• 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.
B

Barzul

Member
@chucklindell

BREAKING: Federal judge throws out Texas voter ID law. #txlege

@chucklindell

Issues permanent injunction against enforcement of original voter ID law, plus loosened law just passed by #txlege.

Huge for 2018?
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Kid Kamikaze10 said:
I know the donor thing is always gonna be an issue on the left, but I gotta ask.

How are candidates and local parties gonna be able to fund themselves instead? Not everyone is Bernie, and in this economy, not everyone wants to spend money on a politician.

In the face of people like the Mercers and Koch Bros, it just sounds like a financial ass kicking waiting to happen. In a lot of states.
Click to expand...

I'm sick of the "Wall Street donated to this campaign" bullshit, when it's really "People who work on Wall Street donated to this campaign".

It's such disingenuous framing, and it's almost always referring to the federally capped donations. The real threat is the unlimited super pac bullshit, which is still somehow anonymous in some cases.
 
F

Futurevoid

Member
Barzul said:
@chucklindell

BREAKING: Federal judge throws out Texas voter ID law. #txlege


Huge for 2018?
Click to expand...

The previous law was thrown out for the same reasons. The Texas legislature went back and rewrote it after it was killed by the Federal courts. S.B. 5 is the replacement (for S.B. 11) which is what's just been thrown out as well.

More importantly this is the law that the Trump Justice Department put its weight behind. The Obama DoJ was against the original voter ID law and joined the plaintiff's and that remained true when S.B. 5 was challenged. The Trump DoJ reversed course and backed the Texas legislature saying the changes in SB were sufficient for it to made law and the fact that the Texas legislature was even willing to craft a new bill removes any discriminatory intent. They pretty much walked away from any objection to the law.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...justice-stands-by-texass-voter-id-law/532980/

This Federal judge disagreed.....a lot.

DH8XCifUQAEa4Lf.jpg


i.e. S.B. 14 was discriminatory. S.B.5 is just as discriminatory. Start from scratch assholes.

This is like the 8th time Texas has been slapped about in federal court in relation to their election laws. By any measure they should be placed under preclearance as per the Voting Rights Act but under this DoJ? That has no fucking meaning anyways.:/
 
A

ArkhamFantasy

Member
Futurevoid said:
The previous law was thrown out for the same reasons. The Texas legislature went back and rewrote it after it was killed by the Federal courts. S.B. 5 is the replacement (for S.B. 11) which is what's just been thrown out as well.

More importantly this is the law that the Trump Justice Department put its weight behind. The Obama DoJ was against the original voter ID law and joined the plaintiff's and that remained true when S.B. 5 was challenged. The Trump DoJ reversed course and backed the Texas legislature saying the changes in SB were sufficient for it to made law and the fact that the Texas legislature was even willing to craft a new bill removes any discriminatory intent. They pretty much walked away from any objection to the law.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...justice-stands-by-texass-voter-id-law/532980/

This Federal judge disagreed.....a lot.

DH8XCifUQAEa4Lf.jpg


i.e. S.B. 14 was discriminatory. S.B.5 is just as discriminatory. Start from scratch assholes.

This is like the 8th time Texas has been slapped about in federal court in relation to their election laws. By any measure they should be placed under preclearance as per the Voting Rights Act but under this DoJ? That has no fucking meaning anyways.:/
Click to expand...

Is this legal-ese for "This is racist bullshit, fuck off"?
 
S

sangreal

Member
It's almost as if we don't live in a post-racial society and shouldn't have eliminated pre-clearance

but activist judges are only on the left, amirite?
 
E

Ernest

Banned
All this talk of 2020 with no mention of how Trump will most likely win? Unlike someone like Biden, we already know he's impervious to gaffes. Additionally, Trump's plan is to keep his base intact and then character assassinate and name-call his opponent in 2020. It's the same strategy he used in 2016.
And it'll probably work for him. He'll have nothing accomplished but he'll just blame Congress. The public hates them more than Trump anyway. And the Repubs will lick his asshole just to stay in his good graces.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Ernest said:
All this talk of 2020 with no mention of how Trump will most likely win? Unlike someone like Biden, we already know he's impervious to gaffes. Additionally, Trump's plan is to keep his base intact and then character assassinate and name-call his opponent in 2020. It's the same strategy he used in 2016.
And it'll probably work for him. He'll have nothing accomplished but he'll just blame Congress. The public hates them more than Trump anyway. And the Repubs will lick his asshole just to stay in his good graces.
Click to expand...

Could he win? Yes. Republican voters aren't necessarily running from him at this point.

However, what will be a driving force to get people to the polls? I'd argue that Hillary was just as much of a negative driving factor for voters as Trump's racism was a positive one for that group. They absolutely HATE her and have for decades. There's nobody like that left for democrats to nominate. I've talked to republicans that said they would have voted for Biden over Trump, and I've read other posters say the same on GAF. I really feel like there was a gigantic "NOT Hillary" push among these people, and that's gone. I just don't think there will be as much drive for these people to get to the polls in 2020--especially if he never gets anywhere with his promises to repeal Obamacare, build a wall, etc.

Also, independents pushed him over the line in 2016. I don't believe that will be the case again. His ratings are horrid with them at this point.
 
L

LostMyNarbles

Member
It was easy to demonize Clinton when the Republicans had already been doing that for years. I presume the best bet for 2020 is going to be having a fresh candidate that doesn't have a lot of skeletons in their closet. Additionally, Independents and undecided voters will hopefully see through Trump's huge promises and lack of delivery. The guy basically said he will do everything better than Obama/Clinton and hasn't gotten shit done.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Ernest said:
All this talk of 2020 with no mention of how Trump will most likely win? Unlike someone like Biden, we already know he's impervious to gaffes. Additionally, Trump's plan is to keep his base intact and then character assassinate and name-call his opponent in 2020. It's the same strategy he used in 2016.
And it'll probably work for him. He'll have nothing accomplished but he'll just blame Congress. The public hates them more than Trump anyway. And the Repubs will lick his asshole just to stay in his good graces.
Click to expand...

I mean, we had a discussion of Trump's 2020 prospects yesterday. I don't think we should dismiss them outright especially three years in advance when a lot can change (Bush Sr. looked invincible in 1991 and Clinton was treated as a de facto lame duck in 1995, and that was closer to those respective elections). That having been said, I don't think saying he will most likely win is really accurate.

In 2016 he had the luxury of running against an opponent who was already unpopular (due in part to 25 years of attacks) and ran an out-of-touch campaign. He also had the luxury of having no record to defend and being able to sell people on promises he had no way of keeping. He can't really do that this time around and he's already lost a fair amount of his coalition. He could win them back, but there's no guarantee that he will. And there's very little he can afford to lose, given that his victory came down to 70K votes in WI/MI/PA. No one should be popping the champagne yet, but nor should we be writing off 2020.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
LostMyNarbles said:
It was easy to demonize Clinton when the Republicans had already been doing that for years. I presume the best bet for 2020 is going to be having a fresh candidate that doesn't have a lot of skeletons in their closet. Additionally, Independents and undecided voters will hopefully see through Trump's huge promises and lack of delivery. The guy basically said he will do everything better than Obama/Clinton and hasn't gotten shit done.
Click to expand...
I think for this reason we should also be careful about Warren (and by careful I mean "don't do it bro"). I love her to death but she's already been made into a boogeyman on the right and doesn't have the charisma to push past that.
 
P

Prof. Bathtub

Member
The more fawning trumper profiles NYT and others run, the more people become deadset that he's teflon and the more congressional Rs become convinced that it's safe to never hold him accountable. After all, Joe Ironcoal's still on our side. Every article is grist for the nothingmatters mill.
 
S

sangreal

Member
Ernest said:
All this talk of 2020 with no mention of how Trump will most likely win? Unlike someone like Biden, we already know he's impervious to gaffes. Additionally, Trump's plan is to keep his base intact and then character assassinate and name-call his opponent in 2020. It's the same strategy he used in 2016.
And it'll probably work for him. He'll have nothing accomplished but he'll just blame Congress. The public hates them more than Trump anyway. And the Repubs will lick his asshole just to stay in his good graces.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of people in this thread who have said Trump will win

I am not among them, given I don't think he will last 4 years (for reasons other than impeachment) but they are there
 
B

Barzul

Member
Box of Kittens said:
I mean, we had a discussion of Trump's 2020 prospects yesterday. I don't think we should dismiss them outright especially three years in advance when a lot can change (Bush Sr. looked invincible in 1991 and Clinton was treated as a de facto lame duck in 1995, and that was closer to those respective elections). That having been said, I don't think saying he will most likely win is really accurate.

In 2016 he had the luxury of running against an opponent who was already unpopular (due in part to 25 years of attacks) and ran an out-of-touch campaign. He also had the luxury of having no record to defend and being able to sell people on promises he had no way of keeping. He can't really do that this time around and he's already lost a fair amount of his coalition. He could win them back, but there's no guarantee that he will. And there's very little he can afford to lose, given that his victory came down to 70K votes in WI/MI/PA. No one should be popping the champagne yet, but nor should we be writing off 2020.
Click to expand...

See the thing is Sr and Clinton were sane and within normalcy of American politics. How well will drain the swamp play when he has no legislative victories of note come 2020? And I really think this will be the case, Trump won't get to sign a bill on anything he's pushed for or if he does it won't resemble what he promised. That he was able to fuck up Obamacare repeal, something that the GOP base is rabid about and actually really wanted shows me this.

Trump will keep deteriorating in the office, Charlottesville was such an easy punt that he fucked that up means the real crisis will be even worse...way worse. At some point he will lose some of his base. 2 years in shit like build that wall and lock her up and whatever else they chant at those rallies will have less sway.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
Plinko said:
Could he win? Yes. Republican voters aren't necessarily running from him at this point.

However, what will be a driving force to get people to the polls? I'd argue that Hillary was just as much of a negative driving factor for voters as Trump's racism was a positive one for that group. They absolutely HATE her and have for decades. There's nobody like that left for democrats to nominate. I've talked to republicans that said they would have voted for Biden over Trump, and I've read other posters say the same on GAF. I really feel like there was a gigantic "NOT Hillary" push among these people, and that's gone. I just don't think there will be as much drive for these people to get to the polls in 2020--especially if he never gets anywhere with his promises to repeal Obamacare, build a wall, etc.

Also, independents pushed him over the line in 2016. I don't believe that will be the case again. His ratings are horrid with them at this point.
Click to expand...

Demonization has worked well on Harris and Warren. Cory Booker is another guy who is withering under scrutiny.

It has the potential to work on Bernie since there are so many skeletons in that closet to go after. He hasn't even received the level of negative attention that Harris & Warren have received. However, it's still an unknown with him, unlike with the above three, where it's known that hits can damage them.

Biden on the other hand, he seems impervious.

At this point, it looks Sanders & Biden could do well. However, I also wouldn't be surprised if neither goes for it in 2020, on account of age.

My bet: Gillibrand & Gabbard are the last two standing and we have a repeat of 2016 with Trump getting a second term.

I feel erring on the side of pessimism and worst case scenario is the way to go.
 
A

Allard

Member
Ernest said:
All this talk of 2020 with no mention of how Trump will most likely win? Unlike someone like Biden, we already know he's impervious to gaffes. Additionally, Trump's plan is to keep his base intact and then character assassinate and name-call his opponent in 2020. It's the same strategy he used in 2016.
And it'll probably work for him. He'll have nothing accomplished but he'll just blame Congress. The public hates them more than Trump anyway. And the Repubs will lick his asshole just to stay in his good graces.
Click to expand...

Trump if he stays as unpopular as he is now will likely not even have a chance at winning. I know 2016 broke a lot of expectations and people's standards for the electorate but historically and out of context Trump winning was not unusual, what is unusual is a president winning two terms on the backs of limited popularity in his second election due to broken promises and trust. Obama was relatively scandal free and was still genuinely likeable had an air of trust and stability, same with Clinton in the 90s (especially compared to leadership in congress), Bush it was the Iraq war and the continued want/need for large swathes of the electorate for a sense of stability so rather then wanting change in the war they elected the person they felt was most equipped to keep a stable strategy, the overall electorate did not see it as the great horrific miscalculation we see it now. Trump versus Clinton it was very much about changing the guard, changing the course even if parts of the electorate didn't even know or care what course that was, they saw Hilary as both a dynasty and continuation of existing governing. For majority of the population this was a good thing, for places like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin they felt the current course needed a shakeup and ended up choosing Trump (barely) as a conduit for that. Now Trump is the establishment, he is the head of the government body and anyone that feels we are going an even worse course or lost something in these next 3 and a half years they will lay those accusations at Trumps feet, and he doesn't have a likeability factor or sense of trust to keep him around like it helped Obama. If Congress is in trouble and people don't like the way things are going they will take a legitimate look at whoever ends up challenging him in the open field.

I don't believe for a second things are set in stone. I was one of those that cautioned people about cheering for Trump in the primaries because I felt even if it means one of those other awful republicans had a better shot at winning, it wouldn't be close to as bad as Trump getting the presidency. Our electorate is stupid, but it also can be predictable and will lay blame (even if at times unwarranted) at the feet of the ones they deem is in charge. If the population is unhappy with Trump, and has horrible approvals, he will be shown the door, he isn't an outside Washington candidate anymore. He literally defines what it means to be one for a lot of people.
 
O

Ogodei

Member
Gabbard couldn't possibly work the far left. Whatever Sanders' failings on issues of racial justice may be, he marched with the Civil Rights leaders. Gabbard is pro-Assad.
 
K

Kusagari

Member
LOL at Gabbard.

The actual far left, aka the chapo crowd, sees Gabbard for the fraud and snake she is. Her only actual base is Bernie fanatics who seem to have no actual policy desires besides supporting the guy that opposed Hillary.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Kusagari said:
LOL at Gabbard.

The actual far left, aka the chapo crowd, sees Gabbard for the fraud and snake she is. Her only actual base is Bernie fanatics who seem to have no actual policy desires besides supporting the guy that opposed Hillary.
Click to expand...

And the honorable soul sista Nina Turner.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Kusagari said:
LOL at Gabbard.

The actual far left, aka the chapo crowd, sees Gabbard for the fraud and snake she is. Her only actual base is Bernie fanatics who seem to have no actual policy desires besides supporting the guy that opposed Hillary.
Click to expand...

her foreign policy ideas are as repulsive to the left as they pretty much can be.
 
H

hydragonwarrior

Member
I think if dems want to push for more votes, there's going to have to be a haul back in how people accuse a Trump supporter.

For the short term, allow ignorance to be OK for when they voted for him and welcome a moderate "back" into voting for whoever the left chooses to vote. Get them to vote and then you can criticize them AFTER.

Emotional voting sucks and I can see constant insults levied towards former Trump Supporters either leading them to not vote or to vote for Trump just out of spite, not because they like the guy.

There are some Trump supporters who will vote for him regardless (those are likely the racist/paranoid ones) but there's some that may vote otherwise if you actually extend an olive branch not made out of insults.

For the short term, let go that they made a (big) mistake and have them correct it, then blame them after.
 
C

chadskin

Member
Donald Trump privately vented his frustration over Russia-related matters with at least two other Republican senators this month, according to people familiar with the conversations — in addition to the president's public admonishments of Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Jeff Flake.

Trump expressed frustration over a bipartisan bill sanctioning Russia and tried to convince Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) that it wasn't good policy, according to three people familiar with the call. Trump argued that the legislation was unconstitutional and said it would damage his presidency. Corker was unrelenting, these people said, and told Trump the bill was going to pass both houses with bipartisan support.

"He was clearly frustrated," one person said of Trump’s call with Corker earlier this month. The bill cleared Congress overwhelmingly last month and Trump grudgingly signed it on Aug. 2.

Trump dialed up Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) on Aug. 7, two days before a blunt call with the Senate majority leader that spilled over into a public feud. Tillis is working with Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) on a bill designed to protect Robert Mueller, the independent counsel investigating the president's Russia connections, from any attempt by Trump to fire him.

The Mueller bill came up during the Tillis-Trump conversation, according to a source briefed on the call — the latest signal of the president's impatience with GOP senators' increasing declarations of independence from his White House. Trump was unhappy with the legislation and didn't want it to pass, one person familiar with the call said.
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/23/trump-senate-yell-phone-calls-241950

Russia seems to be the only topic Trump's passionately interested in.
 
A

aspiegamer

Member
T

Teggy

Member
Man, I wonder why trump is so concerned about the Russia investigation when he knows they aren't going to find anything. Go figure.
 
G

Got the Shakes

Member
O

Ogodei

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
Gabbard isn't even going to run

She should be first in line to be primaried by the far left. She's the easiest place they could make a gain to a more liberal Democrat
Click to expand...

Her and Lipinski, anyway.

Edit: that GOP Zelda thing is dumber than it looks

Grand Old Party said:
The action-adventure game was released in 1986, only one year after Nintendo's founding in 1985.
Click to expand...
 
V

Valhelm

contribute something
Ogodei said:
Gabbard couldn't possibly work the far left. Whatever Sanders' failings on issues of racial justice may be, he marched with the Civil Rights leaders. Gabbard is pro-Assad.
Click to expand...

How are these issues connected?

Gabbard is way too friendly with the Assad government than she should be, but the Syrian opposition is overwhelmingly made up of racist and sectarian militias. They want to reestablish older gender and religious hierarchies and weaken the influence of ethnic minorities. Supporting efforts to overthrow the government empowers these organizations, which have much more in common with the Ku Klux Klan than Black Lives Matter. Intervention, especially this late in the game, would be horrible.

By opposing US aggression in Syria, Gabbard is better than a lot of other Dems on this one particular issue. But we need to be very skeptical of her motivations because she's an Islamophobe. She probably only opposes intervention because it could send Muslim refugees to America.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
Gabbard has a smaller following than Eric Garland, why would you think she has a remotely possible chance at success?
Click to expand...

I take the tact that it's best to expect the worst case scenario.

If she does run, I expect her anti-GMO stance & sadly enough, her foreign policy will work quite well with the parts of the party that are very comfortable treading in conspiracy theories.
 
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
3K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
238
44K
Hrk69 replied
All Major PlayStation Franchises And Their Current Status
|OT| News Platform
44
4K
dorkimoe replied
Top Bottom