• 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 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wilsongt

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Patton Oswalt (I believe it was him) had a bit recently about how you need eight years of a Democratic president to be followed by eight years of a Republican president for "balance."

In fairness he said Trump was so bad it made this unacceptable, but I really wish people would sit down and think about how fucking arbitrary this is. If you think PPACA is good progress for example, you should not then support someone for president who vows to repeal all of it because "oh checks and balances". It also grossly oversimplifies things and ignores what effect Congress and the judicial system have on molding policy.

Like we can complain about gridlock and obstructionism all we want, but I am thoroughly convinced this is what the average dumbass American voter wants based on their voting habits. Even when you break down wedge issues like gun control and the minimum wage and they support Democrats' positions by wide majorities, nothing is going to break the barrier of the philosophy of "durrrrrr I don't think the president should do ANYTHING"
Click to expand...

This isn't balance. This is tipping over and falling down a fucking ravine.
 
K

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
You can't have balance when one party has become a radical organization dedicated to tearing the country down in order to turn it into a monument to corporatism.

The problem with the GOP now is that no matter who they put forth as president, if they also control the house and senate, they are too dangerous.
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Patton Oswalt (I believe it was him) had a bit recently about how you need eight years of a Democratic president to be followed by eight years of a Republican president for "balance."

In fairness he said Trump was so bad it made this unacceptable, but I really wish people would sit down and think about how fucking arbitrary this is. If you think PPACA is good progress for example, you should not then support someone for president who vows to repeal all of it because "oh checks and balances". It also grossly oversimplifies things and ignores what effect Congress and the judicial system have on molding policy.

Like we can complain about gridlock and obstructionism all we want, but I am thoroughly convinced this is what the average dumbass American voter wants based on their voting habits. Even when you break down wedge issues like gun control and the minimum wage and they support Democrats' positions by wide majorities, nothing is going to break the barrier of the philosophy of "durrrrrr I don't think the president should do ANYTHING"
Click to expand...

Louis C.K. made a similar statement in favor of John Kasich, but when Trump became the nominee Louis became pro-Hillary.

You guys have to understand that a very significant portion of Trump voters like Obama, but hated Hillary too much to be able to visualize her as "Obama's third term".
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
TestOfTide said:
Louis C.K. made a similar statement in favor of John Kasich, but when Trump became the nominee Louis became pro-Hillary.

You guys have to understand that a very significant portion of Trump voters like Obama, but hated Hillary too much to be able to visualize her as "Obama's third term".
Click to expand...

Just goes to show that the 30 year smear campaign worked. Hillary as a president would have been just fine. But we are out of the age of policy and into the age of "But how does this candidate enthuse you?"

And

"how much can we fuck with poor minorities?"

Steve KKKing has something to add about Lewis.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) on Tuesday weighed in on the battle between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), saying that the civil rights icon has not contributed anything since the civil rights era.

"I've served with John Lewis now for quite some time," King said of Lewis on WHO Iowa radio's "Mickelson in the Morning," according to a clip surfaced by CNN. "I don't know that we've ever found ourselves where we've been working together on legislation in that way. But I have long contemplated the idea of just going to the floor and saying, 'John Lewis, thank you for your contribution to civil rights during the civil rights era. I would appreciate it if you would contribute something since then. It's been a half a century.' And a number of us have watched that and said, 'He trades off of it.' I guess that's fine. But he should be doing some other things too. And I haven't seen it happen from him."
Click to expand...
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Wilsongt said:
Just goes to show that the 30 year smear campaign worked. Hillary as a president would have been just fine. But we are out of the age of policy and into the age of "But how does this candidate enthuse you?"

And

"how much can we fuck with poor minorities?"

Steve KKKing has something to add about Lewis.
Click to expand...

Were we ever in the age of policy? At least in all of our life times?

The last president elected out of policy and not just because they were charismatic, followed a charismatic president, or followed a major scandal was Nixon?

Ford wasn't elected
Carter was a response to Watergate, and Carter is basically Mr Rojers if Mr Rojers became president, and lost immediatly after Watergate wasn't relevant
Reagan was a celebrity
GW just followed Reagan's footsteps, lost immediatly after a better Democrat ran
Clinton was Clinton
Bush was everyone's best buddy
Obama is the best orator the country has had in a generation
Trump was a celebrity

Seems like since wide spread TV became a thing, policy sort of took a back seat.
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
TestOfTide said:
Louis C.K. made a similar statement in favor of John Kasich, but when Trump became the nominee Louis became pro-Hillary.

You guys have to understand that a very significant portion of Trump voters like Obama, but hated Hillary too much to be able to visualize her as "Obama's third term".
Click to expand...

Not disputing what you say... But Jesus, it's an uneducated un-refined approach to politics. If people hated Hillary so much that they let a racist, sexually assaulting arse into office (either through voting for Not-Hillary, or not voting at all), does that not make them complicit in normalising his hatred and actions? Does it not make them so awful that if they were asked to vote for themselves, they would be as horrified of their own actions as they were of Hillary's? Does it not make those voters hypocrites, and actually a major part of the problem the US has?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
TestOfTide said:
Louis C.K. made a similar statement in favor of John Kasich, but when Trump became the nominee Louis became pro-Hillary.

You guys have to understand that a very significant portion of Trump voters like Obama, but hated Hillary too much to be able to visualize her as "Obama's third term".
Click to expand...
I understand very well. I'm just saying they're fucking morons.
 
K

KingK

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Patton Oswalt (I believe it was him) had a bit recently about how you need eight years of a Democratic president to be followed by eight years of a Republican president for "balance."

In fairness he said Trump was so bad it made this unacceptable, but I really wish people would sit down and think about how fucking arbitrary this is. If you think PPACA is good progress for example, you should not then support someone for president who vows to repeal all of it because "oh checks and balances". It also grossly oversimplifies things and ignores what effect Congress and the judicial system have on molding policy.

Like we can complain about gridlock and obstructionism all we want, but I am thoroughly convinced this is what the average dumbass American voter wants based on their voting habits. Even when you break down wedge issues like gun control and the minimum wage and they support Democrats' positions by wide majorities, nothing is going to break the barrier of the philosophy of "durrrrrr I don't think the president should do ANYTHING"
Click to expand...
I know so many people with that "checks and balances" attitude you just described, wanting to alternate the party in power, and it pisses me off so much.

These people tend to be completely ignorant of politics or current events and don't care to learn at all either (they even seem to take pride in their ignorance). They have no idea which party is running congress, or their own fucking state, but think they have the knowledge to lecture me about being a blind partisan who "needs to give Trump/Republicans a chance." It takes all of my patience to keep my composure around those luddites. I've actually had more success talking to and persuading certain conservatives than these know-nothing, above it all types who view their ignorance of politics and news as making themselves superior to the "bickering partisans."
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
KingK said:
I know so many people with that "checks and balances" attitude you just described, wanting to alternate the party in power, and it pisses me off so much.

These people tend to be completely ignorant of politics or current events and don't care to learn at all either (they even seem to take pride in their ignorance). They have no idea which party is running congress, or their own fucking state, but think they have the knowledge to lecture me about being a blind partisan who "needs to give Trump/Republicans a chance." It takes all of my patience to keep my composure around those luddites. I've actually had more success talking to and persuading certain conservatives than these know-nothing, above it all types who view their ignorance of politics and news as making themselves superior to the "bickering partisans."
Click to expand...
At least partisans have beliefs. "Both sides" is not a substitute for beliefs.
 
D

dramatis

Member
Futzing around on Quartz.

Geopolitical forecast: 2017 will bring a triangle of instability and an uprising of Luddites

The author predicts that
A new triangle of instability will arise
A grand theme for 2017 will be the emergence of three particular points of instability. They are the US, Russia and North Korea, all three of them wild cards, all led by men whose power emanates from a willingness to violate norms and be unpredictable, all seemingly gleeful to surprise and shock. We are calling them a triangle of instability.

They fall under the Big Personality Rule, which explains the impact of individuals whose idiosyncrasies can move and dominate events. But they have different temperaments, and thus the details diverge from here.
Click to expand...
Trump will move hard on immigration and trade
Masha Gessen, the Russian writer, has devised an interesting set of rules for observing (she actually said “surviving”) the Trump administration. After a decade and a half of watching Putin, she said that Rule No. 1 is to “believe the autocrat.” That is, it’s often the case in the rise of an extremist leader to swat away his or her most radical positions, and presume they are mere posturing. History shows that that is almost certainly a mistake. It’s true that some vows end up vanishing. But often, they don’t.

Of all the positions that Trump advanced in his 18-month campaign, his crackdown on Mexicans, Chinese and Muslims were the most central. The first, he asserted, were stealing American jobs by exploiting a badly drafted trade treaty, not to mention raping and murdering peaceful Americans. The second similarly had run roughshod over credulous Americans, again stealing American jobs through lopsided trade. The last were an existential danger. We believe that Trump will follow through aggressively on all three, if for no other reason that if he doesn’t, he will risk alienating his aroused base of supporters. As his recent rhetoric suggests, look for Trump to move fast to single out Muslim visitors and immigrants to the US, round up illegal Mexican immigrants (and erect his wall on the US border with Mexico), and push China hard on trade with threats of big tariffs.
Click to expand...
China and the US will swap roles …
While Donald Trump is focused on doing China one better, Chinese leader Xi Jinping will be looking at the big prize—leadership of a new world order. The first sign of this will be at the World Economic Forum, the annual gathering of the world’s elite being held this week in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos. Since the US no longer wishes to call the shots in a global order, as Trump makes clear, Xi will suggest in a speech today that China is more than happy to.
Click to expand...
The more interesting predictions are
There will be a backlash against Silicon Valley
Bubbling beneath the surface of the anti-elite wave is the reality that it is not migrants or trade that are primarily to blame for the feeling of lostness and the degradation of incomes. Instead, it is technology—fast-coming advances in robotics, manufacturing and machine-learning—that is eroding and wholly stripping away well-paying jobs. A lot of experts think worse is coming.
Click to expand...
Putin will use Snowden as a bargaining chip
Trump probably doesn’t care about Edward Snowden, the rebel former contractor for the US National Security Agency who in 2013 fled to Hong Kong with some of America’s top secrets, leaked them to the media, then took refuge in Moscow. On the other hand, for a large audience it would be quite a feather in Trump’s cap if he brought home Snowden in chains (figuratively speaking).

Putin knows this. He has gotten much of what he wanted from Snowden. Thus, he will dangle him as an added shiny object in exchange for high-value concessions from Trump—that he is prepared to hand over Snowden, given certain conditions.
Click to expand...
I guess Snowden might need that preemptive pardon
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
Listening to the HHS hearing who is Sen. Alexander? Advocating for piecemeal repeal and replace, and doesn't sound completely batshit talking about Obamacare.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
dramatis said:
Futzing around on Quartz.

Geopolitical forecast: 2017 will bring a triangle of instability and an uprising of Luddites

The author predicts that



The more interesting predictions are


I guess Snowden might need that preemptive pardon
Click to expand...

I talked about Snowden being extradited in the Chelsea Manning thread. Snowden is of no real use to Russia anymore and can easily be used aa a show of good faith to the U.S. And Trump has openly said.. not very nice things about Snowden.

It causing more disruptions in the U.S. would just be the cherry on top for Putin.
 
K

KingK

Member
Aaron Strife said:
At least partisans have beliefs. "Both sides" is not a substitute for beliefs.
Click to expand...
Exactly. There's been plenty of times where I can have a decent discussion on actual policy with a conservative and reach a level of consensus (although more often than not, that's ruined if/when race comes up or they make some out of the blue racist joke/comment).

You can't talk policy with these "both sides" people though, because they don't know about it and don't want to know. They aren't even willing to listen and have a conversation. They view even attempting to politely discuss politics as rude or stupid. Their ignorance allows them to feel superior and above the fray, with the added benefit of not having to put an ounce of critical thought into the topic.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Carpe Libertatem said:
I talked about Snowden being extradited in the Chelsea Manning thread. Snowden is of no real use to Russia anymore and can easily be used aa a show of good faith to the U.S. And Trump has openly said.. not very nice things about Snowden.

It causing more disruptions in the U.S. would just be the cherry on top for Putin.
Click to expand...

A spokeswomen for the Kremlin denied this and said his asylum was just renewed FYI
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
Gore ran away from Clinton, though. Had he ran closer to Clinton and used him more, who knows what would have happened.

Clinton embraced Obama and sold herself as Obama Part 2. Which is similar to how HW got in.
Click to expand...
Bush also was running against a block of wood with absolutely zero charisma or good messaging or anything, really. Dukakis did really well in the polls as a stand-in for "change" until people actually paid attention and realized the guy was a doof, plus they realized he'd raise your taxes and let black people out of prison to go murder your children, at which point he was doomed.
 
B

Brawly Likes to Brawl

Member
KingK said:
Exactly. There's been plenty of times where I can have a decent discussion on actual policy with a conservative and reach a level of consensus (although more often than not, that's ruined if/when race comes up or they make some out of the blue racist joke/comment).

You can't talk policy with these "both sides" people though, because they don't know about it and don't want to know. They aren't even willing to listen and have a conversation. They view even attempting to politely discuss politics as rude or stupid. Their ignorance allows them to feel superior and above the fray, with the added benefit of not having to put an ounce of critical thought into the topic.
Click to expand...

I feel there's an epidemic of people who confuse a neutral stance as a go-to position of intelligence or sanity and it drives me mad.
 
D

dramatis

Member
I just read that Trump has an idea for his 2020 slogan already. "Keep America Great!"



Somehow, it just reminds me of a Chinese saying: "Fighting for the country is easy, securing the country is hard."
 
B

BackLogJoe

Member
Aaron Strife said:
If Democrats have a big wave election next year they could win a majority in spite of the gerrymandering.

But more long term they could pick up a good number of governor's seats, which would allow them to force neutral maps in key swing states.

It's way too early to say anything about how 2018 will go, but the president's party usually gets pummeled. The only recent exceptions to this are 98 (impeachment of Clinton was seen as overreach and Democrats gained a few seats) and 02 (post-9/11, people still supported Bush).

Best case scenario is we make downballot gains in 2018, win the presidency in 2020, and new maps in 2022 prevent us from getting hit too hard by a GOP wave election.
Click to expand...

I get what youre saying, but the video kinda suggests its almost impossible because of how Republicans have rigged the process now.
 
C

chadskin

Member
Netherlands, GfK poll:

PVV-ENF: 19% ↓
VVD-ALDE: 15% ↓
CDA-EPP: 12% ↑
D66-ALDE: 10% ↑
SP-LEFT: 10% ↓
GL-GREEN: 9% ↓
PvdA-S&D: 7% ↓
50PLUS-NI: 6% ↑
CU-ECR: 5%
SGP-ECR: 3% ↑
PvdD-LEFT: 3% ↑
DENK-NI: 1%

What a mess.
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
One of the Politico founders, Jim VandeHei, started this new site called Axios that just launched today. It might just be me, but it seems like a huge piece of shit? I saw that they did a Trump interview to coincide with the launch and I wanted to read it (mainly for his thoughts on reading and books that seemed amusing) and they don't even have the entire interview posted. They've broken it up into like 10 different "articles" that are just 100-400 word summaries mainly made up of bullet points. Scrolling through their other "articles" on the site, they pretty much all look like this. It's basically TLDR: the news site.

They also have literally the worst launch partners imaginable. BP, Koch, JP Morgan, Bank of America.

The aesthetics of the site are pleasing at least.

Anyway, the thing I actually wanted to post (which I can't because it's not on their damn site) is Trump was asked about a book recommendation, something he's read recently. His recommendation is to point at his bookshelf. When pressed further he plugs the CNN book on him that just came out. This quote was gold: "I like a lot of books. I like reading books. I don't have the time to read very much now in terms of the books, but I like reading them."
 
H

hawkshockey11

Banned
Veritigo_X said:
One of the Politico founders, Jim VandeHei, started this new site called Axios that just launched today. It might just be me, but it seems like a huge piece of shit? I saw that they did a Trump interview to coincide with the launch and I wanted to read it (mainly for his thoughts on reading and books that seemed amusing) and they don't even have the entire interview posted. They've broken it up into like 10 different "articles" that are just 100-400 word summaries mainly made up of bullet points. Scrolling through their other "articles" on the site, they pretty much all look like this. It's basically TLDR: the news site.

They also have literally the worst launch partners imaginable. BP, Koch, JP Morgan, Bank of America.

The aesthetics of the site are pleasing at least.

Anyway, the thing I actually wanted to post (which I can't because it's not on their damn site) is Trump was asked about a book recommendation, something he's read recently. His recommendation is to point at his bookshelf. When pressed further he plugs the CNN book on him that just came out. This quote was gold: "I like a lot of books. I like reading books. I don't have the time to read very much now in terms of the books, but I like reading them."
Click to expand...

fOpMPfh.png
oYwQJf9.png
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
BackLogJoe said:
I get what youre saying, but the video kinda suggests its almost impossible because of how Republicans have rigged the process now.
Click to expand...
They were able to rig the process by winning so many governor's seats and state legislatures in 2010, right before the next round of redistricting.

If Democrats did the same in 2018 (the last election year for many governor's races before the next round of redistricting which will take place in 2021-2022), we could counterbalance that.

In most states the legislature draws the map and the governor can sign or veto it. If no agreement is made it goes to the courts which tend to produce neutral maps. So Democrats winning/holding governor's seats in PA, MI, OH, FL (to name a few) would give them significant leverage over the process.

Now that relies on 2018 being a good election year for Democrats, which isn't a given. If Trump is as bad as we think he'll be though then there could be a significant anti-GOP backlash at the polls which would set us up nicely for the post-2020 redistricting cycle.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Dubbedinenglish said:
Listening to the HHS hearing who is Sen. Alexander? Advocating for piecemeal repeal and replace, and doesn't sound completely batshit talking about Obamacare.
Click to expand...

I remember him running for the Republican nomination back in 1996. I don't remember much in the way of specifics, but he had some line about having new ideas while Clinton had bad ideas and Dole had no ideas, or something like that.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
Were we ever in the age of policy? At least in all of our life times?

The last president elected out of policy and not just because they were charismatic, followed a charismatic president, or followed a major scandal was Nixon?

Reagan was a celebrity
Clinton was Clinton
Click to expand...

While charismatic, Clinton and Reagan absolutely ran on policy. And Reagan never got mileage from his former celebrity-- if anything, it's something he had to overcome as a negative.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
Supast4r said:
He is way closer to a worse version of Nixon.
Click to expand...

Nixon was incredibly intelligent and obsessively well prepared though. He's probably the most qualified president we've had or in the top 3. Nixon also, like most US presidents, had a general ideology/worldview. I'm not sure Trump has one, and instead is driven by his own ignorance and vendettas. He might be the least prepared, least intellectually curious, and dumbest president in modern history.
 
D

dramatis

Member
"Barbara and I are so sorry we can't be there for your Inauguration on January 20th," the elder Bush wrote. "My doctor says that if I sit outside in January, it will likely put me six feet under. Same for Barbara. So I guess we're stuck in Texas."
Click to expand...
http://www.businessinsider.com/george-hw-bush-wont-attend-trumps-inauguration-2017-1

Well Bush Sr. has a great excuse that is also a bit of a burn.

Cesare Borgia said:
Nixon was incredibly intelligent and obsessively well prepared though. He's probably the most qualified president we've had or in the top 3. Nixon also, like most US presidents, had a general ideology/worldview. I'm not sure Trump has one, and instead is driven by his own ignorance and vendettas. He might be the least prepared, least intellectually curious, and dumbest president in modern history.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you need to put the word 'modern' in there? Which president was possibly dumber than Trump?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Cesare Borgia said:
Nixon was incredibly intelligent and obsessively well prepared though. He's probably the most qualified president we've had or in the top 3. Nixon also, like most US presidents, had a general ideology/worldview. I'm not sure Trump has one, and instead is driven by his own ignorance and vendettas. He might be the least prepared, least intellectually curious, and dumbest president in modern history.
Click to expand...
Trump really is in a league of his own.

Like people who compare him to Nixon miss the point - Nixon was shady as fuck but he also accomplished a fair amount in his presidency.

I can't wrap my head around what policies Trump will even implement. The stupid ones he ran on (the wall, Muslim ban) were rescinded or watered down as soon as he got elected. Repealing Obamacare is not a policy, that's a reversion to the status quo.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Trump really is in a league of his own.

Like people who compare him to Nixon miss the point - Nixon was shady as fuck but he also accomplished a fair amount in his presidency.

I can't wrap my head around what policies Trump will even implement. The stupid ones he ran on (the wall, Muslim ban) were rescinded or watered down as soon as he got elected. Repealing Obamacare is not a policy, that's a reversion to the status quo.
Click to expand...
Tax cuts so Job Creators can get to work doing their Job Creating magic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Russia begins Invasion of Ukraine
News NSFW 639 640 641 642 643
32K
2M
EviLore replied
Kanye West Planning Russia Trip to Meet Putin and Perform Sunday Service, Says Advisor
21
2K
It's all in the wrist replied
NYTIMES - Report Points to Microwave ‘Attack’ as Likely Source of Mystery Illnesses That Hit Diplomats and Spies
News
7
2K
DisguiseArrsick replied
Gowdy: Trump advisers should consider quitting over Russia
0
545
Arkage replied
  • Locked
Trump "Owned by Russia for 30 years" says his "Art of Deal" Ghostwriter
2 3
131
9K
FStubbs replied
Top Bottom