will be determined by the amount of overlap between categories on the issues.

- After party options have been categorized, citizens will be notified of their options (and will be sent results of which party they're most closely aligned with if they participated in the census)

- Have the electoral college accommodate for the amount of candidates that will run in the general election based on the amount of parties involved

- Distribute a level of power in the executive branch that reflects the amount of support each candidate received in the general election; all candidates will become executive officers and their votes will be weighted according to the support they received from their constituents

I'm not going to draft up a whole new constitution for you in this post, but a new constitution is what we would need in order to pull this off.

What we have now is not satisfactory and just because we have an option that is less shit than another option, it doesn't mean that not choosing either shitty option makes a citizen personally responsible for the shitty things that happen to this country.
Click to expand...
This is from pages back and we're onto laughing at DWS now.

But omglol if you actually thought this made sense and would be more democratic.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
adam387 said:
That interview illustrated why Warren really would have been a bad choice. Warren couldn't (and wouldn't) have been able to pull back. A VP really should be a yes person who manages to have sparks of personality when it's beneficial.
Click to expand...

You're talking about their behavior on the campaign trail, right? They should not be a yes person while actually in office. That would be a disaster.
 
N

nature boy

Member
Thought it was a "nice interview", a positive message in contrast to last week.

Which IMO was the point of this interview.

But she'll have to answer the emails/Benghazi issues until Election Day.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
brainchild said:
You're talking about their behavior on the campaign trail, right? They should not be a yes person while actually in office. That would be a disaster.
Click to expand...

Of course. That goes without saying. On camera, a Veep needs to say that his/her President can do no wrong. Behind closed doors, they should challenge them whenever necessary.
 
T

TumblingHippo

Member
nature boy said:
Thought it was a "nice interview", a positive message in contrast to last week.

Which IMO was the point of this interview.

But she'll have to answer the emails/Benghazi issues until Election Day.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton could be sitting in retirement
after her presidency
and they'll still be screaming at her about Benghazi.
 
N

nature boy

Member
TumblingHippo said:
Hillary Clinton could be sitting in retirement
after her presidency
and they'll still be screaming at her about Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it's something that will in a way drag any interview.

"Policy X,Y,Z".

"Your email server, do you regret it?"

"Yes, I learned that lesson. So my policy..."

"And Benghazi?"
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 2m2 minutes ago

The ratings for the Republican National Convention were very good, but for the final night, my speech, great. Thank you!

My god, this man is pathetic.
 
G

Geg

Member
adam387 said:
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 2m2 minutes ago

The ratings for the Republican National Convention were very good, but for the final night, my speech, great. Thank you!

My god, this man is pathetic.
Click to expand...

Why is he talking about this now
 
U

User 463088

Banned
He also managed to make white supremacists happy by calling DWS (who is Jewish) neurotic. And he managed a Tweet with Bernie's name in parenthesis.

So he's doing GREAT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
3K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
238
45K
Hrk69 replied
Evolution of Open World Games 1980-2021
2 3
141
13K
IbizaPocholo replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
59K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
Top Bottom