• 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.
D

Diablos

Member
So if Trump is being honest (lol) there are 10 No's on Graham-Cassidy plus McCain? Damn.

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...amacare-repeal-were-going-to-do-it-eventually

Trump called McCain's opposition "totally unexpected" and "terrible" during a campaign rally in Huntsville, Ala., where he stumped on behalf of Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.) ahead of Tuesday's GOP primary runoff against former judge Roy Moore.

Trump said he was provided a list of 10 GOP senators who were "absolute no's" on ObamaCare repeal, saying McCain wasn't on the list.

"John McCain was not on the list. So that was a totally unexpected thing, terrible. Honestly, terrible," Trump said.

"John McCain, if you look at his last campaign, it was all about repeal and replace, repeal and replace," he added. "So he decided to do something different, and that's fine."

"We're going to do it eventually," Trump said of ObamaCare repeal efforts, adding Strange would help the GOP reach the goal.
Click to expand...
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Ernest said:
Ugh. Really?
I'm sure there were a couple (there's always gonna be some assholes), but I really hope it wasn't "many".
Click to expand...

Pretty sure everyone here recognized the political gain of one less Republican vote. There's some irony too since he's on government care when his party is trying to kill people. However, none of us wished cancer on the man. The OT thread was basically pages and pages of people justifying their happiness that he got cancer. It was pretty bad
 
Z

Zolo

Member
Not that it should be expected that the Democratic candidate could win, but it's been shown that the less it's talked about, the better the chances are for winning atm.
 
M

Maengun1

Member
Jeels said:
"The world is finally starting to respect us" and the crowd goes wild. Except every indication is it's the exact opposite. The world can't wait for this shit to end.
Click to expand...


My favorite part is that this doesn't even follow their usual argument! 99% of the time Trump (and even "moderate" republicans) love shitting on the rest of the world. Screw Europe, screw China, screw Korea, screw Latin countries...Murica Murica Murica! Trump's argument for scrapping the Paris agreement boiled down to "Fuck other countries." They constantly attacked Obama on the fact that the rest of the world did like him, because that was a terrible thing.

But now "the world is starting to respect us" and the applause sign lights up and the clapping seals in the crowd are all about that argument now.
 
Z

Zolo

Member
Maengun1 said:
My favorite part is that this doesn't even follow their usual argument! 99% of the time Trump (and even "moderate" republicans) love shitting on the rest of the world. Screw Europe, screw China, screw Korea, screw Latin countries...Murica Murica Murica! Trump's argument for scrapping the Paris agreement boiled down to "Fuck other countries." They constantly attacked Obama on the fact that the rest of the world did like him, because that was a terrible thing.

But now "the world is starting to respect us" and the applause sign lights up and the clapping seals in the crowd are all about that argument now.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that respect doesn't necessarily equal like which is how it's probably being seen here.
 
A

aaaaa0

Member
Zolo said:
Keep in mind that respect doesn't necessarily equal like which is how it's probably being seen here.
Click to expand...

This. This. This. Trump wants the world to respect the US out of fear, not love.

”Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? One should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved."
-- Niccolò Machiavelli, "The Prince", Chapter XVII
 
K

kirblar

Member
Violent crime, 1990 vs 2015

Subtitle: Why kids under 30 don't understand why they needed to pass a crime bill in the '90s.

DKX0UhMUIAE1E0s.jpg:large
Click to expand...

Thanks, lead removal!
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
kirblar said:
Here are the two takeaways I get from your two posts.

a) You don't understand that not every policy platform needs to be aimed at you and your interests. Different people are excited by different things!
b) You do not understand that an election lost over 70K votes out of 130M+ is absolutely one that was lost on the margins because any marginal change could have won it!

If the margin is that tiny, everything matters! The Obama quote about losing 70/30 instead of 90/10 is very relevant here!


It doesn't have to be the cornerstone! It just needs to be a policy initiative you are trumpeting loud and clear because it is absurdly popular!
Click to expand...

The main point is even if a position you take has proven 90% support, it doesn't mean you'll win the election if you run on it. In fact it can lose you the election if those 10% happen to be the ones most likely to swing their vote on the issue.

The less impactful your position is, the more likely people are to support it, but less impactful also makes it less likely for anyone on any end of the spectrum to base their decision to vote on it, because there's still all the other issues you're essentially voting on by voting for another candidate or a party. You're essentially getting voters to say "eh, why not" by moving closer to the status quo, and that's only good for limiting losses from your own party, not convincing the other side to come to you.

You want to maximize people who positively vote on it minus people who negatively vote on it, ignoring all others who won't vote on it at all. Moving your policy closer to the status quo will almost always reduce both sides of that equation, and visa versa. The question is which side of the equation is impacted more as you move toward and away the status quo.

I think going from all ages to 55+ reduces the people who positively vote on it more than the people who negatively vote on it, because most of the increase in overall support is coming from republicans who probably wouldn't vote for democrats even if it was a big issue for them. What's not being reported in the poll is the reduction of people who still support it while no longer caring enough to base their vote on it. Both sides are marginal, but which margin is bigger isn't clear.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
kirblar said:
Violent crime, 1990 vs 2015

Subtitle: Why kids under 30 don't understand why they needed to pass a crime bill in the '90s.



Thanks, lead removal!
Click to expand...

60-70% drop in violent crime in Illinois between 1990 and 2015.

But I thought Chicago was basically a war zone seeing unprecedented levels of violence.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
kirblar said:
Violent crime, 1990 vs 2015

Subtitle: Why kids under 30 don't understand why they needed to pass a crime bill in the '90s.



Thanks, lead removal!
Click to expand...

Wait, what? Even you say what they actually needed to pass was a lead abatement bill! Which they still haven't done!
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
pigeon said:
I still prefer him to Seth Abramson.
Click to expand...

I prefer Abramson. At least when I read him I can figure out what he's saying. It's dumb, but I can follow it. Trying to read a Goodman paragraph and figure out what he's saying is just way more effort than it's worth. I can't even imagine trying to make it through an entire book of his.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Box of Kittens said:
I prefer Abramson. At least when I read him I can figure out what he's saying. It's dumb, but I can follow it. Trying to read a Goodman paragraph and figure out what he's saying is just way more effort than it's worth. I can't even imagine trying to make it through an entire book of his.
Click to expand...

I just can't get over Abramson insisting that he wasn't doing journalism, he was doing daily affirmations/speculative fiction.
 
T

theprodigy

Member
Aaron Strife said:
States with the highest drops in violent crime: NY, CA, IL, NJ, CT, FL

States BernieBros swore to me up and down would go for Bernie because they were so blue, and what a surprise they went for Hillary: NY, CA, IL, NJ, CT, FL

I mean, I suppose Bernie voted for the crime bill too. Certainly that would have been worth something in the primary.
Click to expand...

????
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Box of Kittens said:
I prefer Abramson. At least when I read him I can figure out what he's saying. It's dumb, but I can follow it. Trying to read a Goodman paragraph and figure out what he's saying is just way more effort than it's worth. I can't even imagine trying to make it through an entire book of his.
Click to expand...

That's why the HA GOOD MAN is a dadist master.

With Abramson people still think he's legit. To this day I'm constantly having to explain how he's full of shit.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Yes, we needed to do something about violent crime

What we actually did about it was shameful. Let's not rationalize it anymore please.

Anyways, this Blink 182 cover band at my local dive bar is fucking killing it tonight
 
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
54K
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
3K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom