• 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 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jtb

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Article on McCaskill

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/30/claire-mccaskill-senate-dems-2018-215556

She's probably nicer to Trump than she can afford to be, but I think she's making all the right moves - like Obama said, even if a county will never vote for you, losing it by 20 points versus losing it by 50 points makes a huge difference. If she loses it'll simply be that she couldn't beat the state's lean.
Click to expand...

I think Kander's performance indicates that the lean can be overcome. Particularly in wave-y turnout conditions. Will be an uphill battle, but I think her conditions are far more favorable than, say, Donnelly's. Plus, she's a strong incumbent.
 
A

adamsappel

Member
BoogieWoogie said:
I always find it hilarious that the same people screaming about the government taking their guns are all for a heavily armed police force. Hey idiots, who do you think the government is going to send for your guns?
Click to expand...
Blue Lives Matter, until they come for my guns, and then I am going to kill them.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
jtb said:
I think Kander's performance indicates that the lean can be overcome. Particularly in wave-y turnout conditions. Will be an uphill battle, but I think her conditions are far more favorable than, say, Donnelly's. Plus, she's a strong incumbent.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm more concerned about Donnelly at this rate.

Holding all of our seats is going to be tricky dicky.
 
Journeywalker

Journeywalker

Member
More_Badass said:
Experiencing the "moving goalposts" argument in real life is so frustrating. Was having a discussion with someone related to Trump's tax speech today that shifted into capitalism and free enterprise and how the government doesn't create or build anything, only private companies do

So I bring up DARPA, and everything they created that we use today. The counterpoint moves to "but they don't mass produce those things." Okay...that wasn't the argument. So then he moves to "but they don't build cars or phones or missiles or other things we use everyday, to make life easier". Again, that wasn't your original argument, which was that the government doesn't create or build anything. "Yeah, and they don't".

Back to square one. I left the conversation at that point. (Should be noted that the person is a hardcore conservative and consumer of right wing news)

How the hell are we going to have a semblance of honest discussion and argument for future elections and on other issues if one side only wants to delude themselves into believing they're right? I fear that the future of socioeconomic and scientific discussion in relation to politics is a lost cause
Click to expand...

I've been intentionally responding to tweets on @trumps_feed to wade into the waters. I see it a bit like putting on my rhetoric helmet and shield to slowly, calmly push back against ignorance. If anything, I hope to contradict the Fox News narrative that all progressives are shrill, divisive, outrage-prone, Nazi-labeling, history-erasing, MSM-brainwashed, G-dless cancers on society.

I've had some interesting conversations with people that reject fact-checkers, reject the scientific method, reject the coequal status of the judicial branch, reject the need for SCOTUS to interpret the constitution, think the concept that everyone has bias is a "progressive myth," and believe that class and race divisions didn't exist before Obama. And I don't think they hated me at the end.
 
H

HanShotFirst

Member
Beer Monkey said:
His vocabulary has shrunk immensely. With a healthy brain this doesn't happen between 50 and 70 years old.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that but back then he spoke about politics with the same vagueness that he does now. ie: Says something is wrong then makes vague comment about how horrible things are becoming and offers no specific solution.
 
B

Beer Monkey

Member
HanShotFirst said:
I don't doubt that but back then he spoke about politics with the same vagueness that he does now. ie: Says something is wrong then makes vague comment about how horrible things are becoming and offers no specific solution.
Click to expand...

He was never very smart, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have degenerative brain issues. It happens to smart people and dumb people.
 
G

Got the Shakes

Member
This is so gross.

DIgplvnVwAEShNv.jpg:large
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
pigeon said:
A jungle primary is still a primary.
Click to expand...

I mean, you can't actually primary someone by removing them from the party line in the way that people would understand the verb tbh, which is an easier task than beating someone in a Dem v Dem GE race in the most expensive state in the country.

(None of these things are easy, mind you)
 
K

Kusagari

Member
HanShotFirst said:
I don't doubt that but back then he spoke about politics with the same vagueness that he does now. ie: Says something is wrong then makes vague comment about how horrible things are becoming and offers no specific solution.
Click to expand...

I think the major difference in that old interview posted and Trump now is coherence. He's saying the same basic, vague gobbledygook but it's in an easy to understand and follow manner.
 
B

Blader

Member
Am I right in thinking that Loretta Sanchez made too much of an ass of herself last year to be a viable Senate candidate?
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
I mean, Ted Lieu could just fuckin' go for it if he wants to move to the Senate.

Do Pelosi and Feinstein have any sort of relationship? I know Pelosi and Boxer go way back to Boxer's days in the House.
 
A

aspiegamer

Member
Got the Shakes said:
This is so gross.
Click to expand...
The Trump voters I get, but I'm surprised at the Clinton voters. Would have assumed that more than 10% of D voters would consider the media a bigger threat because of what it enables. Were it not for extreme right-wing media these past few years (to say nothing of whataboutism from every media outlet on earth during the campaign) we wouldn't be talking about white supremacists at all in the first place!
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
aspiegamer said:
The Trump voters I get, but I'm surprised at the Clinton voters. Would have assumed that more than 10% of D voters would consider the media a bigger threat because of what it enables. Were it not for extreme right-wing media these past few years (to say nothing of whataboutism from every media outlet on earth during the campaign) we wouldn't be talking about white supremacists at all in the first place!
Click to expand...

Yeah ... this is how I feel. The people answering that question are doing so through the perspective that their media gives them. Which is ironic for the righties who are so concerned.

From a theoretical, the media could be just as destructive. It goes beyond just right wing media too. Major news publications covered the Clinton email scandal at much higher volumes than the other scandals going on. This might be because Trump had too many scandals to focus on, but the result of so much attention spent on the email scandal was definitely felt.

State ran media is the solution to profit driven media, but even then that poses it's own set of issues. Anyone here want Trump in charge while the feds are starting up a news programs for the nation?
 
C

chadskin

Member
Rinat Akhmetshin, the lobbyist and former Soviet army officer who met senior Trump campaign aides at a controversial meeting last year, has given evidence before a grand jury investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter. 

Mr Akhmetshin gave testimony under oath for several hours on Friday August 11, in a sign that special counsel Robert Mueller is looking at the 2016 meeting as part of his investigation into links between Donald Trump’s election campaign and Russia.
Click to expand...
https://www.ft.com/content/eb36aed6-8d87-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d
 
H

Holmes

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Yeah, I'm more concerned about Donnelly at this rate.

Holding all of our seats is going to be tricky dicky.
Click to expand...
Donnelly's two potential opponents are losers who will tear into each other before their primary is over.

McCaskill at least has a credible opponent, despite his stupid ladder ad.
 
S

SatelliteOfLove

Member
edit: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH Get 'em all in there!

Spoiled Milk said:
It's the same thing I heard from Barrack Obama and Henry Kissinger. She said that she hopes he'll be a good president because he's definitely not getting impeached. That's true. Donald Trump is not going to be impeached. And if we're stuck with him for four years, then she, and I, and you should, hope for everyone's sake that Donald Trump is a good president, not a bad one.

The definition of "good president" here is much, much looser than what you're thinking, probably. It's probably closer to "minimum competency and values required for being the executive of the country."
Click to expand...

It's just so wierd given his escalating chaos, the GOP giving him more and more criticism, being abandoned by advisors and allies, being rebeled against by some in his own cabinet, and how he's being walled off from the levers of power in the WH.

"Good" is a very bad choice of words from a Dem now. It's too close to "he became president today" and too far from "he managed to not praise Nazis or blab secrets to the Russians today".

Impeach? Lovely idea, but that's not on the table I agree...until the Creamsicle Caudillo fucks up Ryan's precious heavily-downsized tax cut and then blames Ryan for the problem maybe. At this point, it's mostly about cutting him off and ramping up the investigations and protecting Mueller & co.

Autodidact said:
I mean, Ted Lieu could just fuckin' go for it if he wants to move to the Senate.

Do Pelosi and Feinstein have any sort of relationship? I know Pelosi and Boxer go way back to Boxer's days in the House.
Click to expand...

Well, I was mostly talking about who sets the talking points, not future Minority Leader/Speaker/Senator role.
 
C

chadskin

Member
More Mueller:
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team is working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on its investigation into Paul Manafort and his financial transactions, according to several people familiar with the matter.

The cooperation is the latest indication that the federal probe into President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman is intensifying. It also could potentially provide Mueller with additional leverage to get Manafort to cooperate in the larger investigation into Trump’s campaign, as Trump does not have pardon power over state crimes.

The two teams have shared evidence and talked frequently in recent weeks about a potential case, these people said. One of the people familiar with progress on the case said both Mueller’s team and Schneiderman’s have collected evidence on financial crimes, including potential money laundering.

No decision has been made on where or whether to file charges. “Nothing is imminent,” said one of the people familiar with the case.
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/manafort-mueller-probe-attorney-general-242191
 
V

Vimes

Member
I desperately want Feinstein to retire at this point, but would still vote for her over Sanchez.

I'm not moaning the loss of traditional primaries in CA though. If anything I feel it ought to give us more leeway to float lefty-er candidates because we don't have to worry about electability vs Republicans.

We should be celebrating cutting the GOP out of the running! They're all scum.

Except my mayor, he's okay.
 
H

HanShotFirst

Member
Kusagari said:
I think the major difference in that old interview posted and Trump now is coherence. He's saying the same basic, vague gobbledygook but it's in an easy to understand and follow manner.
Click to expand...

Yup, this is pretty much what I'm trying to articulate with his old interviews. Its the same shit he says now but a little more coherent.
 
O

Ogodei

Member
Plinko said:
Am I crazy to believe that the general public (including many republican voters) is finally convinced that Reaganomics are garbage?

I also believe his tax reform garbage is his way of getting back in the good graces of republican politicians.
Click to expand...

I do think working class GOP voters get that Reaganomics is a crock of shit, even while believing that they pay too much. They can do the basic math that says that the GOP's tax cuts either wouldn't help them or would actually hurt them with some "widen the base" proposals.
 
O

Ogodei

Member
Mobius and pet octopus said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-begins/?tid=ss_tw-amp&utm_term=.7b7722e89a76

Challenges to the pardon of arpaio... is there perhaps some legal ground to this?

This is not an area of law I recall studying while at law school. And I keep hearing from the political commentators that the pardon power is unlimited and unquestionable, but whenever is something absolute under the constitution? Okay, we know impeachments are not pardonable. (and of course pardon applies to federal, not state)

But is there a pardon that can violate the constitution? Such as being pardoned for violating the constitution? It's an interesting concept to me. Because rarely are things absolute, most rights despite being stated without exception are not absolute. Freedom of speech has no exceptions explicitly stated, but it's never been interpreted as an absolute right either.

When one part of the constitution conflicts with another part, it's not always obvious which one will win out. Like the pardon power filtered through 5th+14th due process clauses. They think there might be an argument that can trump trump's pardon. This is just very interesting, and I think obviously very socially/politically motivated but very interesting question.



They are sort of saying the act of pardoning in effect is a constitutional violation of due process and thus is a violation of the constitution itself.
Click to expand...

I doubt that holds water given that Arpaio is out of power. "Justice" is not a constitutional right, insofar as people who have been wronged have a right to see their violator brought to justice.
 
N

NihonTiger90

Member
chadskin said:
More Mueller:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/manafort-mueller-probe-attorney-general-242191
Click to expand...

I mean, Schneiderman going after Team Trump is probably not surprising given his history of ... going after Team Trump.

I've always been unsure if the feds could work this closely with a state investigatory team, but I guess it would make sense if they uncovered evidence of crimes that might not violate federal statutes but did at the state level, to offer that information up to prosecutors and vice versa. And the NY AG has massive powers under the enterprise corruption statutes.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
NihonTiger90 said:
I mean, Schneiderman going after Team Trump is probably not surprising given his history of ... going after Team Trump.

I've always been unsure if the feds could work this closely with a state investigatory team, but I guess it would make sense if they uncovered evidence of crimes that might not violate federal statutes but did at the state level, to offer that information up to prosecutors and vice versa. And the NY AG has massive powers under the enterprise corruption statutes.
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see if he goes full Spitzer on Trump or not. If he does it's going to be must watch television.
 
F

Futurevoid

Member
The judiciary continues its work. A federal judge has issues a preliminary injunction enjoining nearly all relevant parts of Texas' anti-sanctuary city law SB4.....

DIhH4FtUQAE-TGy


DIhH4FvUMAAK4Nt


It holds that nearly all blocked provisions are likely unconstitutional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
60K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom