***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

Congrats, you just started following politics in 2016

Famb probably saw a FB or Twitter meme and ran in here to tell us about it.

 

[aepps20]

I had no idea Harry Reid opened the door on simple majority back in 2013 ... I could have sworn this was a Republican tactic prior, when realizing that the General was going to be so difficult to win going forward ...

There's a video floating around of McConnell warning Reid ... It's riveting ... Almost eerie given he seems to suggest that there time is coming in short order ...

Unfortunately LIbs and Dims don't have a clue. Ninja, Rico and myself have been saying the same thing since Reid made that statement.

 

[nomnom]

Ughhhhhh

 

[...So]

.

 

[nomnom]

Do these people ever get tired bringing up the Bernie Bros when something bad happens?

They always assume most if not all of GJ/JS voters wouldve went for HRC too in which it was HRC’s job to court voters when the country is 50% independents (GO TO WISCONSIN NEXT TIME)

 

[aepps20]

Ughhhhhh

The only Libs worse than the Dims and Libs on NT are Libs that live on the Space Colonies. I hear Libs are developing a mechanized suit of armor called a Gundam. Extremely proud of our President Elect for thinking ahead to stop this aggression.

 

[rexanglorum]

Do these people ever get tired bringing up the Bernie Bros when something bad happens?

They always assume most if not all of GJ/JS voters wouldve went for HRC too in which it was HRC’s job to court voters when the country is 50% independents (GO TO WISCONSIN NEXT TIME)

To underscore that, Bernie’s supporters in the primary, voted for Hillar Clinton at a higher rate than Hillary Clinton’s primary supporters voted for Obama in 2008.

The reason why Barack Obama won the general election is because he convinced low turnout voters that their lives would materially get better.

Hillary Clinton, in 2016, was the status quo candidate. Most people, especially most people who are unlikely voters, have pretty materially bad lives. You gotta reach those people and stop blaming high propensity voters who did, in fact support your election bid.

 

[nomnom]

Most people, especially most people who are unlikely voters, have pretty materially bad lives. You gotta reach those people and stop blaming high propensity voters who did, in fact support your election bid.

Reminds me of this video that I watched recently

4:00 - 7:30

 

[RustyShackleford]

Whenever I see the "More Bernie voters voted for Hillary than 2008 Hillary supporters voted for McCain" it always plays like a whataboustism to hand wave away a legit criticism

Like are McCain 2008 and Trump 2016 even comparable? Of if you are upset over the primary in any way, then McCain is less offensive to whatever liberal views you have than Trump. And dare I say it, some Dems probably went away from Obama for other reason including his race.

2008 Clinton-to-McCain voters were ****ty, so are 2016 Sanders-to-Trump. Bringing up one doesn't absolve the other. It is like getting called out in class and saying "We I was talking, but Jeff was talking more so what I did was not as bad". Like why should I respect such an argument when at its core is it just meant to be dismissive.

Bernie was ****ty towards the end, some of his supporters did vote Stein, Trump, or stayed home to stick it to "da establishment". All those things hurt.

Data points from 2008 don't change that.

 

[chao7]

Whenever I see the "More Bernie voters voted for Hillary than 2008 Hillary supporters voted for McCain" it always plays like a whataboustism to handwave away a legit criticism

Like are McCain 2008 and Trump 2016 even comparable? Of if you are a centrist, or upset over the primary in any way of course McCain is less offensive to whatever liberal views you have than Trump. And dare I say it, some Dems probably went away from Obama for other reason including his race.

2008 Clinton-to-McCain voters were ****ty, so are 2016 Sanders-to-Trump. Bringing up one doesn't absolve the other. It is like getting called out in class and saying "We I was talking, but Jeff was talking more so what I did was not as bad". Like why should I respect such an argument when at its core is it just meant to be dismissive.

Bernie was ****ty towards the end, some of his supporters did vote Stein, Trump, or stayed home to stick it to "da establishment". Data points from 2008 don't change that.

Bernie-to-Trump supporters need to admit they made a mistake, because you cannot fix a problem you never acknowledge.

 

[RustyShackleford]

We must have watched different coverage of the 2016 election. I recall a big part of Hillary’s general election message was that every Republican but Trump isn’t so bad. Going by that logic, whomever Donald Trump appoints will have to be approved by at least 51 non Trump Republicans who, presumably “love this country.” The appointee himself will be a Republican and night even be from a “Catholic, social justice tradition,” like Paul Ryan.


Also, it may be true that black and brown voters, of all social classes, provide Dems with votes but elected Democratic politicians govern in favor of the professional-managerial class and that group is largely anti union and anti consumer protection so secretly, they love the current and future composition of the high court.




If I recall correctly, a number of Democratic candidates for Senate, back 2014, basically said “Barack Obama’s? Never heard of the guy.”

Democratic Party grandees declared that to be brilliant strategy. Alienating black voters in the hope of picking up a few Serena Joys was lauded as smart politics. Of course, that strategy failed.


It’s as if the Democratic Party either wants to win with a coalition that includes rich suburbanites, lose while appealing to rich white women in the burbs. Anything but winning with and governing for a multi racial workers’ coalition.

-I'm not touching the Clinton comment because I see the goal post move already. I don't feel like picking apart your comments for you to concede that you were not talking in absolutes. She was a mixed bag, so whatever.

We have had this back and forth multiple times already.

For some reason whenever I criticize liberal inaction you have to feel compelled to remind me that "welp the Dems didn't run on a leftist platform so that cost them", or whatever version of this story. Nothing I said absolves the Democratic party of their mistakes, they made plenty, I am aware.

But from 2008 to 2010 the Dems had majorities and governed firmly left of center. They tried in some way to address the issues of most of their coalition. Their base have legit beefs about how they govern and message but proved that they are far and away better than the GOP and generally try to pass things to help their base. But if they didn't, progressives would not be complaining about Trump rolling back the work that was done during that time.

They were only 4 years removed from Dem majorities, saw what losing the House did, and still chose to stayed home. The SCOTUS spot was egg on the face, and then 2016 comes along and some people still don't learn the damn lesson. But god forbid someone points out the hustling backward aspect of such a move

Not every single thing I say about left-wing apathy needs to be interpreted as some grand defense to Dems. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this for you to believe it. But to be honest, this will be my last time.

 

[Nike Jordan]

Why are these considered bad things?

 

[osh kosh bosh]

True.

But like I said before Hillary was not perfect but she had to deal with a primary challenger that acted like a **** boy after it was clear he lost, foreign interference in the election, sexism, boiling over of white nationalism, trash mainstream treating things like a reality show, a right wing propaganda machine constantly attacking her, a good majority of a base being targeted for voter suppression, and Jill the scammer tricking gullible folk into thinking they were sticking it to the man

After all this, she still looked like she had it in the bag.

Then James Comey's self righteous *** steps in at the last second.

I agree if this could have been avoided, but that doesn't take away from the pure ***** ***ness of James Comey. Both can be true.

This is true, but imo **** that you can control stings harder than **** that you can't


dudes could've decide to get up and vote, mother ****ers and could have rubbed 3 brain cells together and realized Jill is a SCAMMER, and a low quality scammer at that.


it's irrational but **** hurts more.

 

[nomnom]

Why are these considered bad things?

I really hope some Republicans are watching and thinking "wait...that sounds good" lol

 

[cubanref]

Why are these considered bad things?

Her agenda seems like it would help to many unnecessary people out. She wants to help immigrants, women, Seniors, LGBTQIA+. Then goes on about Medicare and human rights? Lol at "climate change" and we all know it's too much work to help those Puerto Rican people out.

There's just no way that any of that will make America great again and there's definitely nothing there that supports the America First agenda that we're currently working towards. Also she's missing a "God Bless America" in her agenda. Yeah it just doesn't add up and would probably ruin us as a great nation. No thanks liberals!

 

[Mark Antony]

Unnecessary people?

Probably not far fetched now that I think about it.

 

[IATT]

I really hope some Republicans are watching and thinking "wait...that sounds good" lol

What 'team' is she on again?

 

[northoaklandfc]

Why are these considered bad things?

Seriously, it's because if you were blindfolded and threw an imaginary dart at piechart representation of the platform with all the issues equally distributed, you'd have a 64% chance of nailing an issue that directly or disproportionately* benefits minorities.

The fact that you'd have roughly 50% chance of hitting an issue that benefits ALL U.S. citizens* is irrelevant.

* The fact that said disproportionate benefits to minorities would help to remedy centuries of direct and indirect systemic abuse is irrelevant.
* The fact that roughly 70% of U.S. citizens identify as white would benefit from said platform is also irrelevant.



GOP and it's supporters have so little respect for us, that they would rather see minorities suffer, remain second class citizens, etc, than help themselves.

We all know this.

 

[RustyShackleford]

This is true, but imo **** that you can control stings harder than **** that you can't


dudes could've decide to get up and vote, mother ****ers and could have rubbed 3 brain cells together and realized Jill is a SCAMMER, and a low quality scammer at that.


it's irrational but **** hurts more.

I feel you.

I can see how someone could fall for Ralph Nader's shtick because you can tell he was a true believer in his views and was so different than Gore.

But everyone should have peeped that Jill was a finesser. If tomorrow news broke she been skimming credit card info and got caught at Best Buy with fufu Visa gift cards, I would not be surprised.

 

[rexanglorum]

The 83>75 statistic is relavent. Yes, it would be ideal if the winner of a primary could count on a 100% level of support, in the general election, from every single person that voted in that party’s Primary.

The 75% from 2008 established a baseline, from recent Democratic electoral History, to measure against. Bernie Sanders surpasses that figure in 2016. He delivered a greater share of his primary supporters despite the fact that much of his support were first time voters and independents. Bernie delivered a greater share despite working for the incumbent party. Bernie delivered a greater share despite the 2016 primary being defined by deep seeded idelogal differences.

Now you say that 2008 was far less dire so we must evaluate it differently. Fine, Hillary Clinton in 2008 should have delivered a greater share of her supporters towards Obama. In 2008, Barack Obama was essentially running against the most unpopular president in nearly a Century. Barack Obama ran as the Great Depression 2.0 was coming down and landing at the feet of the GOP. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had no ideological differences. Lastly, Sarah Palin was on the 2008 ballot.

So taken in their context, the 12 point spread in primary to general carryover should seem even bigger than we looked at without context.

 

[RustyShackleford]

You are using the statistic to deflect.

Everything you said could be true, and there were people in Bernie's coalition that chose to not vote, vote for Stein, or vote Trump still deserve criticism.

 

[nomnom]

Spoiler

 

[boris]

Spoiler

I wish my California vote actually mattered.

 

[jimmypiff]

I dont look at Trump's tweets ... I dont follow Trump on Twitter and I cant see tweets on NT for some reason ...

I am simply playing out the situation as I see it ... The outrage started with the separation of children ... Trump signed an order saying stop doing that ... I understand he "started it" and I'm not really disputing that ... I am wondering what the Left's goal is for immigration because EVERYONE who is anti-Trump is advocating for an open border policy, ultimately ...

I dont even look at Facebook too often but the stuff I saw regarding immigration was so nonsensical ... People using examples of illegal immigration success stories as a means to justify ............. O wait, they never get to the policy part ... The only conclusion can be open borders ... In the end, the only thing that will satisfy the Left is unbridled immigration ...

Google immigration impact on wages because I dont feel like getting into it ... It's real and there is blame on both sides ...

okay, I understand you're playing out the situation as you see it but at least we agree that trump had to sign an executive order to basically tell himself "stop doing that" lol

What I'm wondering is where did you get the idea that ALL of the "left" wants open borders ultimately? a generalization like that is just absurd. Ultimately immigration reform has been a bipartisan issue that in my opinion was fair and was on the right track. I'm personally fond of the Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (except towards the end but that's what bipartisan stuff looks like right?) For the most part I like the general idea of it, it goes something like this

Four Basic Legislative Pillars:

o Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required;
o Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families;
o Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,
o Establish an improved process for admitting future workers to serve our nation’s workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers.

For the most part to keep it simple the policy federal, state and local has had in recent years was working, nothing was broken. If new problems arise we find a way to fix them, thats how things function. Statistically it has been doing the job it was set out to do which was address the issue we have with undocumented immigrants and illegal immigration, with 2017 being the lowest year of illegal immigration apprehensions in the last 18 years.

The "outrage" is literally about ripping kids from their mothers arms and shipping them states away to tents for a crime that is considered a misdemeanor (not to mention dozens of other very disturbing reports in regards to humanitarianism) so please miss me with the "its the law" crap... if it was the law they'd give them a ticket and a courtdate like they have been with successful results. So hopefully you acknowledge that its very extreme coming from the president on a bipartisan issue. Secondly you have to understand that this isn't policy, trump has been using the immigration issue (starting with DACA) as leverage with the democrats to get funding for the wall he promised you. You actually think this guy is keeping our borders safe by separating kids from mothers who are seeking asylum? Explain to me how

I wont google "immigration impact on wages" because that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about illegal immigration. Two very different things with very different variables at play... but since we're here might as well talk about it.. undocumented immigrants will have a positive effect on US economy.

 

[cubanref]

I know you guys touch on a lot of serious issues and bring up a bunch of important topics and knowledge to this thread but after watching this video I really hope people get out there and vote in November and if Trump makes it to 2020 people need to make sure they vote as well...This video is funny and sad at the same time I know they prey on the most ignorant and the dumbest people the can for these segments but this has become a cult. I read comments on FB, IG, and Twitter and think to myself that these people are just "trolls" but nah these people are just ignorant AF. They don't care about the ramifications of what trump is doing. They just want to feel good about themselves and are hell-bent on getting what they want by whatever means necessary.

Starts at around 1:35