-
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
- Thread starter aspiegamer
- Start date
- Status
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
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.
Futurevoid
Member
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.
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.:/
ArkhamFantasy
Member
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.
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.:/
Is this legal-ese for "This is racist bullshit, fuck off"?
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.
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.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
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.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Its saying they didn't really change it. "Root and branch" means it can't use SB14 as a basis at all.
He said they just made superficial changes.
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.
Box of Kittens
Banned
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.
Aaron Strife
Banned
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.
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.
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
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.
balladofwindfishes
Member
On what planet is Donald "35% approval" Trump immune to gaffes?
Sirpopopop
Member
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.
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.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Gabbard has a smaller following than Eric Garland, why would you think she has a remotely possible chance at success?
And the honorable soul sista Nina Turner.
balladofwindfishes
Member
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
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
NYCmetsfan
Banned
her foreign policy ideas are as repulsive to the left as they pretty much can be.
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.
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.
Ahhsbsbsnsmskkkaksksjjsndnrnnd
https://www.gop.gov/legend-zelda-am...utm_source=Twitter&utm_content=ZeldaTaxReform
https://www.gop.gov/legend-zelda-am...utm_source=Twitter&utm_content=ZeldaTaxReform
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.
aspiegamer
Member
Russia oppo time, baby! CNN: "Trump campaign aide emailed about effort to meet Putin." Oops. Is current deputy chief of staff.
What the fucking... WHAT? That's not even a thing the most fanatical right-wring GAFfer would do over in gaming. While drunk. Jokingly. That's so dumb that the only possible source is 4chan.
He's got to be so pissed that he can't just fire anyone who doesn't do what he says.
nobody cares about Tulsi except weird TYT shitheads and disingenuous centrists imo
Got the Shakes
Member
So this seem like it could be a thing.
"Exclusive: Top Trump aide's email draws new scrutiny in Russia inquiry"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/23/polit...earborn-email-russia-investigation/index.html
"Exclusive: Top Trump aide's email draws new scrutiny in Russia inquiry"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/23/polit...earborn-email-russia-investigation/index.html
Her and Lipinski, anyway.
Edit: that GOP Zelda thing is dumber than it looks
Grand Old Party said:
Random Human
They were trying to grab your prize. They work for the mercenary. The masked man.
He's probably been committing low key obstruction of justice nonstop for the past three months.
Greigor The Fellhand
Member
Trump is getting more crazy. Wonder whos got a big oppo droppo in prep?
Fenderputty
Banned
They both run on shitty last gen hardware?
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
Definitely a thing.
Didn't this story come out a week or so ago? Otherwise a very similar one did.
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.
Got the Shakes
Member
It's the breaking news headline on cnn.com right now so I guess I don't know.
More nothing burgers to go with a side of salad and Russian dressing
Sirpopopop
Member
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.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Hello, fellow gamers. Do you know the good word of our lord and savior, Ronald Reagan?
It does seem to be a different story.
Harris and Gillibrand have absolutely nothing to be worried about with regards to name recognition this far out.
I literally lol'd
I literally lol'd
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
This has the potential to be a massive story.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked