• 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.
C

Crocodile

Member
Greigor The Fellhand said:
ATTENTION:


TODAY IS VOTING IN CLEVELAND OHIO.

you vote on Mayor and Precinct/Ward leaders.



Please pay attention to your local elections time and date, Local Elections impact you more directly than Federal/National elections; Usually.



---------------------------------------------------------

One thing I keep forgetting that explains why some Republicans panicked and went to a foreign adversary for aide in winning the elections, the 2020 Census is upcoming.

the Census will have major impacts on the political landscape, and I can see why a flailing party would want to control it by any means.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to a place where I can research all the candidates? I just want to be extra sure I'm not overlooking anything before I vote since I don't know many of these candidates intimately/personally. I got some promo/flyer material a couple of days ago but I can't for the life of me find it now :(
 
G

Greigor The Fellhand

Member
Crocodile said:
Do you have a link to a place where I can research all the candidates? I just want to be extra sure I'm not overlooking anything before I vote since I don't know many of these candidates intimately/personally. I got some promo/flyer material a couple of days ago but I can't for the life of me find it now :(
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_mayoral_election,_2017

people on ballet

Eric Brewer

Brandon E. Chrostowski

Frank G. Jackson

Jeff Johnson

Robert Kilo

Tony Madalone

Bill Patmon

Zack Reed

Dyrone Smith


**I like what Jeff Johnson has to say on a bunch of stuff, still trying to find more info on him before I vote
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
Frank the Great said:
The public option is the next logical step for healthcare. It shouldn't be too crazy to accomplish.
Click to expand...

Tbh, I think this is where we should go with our next step. Medicaid public option that anybody can sign up for, available in all insurance markets. Also extend the Medicare age down to 55.

Public option carries a significantly smaller tax burden, which is good for our efforts to sell it, and is less of a disruption to the current status quo which lessens backlash. Furthermore, just adding it as an option turns a lotta counties into de-facto single payer markets, since we could stop bending over backwards to keep private insurers in every county.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Poodlestrike said:
Tbh, I think this is where we should go with our next step. Medicaid public option that anybody can sign up for, available in all insurance markets. Also extend the Medicare age down to 55.

Public option carries a significantly smaller tax burden, which is good for our efforts to sell it, and is less of a disruption to the current status quo which lessens backlash. Furthermore, just adding it as an option turns a lotta counties into de-facto single payer markets, since we could stop bending over backwards to keep private insurers in every county.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I feel like it is a huge miscalculation by jumping in too far too soon on a tax issue, and I fear it could kill the chances of health care reform in this direction.

Another possibility is that they are doing the classic, "Here is this overreaching plan to start, and when you reject it, we follow it with the more reasonable Public Option" negotiation technique.

Mark Andrew said:
Who could have seen this coming?
Click to expand...

LOL
 
N

nature boy

Member
DJhoLmOUEAEW1kw.jpg:large


DJhrnOmUEAARtdj.jpg:large
Click to expand...

Enjoy!
 
I

Ithil

Member
First, you don't have to personally have access to someone to learn things about them, and second, Trump himself is the single least accurate source about Trump.
 
B

barber

Member
Pyrokai said:
Omg don't say that. I want to have hope. I posted this yesterday but only a couple people replied. Someone tell me I don't have to keep bed wetting PLEASE. There's gotta be a chance it can be saved somehow.
Click to expand...
I mean it is not like conservative forces have ever taken hostage of the census as a way to give more power to the rural votes, taking it away from the cities in order to pass some conservative legislation that is mainly for rural voters
like for example the prohibition of alcohol
Still not going to think that census is going to be that bad.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
barber said:
I mean it is not like conservative forces have ever taken hostage of the census as a way to give more power to the rural votes, taking it away from the cities in order to pass some conservative legislation that is mainly for rural voters
like for example the prohibition of alcohol
Still not going to think that census is going to be that bad.
Click to expand...

Didn't they already slash the budget and the person who was in charge already left? Meaning a Trump flunky will be in charge.

Which means anyone who doesn't select "white" on the census will have their information in a database somewhere...
 
B

barber

Member
Wilsongt said:
Didn't they already slash the budget and the person who was in charge already left? Meaning a Trump flunky will be in charge.

Which means anyone who doesn't select "white" on the census will have their information in a database somewhere...
Click to expand...

If i remember the whole voter database for the GOP had a leak of 200 million american voter, not like it really matters if the information isn't leaked during the census as if the gop wants it can have weak access so that foreign actors can access it without being "cooperation".
Edit: The census is going to be Ok
 
B

benicillin

Banned
PBY said:
Fundamentally meaningless.

But this Clinton Pod Save America episode is a disaster.
Click to expand...

There were a few exchanges that were good, and I think her response to whether or not Trump was capable of being a Putin-like authoritarian was more than a bit chilling, but I pretty much agree that it was not a great interview.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
PBY said:
Fundamentally meaningless.

But this Clinton Pod Save America episode is a disaster.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine they'd ask any tough questions, they never have before and they certainly aren't going to scare any future guests away by doing it here.

But I don't really listen to it anymore anyways so the show isn't really meant for me.
 
B

Blader

Member
Only listened to about half of it this morning, and I thought Lovett actually had some strong questions about the optics of Democrats talking about campaign finance reform while still taking in donations from big-money donors. Favreau's questions have been fine too but he lets her say her piece and moves on to the next one, while Lovett would counterpoint and try to keep a dialogue going on one subject.

Hillary isn't being personally awkward, but what is awkward is how relatively often she is effectively relitigating the primary in ways that I think/hope many of us have since long moved on from, e.g. Bernie isn't even a Democrat, Bernie was attacking Obama and I had to defend his legacy along with defending myself, etc. I think she does make a few good points, like about how his campaign would disingenuously keep sucking all the progressive air out of the room (whatever Hillary proposes, Bernie can promise to do even more and better without really needing to explain how). But the number of times she brings up her 4 million vote win over Bernie in just 20 minutes already is, uh, not really doing anyone any favors, heh.
 
B

Barzul

Member
White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told reporters on Tuesday that President Trump would not demand that border wall funding is tied to a legislative fix for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Speaking at a roundtable event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, Short said the administration didn't want to ”bind" itself by making a demand that would likely be a nonstarter for many lawmakers.

”We're interested in getting border security and the president has made the commitment to the American people that a barrier is important to that security," Short said. ”Whether it's part of DCA or another legislative vehicle, I don't want to bind us into a construct that would make the conclusion on DACA impossible."

There had been speculation that Trump would require any compromise on potential DACA legislation include money for a wall along the Southern border.

Short was adamant that his remarks are not an indication that the president is going soft on the wall.

”The president is not backing off a border wall," he said. ”The president is committed to sticking by the commitment that a physical structure is needed....whether that is part of a DACA package or another package, I won't prejudge that today, but he's committed to getting that wall built."

Short's comments echo House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who similarly said last week that he wouldn't demand border wall funding be tied to DACA legislation.

”I don't know that it's border wall funding, but it's certainly a secure southern border," Meadows told reporters on Thursday.

After announcing a plan to phase out DACA, which protects about 800,000 young people brought to the country illegally, the president surprised many on the right by saying that he's hopeful Congress will provide a legislative fix that might spare them from being deported.

The Justice Department has said deporting the so-called ”Dreamers" is not a priority.
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...r-wall-funding-doesnt-have-to-be-tied-to-daca

White House and Trump aren't always on the same page though...


Equally as huge.

@JakeSherman

Wow. AP has @LeonardLanceNJ7 weighing retirement. http://wapo.st/2xXiRkv an R+3
Click to expand...
 
P

PBY

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
Hillary Clinton said words formed into sentences
Click to expand...

RustyNails said:
"She wont go away"
Click to expand...

Did either of you listen? Come back after you have.

Blader said:
Only listened to about half of it this morning, and I thought Lovett actually had some strong questions about the optics of Democrats talking about campaign finance reform while still taking in donations from big-money donors. Favreau's questions have been fine too but he lets her say her piece and moves on to the next one, while Lovett would counterpoint and try to keep a dialogue going on one subject.

Hillary isn't being personally awkward, but what is awkward is how relatively often she is effectively relitigating the primary in ways that I think/hope many of us have since long moved on from, e.g. Bernie isn't even a Democrat, Bernie was attacking Obama and I had to defend his legacy along with defending myself, etc. I think she does make a few good points, like about how his campaign would disingenuously keep sucking all the progressive air out of the room (whatever Hillary proposes, Bernie can promise to do even more and better without really needing to explain how). But the number of times she brings up her 4 million vote win over Bernie in just 20 minutes already is, uh, not really doing anyone any favors, heh.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.The focus on re-litigating the primary as opposed to drilling down into policy differences was kind of shocking to me. I also think she continues to have bad answers on her campaign financing situation, which also surprised me. Not in a "Fuck Wall Street" way, but in a "these simply aren't satisfactory answers" way.
 
S

ShadowSwordmaster

Banned
PBY said:
Did either of you listen? Come back after you have.



Pretty much this.The focus on re-litigating the primary as opposed to drilling down into policy differences was kind of shocking to me. I also think she continues to have bad answers on her campaign financing situation, which also surprised me. Not in a "Fuck Wall Street" way, but in a "these simply aren't satisfactory answers" way.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question.
 
P

PBY

Banned
ShadowSwordmaster said:
You didn't answer my question.
Click to expand...

To me, what Blader said. She went in soo hard on re-litigating the primary, especially when the questions weren't necessarily there? I don't know, I found it a weird choice.

I also think "because Obama did it and I want to defend his legacy" isn't a great policy defense - I know she has a deeper handle on these issues, and we got some of that, but not enough in my opinion.

And her answers on campaign finance continue to be just supremely confusing.
 
S

ShadowSwordmaster

Banned
PBY said:
To me, what Blader said. She went in soo hard on re-litigating the primary, especially when the questions weren't necessarily there? I don't know, I found it a weird choice.

I also think "because Obama did it and I want to defend his legacy" isn't a great policy defense - I know she has a deeper handle on these issues, and we got some of that, but not enough in my opinion.

And her answers on campaign finance continue to be just supremely confusing.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
B

Blader

Member
PBY said:
Did either of you listen? Come back after you have.



Pretty much this.The focus on re-litigating the primary as opposed to drilling down into policy differences was kind of shocking to me. I also think she continues to have bad answers on her campaign financing situation, which also surprised me. Not in a "Fuck Wall Street" way, but in a "these simply aren't satisfactory answers" way.
Click to expand...

See, I actually thought her answers were pretty solid on that front. She's right that not taking corporate donations doesn't make Democrats purer, it just puts their campaigns at an enormous financial disadvantage to Republicans who would play by different obvious. And, while I think she is downplaying the influence and access that big-money donors have because they have money, I think she's also right that people with money who donate to Democrats probably have other considerations in mind when they do so.

I mean yes, the optics are bad and that was Lovett's point and she waffles on it, but I think her pragmatic response is right. Until we have public financing for campaigns and until we can get rid of Citizens United, the GOP is going to continue to pump huge sums of money from a handful of people into political campaigns, and it would be irresponsible to let them open up that big of a gulf and that great of an advantage just for the sake of purity tests. Or is it? I don't really know.

Brawly Likes to Brawl said:
Why are these retirements happening?
Click to expand...

For some, campaigning next year in an election that will be effectively a referendum on Trump is more brutal of a fight than they want. For others, they're probably legitimately frustrated that even when they have unified control of government, they still can't get anything done. And if you went into Congress with the goal of passing an agenda and finally have all the levers of power to do, but still can't execute, then what exactly is being in Congress worth?
 
N

Nazgul_Hunter

Member
PBY said:
To me, what Blader said. She went in soo hard on re-litigating the primary, especially when the questions weren't necessarily there? I don't know, I found it a weird choice.
Click to expand...

She was asked about it; and I think she was on the money. The question was... "why did you say you couldn't run a more progressive campaign b/c of Bernie Sanders," and that's where she went off on the most. Everything she said is mostly true (esp. if you see it from her point of view.)

She mentioned the healthcare example; but in a lot of policy positions, Bernie really did just offer 'bigger and better' with unrealistic plans behind it. Imagine Bernie trying to pass tax reform to increase the top marginal rate enough to pay for his proposals... he wouldn't be able to do it with anything less than 60 D senators & a house majority.

Another example was the stupid $12 vs. $15 minimum wage. Clinton was on the record as supporting $15 in municipalities where it was warranted... That $3 difference was savaged by Bernie fans well into the general election.


PBY said:
I also think "because Obama did it and I want to defend his legacy" isn't a great policy defense - I know she has a deeper handle on these issues, and we got some of that, but not enough in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Her whole point with that was that the elections after a two term president tend to be change elections (this one was too, even more so than she though). Her calculus was that she couldn't push some policies without inadvertently bashing the sitting president. I think her calculus was wrong on this, but it's more than just "obama did it = good."

PBY said:
And her answers on campaign finance continue to be just supremely confusing.
Click to expand...

It's just a variation of "I wanna change the game, but will play current game as best I can until that happens." I'm torn on this. Bernie proved it can be done; but not sure at what scale. Can local races pull it off? On the other hand, Lovett is right that the price Dems pay for the optics of this is really high.
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
PBY said:
Did either of you listen? Come back after you have.



Pretty much this.The focus on re-litigating the primary as opposed to drilling down into policy differences was kind of shocking to me. I also think she continues to have bad answers on her campaign financing situation, which also surprised me. Not in a "Fuck Wall Street" way, but in a "these simply aren't satisfactory answers" way.
Click to expand...

Drilling down on policy differences would still be re-litigating the Primary. You are mad that she didn't re-litigate the Primary in the fashion of your choosing. That's a fine opinion to have, but let's be honest about it.

Re-litigating might be my least favorite DC meme. People just throw it out to try to quarantine the past. It never fucking works though.

We do need to re-litigate the Primary and the General, or have a post mortem or whatever you want to call it and Clinton's personal opinions on what happened needs to be a part of that. We don't have to agree with what she says, but we do need to hear her out because it is part of understanding what happened.

Looking back at the election, I'm not sure how much policy mattered. It wasn't so much about that in either the Primary or the General.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Wilsongt said:
Are they scared the Mueller is about to drop ze bombles?
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I think more likely they're just realizing how inept Trump is, how futile it is trying to get any legislation passed, and how much harder it's only going to get from here.

Even if Democrats don't win the House majority outright next year, they'll likely flip enough seats to severely diminish the GOP majority. Senate's looking like it'll probably be a wash, after McConnell and cronies were greedily counting their chickens. Repeal and replace was a bust, tax reform looks like it's going nowhere - these are turbulent times and Trump of all people is not going to help them through it.
 
A

Armaros

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Maybe, but I think more likely they're just realizing how inept Trump is, how futile it is trying to get any legislation passed, and how much harder it's only going to get from here.

Even if Democrats don't win the House majority outright next year, they'll likely flip enough seats to severely diminish the GOP majority. Senate's looking like it'll probably be a wash, after McConnell and cronies were greedily counting their chickens. Repeal and replace was a bust, tax reform looks like it's going nowhere - these are turbulent times and Trump of all people is not going to help them through it.
Click to expand...

They probably see Trump flailing around to get a personal win even at the expense of the GOP agenda as a problem considering there will be many more tough votes + lack of successes in Congress means a nasty midterm and 2020 fight.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
Retirement is an easy call. You can make more money and work a job that doesn't make you crazy if you leave. Plus you can say "I told you so" about Republicans who end up backing Trump and losing.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Emarv said:
This is the "Queen! Slay!" people were hoping for during the campaign. Why she remains publicly afraid of her own personality, even now post-election, baffles me.
Click to expand...

People just want Hillary to go away and act like she never existed.

Don't come out in public. Don't publish books. Don't make speeches.

Just not exist.
 
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
58K
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