• 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 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Autodidact

Banned
Taiser said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yE7UAJRHdCQ#t=72

Warren is the second most popular politician in the country right now...
Hillary is borderline Bush-level toxicity and is polling worse than Trump.
Click to expand...

In early 2013, Hillary was the most popular politician in the country.

They have ready-made attacks against Warren: sexism, Ivory Tower out-of-touch professor, Pocahontas. She would get slaughtered.

We need someone fresh and youngish and with little baggage. Harris and Gillibrand fit that bill much better than Warren.
 
H

Hindl

Member
Taiser said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yE7UAJRHdCQ#t=72

Warren is the second most popular politician in the country right now...
Hillary is borderline Bush-level toxicity and is polling worse than Trump.
Click to expand...
4 years before 2016 Hillary was hovering around 66% favorability, which I believe is higher than Warren's now, although I can't find a good national favorability rating for her
http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/
Popularity changes when you're running for office. And I don't really take the opinions of the Five seriously, that's not really good proof tbh

Edit: Beaten...
I really like Warren, don't get me wrong. And if she somehow got the nomination I'd enthusiastically vote and volunteer for her. But she'd run into a lot of the same problems Hillary ran into
 
A

Abinash117

Member
ErasureAcer said:
And some also thought she was more electable than Bernie all the while ignoring the polls that said otherwise, this very board included. *

LOL @ all the hate in this thread. You guys must live miserable lives.

*The real delusion and disingenuity.
Click to expand...

Not even talking about main point, just attacking the posters now.
 
P

Prof. Bathtub

Member
Autodidact said:
To be serious for a moment, I still haven't comprehended the political spectrum that these malcontents have created. If I'm mean to the moderates and the left and I drive people toward Trump, then what am I?

A centrist neoliberal shill, I guess. But I thought they used that term as a synonym for "centrist corporatist Democrats," who they also sometimes derisively call "moderates." But they'll tell me I'm mean to the moderates. Does that mean I'm self-loathing?

I get so confused.
Click to expand...

I suppose the thinking is that the WWC moderates (or the suburban whites who actually carried Trump) are waiting for the right candidate with a Populist economic message (socialism/protectionism but without the racial component I guess.) So the hard left would appeal to these people if they jettisoned half-measures and appeals to some outmoded center, maybe? I feel like it's the same thinking that props up Bannonist Populism™ as an third way, ignoring that it's a cardboard mask for extremist corporate conservatism.
 
H

Hindl

Member
ErasureAcer said:
I'm the one attacking? Ha. Ha.

There's like 5 posts cussing me out by name. Donald would be proud of your projection.
Click to expand...
Alright then I'll ask you about politics again. You say the Democrats should've nominated Bernie Sanders over Clinton. Clinton stomped Bernie in the primaries. Beat him by over 3 Million votes. So how is it not voter suppression and "rigging" and everything the Bernie wing accused the DNC of to take the nomination from Clinton and giving it to Bernie despite her clearly beating him?
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
ErasureAcer said:
So Taiser's post is not credible because I agree with it? Oh god...you guys are a riot.
Click to expand...

Autodidact said:
In early 2013, Hillary was the most popular politician in the country.

They have ready-made attacks against Warren: sexism, Ivory Tower out-of-touch professor, Pocahontas. She would get slaughtered.

We need someone fresh and youngish and with little baggage. Harris and Gillibrand fit that bill much better than Warren.
Click to expand...

Hindl said:
4 years before 2016 Hillary was hovering around 66% favorability, which I believe is higher than Warren's now, although I can't find a good national favorability rating for her
http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/
Popularity changes when you're running for office. And I don't really take the opinions of the Five seriously, that's not really good proof tbh

Edit: Beaten...
I really like Warren, don't get me wrong. And if she somehow got the nomination I'd enthusiastically vote and volunteer for her. But she'd run into a lot of the same problems Hillary ran into
Click to expand...

We explained very calmly why we disagreed with his post.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
I just want to point out that I kickstarted an Elizabeth Warren action figure because I respect the hell out of her.

And also think she would be a terrible nominee.
 
S

Snowman Prophet of Doom

Member
kirblar said:
Supporting Warren is completely misunderstanding why Clinton wasn't a good candidate.

You have to take the right lessons away. Warren has all the same weaknesses Clinton did. Policy was not the primary issue here.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree with this, the anti-Warren media machine is not nearly as extensive, ingrained, nor deep as the anti-Clinton machine, and Warren is a good speaker who has a lot of fire and passion. She does have the "college elitist" thing going for her, but I would argue she is significantly less weak than Hillary as a candidate, as of this moment.

However, she will also be too old and will also have too much limelight stink on her by 2020, not to mention Bernie fans seem largely to have dumped her after failing to endorse him in the primaries.

Edit: Clinton's "popularity" was, I would argue, a smoke and mirrors effect, as she had fallen away from political center stage and was mostly on the radar of politics junkies. Warren doesn't have a Presidential administration's worth of satire, dirt, and smearing for people to revert back to.
 
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
Hindl said:
Hillary had an economic platform, it was just a real one, not populist soundbites like "Mexicans are stealing your job!" or "Punish Wall Street!". It was complex, like the actual economy. Because it couldn't be said in 10 words or less, the national media didn't cover it, and the average American voter couldn't be bothered to learn more
Click to expand...

It was garbage. Part of the reason why she took such an embarrassing L is because of her team's dismissal of people who are losing BIG. People struggling with college costs, wage growth, manufacturing, economic mobility, retirement, victims of Wall St. fraud, etc. The gist of her narrative was that America is great already, the rhetoric from her opponents was too negative, and America needs incremental change as opposed to transformational reform.

The American people chose options other than Hillary during the November election because her proposed solutions weren't very good. Bad candidate, poor team, and a economic platform tens of millions don't care for.
 
M

Mutanthands

Member
Hindl said:
Polls don't matter, votes do. Hillary got more votes than Bernie. A LOT more. For all the talks from the Bernie wing about a rigged primary, taking the nomination from the winner that outright dominated the loser would be actual rigging and voter suppression

And LOL @ us leading miserable lives. We're able to move on from 2016, admit what Hillary did wrong, and look to the future and actually do shit to fight the neofascists trying to take over our country. You're too busy taking potshots at a party that mostly agrees with you while doing nothing about the actual threat to democracy, and you seem unable to address why Bernie got stomped in the primary
Click to expand...

kirblar said:
She got 3 million more votes than Trump, lost by under 100K between 3 states, all while we gained House and Senate seats during the election. It was a complicated, incredibly narrow loss. But if you have "a better candidate than Clinton" and run the same campaign, we likely win. That's going to be a rough pill for a lot of lefties.

If you want to see a dumpstering, go check out the '72 election. Or any of the elections in the 1980.
Click to expand...

ErasureAcer said:
I'm the one attacking? Ha. Ha.

There's like 5 posts cussing me out by name. Donald would be proud of your projection.
Click to expand...

Alright then, how about you concentrate on the posts that actually offer a counterpoint to your arguments? You don't have to wallow in the attacks. You want intelligent political discourse, some people are trying to give it to you.
 
R

ratcliffja

Member
I really wanted Warren as the nominee instead of Hillary but I fully admit that it's far from certain that she would have done better. Warren's quips are energizing for the left, but they're also polarizing for everybody else. The "nasty woman" label would be much more easily applied to her even if it's misogynist.

Also, if you're going to completely dismiss a candidate as terrible, don't be surprised when people try to defend that candidate.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
I don't necessarily agree with this, the anti-Warren media machine is not nearly as extensive, ingrained, nor deep as the anti-Clinton machine, and Warren is a good speaker who has a lot of fire and passion. She does have the "college elitist" thing going for her, but I would argue she is significantly less weak than Hillary as a candidate, as of this moment.

However, she will also be too old and will also have too much limelight stink on her by 2020, not to mention Bernie fans seem largely to have dumped her after failing to endorse him in the primaries.

Edit: Clinton's "popularity" was, I would argue, a smoke and mirrors effect, as she had fallen away from political center stage and was mostly on the radar of politics junkies. Warren doesn't have a Presidential administration's worth of satire, dirt, and smearing for people to revert back to.
Click to expand...
The GOP has had her in their crosshairs for at least 4+ years now. That's too long. You want new, not old.
 
S

Snowman Prophet of Doom

Member
kirblar said:
The GOP has had her in their crosshairs for at least 4+ years now. That's too long. You want new, not old.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, not to mention she arguably fucked up with her base by not just saying "fuck it" and endorsing Bernie in the primaries (wouldn't have hurt Hillary, anyway, and she could have just framed it as "wanting change" while still praising Clinton's good qualities so it wouldn't have bit her in the ass in the general). But I don't agree she has nearly Hillary's same weaknesses, especially because she doesn't have the "stiff as a board, emotional as a robot" thing going for her.
 
J

jtb

Banned
I genuinely believe Hillary's biggest weakness was a four year break from politics. She was a sharper candidate in 08 because she was pushed. She spent all of 2016 without any serious challenge.

Warren would have been a great VP pick for Hillary, imo. Unite the factions, and double down on the historic nature of her candidacy (+ remind everyone over and over and over again that Donald Trump is a terrible person and a misogynist)
 
J

Joe Shlabotnik

Banned
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-wall-transparency-falling-drugs-article-1.3324591

Trump returned to the ever-evolving idea of a wall at the southern U.S. border by laying out new specifications ? that it must have “transparency.”

“One of the things with the wall is you need transparency. You have to have to be able to see through it,” the commander-in-chief told reporters on Air Force One Wednesday night.

Trump offered the possibility that the wall could be steel with openings in it and offered a strangely specific example of why “you have to see what’s on the other side of the wall.”


“As horrible as it sounds, when they throw the large sacks of drugs over, and if you have people on the other side of the all, you don’t see them ? they hit you on the head with 60 pounds of stuff? It’s over. As crazy as that sounds, you need transparency through that wall.”
Click to expand...

posted without comment
 
K

Kusagari

Member
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
I agree with this, not to mention she arguably fucked up with her base by not just saying "fuck it" and endorsing Bernie in the primaries (wouldn't have hurt Hillary, anyway, and she could have just framed it as "wanting change" while still praising Clinton's good qualities so it wouldn't have bit her in the ass in the general). But I don't agree she has nearly Hillary's same weaknesses, especially because she doesn't have the "stiff as a board, emotional as a robot" thing going for her.
Click to expand...

The "college professor" way she speaks can easily be seen as stiff and robotic and I've had multiple people in real life tell me that's how they see her and her "charisma" or lack thereof.
 
M

Mizerman

Member
ErasureAcer said:
So Taiser's post is not credible because I agree with it? Oh god...you guys are a riot.
Click to expand...

It's because I think you're disingenuous at best. You're just lashing out because Bernie didn't win the primary and then going after Hillary because she didn't win. Let's just cut the bullshit. Hillary was popular a few years ago and a fat lot a good that did her in the end. Bernie couldn't get the job done and neither did Hillary.

You continue to come on a board you apparently don't like just to throw some "nana nana boo boo" type shit and when you get called out, you try to play the victim. So you'll have to forgive me if I believe that your intentions are less than ideal. You want to vent? Then vent until you're tired. But don't piss in my cup and call it lemonade.



pigeon said:
Why are you still letting ErasureAcer bug you, he just acts out to get a response
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm done with him. Afterwards, he can go kick rocks for all I care.
 
H

Hindl

Member
TheLaughingStock said:
It was garbage. Part of the reason why she took such an embarrassing L is because of her team's dismissal of people who are losing BIG. People struggling with college costs
Click to expand...
Costs won't be a barrier
  • Every student should have the option to graduate from a public college or university in their state without taking on any student debt. By 2021, families with income up to $125,000 will pay no tuition at in-state four-year public colleges and universities. And from the beginning, every student from a family making $85,000 a year or less will be able to go to an in-state four-year public college or university without paying tuition.
  • All community colleges will offer free tuition.
  • Everyone will do their part. States will have to step up and invest in higher education, and colleges and universities will be held accountable for the success of their students and for controlling tuition costs.
  • A $25 billion fund will support historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other minority-serving institutions in building new ladders of opportunity for students. Read Hillary's agenda to support HBCUs and minority-focused institutions here.
  • The one-quarter of all college students who are also parents will get the support they need and the resources they deserve. Read more about Hillary's plan to support student parents here
more at https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/
Click to expand...
wage growth, manufacturing, economic mobility, retirement
Click to expand...
  • Launch our country's boldest investments in infrastructure since the construction of our interstate highway system in the 1950s.
  • Advance our commitment to research and technology in order to create the industries and jobs of the future.
  • Establish the U.S. as the clean energy superpower of the world—with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of her first term and enough clean, renewable energy to power every home in America within 10 years of her taking office.
  • Strengthen American manufacturing with a $10 billion ”Make it in America" plan.
  • Cut red tape, provide tax relief and expand access to capital so small businesses can grow, hire, and thrive.
  • Ensure that the jobs of the future in caregiving and services are good-paying jobs, recognizing their fundamental contributions to families and to America.
  • Pursue smarter, fairer, tougher trade policies that put U.S. job creation first and get tough on nations like China that seek to prosper at the expense of our workers. This includes opposing trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership that do not meet a high bar of creating good-paying jobs and raising pay.
  • Invest in good-paying jobs. In her first 100 days as president, Hillary will work with both parties to make bold investments in infrastructure, manufacturing, research and technology, clean energy, and small businesses. This will create millions of good-paying jobs, including for labor and other hard-working Americans across the country.
  • Restore collective bargaining rights for unions and defend against partisan attacks on workers' rights. Hillary was an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. Hillary will fight to strengthen the labor movement and to protect worker bargaining power. She will continue to stand up against attacks on collective bargaining and work to strengthen workers' voices.
  • Prevent countries like China from abusing global trade rules, and reject trade agreements, like the TPP, that don't meet high standards. Hillary will strengthen American trade enforcement so we stand up to foreign countries that aren't playing by the rules—like China is doing right now with steel, and fight for American workers. She will say no to trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that do not meet her high standard of raising wages, creating good-paying jobs, and enhancing our national security.
  • Raise the minimum wage and strengthen overtime rules. No one working full time should be forced to raise their child in poverty. Hillary believes the minimum wage should be a living wage, and she will work to get to a $15 minimum wage over time, with appropriate variations for regions with a higher cost of living. She's been a strong supporter of the ”Fight for $15," and she also supports the Obama administration's expansion of overtime rules to millions more workers.
  • Invest in high-quality training, apprenticeships, and skill-building for workers. Read the fact sheet here.
  • Encourage companies to invest in workers. Hillary will reward companies that share profits and invest in their workers. She will crack down on companies that move profits overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes and she will make companies that export jobs give back the tax breaks they've received in America.
  • Protect workers from exploitation, including employer misclassification, wage theft, and other forms of exploitation.
  • Ensure policies meet the challenges families face in the 21st century economy. Hillary will fight for equal pay for women and guarantee paid leave, two changes that are long overdue. And she will provide relief from the rising costs of necessities like child care and housing.
  • Protect retirement security. After working hard for decades, Americans deserve a secure and comfortable retirement. Hillary will fight to protect retirement security, enhance—not privatize—Social Security, and push back against any efforts to undermine retirement benefits.
more at https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/jobs/ and https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/labor/
Click to expand...
victims of Wall St. fraud
Click to expand...
  1. Impose a risk fee on the largest financial institutions. Big banks and financial companies would be required to pay a fee based on their size and their risk of contributing to another crisis.
  2. Close loopholes that let banks make risky investments with taxpayer money. The Volcker Rule prohibits banks from making risky trading bets with taxpayer-backed money—one of the core protections of the post-financial crisis Wall Street reforms. However, under current law these banks can still invest billions through hedge funds, which are exempt from this rule. Hillary would close that loophole and strengthen the law.
  3. Hold senior bankers accountable when a large bank suffers major losses. When a large bank suffers major losses with sweeping consequences, senior managers should lose some or all of their bonus compensation.
  4. Make sure no financial firm is ever too big or too risky to be managed effectively. Hillary's plan would give regulators more authority to force overly complex or risky firms—including banks, hedge funds and other non-bank financial institutions—to reorganize, downsize, or break apart.
  5. Tackle financial dangers of the ”shadow banking" system. Hillary's plan will enhance transparency and reduce volatility in the ”shadow banking system," which includes certain activities of hedge funds, investment banks, and other non-bank financial companies.
  6. Impose a tax on high-frequency trading. The growth of high-frequency trading has unnecessarily placed stress on our markets, created instability, and enabled unfair and abusive trading strategies. Hillary would impose a tax on harmful high-frequency trading and reform rules to make our stock markets fairer, more open, and transparent.
  7. Hillary would also hold both corporations and individuals on Wall Street accountable by:
  8. Prosecuting individuals when they break the law. Hillary would extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting major financial frauds, enhance whistleblower rewards, and provide the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission with more resources to prosecute wrongdoing.
  9. Holding executives accountable when they are responsible for their subordinates' misconduct. Hillary believes that when corporations pay large fines to the government for violating the law, those fines should cut into the bonuses of the executives who were responsible for or should have caught the problem. And when egregious misconduct happens on an executive's watch, that executive should lose his or her job.
  10. Holding corporations accountable when they break the law. Hillary will make sure that corporations can't treat penalties for breaking the law as merely a cost of doing business, so we can put an end to the patterns of corporate wrongdoing that we see too often today.
more at https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/
Click to expand...
etc. The gist of her narrative was that America is great already, the rhetoric from her opponents was too negative, and America needs incremental change as opposed to transformational reform.

The American people chose options other than Hillary during the November election because her proposed solutions weren't very good. Bad candidate, poor team, and a economic platform tens of millions don't care for.
Click to expand...

Go on...

Mutanthands said:
Alright then, how about you concentrate on the posts that actually offer a counterpoint to your arguments? You don't have to wallow in the attacks. You want intelligent political discourse, some people are trying to give it to you.
Click to expand...

I think aside from ErasureAcer, who pretty much only comes in here to stir up shit, we've been offering polite counterpoints to our arguments. See this http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=243368932&postcount=13964 where we responded to someone talking about Warren's favorability numbers
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
jtb said:
I genuinely believe Hillary's biggest weakness was a four year break from politics. She was a sharper candidate in 08 because she was pushed. She spent all of 2016 without any serious challenge.

Warren would have been a great VP pick for Hillary, imo. Unite the factions, and double down on the historic nature of her candidacy (+ remind everyone over and over and over again that Donald Trump is a terrible person and a misogynist)
Click to expand...

Hillary got older and slower between 2008 and 2016, as anyone would. In 2008 she had more energy, partly because of her young opponent and partly because of her own relative youth. Compare videos from the two eras. She spoke more quickly, more passionately, and appeared more persuasive eight years ago.

Republicans can run old fogies because of their base, but we need young(ish), energetic people.
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
FiggyCal said:
Do we care about Zuckerberg or Mark Cuban running?
Click to expand...

Zuckerberg could be useful as a lightning rod. He won't win the primary because of the south, especially with Harris or Booker in the race, but he could sure be the punching bag for everyone else and allow the eventual candidate to emerge relatively unscathed.

He won't even realize it's happening, making it more hilarious.
 
B

barber

Member
Greigor The Fellhand said:
does he want glass? a fence? or like a invisible fence... for dogs?
Click to expand...

A reinforced glass wall would be pretty cool, kinda hard to put the solar panels on top though
EDIT: lol reading the whole thing completely he already makes the wall super small, "that part is pretty remote, no one is going to go through there"
 
S

Snowman Prophet of Doom

Member
Kusagari said:
The "college professor" way she speaks can easily be seen as stiff and robotic and I've had multiple people in real life tell me that's how they see her and her "charisma" or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

I think she'd dispel that, though, when people were exposed to her more. She gave some of the most passionate, fiery denunciations of Trump before and after the election, it was actually a pretty striking contrast to how cautious and measured Hillary was in how she spoke about and to him.

Having said that, I DON'T think she should run, her time is past, but I don't agree she does or would have Hillary's same flaws.
 
B

Blader

Member
jtb said:
I genuinely believe Hillary's biggest weakness was a four year break from politics. She was a sharper candidate in 08 because she was pushed. She spent all of 2016 without any serious challenge.

Warren would have been a great VP pick for Hillary, imo. Unite the factions, and double down on the historic nature of her candidacy (+ remind everyone over and over and over again that Donald Trump is a terrible person and a misogynist)
Click to expand...

If "grab them by the pussy" wasn't enough to cement that in people's minds, nothing is.

Joe Shlabotnik said:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-wall-transparency-falling-drugs-article-1.3324591



posted without comment
Click to expand...

Well that's confusing. Is he concerned that drug runners in Mexico will accidentally hurt or kill their handlers in the US (or vice versa) because they won't be able to see each other toss a sack of drugs over the fence?
 
K

kirblar

Member
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
I think she'd dispel that, though, when people were exposed to her more. She gave some of the most passionate, fiery denunciations of Trump before and after the election, it was actually a pretty striking contrast to how cautious and measured Hillary was in how she spoke about and to him.

Having said that, I DON'T think she should run, her time is past, but I don't agree she does or would have Hillary's same flaws.
Click to expand...
Warren didn't impress me at the convention at all. (in that specific type of role)

Twitter trolling and policy-making and being a much-needed pain in the ass behind the scenes seem like way better uses for her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
238
44K
Hrk69 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
How games prevent us from Crossing Map Boundaries? (2010 - 2020)
Analysis Trailer
2
1K
IbizaPocholo replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom