• 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 Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)

Status
Not open for further replies.

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Cheebs said:
uh....wtf she didn't say that did she? While Democrats did lead to victory in both world wars I kind of remember a certain republican winning the civil war
The republicans of today are not the republicans of the civil war era.
 

Cheebs

Member
GaimeGuy said:
The republicans of today are not the republicans of the civil war era.
If Republicans aren't allowed to claim Lincoln why can the Democrats still call themselves the party of Jefferson?

If Republicans can't claim progressives like Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt then Democrats should not be able to continue to claim Thomas Jefferson. Despite the fact we put his face on many state ballots and have a yearly inner-party holiday named after Jefferson.

Hell Andrew Jackson also has little to do with modern dems too. The modern democrat coalition really didn't take form till Woodrow Wilson and has been stable since FDR.
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
Wow, it's been said before, but Father Pfledger completely owned Berry in that video. "was Bill O'Reilly a marine?" :lol
 
Obama about to take Pennsylvania!!!?!!?!?!?

Insider Advantage Poll:

Clinton: 45%
Obama: 43%
Undecided: 12%




Quinnipac Poll:

Clinton: 50%
Obama: 41%




PPP Poll:

Obama: 45%
Clinton: 43%






Survey USA

Clinton: 53%
Obama: 41%
Undecided:2%



Rammussen

Hillary Clinton
47%

Barack Obama
42%

Not Sure
11%
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
I'm not buying these Obama polls, much as I would like to see him win. Weren't polls showing him getting really close to Hillary in Ohio too?
 
In all fairness, both the Democrats and Republicans of today are far different from any of the Republicans or Democrats of the past. From the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. I would even dare say that the Democrats are amidst a minor transition with what Obama is doing for the party. Moving away from the Bill Clintons, Al Gores, and John Kerrys, although Al Gore has taken on new life and is more of a public figure now then he was when he was Vice President, or the Presidential nominee.
 

belvedere

Junior Butler
DrForester said:
I'm not buying these Obama polls, much as I would like to see him win. Weren't polls showing him getting really close to Hillary in Ohio too?

We're hoping there's less morons and sheep in Pennsylvania.
 

sangreal

Member
artredis1980 said:
Obama about to take Pennsylvania!!!?!!?!?!?

Insider Advantage Poll:

Clinton: 45%
Obama: 43%
Undecided: 12%




Quinnipac Poll:

Clinton: 50%
Obama: 41%




PPP Poll:

Obama: 45%
Clinton: 43%






Survey USA

Clinton: 53%
Obama: 41%
Undecided:2%



Rammussen

Hillary Clinton
47%

Barack Obama
42%

Not Sure
11%
Insider Advantage, PPP and Rasmussen are terrible pollsters (or at least they have a terrible track record for this election)
 

Shirokun

Member
belvedere said:
Margin of error or not, she's not going to win by huge margins like her campaign has predicted.

That's a win for the O'face, IMO.

Assuming the media paints it that way, which given their appetite for controversy and conflict, seems unlikely. : (
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
Shirokun said:
Assuming the media paints it that way, which given their appetite for controversy and conflict, seems unlikely. : (


That's why I think these polls are bull just like the Ohio ones. They are running out of things to talk about, so making to seem alot closer than it will be is something to talk about for a week.
 

belvedere

Junior Butler
Shirokun said:
Assuming the media paints it that way, which given their appetite for controversy and conflict, seems unlikely. : (

Very true.

Though the math still stands.

It is funny though, how every cable news network acts like they're afraid to say anything even remotely negative about Clinton. Even if they're simply posting statistical probability by doing the math, it shouldn't be said because it might appear that they're favoring Obama.

At least that's how CNN (Lou Dobbs in particular) seems to view it.
 
Francois the Great said:
that pastor is a hero. all of these people who stand up to the ridiculous conservative notion of not supporting government policies=unpatriotic are heroes. totally ownage, right there.

i dont mean to derail the thread, but is there any real evidence that MLK was killed by the government? i hear this a lot

not hard evidence, but they sure were interested in the guy
 

tanod

when is my burrito
syllogism said:
There's only so much you can do when demographics are working against you. He will not win PA and it will not be close.

It's not just demographics, it's name recognition.
 
...such a funny guy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120726769569388303.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news
Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist met with Colombia's ambassador to the U.S. on Monday to discuss a bilateral free-trade agreement, a pact the presidential candidate opposes.

Attendance by the adviser, Mark Penn, was confirmed by two Colombian officials. He wasn't there in his campaign role, but in his separate job as chief executive of Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, an international communications and lobbying firm. The firm has a contract with the South American nation to promote congressional approval of the trade deal, among other things, according to filings with the Justice Department.


Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, Mr. Penn's campaign-consulting firm, received more than $10 million in payments from the Clinton campaign as of the end of February, according to federal election filings.

Mr. Penn declined to comment. Howard Wolfson, communications director for Sen. Clinton's campaign, said in an email that "Mark was not there on behalf of the campaign" and referred further questions to Burson-Marsteller. "Sen. Clinton's opposition to the trade deal with Colombia is clear," Mr. Wolfson added.

What a dipshit.
 
http://www.nysun.com/politics/obama-adviser-calls-troops-stay-iraq-through-2010

Long story short, an Obama advisor wrote a paper for a think tank advocating 60k-80k US troops through 2010. The paper is not from the campaign, or representing the campaign in any way.

Before the panties tie themselves in a knot,

rice said:
“We have experts and scholars with a range of views and Barack appreciates this range of views. They are in think tanks and like me they write in their own voice, they are people who do their independent scholarship. Barack Obama cannot be held accountable for what we all write,” she said. Ms. Rice said she had not seen the paper, which is marked as a draft and “not for attribution without author’s permission.”

Not everyone of your advisors should agree with you, that's part of the mindset that got us into this mess in the first place.


EDIT: Mark Penn is a dipshit, but his talks with columbia are about as important as these opinions on Iraq. Not official part of the campaign, and not an issue of duplicity.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Good lord, McCain had a hostile environment.:lol

And yeah, Mark Penn's been playing both sides of many issues throughout the campaign, he certainly hasn't been worth the money at all.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Tamanon said:
That's actually pretty disgusting behavior all around by the FBI and Hoover.

Did you know about this before? If not let me ask you something. Does it now surprise you that the Rev. J Wright issue blew up as much as it did?

Because seriously now realizing what happened in the past to MLK should clue you in to why a (angry) black man that talks about his country scares whites that hold a lot of power.
 

Tamanon

Banned
mckmas8808 said:
Did you know about this before? If not let me ask you something. Does it now surprise you that the Rev. J Wright issue blew up as much as it did?

Because seriously now realizing what happened in the past to MLK should clue you in to why a (angry) black man that talks about his country scares whites that hold a lot of power.

I knew the FBI had some info on him, didn't know the extent, but I already understood Wright's anger, hell I was one of his defenders here.
 

mashoutposse

Ante Up
electricpirate said:
EDIT: Mark Penn is a dipshit, but his talks with columbia are about as important as these opinions on Iraq. Not official part of the campaign, and not an issue of duplicity.

He's a paid lobbyist for the Colombian government and the chief strategist for the Clinton campaign -- Rhodes, here's the real whore.
 
J. Edgar Hoover hated MLK, but I doubt he had him killed.

Cheebs said:
If Republicans aren't allowed to claim Lincoln why can the Democrats still call themselves the party of Jefferson?

If Republicans can't claim progressives like Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt then Democrats should not be able to continue to claim Thomas Jefferson. Despite the fact we put his face on many state ballots and have a yearly inner-party holiday named after Jefferson.

Hell Andrew Jackson also has little to do with modern dems too. The modern democrat coalition really didn't take form till Woodrow Wilson and has been stable since FDR.
Well, I wouldn't quite say stable since FDR; Roosevelt was able to start bringing African-Americans into the party and away from the party of Lincoln for the first time because many of the New Deal policies benefited them (although many were still segregated), but they didn't really become the base for the party that they are today until LBJ pushed through civil rights legislation in the 60s. Which, by the way, lost them the South almost completely, since Southerners had been very solidly democratic since before the Civil War. Probably the only major party shift since the 30s.

That's all demographic stuff, though. The modern Democratic Party, in spirit and in policy, is very much the party of FDR. Personally, I always thought it was kind of dumb that Dems claimed Andy Jackson and Repubs claimed Teddy Roosevelt, etc., but hey, let them have their fun.
 

Eric P

Member
ToyMachine228 said:
In all fairness, both the Democrats and Republicans of today are far different from any of the Republicans or Democrats of the past. From the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

thank christ

dixiecrats anyone?
 

Tamanon

Banned
Incognito said:


BTW, funniest part, is Clinton's quote from the whole Canada-NAFTA thing.

Peering at the 50 or so reporters packed into a small hotel conference room here, she added: "I would ask you to look at this story and substitute my name for Sen. Obama’s name and see what you would do with this story ... Just ask yourself [what you would do] if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments."
 

mrmyth

Member
Kusagari said:
That guys O'Reilly's producer? He sounded like a 17 year old kid who had no idea how to debate. He got absolutely owned by that priest.

Any Chicagoan knows you don't fuck with Father Pfleger. If he wasn't a man of the cloth he'd probably be a contract killer.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Tamanon said:
I knew the FBI had some info on him, didn't know the extent, but I already understood Wright's anger, hell I was one of his defenders here.

I knew you were. I just thought Id take your post and add to it what my opinion was. Tis sad really.
 

sangreal

Member
040408DailyUpdateGraph1_mnbvert.gif
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Cheebs said:
If Republicans aren't allowed to claim Lincoln why can the Democrats still call themselves the party of Jefferson?

If Republicans can't claim progressives like Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt then Democrats should not be able to continue to claim Thomas Jefferson. Despite the fact we put his face on many state ballots and have a yearly inner-party holiday named after Jefferson.

Hell Andrew Jackson also has little to do with modern dems too. The modern democrat coalition really didn't take form till Woodrow Wilson and has been stable since FDR.
roosevelt wasn't even in the republican party :lol
 

Cheebs

Member
GaimeGuy said:
roosevelt wasn't even in the republican party :lol
He was elected twice as a republican.

He left the party and formed a third party after his two terms. However after that failed he rejoined the republican party and trashed the Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson.
 

Tamanon

Banned
So, I flipped over to Rush today while getting lunch. Some guest host was on, and his way of comemmerorating Dr King's assassination.....
Discussing Jeremiah Wright and how much he hates America
 

Cheebs

Member
icarus-daedelus said:
I always thought it was kind of dumb that Dems claimed Andy Jackson and Repubs claimed Teddy Roosevelt, etc., but hey, let them have their fun.
Exactly. It's funny when you hear democratic politicians call themselves the party of Jefferson when Jefferson created the infamous "states rights" nonsense that was the rallying cry for racists and for most of the history of the country. :lol

Did Jefferson technically found the democratic party? Yes, but that was a very different party in the 1800's than it became in the 1900's.

The Democratic party today has far more in common with the Federalist founders like Washington and Alexander Hamilton than Jefferson (The federalists believed in a strong central government over states and believed in the loose-constructionist view of the consitution, both views held by the modern day democratic party but the complete opposite of the Jefferson era of the party)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom