• 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.

May U.S. Primaries |OT| Glory to America

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steel

Banned
jmdajr said:
nice
Click to expand...

Yeah, when I heard Anna Navarro on CNN not only saying that she won't vote for Trump, and that she was honestly considering voting for Hillary it was clear that a lot of republicans were going to flip. Like, we're talking about a political pundit whose job it is to shill for the republican party.
 
M

Maxim726X

Member
MrDaravon said:
Ahahahahahaha

It's almost like this is exactly what everyone said was going to wind up happening months ago is happening.
Click to expand...

Yep. And it was painfully transparent then.

The party really is completely fucked. The Republican party as we know it is definitely on the way out.
 
S

Steel

Banned
giga said:
Oh wow.

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/04/republicans-confirm-merrick-garland-asap./
Click to expand...

I love how the comments section of that article is mostly against the author. One of the posters there makes a good point, though:

Remember what happens when Republicans throw the Gun Vote under the bus, though?

Garland = goodbye Heller, goodbye PLCA, goodbye FOPA... and most of all, goodbye to Gun Vote votes. And if there is any group within the right that has an elephant's memory and a love of playing "Stab the Traitor," it's the Second Amendment Voters...
Click to expand...
 
A

ampere

Member
giga said:
13129116_1697208037213041_1644636471_n.jpg


💀
Click to expand...

Somebody gotta tell B to hold back next time! That man has a family!

jmdajr said:
nice
Click to expand...

It's... beautiful...
 
D

Drakeon

Member
Steel said:
I love how the comments section of that article is mostly against the author. One of the posters there makes a good point, though:
Click to expand...

Regardless of his legitimacy of his point, the only thing they have accomplished if they don't allow Garland to go through is getting a more liberal (and younger) nominee from Hillary. Who's ready for Goodwin Liu?
 
S

Steel

Banned
Drakeon said:
Regardless of his legitimacy of his point, the only thing they have accomplished if they don't allow Garland to go through is getting a more liberal (and younger) nominee from Hillary. Who's ready for Goodwin Liu?
Click to expand...

While from an overall GOP perspective, that's plainly true, at the same time how many of those GOP house and senate members want to put their head on the NRA chopping block and destroy their political careers?
 
D

Drakeon

Member
Steel said:
While from an overall GOP perspective, that's plainly true, at the same time how many of those GOP house and senate members want to put their head on the NRA chopping block and destroy their political careers?
Click to expand...

So you're saying that this is all for them to save face so they can say they tried their best to not allow it to happen? Even though they likely knew what would happen if they did it?
 
S

Steel

Banned
Drakeon said:
So you're saying that this is all for them to save face so they can say they tried their best to not allow it to happen? Even though they likely knew what would happen if they did it?
Click to expand...

Basically, yeah. And I don't think there's any they there, it's more that they have two choices on a personal level: vote for garland and get primaried out of office by NRA money, or don't and get reelected.
 
B

boiled goose

good with gravy
royalan said:
How is asking for evidence fanboyism? People are just asking for some shred of tangible evidence that Hillary is a politician for corporate interests. You don't need quid pro quo for that; this is the most obvious attempt to distract from the lack of an actual argument, and you have the nerve to claim fanboyism.

All you would have to do is demonstrate that Hillary Clinton is a politician that has generally voted for and/or sided with legislation that favored corporate interests over the poor and middle class. Again, if you could do that, you wouldn't need to "prove" that she got something specifically for it. It would be implicit in her politics.

But simply claiming that a politician with a relatively clean record in that regard MUST be corrupt because she's accepted campaign contributions from people who work in industries you and Bernie don't like (because that's really the point here. Bernie has also accepted campaign contributions and PAC money, but I guess it's "pure" when he does it), or worked with bundlers who've also worked with those industries (which is six degrees of separation bullshit and doesn't effect her politics at all) is incredibly dishonest, lazy, and honestly not worth taking seriously. Which is why Bernie is losing and this has never been a winning argument for him.
Click to expand...

First you assume I dont like any specific industries and that I support Bernie. I have cared about money in politics and I have been involved in trying to adress it at the state level before this primary even began. So yeah. Stop projecting your bias onto me.

Here is how big money corrupts ALL politicians and the process itself. Yes it skews even precious Bernie. We can however make decisions about who it affects more and who it affects less.

First. big money skews who gets elected. Candidates preferred by subsets get more money. Candidates with more money win 95 percent of the time. So even if you don't change a candidates position, you pick candidates with the position you want.

Second. "Clean record" is a worthless standard? Compared to what? Compared to every other politician? The whole process is corrupt. Unless You remove the influence of money, you don't know what position politicians would actually hold. You need to look at the big picture. Legislation passed has zero percent correlation to voter opinion yet substantial correlation to donor opinion.
That's your evidence.

Third. Taking big donations disenfranchises people. People know their votes dont matter. The data shows this on aggregate. Unless you donate substantial amounts, your opinion on aggregate has zero correlation with legislation.

Fourth. By taking big money, you cant turn around and accuse climate change deniers funded by big oil of the same. You are complicit in the problem itself.

I can keep going. Time wasted fundraising, who you surround yourself with, endorsements skewed by money, revolving door, etc, etc, etc.

The whole conflict of interest and the level to which the system is fucked. Every single penny spent by big money on a candidate is an Investment, and data shows the return on investment on legalized bribery i mean political contributions is high as fuck.

You need clear qui pro quo, well the. Don't turn around and say you oppose citizens united, because that is exactly the reasoning used to defend it. Just be honest. Dont be a hypocrite so that you can rationalize supporting your candidate despite the obvious flaws. Supporting them despite the flaws is fine.

This is the honest argument : well we can't let all the money go to Republicans (don't bring a knife to a gun fight). So by getting part of the money you are catering to certain industries, if not, then yes, you would not get any of the big money.

People arguing that Democrats just coincidentally get some big money in exchange for nothing is so disingenuous I can't even...
It is an investment. Not every investment is a net positive, it can be a smaller net negative.

Here is a short rule of thumb I personally decide on what resolutions/politicians to vote on. Follow the money.
 
A

Aaronrules380

Member
Steel said:
Basically, yeah. And I don't think there's any they there, it's more that they have two choices on a personal level: vote for garland and get primaried out of office by NRA money, or don't and get reelected.
Click to expand...

Yep. The reason Obama nominating him is so brilliant is because it's a no lose situation for Democrats, a lose-lose for Republicans, and the only way for the republicans to minimize damage (Voting Garland in) will hurt them badly on a personal level, so they have to weigh party interests against reelection, and we all know which is going to be more important to most politicians
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
the rest of the month of May is going to be a boring shlog with many ''White'' States going for Bernie further fueling the delusions of Bernie Supporters.

June can't come soon enough
 
B

boiled goose

good with gravy
gutter_trash said:
the rest of the month of May is going to be a boring shlog with many ''White'' States going for Bernie further fueling the delusions of Bernie Supporters.

June can't come soon enough
Click to expand...

It's just like 3 states + territories before Super Tuesday 4 or w.e
You will survive... Not sure how more states going to Hillary would make it more exciting...

Barring a crazy miracle, Bern won't get a majority. The narrative won't change either way.
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
boiled goose said:
It's just like 3 states + territories before Super Tuesday 4 or w.e
You will survive... Not sure how more states going to Hillary would make it more exciting...

Barring a crazy miracle, Bern won't get a majority. The narrative won't change either way.
Click to expand...

the win in Oregon is going to be so ANYOING. best shut off cable news until June
 
R

royalan

Member
boiled goose said:
First you assume I dont like any specific industries and that I support Bernie. I have cared about money in politics and I have been involved in trying to adress it at the state level before this primary even began. So yeah. Stop projecting your bias onto me.

Here is how big money corrupts ALL politicians and the process itself. Yes it skews even precious Bernie. We can however make decisions about who it affects more and who it affects less.

First. big money skews who gets elected. Candidates preferred by subsets get more money. Candidates with more money win 95 percent of the time. So even if you don't change a candidates position, you pick candidates with the position you want.

Second. "Clean record" is a worthless standard? Compared to what? Compared to every other politician? The whole process is corrupt. Unless You remove the influence of money, you don't know what position politicians would actually hold. You need to look at the big picture. Legislation passed has zero percent correlation to voter opinion yet substantial correlation to donor opinion.
That's your evidence.

Third. Taking big donations disenfranchises people. People know their votes dont matter. The data shows this on aggregate. Unless you donate substantial amounts, your opinion on aggregate has zero correlation with legislation.

Fourth. By taking big money, you cant turn around and accuse climate change deniers funded by big oil of the same. You are complicit in the problem itself.

I can keep going. Time wasted fundraising, who you surround yourself with, endorsements skewed by money, revolving door, etc, etc, etc.

The whole conflict of interest and the level to which the system is fucked. Every single penny spent by big money on a candidate is an Investment, and data shows the return on investment on legalized bribery i mean political contributions is high as fuck.

You need clear qui pro quo, well the. Don't turn around and say you oppose citizens united, because that is exactly the reasoning used to defend it. Just be honest. Dont be a hypocrite so that you can rationalize supporting your candidate despite the obvious flaws. Supporting them despite the flaws is fine.

This is the honest argument : well we can't let all the money go to Republicans (don't bring a knife to a gun fight). So by getting part of the money you are catering to certain industries, if not, then yes, you would not get any of the big money.

People arguing that Democrats just coincidentally get some big money in exchange for nothing is so disingenuous I can't even...
It is an investment. Not every investment is a net positive, it can be a smaller net negative.

Here is a short rule of thumb I personally decide on what resolutions/politicians to vote on. Follow the money.
Click to expand...

Your post doesn't make sense, but especially the bold.

We're not talking about voter opinion, we're talking about how a senator votes. That is the metric by which you determine where their allegiances lay. Nothing else matters. Until you can prove that money has effected how Hillary votes, that corporate campaign contributions would keep Hillary from regulating banks and overturning CU, things that she has said over and over again that she would do, and align with the reality of how she has voted in office, until you can build even a BASIC case, you don't have a leg to stand on.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Adaren said:
Really, Bernie can stay in as long as he wants provided he focuses his efforts on something that promotes his message (instead of using conspiracy theories, hyperbole, and baseless implication to try to hamstring the only person who can prevent his goals from being delayed by 20 years).
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

I also expect Hillary to effectively ignore him for the remainder of the race.
 
V

Valhelm

contribute something
Adaren said:
Really, Bernie can stay in as long as he wants provided he focuses his efforts on something that promotes his message (instead of using conspiracy theories, hyperbole, and baseless implication to try to hamstring the only person who can prevent his goals from being delayed by 20 years).
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think him staying in the race, but focusing on constructive criticism against the party and reserving his open attacks against Trump, could do a lot of good.
 
M

mo60

Member
So what happens to the race on the republican side now? Does donald trump still have to get the delegates in the remaining states or will they all go to him?
 
A

ampere

Member
mo60 said:
So what happens to the race on the republican side now? Does donald trump still have to get the delegates in the remaining states or will they all go to him?
Click to expand...

People can still vote for Cruz and Kasich probably, I assume the ballot deadlines have all passed.

So... he could potentially be denied some of the remaining delegates, but he'll get enough for 1237. The candidates who have dropped out can also free their delegates to switch to Trump, but I doubt we'll see that or that it'll be necessary.
 
T

Tranqueris

Banned
Adaren said:
Really, Bernie can stay in as long as he wants provided he focuses his efforts on something that promotes his message (instead of using conspiracy theories, hyperbole, and baseless implication to try to hamstring the only person who can prevent his goals from being delayed by 20 years).
Click to expand...

In the paraphrased words of a loudmouth jackass who successfully helped run a campaign into the ground..

Don't destroy the Democratic Party to satisfy the Senator's ambitions to become president of the United States
Click to expand...

I don't mind if he sticks around till the last vote as long as he shuts the hell up with the attacks. If he keeps with his fucking tantrum then Obama and the rest of the superdelegates that are left should coalesce around Hillary and say, "yeah, we're calling it, she has enough to win now. Sure some people will be pissed off but you can fuck off back to Vermont empty handed now Bernie."
 
Rentahamster

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Rentahamster said:
I went back to some of Cruz's old tweets that praise Trump back in 2015.

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/675360299747184640

I was thinking that people would have replied to them recently to criticize Cruz's heel turn against Trump. Guess not.
Click to expand...

So I went down the rabbit hole of seeing if Trump supporters are still ragging on Cruz even after he's conceded. Which led me to...this.

https://twitter.com/rjoyourjoy1919/status/713785765747101696

I think I'm done with that area of the internet for today.
 
legacyzero

legacyzero

Banned
Bam Bam Baklava said:
Because HOW IN THE NAME OF GOD does he plan to pass any of his ridiculously liberal policies without a bunch of Democrats in the House from places that aren't San Francisco and Vermont? You need more centrists Democrats to win swing districts in places like Arkansas.

How detached from reality do you have to be to not realize this?
Click to expand...

So let's just stick with 4-8 more years of the same thing we have now? Political stalemate? Either way, it's going to be a battle in the congress. THAT is the reality. At least Bernie's platform hopes to change all that. Even if it's detached. You can sit there with your defeatist attitude all you like. I'll stay trying :)

giga said:
Rs0qf97.png


https://twitter.com/GOP/status/727980097739755520

the replies are killing me
Click to expand...
Now THIS is detached lmao
 
D

dramatis

Member
Results for Guam's caucus are rolling in.

From tentative results it appears to be Hillary's lead by nearly 20 percentage points. Delegate distribution may be 4-3 depending on how the results end up.

Current results from Guam are being tweeted here by James Servino.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Hillz won Guam. 4 to 3 pledged delegates, plus she picked up 5 supers who pledged to vote how the island voted, so 9 total. I believe that erased any gains that's Bernie made in RI or IN.
 
M

Miles X

Member
ivysaur12 said:
Hillz won Guam. 4 to 3 pledged delegates, plus she picked up 5 supers who pledged to vote how the island voted, so 9 total. I believe that erased any gains that's Bernie made in RI or IN.
Click to expand...

Nice, one more contest down so that Bernie fans can stop peddling the "XXX more delegates and XX contests left! line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
NFL '23/'24 |OT| Bradyless Edition
|OT| Social 26 27 28 29 30
1K
46K
Thaedolus replied
60 FPS Nintendo 64 and Saturn Games - Game Sack
Analysis Retro Trailer
2
1K
Walter Matthau replied
UK Boxed Charts: Week 6, 2024 (Feb 04 - Feb 10)
Sales-Age
34
2K
Killjoy-NL replied
UK Boxed Charts: Week 4, 2024 (Jan 21 - Jan 27)
Sales-Age
8
875
onQ123 replied
UK Boxed Charts: Week 16, 2024 (Apr 14 - Apr 20)
Sales-Age
10
880
willothedog replied
Top Bottom