• 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 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HanShotFirst

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
Can we run Larry Snowbama?
ph4gtxc6osvzby.jpg
Click to expand...
Have you heard him speak? He has no charisma. Juan Bahama is my choice.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
tbm24 said:
I gotta say, I do wonder what the point is. Is the overaching assumption with this that anyone who's pro life is against abortion rights by default?
Click to expand...

Despite the bizarre whirlwind of dumbness around this topic, that is actually what "pro-life" means.

People who say "I personally don't support abortions but I believe others should have the right to make their own decisions" are not pro-life.
 
T

tbm24

Member
pigeon said:
Despite the bizarre whirlwind of dumbness around this topic, that is actually what "pro-life" means.

People who say "I personally don't support abortions but I believe others should have the right to make their own decisions" are not pro-life.
Click to expand...
I see, people I've come across in my life time so far have been using it very wrong then. I have a lot of family who are very religious(so they say) and would fall under not personally supporting abortions for themselves, but aren't going to throw blood at anyone who does or their ability to do it. They say they are pro-life, and I reckon that describes a lot of people as well.
 
A

aspiegamer

Member
I just realized... could you add Trump signing the sanctions bill as an article of impeachment, technically? He said in the signing statement it's unconstitutional. His sworn oath is to the constitution. He's knowingly violating the only extremely specific thing he had to say he was going to do. Never mind the fact that I'm sure the bill is fine, it's still an incredibly dumb thing to freely admit to doing. Not that this should be-- I mean he only used those words out of raw ignorance-- But it's still amusing in the face of everything else.

In other words, +1 "they'd have slayed Obama if he did this."
 
B

Barzul

Member
I hate the way this legal immigration talking points are being framed. Like right now legal immigration is this floodgate. Immigration based on like sibling relationships are backlogged by like 15 years. It's not like anyone can just like do it lol, there would be no illegal immigrants if that was the case. It's just frustrating, Trump supporters are making it sound like the borders are open and anyone just walks in. It is difficult to immigrate to this country, this law doesn't improve the number of skill based legal immigrants, if anything it caps it and then blocks off most family based avenues. It's bullshit and has no positives. America's immigration is the reason it doesn't look like Japan.
 
H

htttpwwwyahoocom

Member
Yeah, just recently I've noticed Kamala's Facebook posts have gone from mostly things like "Go get 'em Kamala" to crazy right-wing stuff on every post.

It's scary how quickly these people can mobilize. It's also crazy how good Republican propaganda firms are at attacking people for being left enough...
 
T

Teggy

Member
This Michael Tracey thread is like every 5 year old boy trying to prove he is "technically" correct when he is very clearly wrong. Its stupidity is impressive.

https://mobile.twitter.com/yashar/status/892915240781971457

(summary, he basically says Trump willingly sanctioned Russia because he didn't try to veto a bill that has passed congress with an overwhelmingly veto-proof majority)

The bonus is someone posting Glen Greenwald a little ways down saying the exact same thing.
 
S

Slizeezyc

Member
Zukkoyaki said:
Kamala introduced criminal justice reform legislation literally a month ago -_-
Click to expand...

Kamala Harris does have some positions she at the very least needs to clarify on this front -- trans rights probably being the most prominent, and overall what rights still apply to people in the prison system -- but yeah this is a given to happen in the grand scheme of things. And I don't mean to justify the poster because it is stupid and also shows blind spots for all these same sorts of peeps who would willingly ignore things from other potential candidates to pick on Kamala more as the black female. But that's sort of the underbelly at times of some people who are supposedly left-leaning and yet end up picking on candidates for obvious reasons that are alt-right reasons. It's sort of weird that now it's "I would vote for Warren but not Harris" as a new way to deflect from what they're really trying to say and moving the goal posts in the process.
 
B

benicillin

Banned
I like Kamala and think she has plenty of time to figure out how to respond to any criticism for if she runs in 2020. People are willing to forgive a lot if you know how to message it. Worrying about it now is actually objectively crazy.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Teggy said:
This Michael Tracey thread is like every 5 year old boy trying to prove he is "technically" correct when he is very clearly wrong. Its stupidity is impressive.

https://mobile.twitter.com/yashar/status/892915240781971457

(summary, he basically says Trump willingly sanctioned Russia because he didn't try to veto a bill that has passed congress with an overwhelmingly veto-proof majority)

The bonus is someone posting Glen Greenwald a little ways down saying the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

Let's dispel with this fiction that Michael Tracey doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.
Spreading pro-Kremlin propaganda.
 
S

Slizeezyc

Member
whyamihere said:
Kamala does have a spotty record on criminal rights. Her recent bill is her trying to rectify for that past.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and overall she seems like someone who sort of bends based on the position, which I don't generally speaking with have beef with because I think purity tests are silly anyway. But she does have a spotty AG record for sex workers/trans rights in regressive ways.

My guess is she probably felt she needed to be "tougher" on crime when the AG to keep her spot, and now as a senator knows she needs to actually be a bastion for what most people want and expect out of their candidate. Maybe some see that as not being true to positions, but the transgender stuff she was "for" before (see:regressive) is the same thing Warren also supported, for example.

I think trans rights are sort of the new "gay marriage" thing where you're going to see a lot of politicians who fucked up or didn't go out on that ledge early, but now are quickly coming around. Does it mean they're phony or just changed quickly with the times, or just knew it would hurt them to support it early on even though they believed in it? I don't really know but it's a thing lots of politicians are going to need to answer for, so just seems funny to me that everyone is targeting the black female with it before everyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

your favorite racing games by year (2002-2022)
2
72
4K
marcincz replied
[GfK data] In the UK, Xbox Series S and X has now overtaken sales of the original Xbox. PS5 is now closing in on 3DS/2DS sales.
Sales-Age 2
51
5K
Thirty7ven replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
2K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
230
40K
elbourreau replied
All Major PlayStation Franchises And Their Current Status
|OT| News Platform
44
3K
dorkimoe replied
Top Bottom