-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliEra 2020 |OT 1| THE ANTI BENGHAZI (Read Staff Post)
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
Since the Obama days!? Are you not aware of his Bush days? UN ambassador who endorsed abolishing the UN.
For!
I'm pretty sure that Sanders places some sort of record for most proposed and passed amendments of any elected official within the House during Republican control.
And he did it as an independent, able to work with both groups.
Craig Volden, an expert on the legislative process at the University of Virginia, told PolitiFact that records like these are rather unusual in the House.
"There are so few members with large numbers of substantive and successful amendments," he said. "Sanders and Traficant were exceptions to that rule."
But the sparse number of bills isn't surprising. Volden and Vanderbilt University's Alan Wiseman assess the legislative effectiveness of House members by comparing their records to a benchmark. According to this analysis, Sanders has either met or exceeded expectations during his tenure in the House (bold indicates Republican Congresses):
——
You can read up. Anyone that claims Sanders wasn't a deft or effective political operator would also need to dismiss how this crazy socialist from Vermont managed to upend the traditional Democrat power structure. To that, he is credited with reframing discourse within a short amount of time while being considered the most popular senator in America for 4 years running.
There is so much more to politics than having your name on a passing bill.
Last edited:
-A black man dared to get elected to the highest office.
-Gay marriage was deemed legal in all states.
-A healthcare measure that was painted toxic by Republicans actually turned out to be beneficial and a potential stepping stone to doing even greater good.
The President's party facing these and other rational and fair governance victories cannot condone such progress. Therefore the only option is to condone cheating, corruption, and bigotry in full view! Damn the constitution and damn you all! Deal with it!
(I might be paraphrasing?)
He said all of this at about 120dB from what I'm told as well.
Dubya endorsed McCain in 2008 during primaries didn't he... although McCain didn't really want it lol?
Last edited:
"...we would have had |OT6| by now" absolutely has to be it.
This is pretty good.
DA MAVERICK! Also Bush was supervising the entire country falling apart, so yeah.
I mean it's kind of fascinating that Sanders doesn't actually have to explain how he intends to implement and/or pay for his plans; and attempting to do so killed Warren's campaign.
Yeah this train of thought is scary, literally a Nazi approach, what the great leader wills is the will of the people.
Weird but would be almost on brand after that meatball thing.
I mean, isn't everyone just operating under the assumption he's going to try to tax the daylights out of the rich and upper-middle class? Bernie is not a creature of nuance here and talks about wealth in moralistic terms.
Warren got this question because 1) Pete hit her over the head with it 2) nuance and careful planning is on brand for Warren 3) everyone wanted that tax soundbite from her in a boring part of the primary.
I mean, isn't everyone just operating under the assumption he's going to try to tax the daylights out of the rich and upper-middle class? Bernie is not a creature of nuance here and talks about wealth in moralistic terms.
Warren got this question because 1) Pete hit her over the head with it 2) nuance and careful planning is on brand for Warren 3) everyone wanted that tax soundbite from her in a boring part of the primary.
Last edited:
It's not really. Most people just want to hear what you want to get done and not the step by step wonk shit. Bernie's simplification of "how he's gonna pay for it" is pretty smart. Saying "we're gonna raise taxes but the cost will be offset by how much you'll save on insurance costs" and then not going into fuller detail was a good move. It sounds plausible and therefore probably is.
For people not paying that close of attention. It just sounds like he has the best health care plan because it covers everyone and restructures a bad health care system.
Warren got hosed by actually caving to demands to explain her plans and was attacked for it. It's not unique to Sanders that he mumbles past that stuff. It's basically everyone.
This is basically the climax of Trump-style authoritarianism. It cannot be any more broken and corrupt than this.
It sounds great on a debate stage and that's literally it.
This is basically the climax of Trump-style authoritarianism. It cannot be any more broken and corrupt than this.
This would not remotely work for Warren. (Or Harris for that matter, and it also killed her candidacy)
There's no way they'd get away with an interview answer like this:
And he hasn't been hit on it at all by anyone mostly.
It's the same as how Biden gets away with like not even having policy.
What could be the reason? Why do people expect Warren and Harris to have detailed explanations for how they intend to fund stuff, but not care about Biden and Sanders... hmmmmmmm...
Mans thinks he's in the US Senate. Shameful.
I'll be spending my morning making calls.
Biden has plenty of policy. It's just not what his campaign is about.
Warren's entire brand was details and plans. Of course the press is going to dive into them and ask about it when she rose to front-runner.
As for Kamala, the press had to ask her about plans because her platform lacked coherent themes and her campaign didn't have a clear brand for them to keep the candidate on.
Warren's entire brand was details and plans. Of course the press is going to dive into them and ask about it when she rose to front-runner.
As for Kamala, the press had to ask her about plans because her platform lacked coherent themes and her campaign didn't have a clear brand for them to keep the candidate on.
Haha that pundit sucks.
I don't know what to tell you, it has something to do with how the candidates position themselves. Bernie and Biden's confidence level is a big factor imo. But here's the other thing, when I say "most people" I mean the people that aren't politics nerds like us. Warren's appeal was in large part with the politics nerd and cable news voting block. My guess is that block is gonna expect more specifics over all.
And also remember, Warren got owned specifically by Pete. After that debate, a lot of her support flocked to him. It's possible too that people didn't care that much about the policy information as much as her slipping under pressure after getting dunked on by a more confident looking candidate.
Presidential election politics are actually quite dumb I think.
To add to what Badman said, this is also about expectations set by the candidates themselves. Warren's slogan is litterally 'I have a plan for that!', her personal brand is entirely that of the smart policy wonk. She leans into the expectations and encourages them as a part of her core appeal. That aided the negative blowback.
She should have leaned in and gone after Biden. At the height of her popularity, it's telling in that she was repudiating Delany not with Policy, but passion.
I would be a fool if I said that sexism didn't play a part. That said, Sanders took substantial heat for this in 2016. In this primary he has been pretty good at releasing plans.
But Republicans blowing up the deficit has also allowed nominees (not just Sanders) cover to deflect 'how are you going to pay for it?'
OP
OP
She never got owned.
Her wine cellar comment was a bigger own that that first debate. All they kep trying to do was "hey are you going to raise taxes?"
Warren gets trashed for not saying it and Bernie gets to walk away without saying anything. That's called sexism(by the media).
The problem with that, is any additional policy is going to add to that or equate it. The argument can't really be "well they blew up the deficit first!" We have to undo the Trump Tax Plan and then raise taxes even further, and then we can start considering what to do with resources. But people are going to demand programs are either self funded or a net decrease in the deficit, because Democrats have to live up to higher standards.
If I didn't have entire posing history here I'd actually consider running against him in 2022 lol. I also don't know the status of the stuff I wrote at the old place. But my god.
I mean the other thing that has tanked Warren has been sinking perceptions that she can win because everyone remembered she's a woman but not that woman.
Even if it wasn't "on brand" to have plans, there's a greater expectation there from not being an old white man lbr. Can you actually imagine a woman candidate getting away with "oh we'll worry about how to actually do it later" or running purely on smiles and handshakes like Biden?
Even if it wasn't "on brand" to have plans, there's a greater expectation there from not being an old white man lbr. Can you actually imagine a woman candidate getting away with "oh we'll worry about how to actually do it later" or running purely on smiles and handshakes like Biden?
Honestly, the defense that Trump's lawyers have put forward is probably the most disturbing thing about this entire impeachment and the main reason he must be removed because they are already saying he's the dictator and there's nothing you can do about it
Absolutely.
The Amendment King.
There's multiple stories written about this topic.
Hey! Everyone here would donate to you. My senator (Jerry Hill) voted No too and it fucking sucks. He's also termed out for 2020 and only one of his primary candidates, Shelly Masur, supports SB50. And she identifies as a YIMBY.
I think this could end up hurting a lot of these No votes in the primaries. Let's hope.
A good chunk of those people already elected Trump to, excuse my language, piss and shit all over the federal government and are fully behind his quest to make the president untouchable.
We've been pretty burned by populists here in Europe lately so please excuse my skepticism (about some of These burn it all everything sucks voters, not Bernie himself)
I don't think I could run because there'd be no way to clear my gaf post history and I started posting there when I was 15 and if someone found that, I have no idea what I said back in the day.
It just echoes of the 2016 complaints about Hillary not having any platform beyond "I'm a woman, vote for me" when she literally published a book full of policy proposals.
Goddamnit don't tempt me to post that dril tweet haha.
The wine cellar bit was not a bigger own. Not according to the numbers. Pete bounced back from that too during the IIRC making it mostly a wash.
I don't disregard the sexism angle, it's clearly a factor. When I talk about this stuff, there's an implication that the women candidates are running the game on hard mode. There's much less room for error. I think that Warren made some genuine mistakes that had nothing to do with her gender, but her gender made those mistakes hit harder due to the societal sexism problem.
We spend all day talking about politics in here. Who's gonna bite on running for office first?
And let's be real Neo-NeoGAF would run a coordinated opp to dig out whatever they can to stonewall your candidacy if they ever got wind of it.
It's basically 4Chan these days
OP
OP
And give up my relatively stress free, cushy job?
Nah, I'll keep voting in
I wish I could but if there's one thing your primary system makes possible it's new entrants. The multi-party system we have with PR leads to Internal party politics picking candidates and I'm not going to spend years of my life there
I've always wondered if that would be one of the negatives of the US switching to a parliamentary system. Makes sense.
You know what? Yeah, this is my new reason for wanting him removed most. He's a corrupt shit that runs his administration like a mafia and has destroyed the federal government top to bottom in ways that'll take decades to recover, but outright wanting authority to do literally anything he wants in the alleged name of national security? That's more dangerous than all the rest of it.
The trial has effectively been one of if the US can have a king, but this upgraded it to if we openly permit dictators. These are the attorneys speaking directly in the defense of the president. It's official policy.
I'm glad that a leftist is grabbing all these angry voters and not some fascist like Trump, thats for sure.
Problem is these "I am angry" voters never stay in one camp and will vote increasingly authoritarian. Italy's one broad tent populist party has bled voters to other populist, super right wing party even though the two didn't have much ideological overlap.
I wonder if there's an open primary PR system somewhere? I wouldn't want to switch to FPTP but we've got a lot of ministers that had to resign in disgrace for one reason or another but they keep getting in because the party secured enough votes and they keep them on the electoral list.
Lol, people still thinking diet brand populism without the yummy blaming brown and black people is going to win Trump voters.
While I 100% believe sexism has played a substantial part in Warrens fall in the polls, the "I have a plan for that" candidate was always going to have to go into detail into said plans (particularly healthcare which got like 30 minutes in every debate}, because that's what her campaign was about. She simply made a miscalculation about where her lane was, and how appealing M4A is outside of the Bernie lane.
probably yeah, this almost crossed my mind when I ran for city council this year. it's too bad, I think I'd be good at it.
OP
OP
It's really appealing when you can fill in the blanks with whatever you yourself like.
M4A at one point was literally the healthcare equivalent of a coloring book.
Trump ran on making healthcare both better and cheaper and never explained how. That's the trick!
FWIW for local politics you're not going to become some lightning rod/national target for the other party so I really would encourage you to run!
I'm sure American poliERA will phone bank for you :)
- Status