• 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 |OT9| The Wrath of Khan!

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
RastaMentality said:
Condi would be cool because people don't actually hate her. Same with Powell. The Powell endorsement is still one of the best 08 moments.
Click to expand...

Powell was such a great moment of redemption after being stuck out there to explain the "smoking gun" Iraq info by the Bush admin.

Condi would be good, what is she even doing these days? Is she still at a University or something?
 
C

Crocodile

Member
Do a significant number of people who aren't disaffected Republicans care about Kissinger anymore? I doubt it would move any significant numbers (i.e. why do it?) but if people were to care I would think it would be people who REALLY care about national security as a voting issue (which I feel are likely to be neocon Republicans).

PantherLotus said:
It's unfortunate that the one legit concern I have about Hillary -- military adventurism resulting in war crimes -- is one she keeps raising again and again on her own.

What, she couldn't get Cheney to endorse? Rumsfeld not returning calls? I mean, imagine the reaction if she went out looking for a Bank of America endorsement.

edit: there's long been a theory of sexism in politics that suggested the first woman president would have to be a hawk to pass the Commander-in-Chief test. Similar to the 'first black president will be a Republican' theory. Well the latter was overcome, why can't this one?
Click to expand...

I've literally never heard this and considering how most Black people view the Republican party and the type of views a Black Person would likely have to hold to rise to prominence in the party (See Ben Carson even if you took away the "grain in the pyramids" nonsense) why would the first Black president in modern times be Republican? Did the people who put that theory forth even think for like 3 seconds about how stupid that was? The "first woman would likely have to exude a lot of 'strength' to succeed in a male-dominated sphere" at least makes some sense to it.
 
S

Slacker

Member
teiresias said:
I'm not getting why this dude is getting any coverage at all, I mean this Egg McMuffin guy is probably going to draw less than Johnson and might even draw less than Stein. Who cares at this point other than just another data point pointing to how in the shitter there American Right is?
Click to expand...

I'm happy the Republican party will have something to blame for costing them the election aside from their terrible policies and demographics. That'll buy us another four years of them not learning from their mistakes.

2008: McCain not conservative enough. Palin sucked.
2012: Romney not conservative enough.
2016: Trump not real conservative, third party candidates siphoning votes.
2020: Run a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like Cruz, still lose, finally re-evaluate.
2024: Can't compete with popularity of VP Tim Kaine
2030: Can't compete with popularity of Michelle Obama
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
hawk2025 said:
At least Condi makes some sense.

Kissinger just seems plain stupid. Why mess with that hornet's nest?


Here's the link:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-republican-elder-statesmen-kissinger-226680
Click to expand...

Some of the signatories of the March letter say Rice, Kissinger and other luminaries should speak out, if not to endorse Clinton, then at least to oppose Trump.

"Failure to do so is a dereliction of duty," said Max Boot, a conservative commentator who has been very outspoken about his anti-Trump views.

Others, however, insist it's not their place to tell others when to take a stand, or what stand to take.

"People are complex and have complex views and differing views of whether they have a responsibility to become part of the public debate," said Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser in the second Bush administration.

"Remember also that 'national security types' are citizens, concerned about much more than just foreign and defense policy, and may oppose Clinton on very many issues" such as trade deals or Supreme Court appointments.

Danielle Pletka, a top official at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said the holdouts may be showing "wisdom in keeping their powder dry," especially as it has become clear that Trump's isolationist-leaning, anti-trade views appeal to so much of the party base.

"Not every person needs to be 17-year-old girl and share their every whim with the public," Pletka said. "There's no point alienating Republican voters by piling on against Trump. Better to remain judiciously silent and avoid angering the very people who will be vital to rebuilding the party."
Click to expand...
lol ice burn
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Dubbedinenglish said:
Condi would be good, what is she even doing these days? Is she still at a University or something?
Click to expand...
Stanford.

More importantly she's one of the members who decides the College Football Playoff.

Crocodile said:
Do a significant number of people who aren't disaffected Republicans care about Kissinger anymore? I doubt it would move any significant numbers (i.e. why do it?) but if people were to care I would think it would be people who REALLY care about national security as a voting issue (which I feel are likely to be neocon Republicans).
Click to expand...
At least people could name Kissinger. And Condi.

Nobody gives a fuck what Baker or Schultz or any of these other 90 year old Bush-associated fucks think.
 
S

sphagnum

Banned
Crocodile said:
I've literally never heard this and considering how most Black people view the Republican party and the type of views a Black Person would likely have to hold to rise to prominence in the party (See Ben Carson even if you took away the "grain in the pyramids" nonsense) why would the first Black president in modern times be Republican? Did the people who put that theory forth even think for like 3 seconds about how stupid that was? The "first woman would likely have to exude a lot of 'strength' to succeed in a male-dominated sphere" at least makes some sense to it.
Click to expand...

I think it's an "Only Nixon could go to China" thing. The idea being that the only way Americans would be comfortable with a black person being president was if he was a super patriotic never-talk-about-black-issues-wer're-all-Americans kind of person. Obviously Obama proved that wrong, although at the same time he was hesitant to an extent for years about racial issues because of that kind of fear.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
BenjaminBirdie said:
How new?
Click to expand...
It's not new. It's an average of polls conducted between July 29 and August 4.
The CNN Poll of Polls incorporating the results of six major polls -- all conducted after the party conventions concluded in late July -- finds Clinton with an average of 49% support to Trump's 39%. When third party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are included, the margin remains the same, with both candidates losing the same amount of support to land at 45% for Clinton to 35% for Trump, with Johnson at 9% and Stein at 5%.
Click to expand...
 
phisheep

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Detroit Economic Club playing Beethoven's 9th as introductory music.

(Maybe that's just the stream?)
 
C

CCS

Banned
That Atlantic article posted in OT makes me feel really gross. There's a difference between trying to understand people and justifying prejudice, and that definitely crosses it at times.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
sphagnum said:
I think it's an "Only Nixon could go to China" thing. The idea being that the only way Americans would be comfortable with a black person being president was if he was a super patriotic never-talk-about-black-issues-wer're-all-Americans kind of person. Obviously Obama proved that wrong, although at the same time he was hesitant to an extent for years about racial issues because of that kind of fear.
Click to expand...

As case in point, in Europe most first female heads of state/heads of government came from the conservative/right-wing parties - Merkel, Thatcher, Çiller, Kosor, Harney, and so on.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
^ good point, too.

Crocodile said:
I've literally never heard this and considering how most Black people view the Republican party and the type of views a Black Person would likely have to hold to rise to prominence in the party (See Ben Carson even if you took away the "grain in the pyramids" nonsense) why would the first Black president in modern times be Republican? Did the people who put that theory forth even think for like 3 seconds about how stupid that was? The "first woman would likely have to exude a lot of 'strength' to succeed in a male-dominated sphere" at least makes some sense to it.
Click to expand...

It was pretty common wisdom about 20-25 years ago! The suggestion goes something like this 'everybody is racist, especially Republicans, so if a black man is ever elected president he'll have to pass the Republican test first.'

Or something like that. Obviously it didn't pan out, but the underlying assumption -- non-college educated white people are incredibly, indelibly racist -- is more true now than ever. You can see this show up in a number of data points, not the least of which are states like Missouri, voting for white Dem senators but going GOP for presidency.

Shorter: "one of the good ones" but politics.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
CCS said:
That Atlantic article posted in OT makes me feel really gross. There's a difference between trying to understand people and justifying prejudice, and that definitely crosses it at times.
Click to expand...

The Atlantic definitely plays footsie with Maybe They're Justified-ism on so many conservative issues, which is just a fancier both-sides-do-it. It's meant to make well meaning educated Republican centrists feel better about themselves.
 
H

Holmes

Member
If I had to sacrifice #BattlegroundUtah for #BattlegroundGeorgia and a solid 10 point lead in Pennsylvania, then I would easily.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
It basically meant Colin Powell.

Or J.C. Watts.

Remember before Obama, the blacks who ran for President under the Democratic banner and were treated at least semi-seriously were Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Doug Wilder, Al Sharpton and Carol Mosley Braun.

The Republican side had Alan fucking Keyes and Herman Cain.

Except for Wilder and perhaps Chisholm (though she was probably way too early), none of these would be considered "mainstream" candidates like Obama, Powell and Watts. (Or Booker or any of many others we now have today.) They either held positions on an extreme wing of the party or were nuts. Or both.
 
C

CCS

Banned
PantherLotus said:
The Atlantic definitely plays footsie with Maybe They're Justified-ism on so many conservative issues, which is just a fancier both-sides-do-it. It's meant to make well meaning educated Republican centrists feel better about themselves.
Click to expand...

Exactly, at some point you have to accept that a lot of poor white people (especially in rural areas) blame the wrong people for their problems and are either incapable or unwilling to change, and that's on them and not anyone else to solve.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
Crocodile said:
I've literally never heard this considering how most Black people view the Republican party and the type of views a Black Person would likely have to hold to rise to prominence in the party (See Ben Carson even if you took away the "grain in the pyramids" nonsense) why would the first Black president in modern times be Republican? Did the people who put that theory forth even think for like 3 seconds about how stupid that was? The "first woman would likely have to exude a lot of 'strength' to succeed in a male-dominated sphere" at least makes some sense to it.
Click to expand...

Many republicans wanted Colin Powell to run in 1996, and JC Watts once had a very promising political career ahead of him. And I think the last 8 years have made it very clear republicans are very receptive to black republicans who say ugly things about black people - ugly things a white person might not be able to get away with. I remember Hermain Cain defending the lack of diversity in the crowd at the RNC by saying white people are more likely to work hard and thus have time to attend a political event.

I'm sure that when Hillary wins we'll see a new wave of far right conservative women trotted out to tell us why women don't want [insert issue women care about].

I don't think the sexism/female hawk theory is controversial or new. It's something I've pondered about Clinton for awhile. Obviously she could simply just be a pro-interventionist hawk, that's the simplest answer.
 
H

hawk2025

Member
Dubbedinenglish said:
Powell was such a great moment of redemption after being stuck out there to explain the "smoking gun" Iraq info by the Bush admin.

Condi would be good, what is she even doing these days? Is she still at a University or something?
Click to expand...

Back at Stanford, she's tenured faculty in Political Economy. Still teaching courses, too.
 
P

Piecake

Member
CCS said:
Exactly, at some point you have to accept that a lot of poor white people (especially in rural areas) blame the wrong people for their problems and are either incapable or unwilling to change, and that's on them and not anyone else to solve.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the only way to get this people to change is trying to understand them, respect them, and then slowly change their mind. Ignoring them and calling them white trash is how we end up them supporting Trump.

Now, I am not going to say that's going to work (I haven't even read the article either), but its either understanding, respect and change their minds or ignoring them and hoping that they simply die off.
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
1 minute in, Trump already has 1 protester... he stays quiet and remains on script


edit hahah protester #2, Trump stays quiet still.

Detroit.... such a white crowd
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Worth also noting the women candidates who have ran:

GOP: Margaret Chase Smith, Lynn Morley Martin (briefly), Elizabeth Dole, Michele Bachmann, Carly Fiorina
DEM: Chisholm, Patsy Mink, Pat Schroeder (briefly), Moseley Braun, Clinton

Not exactly a murderer's row of strong female candidates for either party.
 
T

TomServo

Junior Member
banktree said:
And by legit health problems, you mean that she's got a edited looped gif.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I imagined that one was a joke, especially with the expression of the guy standing to her right.

She did have the whole concussion / blood clot thing in 2013, which is what I was referring to.
 
C

Crocodile

Member
Crab said:
something something purity tests
Click to expand...

Irregardless of her tenure at the DNC do you really think she has done wrong by her district (everything seems to suggest she is popular and loved there)? Do you really not think the Wikileaks event was bullshit? Or am I misunderstanding the point you're trying to make? (You're being pretty vague here to be honest).

sphagnum said:
I think it's an "Only Nixon could go to China" thing. The idea being that the only way Americans would be comfortable with a black person being president was if he was a super patriotic never-talk-about-black-issues-wer're-all-Americans kind of person. Obviously Obama proved that wrong, although at the same time he was hesitant to an extent for years about racial issues because of that kind of fear.
Click to expand...

I agree, its was easy to see how Obama struggles to avoid an "Angry Black Man" label and has to be "president for everybody" since even talking about racial issues tends to send a lot of White people into a rage. That said I don't think patriotism is mutually exclusive with discussing racial issues and you honestly can't avoid touching upon the later subject at all. If Black people overall felt the latter issues wouldn't be touched AT ALL (as opposed that recognize that they might not be as well addressed as they like), Obama wouldn't have gotten the support from the community he did.

PantherLotus said:
^ good point, too.

It was pretty common wisdom about 20-25 years ago! The suggestion goes something like this 'everybody is racist, especially Republicans, so if a black man is ever elected president he'll have to pass the Republican test first.'

Or something like that. Obviously it didn't pan out, but the underlying assumption -- non-college educated white people are incredibly, indelibly racist -- is more true now than ever. You can see this show up in a number of data points, not the least of which are states like Missouri, voting for white Dem senators but going GOP for presidency.

Shorter: "one of the good ones" but politics.
Click to expand...

To become the first Black president, Obama needed overwhelming support from the Black community (which he had to earn, it wasn't gifted to him just because he was Black) to beat Clinton in the primaries and then get carried across the finish line in 08 and 12. If Clinton wins this year it will in large part be due to the support of women from both sides of the political spectrum. Whenever we get our first Latino/Latina president, it will be from overwhelming support of the Latino community. There are basically no Black voters in Republican primaries (and a lot of non-college educated whites, at least more than Democratic primaries) and most Black people consider the Republican party poison (for obvious reasons). How far a Black person can rise in that party is limited - they can't really break out on the national stage. It's not a "theory" that makes any sense to me if you think about it for even a few minutes.
 
C

CCS

Banned
Piecake said:
On the other hand, the only way to get this people to change is trying to understand them, respect them, and then slowly change their mind. Ignoring them and calling them white trash is how we end up them supporting Trump.

Now, I am not going to say that's going to work (I haven't even read the article either), but its either understanding, respect and change their minds or ignoring them and hoping that they simply die off.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but reading the article a lot of it seems to be more about justifying their support for Trump and implying that the left-wing is at fault rather than accepting that it's on them to change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2
98
7K
digdug2 replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
52K
Topher replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
60K
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
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom