• 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 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Technically it means his avatar is a Pokemon that would actually wreck the one you thought he had.

By this logic, you're defending Arceus, one of the gravest design sins and most unlikeable Pokemon ever to sully this good earth.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Not...really? He remains staggeringly unpopular and can't get anybody in Washington to do anything he wants unless they already wanted to do it (ICE and terrorizing people of color)?

The evidence of Trump's win is not that bad media is good. It's that the cabbage story is true -- anybody the Republican party nominates, no matter what, has at least a small chance of winning just on party loyalty. Trump is probably WORSE than a cabbage and he won!

That's why it's so important for parties to enforce their boundaries, and why the Republican Party establishment failed in its fundamental duty to the American people by refusing to oppose Trump, which is why they must be removed from public life.

Worked in the primary, mostly because it was an 8 way race and those voters believe their gut over facts anyway.

Certainly didn't work in the general. Dynamic seemed to be that both were very hated and whichever the media focused on more reminded people of their hatred and swung the polls fairly drastically against them, between +8 to +0 hilary leads.
 
I actually like a fair bit of Shakespeare, especially Othello, Twelfth Night, and Much Ado About Nothing. I just loathe Macbeth.
giphy.gif


Bonen pls


The former have bad opinions, the latter have bad opinions that they make into bad books and films.
Fair point
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Washington Post said:
The Democratic Party should not impose support for abortion rights as a litmus test on its candidates, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday, because it needs a broad and inclusive agenda to win back the socially conservative voters who helped elect President Trump.

”This is the Democratic Party. This is not a rubber-stamp party," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0e4656c22aa_story.html?utm_term=.b5caf1108b49

Preach it, Nancy.
 
Why is it more important to attract social conservatives than fiscal ones?

And why are abortion rights less important than racial equality or gay rights?
 
Why is it more important to attract social conservatives than fiscal ones?

And why are abortion rights less important than racial equality or gay rights?

Unfortunately, a 50 state strategy means you have to run socially conservative Dems in Red areas sometimes.

Keep in mind that our huge majorities in the house in 2009 and 2010 included a lot of pro-life democrats. But when we absolutely needed their votes (like with the ACA), they were there for us.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Why is it more important to attract social conservatives than fiscal ones?

And why are abortion rights less important than racial equality or gay rights?

They're not less important. They just aren't talked about because right now racial equality and gay rights are 100% ingrained as part of the democratic belief system. Abortion isn't, as the polls described in the article show, and that's what she's addressing.
TestofTide said:
Keep in mind that our huge majorities in the house in 2009 and 2010 included a lot of pro-life democrats. But when we absolutely needed their votes (like with the ACA), they were there for us.

Not only that, but look at the Bob Casey example she talks about. Pro-life himself, but fights for Planned Parenthood and women's rights. There are a lot of democrats out there like that. I'm tired of the misnomer that being pro-life means you would would desire to repeal Roe v. Wade, eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, etc.
 
I mean, if we're going to go the whole "I personally oppose it but I don't believe in legislating against it" rout I think that's a non-starter. Because 1. how many people actually believe that and 2. even if they ran on it the people who vote based on abortion vote to make it illegal, they don't want a candidate who says they represent pro-life and then doesn't act on it.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I mean, if we're going to go the whole "I personally oppose it but I don't believe in legislating against it" rout I think that's a non-starter. Because 1. how many people actually believe that and 2. even if they ran on it the people who vote based on abortion vote to make it illegal, they don't want a candidate who says they represent pro-life and then doesn't act on it.

I've literally met over a hundred people who go completely against what you just said here, and my social circles aren't very large.
 
They're not less important. They just aren't talked about because right now racial equality and gay rights are 100% ingrained as part of the democratic belief system. Abortion isn't, as the polls described in the article show, and that's what she's addressing.

Not only that, but look at the Bob Casey example she talks about. Pro-life himself, but fights for Planned Parenthood and women's rights. There are a lot of democrats out there like that. I'm tired of the misnomer that being pro-life means you would would desire to repeal Roe v. Wade, eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, etc.
Abortion rights are ingrained in most liberal secular democracies.

Abortion rights should be a litmus test.

Abortion rights are also an economic and health issue.

That doesn't mean you need to personally "believe in abortion" or whatever nonsense people on the right has drilled into general consciousness about liberals ripping babies out and eating them gleefully.

And yes, they're clearly less important to old white men.
 

royalan

Member

This is all well and good.

But the next time a Democratic candidate running for some seat in some state gets a bit of national spotlight, and he doesn't use the attention to scream "FREE COLLEGE AND SINGLE PAYER!!!!!!", a certain someone needs to keep his fucking mouth closed. Because constantly seeing these kinds of statements levied against social issues and minority rights, but not at the Berniegenda is getting really fucking tired.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Abortion rights are ingrained in most liberal secular democracies.

Abortion rights should be a litmus test.

Abortion rights are also an economic and health issue.

That doesn't mean you need to personally "believe in abortion" or whatever nonsense people on the right has drilled into general consciousness about liberals ripping babies out and eating them gleefully.

I agree with you on everything except the "litmus test."

This is all well and good.

But the next time a Democratic candidate running for some seat in some state gets a bit of national spotlight, and he doesn't use the attention to scream "FREE COLLEGE AND SINGLE PAYER!!!!!!", a certain someone needs to keep his fucking mouth closed. Because constantly seeing these kinds of issues levied against social issues and minority rights, but not at the Berniegenda is getting really fucking tired.

Agree with this as well. Political poison.
 
I've literally met over a hundred people who go completely against what you just said here, and my social circles aren't very large.

I've never met a socially conservative voter who wouldn't rather vote for the guy who says he'll vote to eliminate planned parenthood funding instead of the one who doesn't like planned parenthood but will still vote to fund it. That position makes no sense whatsoever. Plus if we let those people run they will start trying to eliminate reproductive rights eventually.
 
I mean, if we're going to go the whole "I personally oppose it but I don't believe in legislating against it" rout I think that's a non-starter. Because 1. how many people actually believe that and 2. even if they ran on it the people who vote based on abortion vote to make it illegal, they don't want a candidate who says they represent pro-life and then doesn't act on it.

Tim Kaine, Bob Casey, and many other democrats hold that view though. It mirrors the views of many Americans who personally are opposed to abortion but believe the choice is up to the mother. People are complex.

Pelosi is right. What's left unsaid is that pro-life (or personally pro-life) candidates will never make up the majority of the party, so there's really no risk in including them in the party. There's nothing wrong with ideological diversity on this or many other issues.

What's also left unsaid is that Pelosi was smart enough to protect members depending on their needs. If she didn't need a vote from a pro-life or pro-gun member for instance, she didn't whip them to death. That's what you can do when you're really good at being Speaker and your caucus trusts you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom