• 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.
Still no mending of the rift between Trump and Sessions according to Sanders:

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump's press secretary, said later Wednesday that Sessions did not meet with the President while he was at the White House.
"The President's been very clear about where he is," Sanders said. "He is obviously disappointed."
"You can be disappointed in someone but still want them to continue to do their job," she added.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/trump-sessions-tweet/index.html
 

Valhelm

contribute something
Don't think it matters what I think, it matters whether the socialist left will support her sea change or not

I think Gillibrand has a bit less baggage than Kamala Harris (former prison labor advocate, very troubling history with Mnuchin) but I'm also less familiar with her background. Jacobin is critical of her right-leaning background, but they have a longer memory and a more zealous outlook than most far-left Americans. Hillary's background of supporting the Iraq War and Defence of Marriage Act was a lot less important than her apparently current disinterest in seriously helping struggling youth and rust belt voters.

There are really two big types of radical lefties, those who say they will never vote for a Democrat and those who will vote for any Democrat to stop the GOP. For some people like my friend Sapphira, a vote for any democrat is a concession to capitalism and right-wing politics. But the vast majority of folks who have the rose emoji on twitter or marched against Trump are much more pragmatic. If Harris or Gillibrand make meaningful overtures toward pacifism and working class interests, they will vote for them. I like to think that Trump can't win a second term because he is an unambiguously horrible president, but if the Dems in 2020 can't turn out enough more young people, he could very possibly win.

What makes me hopeful is that both Gillibrand and Harris have been deliberately moving to the left over the past year or so. This could really make a difference.
 

lush

Member
SHS Q&A average runtime is <10 minutes so what the hell does it matter?

She got Spiced today, couldn't answer anything about Trump's latest Twitter decree.
 
I think Gillibrand has a bit less baggage than Kamala Harris (former prison labor advocate, very troubling history with Mnuchin) but I'm also less familiar with her background. Jacobin is critical of her right-leaning background, but they have a longer memory and a more zealous outlook than most far-left Americans.

There are really two big types of radical lefties, those who say they will never vote for a Democrat and those who will vote for any Democrat to stop the GOP. For some people like my friend Sapphira, a vote for any democrat is a concession to capitalism and right-wing politics. But the vast majority of folks who have the rose emoji on twitter or marched against Trump are much more pragmatic. If Harris or Gillibrand make meaningful overtures toward pacifism and working class interests, they will vote for them. I like to think that Trump can't win a second term because he is an unambiguously horrible president, but if the Dems in 2020 can't turn out enough more young people, he could very possibly win.
Trump somehow pulling off a second win would be such a travesty. Dude can't even stay above 40% approval and he's only been president for six months. If he does win again it's probably another PV/EC split too.
 

Oriel

Member
DFrnAnLXUAYdfV3.jpg

https://www.buzzfeed.com/coralewis/trump-transgender-military-service?utm_term=.ciqbVgAjW#.fc2lp86Me

cool cool cool

FU....KIN....HELL!!!!

Imagine if this bozo was in charge during the Cuban Missile Crisis.....and Twitter existed. The Soviets would have launched their nukes after the first tweet. Clown!
 
"Dear Lisa,

Things are not good. My country is being overrun by THE BENEVOLENT PRESIDENT TRUMP! ALL HAIL TRUMP AND HIS GLORIOUS NEW REGIME!

SINCERELY,
LITTLE PICKLE"
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
That buzzfeed excerpt is legt terrifying, legitimizing my fears this morning
 

Maxim726X

Member
I think Gillibrand has a bit less baggage than Kamala Harris (former prison labor advocate, very troubling history with Mnuchin) but I'm also less familiar with her background. Jacobin is critical of her right-leaning background, but they have a longer memory and a more zealous outlook than most far-left Americans. Hillary's background of supporting the Iraq War and Defence of Marriage Act was a lot less important than her apparently current disinterest in seriously helping struggling youth and rust belt voters.

There are really two big types of radical lefties, those who say they will never vote for a Democrat and those who will vote for any Democrat to stop the GOP. For some people like my friend Sapphira, a vote for any democrat is a concession to capitalism and right-wing politics. But the vast majority of folks who have the rose emoji on twitter or marched against Trump are much more pragmatic. If Harris or Gillibrand make meaningful overtures toward pacifism and working class interests, they will vote for them. I like to think that Trump can't win a second term because he is an unambiguously horrible president, but if the Dems in 2020 can't turn out enough more young people, he could very possibly win.

What makes me hopeful is that both Gillibrand and Harris have been deliberately moving to the left over the past year or so. This could really make a difference.

I've decided to take this route: You're not voting for the person, you're voting for the party.

Then, whip out this .

Which party do you align with? If you're a decent person with a fully functioning brain, the answer should be obvious.
 
literal LGBT icon speaks from her throne room

@SenatorHeitkamp
We need to honor -not shame- the men/women who serve our country. The president banning transgender Americans from serving is upsetting

DFrwgRkXoAEtrQc.jpg

@SenatorHeitkamp
If a servicemember can do the job and is willing, they should be able to serve – and they should be able to be open about who they are.

@SenatorHeitkamp
It’s deeply unfortunate the president chose to announce this divisive news in an abbreviated and cavalier manner via social media

@SenatorHeitkamp
And it's troubling to learn that the Dept. of Justice is preparing to undercut existing anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ Americans
 

Toth

Member
At this point, parents have to take responsibility when it comes to letting their children near an unstable old man.
 
Zeke Miller&#8207;Verified account
@ZekeJMiller

FWIW, White House official tells me admin is thrilled media is focusing on transgender servicemember issue

They're not talking about healthcare or Russia. That's all that matters...
 
With the most catastrophically terrible outcomes seemingly averted, the media seems happy to be distracted away from health care by all the other freaking crazy shit happening at the same time. I barely know what the state of things are and I'm a complete political junkie. Heath care should still be the top story, but it's impossible to stay focused on it.

They're not talking about healthcare or Russia. That's all that matters...
Yup yup yup.
 

pigeon

Banned
I think Gillibrand has a bit less baggage than Kamala Harris (former prison labor advocate, very troubling history with Mnuchin) but I'm also less familiar with her background. Jacobin is critical of her right-leaning background, but they have a longer memory and a more zealous outlook than most far-left Americans. Hillary's background of supporting the Iraq War and Defence of Marriage Act was a lot less important than her apparently current disinterest in seriously helping struggling youth and rust belt voters.

There are really two big types of radical lefties, those who say they will never vote for a Democrat and those who will vote for any Democrat to stop the GOP. For some people like my friend Sapphira, a vote for any democrat is a concession to capitalism and right-wing politics. But the vast majority of folks who have the rose emoji on twitter or marched against Trump are much more pragmatic. If Harris or Gillibrand make meaningful overtures toward pacifism and working class interests, they will vote for them. I like to think that Trump can't win a second term because he is an unambiguously horrible president, but if the Dems in 2020 can't turn out enough more young people, he could very possibly win.

What makes me hopeful is that both Gillibrand and Harris have been deliberately moving to the left over the past year or so. This could really make a difference.

Right, like I said. Dems don't have any real socialists because they didn't know they'd need one. So they're retrofitting their candidates as fast as they can and the question is whether one of them can get the Bernie supporters, in which case they'll win the primary. If Gillibrand gets them she wins.

I prefer Kamala because she has a better record on social justice issues but obviously the people you're talking about don't care about that lol. Otherwise I don't care that much, most of the 2020 candidates seem fine to me, so it depends on what the difficult people choose.
 

Ogodei

Member
The question about the 2020 primary is how the Democratic party will "fracture." The front-runners will be the people from the current crop of contenders who can become the "face" of each faction.

First, speculated contenders (discounting celebrity candidates like Ron Perlman, The Rock possibly, or Zuck)

1) Bernie Sanders 2) Elizabeth Warren 3) Kristen Gillibrand 4) Andrew Cuomo 5) Cory Booker 6) Joe Biden 7) Terry McAuliffe 8) Sherrod Brown 9) Amy Klobuchar 10) Al Franken 11) Mitch Landrieu 12) Julian Castro 13) Kamala Harris

Obama v Clinton in 2008 was a sort of "Old/New" fracture, with Clinton having senior citizens, moderate supporters of Bill's administration, and the white working class/trade unionists on her side, the old base of the party, while Obama had the young, activists, cosmopolitans, and minorities, and repped the future of the party.

Clinton v Sanders the fault line was Social vs Economic issues, Clinton social and Sanders economic, and the people who valued social issues more (feminists, moderates, older black people, cosmopolitans) against people who valued economic issues (white working class, young across racial groups, activists, other minorities).

The factions determine who the front runners will be, because you won't see more than one champion per faction. Look back at the GOP 2016 primary: Jindal, Huckabee, and Cruz all repped hard-right, religious tea party types, but only Cruz floated to the top. Kasich, Pataki, and Gilmore were all moderates but only Kasich floated to the top.

So how do each of the contenders try to sell themselves?

6) Biden, 4) Cuomo, 7) McAuliffe, and 5) Booker would represent Clinton-style moderates. Economically moderate, socially liberal, so if all three run, only one will last up to Super Tuesday.

1) Sanders 2) Warren 8) Brown 9) Klobuchar and 10) Franken represent the economic issues and the working class base, so you'll likely see only one of these 5 make it.

3) Gillibrand 11) Landrieu 12) Castro and 13) Harris seem to be casting themselves as "progressives." They bridge the gap between class/social issues of the first two groups and are more aggressive on social issues than the top 4. So you see one of those 4 creep up.

So you look at who you think is the strongest of those three categories to see what the matchup is. Then you look at the strongest of the three who emerge as who will be the final matchup.

My point: you're unlikely to see a protracted "Harris v Gillibrand" or "Biden v Booker" primary. It's more likely something like "Booker v Klobuchar v Castro" primary.
 

Ernest

Banned
The White House doesn't understand politics, part 923829873128

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990



He literally did this to get the border wall money and DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THE FUCKING SENATE YOU IDIOT.

Wow, this is something.

The GOP wanted to remove military funding for sexual reassignment surgery. They tried to get it as an amendment to a spending bill and it lost a vote in the House. They then tried to revive it and went to Mattis, who said the Pentagon would have to research the issue before changing any policies. So they circumvented Mattis and went to Trump, who jumped from no funding for surgeries to no trans people in the military at all.

And I'm certain Trump has researched this issue as deeply as he has life insurance healthcare.
 

Blader

Member
They're not talking about healthcare or Russia. That's all that matters...

How long do these "distractions" ever last? A day?

If Trump really wants to get people to stop talking about healthcare or Russia for the long long term, he'll have to, I don't know, bring back slavery.
 
How long do these "distractions" ever last? A day?

If Trump really wants to get people to stop talking about healthcare or Russia for the long long term, he'll have to, I don't know, bring back slavery.

The distractions are also terrible on their own, so it's a bit like killing your neighbor on the left to distract people from you killing the neighbor on your right.
 

Ernest

Banned
Big surprise - Eric Cantor admits that the GOP didn't believe it's own anti-ACA rhetoric, but had to come out against it in order to appeal to their base.

And now Eric Cantor has admitted on the record that all those years of "repeal and replace" bills in the House was an entirely cynical exercise to diddle their base. He and his fellow Republicans knew it was a stupid idea all along.

"But," he acknowledged, "we had to keep all that anger working for us."

While this is important simply on its face, there is deeper significance here. I think it's how you wind up with a party that is currently trying desperately to find a way to take health care away from millions of people, and trying to do that in as secretive and hurried a manner as possible.

The fact is that these Republicans know that what they're doing is morally and intellectually bankrupt, reprehensible. But for years they diddled their base, capitalizing upon, even stoking their ignorance, promising things they have now admitted they didn't even want to do.

You can only stroke your base for so long. It's eventually going to want release ...

Fuck. What do you even do with this shit?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom