• 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.

Valhelm

contribute something
Harris and Gillibrand have absolutely nothing to be worried about with regards to name recognition this far out.

I think Harris has a lot more name recognition than most candidates this early in the game. She's doing a very good job promoting her brand in ways that aren't obvious or selfish.

How well-known was Obama in 2005? I saw his DNC speech as a kid but didn't hear about him again until 2007.
 
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.

I don't disagree that this is likely. I just think nothing is guaranteed.
 
I really want to see him at some point hold a rally and have the crowd turn on him. I bet he'd resign on the spot, it's the only part of the job he actually likes.

Hell someone should organize this next time there is one. That Arizona rally was pitiful, but I bet you could fill it to capacity with some covert protesters.
 

sphagnum

Banned
-That Meidner plan article on Jacobin was interesting it has lame Star Wars puns.
-Also from Jacobin, Kshama Sawant articulates pretty well how socialists have to focus on not just pure economics but other forms of oppression:

The society we are fighting for has to be free from all oppression. From an economic standpoint, you cannot have democratic economies unless the society at that time also works towards eliminating all forms of oppression: misogyny, racism, discrimination against native people, sexual violence. All of this has to be part and parcel of the agenda, as far as the vision that I am fighting for.

We don’t believe that we will be able to build a revolutionary movement without engaging with mass numbers of people on the ground on the issues that they are organizing around. We took up fifteen dollars an hour — Socialist Alternative didn’t invent that demand. It was a political and economic demand that was being raised by low-wage workers themselves. We took it up not because we believe that fifteen dollars an hour will cure all ills, but because that’s a demand that a mass number of workers are willing to come together, get organized, and fight for.

But I don’t think you can achieve any of this without bringing together people of different races, different genders, and in reality, it’s a two-way thing. You cannot fight for economic justice without also being a fighter against black oppression or against racism, against misogyny, against sexual inequality. On the other hand, if your goal is to end racism, we’re not going to be able to do that on the basis of capitalism. The logic of the capitalist system is such that if you’re fighting racism, it forces you to reach anticapitalist conclusions.

Two things, in my view, that are important to recognize, are that you cannot just fold one into the other. You cannot fold economic democracy into saying, “Let’s fight for black freedom and we’ll find our way to economic democracy.” And you cannot fight for economic democracy and say, “We’ll get black freedom along the way.”

You cannot reject anybody’s starting point to radicalization. The Black Lives Matter movement is an incredible indicator of the times we live in: that after almost fifty years, we have the beginnings of a black freedom movement.

https://jacobinmag.com/2017/08/kshama-sawant-interview-seattle-city-council

Towards the end of the interview she critiques identity politics and that could probably ruffle some feathers but I think it's clear she's just saying it's good but not enough. I'm glad to see a higher profile socialist talking about the importance of intersectionality since the narrative recently had been that socialists don't care about anything but economics.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
The other thing I think Trump is up against in 2020 is that he won't be able to run the same campaign and win. He hasn't fulfilled his promises. He has flooded cabinets with Wall Street-types and unqualified people, so "draining the swamp" is an easy target to disprove. MAGA is out the window, because he had 4 years and did nothing.

I don't think he's capable of changing things. He is who he is and he refuses to change. I don't think as many people will buy it next time around.


Red meat for the base, many of which literally think it stands for "Clinton News Network."
 

Valhelm

contribute something
What is with this CNN obsession?

the CNN thing is so fucking weird

trump's hardcore fans are so dedicated that they think it's their civic duty to complain about jake tapper

if he had a peanut allergy they'd probably film themselves smashing Jif jars
 
Because MSNBC is the other major news network that doesn't really even try to play to the middle or right. They are a solid liberal network

CNN has always at least tried to play in the middle as much as possible. Hence even in the Trump era, stuff like hiring Lewandowksi and allowing Jeffery Lord to stay employed as long as he has.

If they deligitimize CNN to as many republicans as they can the only news network they'd have left is Fox.
 
I think Harris has a lot more name recognition than most candidates this early in the game. She's doing a very good job promoting her brand in ways that aren't obvious or selfish.

How well-known was Obama in 2005? I saw his DNC speech as a kid but didn't hear about him again until 2007.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat..._Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_primaries

While this doesn't directly answer the name recognition question, it does tell us some things. It looks like the first poll that included him was in December 2005, finding him at 7%. He doesn't start to be regularly included until late in 2006, where he typically polls second behind Clinton.

I don't have a good sense of his name recognition with the average American at the time, but he was certainly regarded as a rising star in Democratic circles.
 

jtb

Banned
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/144481/trump-defectors-enough-gimmicky-resignation-letters

Glad someone finally said it. IMPEACH, RESIST, etc. is so embarrassing and juvenile.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat..._Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_primaries

While this doesn't directly answer the name recognition question, it does tell us some things. It looks like the first poll that included him was in December 2005, finding him at 7%. He doesn't start to be regularly included until late in 2006, where he typically polls second behind Clinton.

I don't have a good sense of his name recognition with the average American at the time, but he was certainly regarded as a rising star in Democratic circles.

It's a marathon not a sprint etc. etc.
 
Didn't this story come out a week or so ago? Otherwise a very similar one did.
It was a different aide. That one was leaked by Trumps team to argue that nothing happened. They really just have dug their grave even further. Between this story and the GOP senator Russia phone calls with Trump, he is more or less flat out admitting guilt.
 

chadskin

Member
The White House is expected to send guidance to the Pentagon in coming days on how to implement a new administration ban on transgender people in the military, issuing a policy that will allow Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to consider a service member’s ability to deploy in deciding whether to kick them out of the military.

The White House memo also directs the Pentagon to deny admittance to transgender individuals and to stop spending on medical treatment regimens for those currently serving, according to U.S. officials familiar with the document.

The 2½-page memo gives Mr. Mattis six months to prepare to fully implement the new ban, according to these officials.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-sets-rules-for-military-transgender-ban-1503534757
 
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

@yashar
Yashar Ali �� Retweeted Yashar Ali ��
Re the West Virginia person referenced below, the Governor of WV (who changed parties last month) sold his coal company to a Russian company


Oh... Oh.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensil...l-industry-in-gubernatorial-bid/#7bed98a95bba

Forbes said:
To that end, the Democratic nominee is Jim Justice, who is the billionaire owner of the Greenbrier Resort — the place of presidents and the summer home of the New Orleans Saints. He's also the owner of coal mines he sold to the Russians five years ago for nearly $600 million but which he has recently bought back for $5 million.
 
Fucking cunt.

Of all the people I expected to be tied up in the Russia scandal, Jim Justice wasn't anywhere near the top 10. But on paper, it makes perfect sense. The only difference between him and Trump was he was a Democrat, and now that's out the window.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
-That Meidner plan article on Jacobin was interesting it has lame Star Wars puns.
-Also from Jacobin, Kshama Sawant articulates pretty well how socialists have to focus on not just pure economics but other forms of oppression:



https://jacobinmag.com/2017/08/kshama-sawant-interview-seattle-city-council

Towards the end of the interview she critiques identity politics and that could probably ruffle some feathers but I think it's clear she's just saying it's good but not enough. I'm glad to see a higher profile socialist talking about the importance of intersectionality since the narrative recently had been that socialists don't care about anything but economics.
She seems cool. I have nitpicks but, eh, whatever. She seems to be doing very good work. I just wish we could stop with this "industrial-labor-fetishism"
 
Wait, sold for $600 million and then bought back for $5 million.

WTF happened?

money_laundering_scheme_big.jpg



The classic Trump "propose terrible, possibly unenforceable policy, then double down after everyone hates it."

Still not really believing he can actually do this, legally. I think I read somewhere the president can include more people into the ranks, but can't ban a group who were previously qualified. That requires a law
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Could you expand on that last point? I'm not sure if I'm familiar.

She highlights specifically in there that, as disproportionate members of the working class, people of color were disproportionately hit by the post-industrial era ushered in by trade agreements like NAFTA. In the context of the interview its completely sensible, she could have just as well picked the 2008 crisis as an example of a "thing" that tilted the playing field, but it stood out to me because one of the things that drives me the most batty about the Bernie Sanders brand of leftism (which, while she's probably not in complete alignment with, she seems at least pointed in the same direction) is that free trade is a bad idea and trade agreements harm America.

It has a distinctly protectionist flavor, and honestly it smacks of the same logic saying that we should prop up the coal industry so that those workers don't lose jobs; if the coal industry lacked the consequences of pollution (i.e its a "good thing" that industry is dying because its killing us) would that suddenly become a thing that we should do?

Industries change. Economies change. We need to build an expansive and comprehensive system to help people adjust to this, so that families are not plunged into poverty. But like...the money is still here. The US is richer than ever. The emphasis some people place on that specific class of jobs feels like its missing the forest for the trees

Its can also be part of a larger emphasis in some circles of socialism on highly local economies, which I have...mixed feelings on generally
 
Spending $595M to buy off the Governor of Freaking West Virginia doesn't seem like it would be a very good value proposition for the Russians, yet here we are. Were they perhaps confused and thought it was Virginia-Virginia? Even that would be crazy.
 
Spending $595M to buy off the Governor of Freaking West Virginia doesn't seem like it would be a very good value proposition for the Russians, yet here we are. Were the perhaps confused and thought it was Virginia-Virginia? Even that would be crazy.

Putin's the richest man in the world, worth hundreds of billions of dollars. I'm not saying it happened, but it's in the realm of possibility at this point.
 
She highlights specifically in there that, as disproportionate members of the working class, people of color were disproportionately hit by the post-industrial era ushered in by trade agreements like NAFTA. In the context of the interview its completely sensible, she could have just as well picked the 2008 crisis as an example of a "thing" that tilted the playing field, but it stood out to me because one of the things that drives me the most batty about the Bernie Sanders brand of leftism (which, while she's probably not in complete alignment with, she seems at least pointed in the same direction) is that free trade is a bad idea and trade agreements harm America.

It has a distinctly protectionist flavor, and honestly it smacks of the same logic saying that we should prop up the coal industry so that those workers don't lose jobs; if the coal industry lacked the consequences of pollution (i.e its a "good thing" that industry is dying because its killing us) would that suddenly become a thing that we should do?

Industries change. Economies change. We need to build an expansive and comprehensive system to help people adjust to this, so that families are not plunged into poverty. But like...the money is still here. The US is richer than ever. The emphasis some people place on that specific class of jobs feels like its missing the forest for the trees

Its can also be part of a larger emphasis in some circles of socialism on highly local economies, which I have...mixed feelings on generally

Ah thanks.

I'm also a bit oogy about when people get too into certain job sectors, but for me, I've always gotten a toxic masculinity vibe that makes me uncomfortable. Like to some people, workers' rights and economic justice implies that we need to be saving jobs that are masculine so that workers can be "proud" of their jobs (which to me implies you can't be proud working in an office or a hospital or something).
 
Putin's the richest man in the world, worth hundreds of billions of dollars. I'm not saying it happened, but it's in the realm of possibility at this point.
Although I entirely agree it's possible, that's still a really, reeeeally bad value proposition. Like, maybe if Manchin was part of the deal as a pair, but clearly that didn't happen. If Putin would throw more than half a billion at literally the worst state in the country I'd love to know what's been attempted behind the scenes elsewhere! Well, I'm horrified, but I do want to know.
 
They're already being sued over the trans ban as of last week by soldiers. Him pushing actual policy should accelerate that case. The ACLU is also building a case, and was waiting for the final policy.
 
Spending $595M to buy off the Governor of Freaking West Virginia doesn't seem like it would be a very good value proposition for the Russians, yet here we are. Were they perhaps confused and thought it was Virginia-Virginia? Even that would be crazy.
Probably buying his loyalty, more than anything. If he was privy to anything involving Trump and the Russians, he'd need to be silenced, and it's a lot harder to knock off a politician here than in Mother Russia without anyone asking questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom