Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
she's not going to run for president
future president kirsten gillibrand will run though
-
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
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
she's not going to run for president
future president kirsten gillibrand will run though
excelsiorlef
Member
Gabbard is literally the first person that should be targeted by that ridiculous Justice Democrats thing, she's in a ridiculously democratic seat, she's far more conservative than she needs to be, she literally should be someone you can easily primary...but the only thing they've done is claimed they got her to support Universal Health Care (which she apparently did before anyway)
shinra-bansho
Member
TheLaughingStock
Member
That's like saying it's a pyrrhic victory to win the World Cup or the Superbowl. Establishment Republicans went to bed and woke up with more power than they ever imagined. When they lose again, then they'll pick right back up where they left off because the GOP has 60 million + voters are in their back pocket as long as they put up a decent candidate. And with the Democratic party infighting plus Hillary self-proclaiming herself as part of the resistance....the GOP doesn't have too much to worry about for many years to come. The Dems are unstable so it's not like they're capable of going on a prolonged winning streak.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
You forgot the part where Republicans put up a stooge with an inner circle of literal traitors who, when the rest of the party refuses to distance themselves until it's too late, will stain the party for years
I dunno if its polarization but Republicans, especially evangelicals, are pretty positive towards Russia, especially when its now clear that Russia basically supports the majority of social issues that many Evangelical Christians like.
Obama's reign of terror really broke their minds, enough so that the Democratic Party seems to be seen as a foreign agent.
With Trump In The White House, MSNBC Is Resisting The Resistance
TLDR:
TLDR:
Chief executive wants to make network more conservative but its the more liberal shows and anchors that are thriving
excelsiorlef
Member
Ha ha ha and this is why the myth of the liberal media has always been ridiculous.... In the face of fascism the "leftist" MSNBC wants to be more tolerant of them...
Aaron Strife
Banned
That's bullshit, the only responsibility of a sports team is to win. The team that wins the Super Bowl isn't put in charge of the NFL for the next four years, where viewers can periodically remove their best players if they don't like the job they're doing.
Trump thinks it's all about winning and that's why he's such a terrible president. In politics, winning is just the first step. If he makes it four years without passing any sort of significant legislation, that's nothing but a wasted term for the Republicans other than Gorsuch (a significant victory in its own right) and getting to stonewall the progressive agenda for another four years. But if Democrats run the tables in the 2018 and 2020 elections, that's a moot point anyway because they will be in a much stronger position to enact sweeping reform than they would have been if Clinton won a term of divided government.
This is where the "politics is a team sport" analogy reaches a dead end btw.
Or that they literally can't do anything substantial because their wins were the result of a wish on a cursed monkey paw and they now have a deep ideological divide that cannot be bridged.
VendettaRed07
Member
Think I would get this more so from CNN. I think they at least want to try market themselves as a centrist network
MSNBC shouldn't even bother. They'd have to fire like 80% of their staff
excelsiorlef
Member
What the fuck is a Centrist Network in age of Trump anyway...
Maybe imprison just a little bit of the brown people
excelsiorlef
Member
Police agree to only shoot black folk with 7 bullets per cop per gun instead of 15+
We'll ban abortions only Monday-Saturday and on Sunday they can only be done at religious health care places that honour the day of rest.
Gay People can adopt children after they undergo conversion therapy and marry someone of the opposite sex
Thye have a lot to worry about for many years to come. Like their house seats.The presidency is the least of their worries right now even though I do expect their hold on the presidency to continue to slowly weaken.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I like the implication in that bolded part that Trump is ushering in some gilded age of total Republican control. Is it 2004 in here or what? At least Bush won the popular vote that time.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Clinton didn't have any better shot at passing anything after she was elected than Sanders. There was not really anything she promoted that could get through a republican house. Maybe there was a little more focus on stuff that could be done with executive order on her website, but that's it.
Still, it's a pretty big difference between promising stuff you probably can't pass, and saying you know how to make everything "great" when you only intend to give the richest people huge tax cuts, despite promising to raise their taxes. I think the biggest problem Trump has isn't not accomplishing the wall, but focusing all his time on not great healthcare and tax plans.
neurosisxeno
Member
I mean, there is a difference between supporting someone and voting for them.
FloydtheFathead
Member
Aaron Strife
Banned
Even Clinton's agenda seemed a little pie in the sky, sure - gotta run on something - but the distinction for me is that a lot of her key initiatives were grounded in things the executive branch can do unilaterally (expanding the reach of DACA) or working with progressive state governments (implementing the public option at the state level). So even if she couldn't get something done legislatively, there was still a Plan B.
neurosisxeno
Member
How nobody talks about Tulsi Gabbard's weird Cult upbringing is beyond me...
This one Clinton quote shows why her supporters hate the media
Sounds very Buzzfeed, yeah? But it's actually really interesting. It's a short piece, and it makes a subtle point that the narrative of the campaign was pretty unjust, whilst showing that HRC will always be attacked, from both Left and Right...
Sounds very Buzzfeed, yeah? But it's actually really interesting. It's a short piece, and it makes a subtle point that the narrative of the campaign was pretty unjust, whilst showing that HRC will always be attacked, from both Left and Right...
A plan A of just being a firewall against the systematic dismantling of core institutions and against the rise of fascism seems pretty damn compelling right now.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I mean, that too. I wouldn't admit this to anyone during the campaign (because of purity trolls whining about "Your only reason for voting D is because Trump/the GOP is bad!"), but Clinton having veto power over R legislation would have been worth it in and of itself, and obviously the message it would have sent to rebuke Trump once and for all.
Fortunately to the first point, the Republicans are incompetent morons and seemingly can't pass anything even with a trifecta, so it seems we're pretty safe there. Of course, that doesn't stop them from wreaking havoc in the Department of Energy, Education etc. and ruining foreign relations.
cartoon_soldier
Member
http://ijr.com/2017/05/862558-gop-o...a-votes/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
If those two flip, bill will pass.
If those two flip, bill will pass.
And then fail.
if you're in san antonio and more specifically will hurd (tx-23) district, you need to be calling his office now. ive been calling pretty much non stop asking for him to reveal his intentions and getting a bunch of mumbles, i dont knows, and would you like a letter BS responses. this dude has been completely silent throughout the process; shameful. the poor girl yesterday just kept repeating "i just dont know...." to q's about pre-exsisting protections, mccarthur amendment, and overall support.
its been over a month and he's trying to hold out until a bill reaches the floor until he makes his intentions known. light his ass up.
its been over a month and he's trying to hold out until a bill reaches the floor until he makes his intentions known. light his ass up.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Didn't they need like 10 more? They were only one or two votes away from it failing, not passing, as far as I recall.
Also we'd be hearing a lot more confidence from them if there was any chance of this passing. "Well maybe they'll maybe vote on it if maybe this maybe amendment possibly gets added and no others object to it at all, possibly maybe"
It almost seems like you want this to pass. Which I know you don't.
You also forgot to quote this tidbit
TestOfTide
Banned
I know the poll is a week old but I just wanted to comment on it since someone posted about it in the Clinton thread:
I think you guys are misreading this poll as saying "96% of Trump voters say they would vote for Trump again in 2020".
But really it's more like:
"96% of self-admitted Trump voters show that they hate Hillary so much they STILL have no regrets voting against her in 2016".
I want to see what would happen if you asked these Trump voters who they would vote for in a hypothetical match-up between generic dem and Donald trump in 2020.
I say this all the time:
Explain Kasich.
Kasich was the most liked Republican candidate in the field, but he was a joke.
How likable you are has no bearing on whether or not you'll vote for someone. That should be one of THE lessons to take from 2016.
Case in point: as unpopular as Trump is, 96% of his voters would vote for him again:
I think you guys are misreading this poll as saying "96% of Trump voters say they would vote for Trump again in 2020".
But really it's more like:
"96% of self-admitted Trump voters show that they hate Hillary so much they STILL have no regrets voting against her in 2016".
I want to see what would happen if you asked these Trump voters who they would vote for in a hypothetical match-up between generic dem and Donald trump in 2020.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
How many fucking recesses does Congress take?
And to narrow it further, Trump and generic Republican, and Trump and, say, McMullin or Christie.
Essentially, is it an unwillingness to shift towards Buyer's Remorse, a belief in the GOP platform regardless of candidate, or a Cult of Personality for Trump?
balladofwindfishes
Member
And herein lies an issue with these sorts of polls
"Self identified" voters have a bad tendency to "forget" who they actually voted for and just say they voted for the winner, because nobody wants to be tied to a loser (even if it's entirely anonymous).
Yes I did vote for the winner, and yes, I would continue to vote for the winner. I'm not a loser, I swear!
TestOfTide
Banned
I'll tell you exactly what it is. It's the GOP's 4 year antiHillary campaign being wildly successful. So successful that it wasn't just Rush Limbaugh types that believed Hillary Clinton got away with murder. It was 60% of the American voting population.
That's what some people are missing when they ask "how can so and so vote for Donald Trump?". About 30% of Trump voters are going to be much more easily readable simply because Trump's 2020 opponent won't have had the GOP attacking him/her for 4 year straight.
Not simply that, but there ARE a lot of Shy Trump Voters who hated both candidates, but hated Hillary more.
Aaron Strife
Banned
One thirty-minute recess every minute of work.
If the House passes a bill by the skin of its teeth, only for the Senate to workshop it into something much more (relatively) moderate, doesn't it stand to reason that the House -- specifically HFC members -- won't sign off on the revised bill then? I don't understand this hope that Republicans have of just wanting to get something out the door and let the Senate do all the heavy lifting in making the bill more palatable to moderates, because then they run back into their first problem: a bill seen as too moderate becomes unpalatable to the conservative hardliners.
Aaron Strife
Banned
All according to kotaku
balladofwindfishes
Member
Yep. On top of that, now the moderate has their name tied to the original, toxic bill, and has nothing to show for it.
IggyChooChoo
Member
Probably, but there are some things cutting against this, too. The fact that hardliners will have already been able to vote for a hardline bill will give them something of an out. And I doubt the wrath of the FC's most rightwing voters over passing a sellout McConnell bill will be all that scary, considering if something does pass, conservative media will hail the bill as a huge triumph. It's one thing to not support a signature Trump bill when there are still many veto points to clear; it's another when a bill has passed both chambers and you're the last thing standing in its way. So at the final vote, we'd be relying the FC to put purity over party, and I'm not totally confident about that, no.
Edit: the Senate doesn't actually have to rework the bill into something moderate. They could just time it so its most harmful effects are *delayed* past the midterms, to protect the moderates.
The far left are made up of some crazy fucking people.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Easily the best result for democrats.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
All these "regret" / "would you vote differently" polls are dumb and useless anyway because no one likes to admit they made a mistake even to themselves, much less a pollster.
Plenty of Trump voters could never "regret" their vote but vote differently next time or not vote at all.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Does it count as far left if he wrote an article saying Trump was the lesser of two evils?
In any case, Bernie/Trump supporters are the absolute worst.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The moderate Senators (besides Heller and ig Flake) who should be most worried about this wouldn't be up in 2018 though. Collins, Gardner, Ernst, Tillis are all up in 2020 and all hail from blue states, or states that went for Obama at least once.
IggyChooChoo
Member
I meant that the Senate bill would be protecting Republican moderates in the House by delaying past mid-terms. That way they have a bill that's toxically conservative enough for the FC, and protects the GOP members in vulnerable districts by delaying the toxicity. I think that is a path toward passing AHCA.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Delaying the implementation doesn't really matter. People were furious at their reps just for humoring the idea of passing the bill. Everyone knows what's in it and the damning CBO report. It was all over the news and continues to be.
It doesn't matter if those changes don't hit until later.
It doesn't matter if those changes don't hit until later.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Yes since that is legislative which still require 60 votes
Unless the GOP go nuclear
Which even Mitch is saying no to
BoogieWoogie
Banned
The CBO report couldn't even be applicable to this shitty bill because you'd have no idea which states would opt-in and opt-out. This also makes factoring in Tax Reform impossible so what the hell is the point?
- Status