• 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.
The 87-89 white group were at the prime age for the country falling apart under Bush and it culminating with Obama being their first presidential election.

Not surprised to see them be the most liberal; speaking as someone both in 89 myself.
Yeah, I'm a 91 and missed Obama's first election by a year (you better believe I voted in 2010, though).

My experience with my age cohort is you're either a liberal or you vote Republican because of abortion or guns. I've met a few Libertarian types but probably no more than usual for any demographic.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
You'd also have to separate voting millennials and millennials in general. Voting is habit-forming - people who've voted before are significantly more likely to vote again. It's entirely plausible that older millennial are less liberal than younger millennials, but those younger millennials who are liberal had no prior experience of voting, and, unlike older millennials, weren't given an Obama to overcome that problem.

That seems like a pretty accurate description to me!
 
It's not criticism that was the problem, it's criticism based almost entirely on falsehoods, misrepresentations or just plain willful ignorance. Everything related to the Clinton Foundation, her or Podesta's emails, Goldman Sachs speeches, etc..... was complete and utter bullshit. But anytime something about that stuff came out, you had leftists gleefully shouting about it with the same bellicose rhetoric as Trump's campaign and the alt-right. Again, if they had stuck to debate about actual policies and not fabricated narratives, I would have no problem.

This, 1000x.

I regularly heard from Bernie supporters that Clinton was "basically a Republican," "accepted bribes," and was "racist." And of course, that the primaries were "rigged."

Of course turnout was down when charges that extreme were met without much critical examination.
 
I've read two Rand books (Atlas Shrugged and Anthem).

I don't recommend them. Very preachy and not even that good of reads. Anthem is the better of the two, only because it's wayyyyy shorter and is a more traditional dystopian fiction and I love dystopian fiction.

When people start praising Rand it immediately tells me there opinion is worthless and they should be ignored and shuttered.

positive

I know they are easily manipulated

I'm pretty sure people who praise Rand haven't actually read anything she wrote. Maybe they read the spark notes or read an essay on Atlas Shrugged or something. Wasn't there a movie?

I only read Atlas Shrugged because I had to for AP Economics. I read Anthem because it was short and was a freebie from the Rand foundation. No seriously, there was a point where you'd just ask and they'd send you Anthem for free. Ironic.
 

Wilsongt

Member
A take so hot and bright I need eclipse glasses to avoid burning my retinas.

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/15/wha...ats-would-rather-ignore/#.WZOryWZ1_iA.twitter

Last week the respected left-liberal magazine The Nation published an explosive article that details in great depth the findings of a new report — authored in large part by former U.S. intelligence officers — which claims to present forensic evidence that the Democratic National Committee was not hacked by the Russians in July 2016. Instead, the report alleges, the DNC suffered an insider leak, conducted in the Eastern time zone of the United States by someone with physical access to a DNC computer.

This report also claims there is no apparent evidence that the hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 — supposedly based in Romania — hacked the DNC on behalf of the Russian government. There is also no evidence, the report’s authors say, that Guccifer handed documents over to WikiLeaks. Instead, the report says that the evidence and timeline of events suggests that Guccifer may have been conjured up in an attempt to deflect from the embarrassing information about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign that was released just before the Democratic National Convention. The investigators found that some of the “Guccifer” files had been deliberately altered by copying and pasting the text into a “Russianified” word-processing document with Russian-language settings.

If all this is true, these findings would constitute a massive embarrassment for not only the DNC itself but the media, which has breathlessly pushed the Russian hacking narrative for an entire year, almost without question but with little solid evidence to back it up.

You could easily be forgiven for not having heard about this latest development — because, perhaps to avoid potential embarrassment, the media has completely ignored it. Instead, to this point only a few right-wing sites have seen fit to publish follow-ups.

The original piece, authored by former Salon columnist Patrick Lawrence (also known as Patrick L. Smith) appeared in The Nation on Aug. 9. The findings it details are supported by a group of strongly credentialed and well-respected forensic investigators and former NSA and CIA officials. The group call themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or VIPS, and originally came together in 2003 to protest the use of faulty intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush.
 
Didn't you hear about how they killed those five cops?! /s

What the fuck?



What's the fucking holdup Campbell Soup Company?

Campbell's is out:

DHXallfUMAAfI62.png
 

kirblar

Member
@rohitguptahpf

So, the graph is from this paper:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/cohort_voting_20140605.pdf ...

The data itself is more difficult to get, apparently they have 306,011 observations pooled from across 4 different types of polls.
Source for the graph.
The #brands are tougher on Nazism than the GOP.
A reason why when #corporatedems and #identitypolitics come out of the same person you're going to get one heck of a stinkeye.
 
It's not criticism that was the problem, it's criticism based almost entirely on falsehoods, misrepresentations or just plain willful ignorance. Everything related to the Clinton Foundation, her or Podesta's emails, Goldman Sachs speeches, etc..... was complete and utter bullshit. But anytime something about that stuff came out, you had leftists gleefully shouting about it with the same bellicose rhetoric as Trump's campaign and the alt-right. Again, if they had stuck to debate about actual policies and not fabricated narratives, I would have no problem.

The Clinton foundation and wall street speeches criticism were not complete nonsense.

The Clinton foundation, I don't really care if it's a charity, what it does with the money or if they take a salary or not. Heads of state can't run operations that take massive donations from foreign governments. Had she won she would have needed to shut it down or completely detach herself from it and allow someone else (not Chelsea or direct family members) to run it. It was a conflict of interest. Yeah it's a joke that Trump has more conflict of interests than any person in the history of the entire country has ever had.. but maybe if the democratic nominee had not also been guilty of similar things it could have been more of an election issue rather than the foot note it is now.

The paid speeches, imo was not something someone with the intention of running for office should have engaged in either. It looks terrible. Yes others have done it but still. Going forward Id prefer public servants either 1)not do stuff like that or 2) have it be regulated where if they do there are some sort of standards in place like all the transcripts need to be made public record so everyone can read them. I understand why politically she didnt release them because her opponent wasn't even releasing their fucking tax returns but going forward I want that stuff on record. If Mike Pence is running in 2020 for example and he's done stuff like this I want to know what he was saying etc.
 

Teggy

Member
Paris Dennard just compared removing confederate statues to shutting down a holocaust memorial. WTF.

And Angela Rye was lit (this was on Here And Now).
 
Paris Dennard just compared removing confederate statues to shutting down a holocaust memorial. WTF.

And Angela Rye was lit (this was on Here And Now).

That analogy doesn't even fucking work. The right analogy would be if we just had giant swastikas erected with no context for them, like the statues.
 

Ernest

Banned
Pretending like he ended the council instead of all the people leaving it on their own accord!

Ha ha ha! Get fucked Trump!

Make no bones about it, the disbanding of the Fellowship business panel is a huge fucking blow to Trump. Not just to his ego, but to whatever business acumen he pretends to possess. This is going to have him reeling for some time. It's going to make him even more unhinged.
 
there's two "alt-left" talking points

there's the alt-right, right's version of violent anti-fa leftists who want to gut america and erase our history. nobody really bought into this except right-wingers

then there's the neera, center-left "alt-left" which claimed there is a part on the left who is racist and sexist (horseshoe theory) and actively hurting the left and supporting donald trump.

the center-left's use of the right's same term was used as a cudgel to assert power over the dem party's future and in a fight over the def of "true-liberals"

The left's claim is that the use of the same term in a internecine fight gave the term credence for trump to use the right's term and is now hurting all of the left.



The leftists largely didn't do this during the general.

And the fact that they pointed this out and trump used it. doesn't mean they "amplified" his message, it largely means that maybe they were right that clinton wasn't the best candidate against trump because he would use these same messages.

and again, it doesn't really matter because this isn't why clinton lost. she lost because trump voters like his racist platform and clinton couldn't attract the moderate republicans she thought she could by shaming them with trump

The only good thing to come out of these past few days is that Trump has utterly tainted the term "alt-left" and no one saying it should have any bit of credibility anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom