• 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.
V

Vimes

Member
Greigor The Fellhand said:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/13/politics/peter-strzok-special-counsel-russia-fbi/index.html?sr=twCNN071317peter-strzok-special-counsel-russia-fbi0405PMStory
Special counsel brings on FBI official who oversaw Clinton email investigation
Click to expand...

the_lion_king_scar_death_by_hyenas_by_kiryu2012-d9sds24.gif
 
UberTag

UberTag

Member
In a perfect world, the names Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Barack Obama would never be uttered in a political thread by anyone with any political perspective in response to any issue ever again.
 
P

PBY

Banned
Autodidact said:
You know, the "name recognition" excuse reads as incredibly condescending. During the primary, we had a serious problem with people saying that black voters had either been "conned" into voting for Hillary or only voted based on name recognition. Such statements epitomized paternalism and casual racism by implying that black people lacked the intelligence to vote in their best interests.

But you'd never imply something like that.
Click to expand...
Dude, fuck off with your casual racism implications. I didn't make this argument - its been circulated many times, by people much smarter than me. See, e.g. here from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/...ls-clinton-among-minority-voters.html?mcubz=2

It makes sense given Bill's popularity, and Bernie's relatively low profile at the time. Give me a break.

I agree that the conned point is problematic - but that's not what I'm fucking doing here.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
C

Crocodile

Member
PBY said:
Dude, fuck off with your casual racism implications. I didn't make this argument - its been circulated many times, by people much smarter than me. See, e.g. here from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/...ls-clinton-among-minority-voters.html?mcubz=2

It makes sense given Bill's popularity, and Bernie's relatively low profile at the time. Give me a break.
Click to expand...

It's still a stupid assertion. Obama overcame Clinton's name recognition so it obviously can be done. It's not her fault Sanders couldn't do the same be it to how he used his time in the decades leading up to his run, how he constructed his message, etc.
 
P

PBY

Banned
Crocodile said:
It's still a stupid assertion. Obama overcame Clinton's name recognition so it obviously can be done. It's not her fault Sanders couldn't do the same be it to how he used his time in the decades leading up to his run, how he constructed his message, etc.
Click to expand...

Of course! Sanders had a lot of issues working against him and he wasn't a great messenger in the primaries for a lot of internal reasons. But ignoring that name recognition was a factor is just wrong.

pigeon said:
Literally an article about how the argument you're making is wrong
Click to expand...
How so?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
UberTag said:
In a perfect world, the names Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Barack Obama would never be uttered in a political thread by anyone with any political perspective in response to any issue ever again.
Click to expand...
I mean, Obama is a massively popular ex-president. Kind of hard to avoid having him come up ever again. He still has significant clout in the party, see Perez becoming DNC Chair over Ellison who had early backing from Pelosi and Schumer.
 
P

PBY

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
I mean, Obama is a massively popular ex-president. Kind of hard to avoid having him come up ever again. He still has significant clout in the party, see Perez becoming DNC Chair over Ellison who had early backing from Pelosi and Schumer.
Click to expand...

Also, its silly because they're not just names anymore - they're proxies for different ideologies within the party. And these differences will still be here in 2020.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
PBY said:
Of course! Sanders had a lot of issues working against him and he wasn't a great messenger in the primaries for a lot of internal reasons. But ignoring that name recognition was a factor is just wrong.


How so?
Click to expand...

I don't even know how to respond to this. Did you read it?

Moreover, Mr. Sanders has [won working class whites] while facing some of the same disadvantages that weigh him down with African-Americans: low name recognition and the group’s longstanding affection for the Clinton family.
Click to expand...

Sanders's name recognition and Clinton's approval ratings were quite similar between working class white Dems and African-American Dems. Sanders did very well among one group and poorly with the other. Name recognition cannot explain that difference.

Edit: I'M NOT EVEN HAVING THIS ARGUMENT IT JUST BAFFLES ME WHEN PEOPLE POST SOURCES THEY SEEM TO HAVE NOT READ OR UNDERSTOOD AND NOBODY CALLS THAT OUT
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
http://www.defensenews.com/articles...ban-on-transgender-surgery-for-troops-209-214

What hateful pieces of shit. Good riddance.

WASHINGTON — The House narrowly voted down a Republican proposal to bar the Pentagon from paying for gender-transition surgeries.

The proposal from Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., endangered Democratic support of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. The lower chamber on Thursday failed to adopt it as an amendment to the NDAA in a bipartisan vote, 209-214 — with 24 Republicans joining the minority.

Hartzler and other proponents said they aimed to prioritize limited defense resources and bar troops from a class of procedures that would render them non-deployable. She said the amendment to the annual policy defense policy bill would have reversed the Obama-era practice of requiring the armed forces to fund medical procedures.

”This is a major surgery that requires a medical diagnosis that will render a person non-deployable," Hartzer said.

California Republican and Iraq war veteran Rep. Duncan Hunter, insisted the amendment was not aimed at barring transgendered persons from military service.

”It you're going to decide to serve the United States military, figure out whether you are a man or a woman before you join up," he said.

The amendment was one of more than 200 sent to the floor by the House Rules Committee this week. The defense bill, which authorizes up to $696 billion in 2018 military spending, is expected to come to a final vote Friday.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and a group of Democratic leaders came to the House floor to condemn the measure as ”mean-spirited" and discriminatory. They asked Hartzler to withdraw it, to no avail.

Pelosi called the amendment ”appalling" and ”designed drum transgender service members out of the military." The proposal, was ”purpose-built to attack the dignity of men and women serving the military today," she said

”This isn't going to help readiness. This is a social agenda that has no place in this bill," said House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash.

Democratic opponents said it was inappropriate to pass such a measure while Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was running a review of transgender policy.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., gave a tepid appraisal of the Hartzler amendment ahead of the vote on Thursday, stopping short of a clear endorsement.

”I think it's important that we work closely with the DOD on this," he said, referencing the DoD review.
Click to expand...

Republican Nos

DEpdbrYXoAAhSgI.jpg:large
 
P

PBY

Banned
pigeon said:
I don't even know how to respond to this. Did you read it?



Sanders's name recognition and Clinton's approval ratings were quite similar between working class white Dems and African-American Dems. Sanders did very well among one group and poorly with the other. Name recognition cannot explain that difference.
Click to expand...

Totally fair - I just pulled this off a quick google search, but you're totally right. I'll concede this point.
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
PBY said:
Dude, fuck off with your casual racism implications. I didn't make this argument - its been circulated many times, by people much smarter than me. See, e.g. here from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/...ls-clinton-among-minority-voters.html?mcubz=2

It makes sense given Bill's popularity, and Bernie's relatively low profile at the time. Give me a break.

I agree that the conned point is problematic - but that's not what I'm fucking doing here.
Click to expand...

For someone so opposed to reductive arguments, you've really oversimplified the thesis of that article. One paragraph mentions the Clintons' greater name recognition among black voters, but the authors largely attribute Hillary's black support to those voters' positive perceptions of the economy. Hell, the next paragraph even downplays the name-recognition explanation:

Perhaps a better explanation for Mr. Sanders's divergent performance is that while African-Americans and white working-class Democrats are experiencing broadly similar economic trends, they interpret them differently.
Click to expand...

At that time, black voters had seen their incomes and prospects improve, comparatively speaking, so they placed less credence in Sanders's economic message. Moreover, they associated the recovery with President Obama, in whose administration Hillary served and whose policies she pledged to continue. You talk about the Clintons' name recognition, but Obama's name seems to have helped her more than anyone else's in the black community.

You also ignore that fact that Hillary earned and maintained her support in that community. She discussed white supremacy and racism more than any mainstream candidate, even after the primary. (That frankness about bigotry may even have cost her the election.) She won black voters, one of the largest blocs in the party, because she discussed and spotlighted their issues - something Sanders and his "class first" ideology never quite managed.

Next time, pick some evidence that bolsters rather than undermines your argument.

EDIT: Oh, you've already conceded the point. I just spent time writing this post for nothing.
 
P

PBY

Banned
Autodidact said:
For someone so opposed to reductive arguments, you've really oversimplified the thesis of that article. One paragraph mentions the Clintons' greater name recognition among black voters, but the authors largely attribute Hillary's black support to those voters' positive perceptions of the economy. Hell, the next paragraph even downplays the name-recognition explanation:



At that time, black voters had seen their incomes and prospects improve, comparatively speaking, so they placed less credence in Sanders's economic message. Moreover, they associated the recovery with President Obama, in whose administration Hillary served and whose policies she pledged to continue. You talk about the Clintons' name recognition, but Obama's name seems to have helped her more than anyone else's in the black community.

You also ignore that fact that Hillary earned and maintained her support in that community. She discussed white supremacy and racism more than any mainstream candidate, even after the primary. (That frankness about bigotry may even have cost her the election.) She won black voters, one of the largest blocs in the party, because she discussed and spotlighted their issues - something Sanders and his "class first" ideology never quite managed.

Next time, pick some evidence that bolsters rather than undermines your argument.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but don't fucking imply I'm a racist - just call it out if you think that.

Saw your edit - yeah, all valid points. I don't think it was a waste - I actually learned something / appreciate you typing that out.
 
H

Hindl

Member
PBY said:
Totally fair - I just pulled this off a quick google search, but you're totally right. I'll concede this point.
Click to expand...

Just to expand a bit, that was the only mention of name recognition in the entire article. The rest of the article goes on to dispute that point, though not directly. It breaks down the differences between how white people and black people view the country. Black people were in general happy with the direction of the economy, while white people felt left behind. Additionally, black people were happy with ACA and Obama, while white people thought the ACA was broken. Sanders campaigned on a broken economy and replacing ACA while criticizing Obama, Clinton ran on tweaking the economy and the ACA. Sanders' rhetoric and ideas aligned with the white worldview, but didn't with the black worldview. So to me, this article is saying it wasn't name recognition, it was that they fundamentally disagreed with what Sanders was selling

Edit: All those points were added nvm
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
PBY said:
That's fine, but don't fucking imply I'm a racist - just call it out if you think that.

Saw your edit - yeah, all valid points. I don't think it was a waste - I actually learned something / appreciate you typing that out.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're racist. I think the name recognition argument had racist undertones, especially given some of the other rhetoric we saw in the primary.

EDIT: Also, I see Issa trying to keep that seat.

DOUBLE EDIT: Is this the bill the one to which Barbara Lee wants to amend the provision stripping Trump of some of his war powers? Has that amendment gotten a vote yet?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
PBY said:
That's fine, but don't fucking imply I'm a racist - just call it out if you think that.

Saw your edit - yeah, all valid points. I don't think it was a waste - I actually learned something / appreciate you typing that out.
Click to expand...

I think anybody who made that name recognition argument implicitly assumed that black people are dumber than white people.

Doesn't mean you consciously believe that, but, like, give it some consideration maybe.
 
P

PBY

Banned
pigeon said:
I think anybody who made that name recognition argument implicitly assumed that black people are dumber than white people.

Doesn't mean you consciously believe that, but, like, give it some consideration maybe.
Click to expand...

I hear you, and I'm definitely willing to think on it - bc I've said before, racism and related thinking comes from blind spots - but I do think that there is something to be said for the fact that Bill was very popular with African Americans and (to points made herein) Sanders' constituency wasn't very black or brown.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
whyamihere said:
http://www.defensenews.com/articles...ban-on-transgender-surgery-for-troops-209-214

What hateful pieces of shit. Good riddance.



Republican Nos

DEpdbrYXoAAhSgI.jpg:large
Click to expand...
What up.

Of course none of the MN Republicans voted against this though. Erik Paulsen might be my most hated person in politics. Fucking snake who's done nothing to earn his moderate darling status. At least Jason Lewis and Tom Emmer don't hide their ideology. Emmer doesn't even hide, he held a town hall a few months ago when Paulsen hasn't held an public forum in over five years.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
PBY said:
Just admit your argument is reductive; as if name recognition and related Clinton-factors had nothing to do with the result.
Click to expand...

This is (unintentionally I'm sure) racist. The name recognition for both of them was pretty close, and it also implies white people knew better.

Edit: I take one long break in the bathroom and don't refresh and this is what happens. Feel free to ignore, PBY
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
This is incomprehensible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/us/politics/trump-air-force-one-excerpt-transcript.html?_r=0

On allegations of collusion with Russia:

THE PRESIDENT: What pressure? I didn’t — I did nothing. Hey, now it’s shown there’s no collusion, there’s no obstruction, there’s no nothing. Honestly, the whole thing, it is really a media witch hunt. It’s been a media witch hunt. And it’s bad for the country. You know, when you talk about Russia, if Russia actually did whatever they want to do, they got to be laughing, because look at what happens — how much time. . . .

They feel it’s a witch hunt, the people. There are a lot of people. And those people vote. They don’t stay home because it’s drizzling. We proved that. But every single party chairman said that my base is substantially stronger than it was in November. That’s a big compliment. That’s a big compliment. And I feel it.

And I think what’s happening is, as usual, the Democrats have played their card too hard on the Russia thing, because people aren’t believing it. It’s a witch hunt and they understand that. When they say “treason” — you know what treason is? That’s Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for giving the atomic bomb, okay? But what about all the congressmen, where I see the woman sitting there surrounded by — in Congress.

So I think it’s a good thing. When Hillary Clinton spent her ads — you know, she spent almost 100 percent of her ads on anti-Donald Trump ads. You know that. Every ad was an anti ad. When the election came, nobody knew what she stood for.

I heard tonight, and I saw tonight, and I read tonight that they’re making a big mistake. And I a lot of the Democrats feel — they say, we’re putting all our money into this Russia stuff and it’s making Trump stronger. Because my people and the people that support me, who are incredible people, those people are angry because they feel it’s being unfair and a witch hunt.
Click to expand...
 
M

Mike M

Nick N
Who commits suicide because their life insurance policy is expiring? I'd be shocked if it didn't include a provision that it didn't pay out in cases of suicide.

EDIT: Not saying that I don't believe it, that just seems like a weird motive to do it
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Mike M said:
Who commits suicide because their life insurance policy is expiring? I'd be shocked if it didn't include a provision that it didn't pay out in cases of suicide.

EDIT: Not saying that I don't believe it, that just seems like a weird motive to do it
Click to expand...

Life insurance almost never covers suicide. It's why people go to such lengths to make a suicide look like an accident.
 
G

GoldenEye 007

Member
Tamanon said:
Life insurance almost never covers suicide. It's why people go to such lengths to make a suicide look like an accident.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought too. But in the other thread, posters are pointing out that suicide may just have an exclusion period of a couple years. After that, even suicide is covered. As long as he had the policy for more than a couple years, the policy should pay out.
 
G

Greigor The Fellhand

Member
im more intrigued about the DOJ settlement back last year involving a key player in the trump jr and russia story.

I feel like if were just putting the dots together now, that the investigation has had these, hopefully, for a bit
 
R

Random Human

They were trying to grab your prize. They work for the mercenary. The masked man.
Greigor The Fellhand said:
im more intrigued about the DOJ settlement back last year involving a key player in the trump jr and russia story.

I feel like if were just putting the dots together now, that the investigation has had these, hopefully, for a bit
Click to expand...

That's a pretty interesting development.
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
Ogodei said:
This slimy motherfucker bringing up the Ossoff election makes me want to pitch my monitor off my balcony.

Shit that still makes me mad.
Click to expand...

#justice4jon

I wonder if he'd be open to a rematch next year.

If history repeats itself, the voters will tire of Handel quickly.
 
P

Prof. Bathtub

Member
The treason is fake, the collusion is real.

Anyway, for all the headlines asking what will the GOP do about 2018+ election hacking, has a news org asked what will they themselves will do differently when stolen information is out and ready for sensationalizing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
230
40K
elbourreau replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
58K
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