|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 17 2015 09:19 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2015 09:01 Velr wrote:On July 17 2015 08:23 cLutZ wrote:On July 17 2015 07:16 Jerubaal wrote:
As an English teacher, the biggest problem with technology is that kids can't focus on anything for more than 15 seconds. As a person who once passed English class, they don't pay attention to the teacher either. Which is exactly what he said? Then how is a teacher superior?
To technology? The classroom management aspect, obviously. Unless you're talking about the college level, there has to be some level of classroom management, because kids (primary/ secondary levels) aren't going to be sitting quietly and focused the entire time. From a post I wrote earlier:
while you could hypothetically watch instructional videos and possibly create an AI that can respond to student-specific questions and misunderstandings, any teacher will tell you the hardest part about teaching- by far- is the classroom management aspect. Whether it's getting kids to put away their phones, waking them up, stopping a fight, getting them quiet (or getting them to talk and collaborate), or (if they're younger) even dealing with crying and screaming and food/ bathroom issues. You can't just use a screen or program to enforce many of these (in a way that has a positive outcome).
|
I don't actually disagree. But kids having short attention spans is not the rebuttal, its that you need an intimidating and/or respected presence to moderate what is primarily a social experience amongst kids or teens.
What you learn is helpful, sometimes, but the social interaction is much more valuable, but things can get crazy, obviously.
I do see even a mediocre lecture + modules+ babysitter model being more effective than 50% or so of the teachers I had k-12, but it would be very hard for that model to replicate the top 10% of teachers.
|
We already have a bunch of online learning stuff, but it's not too great so far. I feel like it'll be a few years before technology makes it a real viable alternative though.
MOOC's are great, but the completion rate is really bad.
And then you have stuff like ALEKS for college chem/physics which just makes people want to break their computers.
|
A few semesters ago, I taught some math classes that required ALEKS. Awful awful awful experience for my students. Two semesters after that, ALEKS was removed, fortunately.
|
On July 17 2015 13:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
A few semesters ago, I taught some math classes that required ALEKS. Awful awful awful experience for my students. Two semesters after that, ALEKS was removed, fortunately.
I have confidence that your experience was awful, and that your engagement means you are an above average teacher. However, Awful Awful Awful is probably a slightly above average description of the classroom experience from a student's POV. If you are above average, you get chastised, if you are below average, you get frustrated, the current system only "works" for average kids, like I said, except for that 10% of teachers that are great.
|
Trying to force everyone into learning the same way is probably the single biggest drawback to the standardized education system.
On politics:
This is what grassroots look like when it's sponsored by hundreds of thousands of Americans and not big money and the banks. Hillary is trying the same thing and having much less success, I'm not sure if any of the republicans are even trying this yet?
I think people are drastically underestimating him and his supporters.
http://www.bernie2016events.org/july29
|
GH I'm confused by the confusion of people about Bernie. I thought there was a significant portion of the Democratic base that was socialist/kinda socialist (they are going left at least as fast as Republicans are going right as a party); I don't think Citizens United changed the game much (money is mostly a threshold question) except for sometimes making outside bids more likely (get money from a random guy instead of GOP/DEM approved sources); and Hillary is basically the Democratic Mitt Romney, without the ability to talk to people.
|
On July 17 2015 14:57 cLutZ wrote:
GH I'm confused by the confusion of people about Bernie. I thought there was a significant portion of the Democratic base that was socialist/kinda socialist (they are going left at least as fast as Republicans are going right as a party); I don't think Citizens United changed the game much (money is mostly a threshold question) except for sometimes making outside bids more likely (get money from a random guy instead of GOP/DEM approved sources); and Hillary is basically the Democratic Mitt Romney, without the ability to talk to people.
I think the confusion is how many independents and even disaffected republicans Bernie appeals to. It's a lot. Even if people don't agree with a lot of his ideas they appreciate that he isn't taking in huge sums of money through superPAC's and he is actually being honest and not just being bombastic and calling it honest (I think Trump is the most honest of the bunch but his salesman style is still pretty deceptive).
If you think money doesn't make a difference in who's interests one represents when they get in office I think you may need to rethink it.
|
United States5013 Posts
Dissatisfaction with Republican leaders is common for a lot a of people on the right too. But I don't see any data suggesting that they would vote for Sanders. Also, this
“The recent rise of Bernie Sanders,” wrote Vox’s Jonathan Allen last week, “points as much to [Hillary] Clinton’s vulnerability as Sanders’s strength.” Allen went on to argue that Joe Biden should run for president. “The Sanders surge shows that Democratic activists want an alternative to Clinton,” he explained.
We’ve seen this idea before. For at least a year, journalists have been urging, sometimes almost begging, Biden to enter the race. The more elaborate versions of the idea liken the 2016 campaign to 1968, a year in which the incumbent president, Lyndon B. Johnson, withdrew after the liberal, anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy finished a close second in the New Hampshire primary. The nomination was eventually won by Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, after Robert F. Kennedy (who had entered the race after New Hampshire) was assassinated. In the 2016 narrative, Clinton is Johnson, Sanders is McCarthy and Biden is some composite of Kennedy and Humphrey.
But these comparisons suffer from a fatal flaw. Unlike LBJ, who (mostly because of the Vietnam War) had approval ratings only in the mid-50s or low 60s among Democrats during the 1968 campaign, Hillary Clinton is beloved by voters in her party. In national polls, her favorability ratings among Democrats usually exceed 80 percent.
Source
No one is afraid of Sanders. At least Hillary isn't.
|
On July 17 2015 15:27 Introvert wrote:Dissatisfaction with Republican leaders is common for a lot a of people on the right too. But I don't see any data suggesting that they would vote for Sanders. Also, this Show nested quote +“The recent rise of Bernie Sanders,” wrote Vox’s Jonathan Allen last week, “points as much to [Hillary] Clinton’s vulnerability as Sanders’s strength.” Allen went on to argue that Joe Biden should run for president. “The Sanders surge shows that Democratic activists want an alternative to Clinton,” he explained.
We’ve seen this idea before. For at least a year, journalists have been urging, sometimes almost begging, Biden to enter the race. The more elaborate versions of the idea liken the 2016 campaign to 1968, a year in which the incumbent president, Lyndon B. Johnson, withdrew after the liberal, anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy finished a close second in the New Hampshire primary. The nomination was eventually won by Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, after Robert F. Kennedy (who had entered the race after New Hampshire) was assassinated. In the 2016 narrative, Clinton is Johnson, Sanders is McCarthy and Biden is some composite of Kennedy and Humphrey.
But these comparisons suffer from a fatal flaw. Unlike LBJ, who (mostly because of the Vietnam War) had approval ratings only in the mid-50s or low 60s among Democrats during the 1968 campaign, Hillary Clinton is beloved by voters in her party. In national polls, her favorability ratings among Democrats usually exceed 80 percent. SourceNo one is afraid of Sanders. At least Hillary isn't.
Biden, like Jeb Bush supporters, are often mentioned, but no one has actually ever seen the elusive beings in the real world.
If you think Hillary isn't getting scared of Sanders, you haven't been paying attention to her campaign and it's advocates.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Bernie is heading to Texas and Phoenix, watch as he continues to have bigger rallies than anyone else even in red states.
I suspect within a month or so we'll have moved on to the "fighting" part. We'll be done with the ignoring and laughing.
|
I have no hard evidence, but a lot of my friends who were Ron Paul or Gary Johnson supporters are quickly rallying their support behind Sanders. I also know three people in person who have far-right views, but back Sanders due to their economic views.
Also GH, Ron Paul was able to summon massive rallies but he was nonetheless still fringed.
|
On July 17 2015 15:55 Shiragaku wrote:
I have no hard evidence, but a lot of my friends who were Ron Paul or Gary Johnson supporters are quickly rallying their support behind Sanders. I also know three people in person who have far-right views, but back Sanders due to their economic views.
Also GH, Ron Paul was able to summon massive rallies but he was nonetheless still fringed.
None, not even at his peak were as large as Sanders. Not to mention they are about to get a lot more diverse.
Sanders' issues have a much wider appeal than Ron Paul's ever had too.
|
United States5013 Posts
On July 17 2015 15:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2015 15:27 Introvert wrote:Dissatisfaction with Republican leaders is common for a lot a of people on the right too. But I don't see any data suggesting that they would vote for Sanders. Also, this “The recent rise of Bernie Sanders,” wrote Vox’s Jonathan Allen last week, “points as much to [Hillary] Clinton’s vulnerability as Sanders’s strength.” Allen went on to argue that Joe Biden should run for president. “The Sanders surge shows that Democratic activists want an alternative to Clinton,” he explained.
We’ve seen this idea before. For at least a year, journalists have been urging, sometimes almost begging, Biden to enter the race. The more elaborate versions of the idea liken the 2016 campaign to 1968, a year in which the incumbent president, Lyndon B. Johnson, withdrew after the liberal, anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy finished a close second in the New Hampshire primary. The nomination was eventually won by Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, after Robert F. Kennedy (who had entered the race after New Hampshire) was assassinated. In the 2016 narrative, Clinton is Johnson, Sanders is McCarthy and Biden is some composite of Kennedy and Humphrey.
But these comparisons suffer from a fatal flaw. Unlike LBJ, who (mostly because of the Vietnam War) had approval ratings only in the mid-50s or low 60s among Democrats during the 1968 campaign, Hillary Clinton is beloved by voters in her party. In national polls, her favorability ratings among Democrats usually exceed 80 percent. SourceNo one is afraid of Sanders. At least Hillary isn't. Biden, like Jeb Bush supporters, are often mentioned, but no one has actually ever seen the elusive beings in the real world. If you think Hillary isn't getting scared of Sanders, you haven't been paying attention to her campaign and it's advocates. Show nested quote +First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Bernie is heading to Texas and Phoenix, watch as he continues to have bigger rallies than anyone else even in red states. I suspect within a month or so we'll have moved on to the "fighting" part. We'll be done with the ignoring and laughing.
Did you even read the article? Seriously your Bernie posts are becoming more and more... weird.
And like the Jeb or Biden supporters, I've never seen the mythical libertarians who support Sanders. Might just be people who like to root for the crazy ones. I doubt they were very libertarian beyond weed and gay marriage.
Edit: and I've seen this. People who claim they are libertarians or support Paul because they like the idea of just "letting people do what they want." Pretty shallow.
|
On July 17 2015 16:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2015 15:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2015 15:27 Introvert wrote:Dissatisfaction with Republican leaders is common for a lot a of people on the right too. But I don't see any data suggesting that they would vote for Sanders. Also, this “The recent rise of Bernie Sanders,” wrote Vox’s Jonathan Allen last week, “points as much to [Hillary] Clinton’s vulnerability as Sanders’s strength.” Allen went on to argue that Joe Biden should run for president. “The Sanders surge shows that Democratic activists want an alternative to Clinton,” he explained.
We’ve seen this idea before. For at least a year, journalists have been urging, sometimes almost begging, Biden to enter the race. The more elaborate versions of the idea liken the 2016 campaign to 1968, a year in which the incumbent president, Lyndon B. Johnson, withdrew after the liberal, anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy finished a close second in the New Hampshire primary. The nomination was eventually won by Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, after Robert F. Kennedy (who had entered the race after New Hampshire) was assassinated. In the 2016 narrative, Clinton is Johnson, Sanders is McCarthy and Biden is some composite of Kennedy and Humphrey.
But these comparisons suffer from a fatal flaw. Unlike LBJ, who (mostly because of the Vietnam War) had approval ratings only in the mid-50s or low 60s among Democrats during the 1968 campaign, Hillary Clinton is beloved by voters in her party. In national polls, her favorability ratings among Democrats usually exceed 80 percent. SourceNo one is afraid of Sanders. At least Hillary isn't. Biden, like Jeb Bush supporters, are often mentioned, but no one has actually ever seen the elusive beings in the real world. If you think Hillary isn't getting scared of Sanders, you haven't been paying attention to her campaign and it's advocates. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Bernie is heading to Texas and Phoenix, watch as he continues to have bigger rallies than anyone else even in red states. I suspect within a month or so we'll have moved on to the "fighting" part. We'll be done with the ignoring and laughing. Did you even read the article? Seriously your Bernie posts are becoming more and more... weird. And like the Jeb or Biden supporters, I've never seen the mythical libertarians who support Sanders. Might just be people who like to root for the crazy ones. I doubt they were very libertarian beyond weed and gay marriage. Edit: and I've seen this. People who claim they are libertarians or support Paul because they like the idea of just "letting people do what they want." Pretty shallow.
Haha, I don't know who you're supporting but I sense a little jelly.
I read that article when it came out actually. Some things you'll notice missing from the analysis... Turnout, new voters, that Sanders has just started his multi-cultural outreach.
Sanders has also been activating lots of voters that previously haven't voted or didn't vote in recent elections. They are less likely to show up as "likely voters"
There has already been a shift in the coverage of Sanders and it's only going to get better. Meanwhile the entire Republican field (and their SuperPAC's) are going to be firing shots at Hillary while Bernie goes untouched. Essentially doing his dirty work for him, right up until they realize they aren't so sure Hillary will beat him.
EDIT: A lot of former Ron Paul supporters (particularly the younger ones) have been saying that they are just fed up with the pandering to social issues that every Republican has resorted to. Bernie takes popular positions on social issues but they are the same positions he's had for decades.
I think it's fair to say they didn't really know what they were supporting with Paul though.
EDIT2: I should add Nate knows his stuff obviously it's just what's different about this campaign isn't in the polls yet.
|
United States5013 Posts
On July 17 2015 16:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2015 16:31 Introvert wrote:On July 17 2015 15:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2015 15:27 Introvert wrote:Dissatisfaction with Republican leaders is common for a lot a of people on the right too. But I don't see any data suggesting that they would vote for Sanders. Also, this “The recent rise of Bernie Sanders,” wrote Vox’s Jonathan Allen last week, “points as much to [Hillary] Clinton’s vulnerability as Sanders’s strength.” Allen went on to argue that Joe Biden should run for president. “The Sanders surge shows that Democratic activists want an alternative to Clinton,” he explained.
We’ve seen this idea before. For at least a year, journalists have been urging, sometimes almost begging, Biden to enter the race. The more elaborate versions of the idea liken the 2016 campaign to 1968, a year in which the incumbent president, Lyndon B. Johnson, withdrew after the liberal, anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy finished a close second in the New Hampshire primary. The nomination was eventually won by Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, after Robert F. Kennedy (who had entered the race after New Hampshire) was assassinated. In the 2016 narrative, Clinton is Johnson, Sanders is McCarthy and Biden is some composite of Kennedy and Humphrey.
But these comparisons suffer from a fatal flaw. Unlike LBJ, who (mostly because of the Vietnam War) had approval ratings only in the mid-50s or low 60s among Democrats during the 1968 campaign, Hillary Clinton is beloved by voters in her party. In national polls, her favorability ratings among Democrats usually exceed 80 percent. SourceNo one is afraid of Sanders. At least Hillary isn't. Biden, like Jeb Bush supporters, are often mentioned, but no one has actually ever seen the elusive beings in the real world. If you think Hillary isn't getting scared of Sanders, you haven't been paying attention to her campaign and it's advocates. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Bernie is heading to Texas and Phoenix, watch as he continues to have bigger rallies than anyone else even in red states. I suspect within a month or so we'll have moved on to the "fighting" part. We'll be done with the ignoring and laughing. Did you even read the article? Seriously your Bernie posts are becoming more and more... weird. And like the Jeb or Biden supporters, I've never seen the mythical libertarians who support Sanders. Might just be people who like to root for the crazy ones. I doubt they were very libertarian beyond weed and gay marriage. Edit: and I've seen this. People who claim they are libertarians or support Paul because they like the idea of just "letting people do what they want." Pretty shallow. Haha, I don't know who you're supporting but I sense a little jelly. I read that article when it came out actually. Some things you'll notice missing from the analysis... Turnout, new voters, that Sanders has just started his multi-cultural outreach. Sanders has also been activating lots of voters that previously haven't voted or didn't vote in recent elections. They are less likely to show up as "likely voters" There has already been a shift in the coverage of Sanders and it's only going to get better. Meanwhile the entire Republican field (and their SuperPAC's) are going to be firing shots at Hillary while Bernie goes untouched. Essentially doing his dirty work for him, right up until they realize they aren't so sure Hillary will beat him. EDIT: A lot of former Ron Paul supporters (particularly the younger ones) have been saying that they are just fed up with the pandering to social issues that every Republican has resorted to. Bernie takes popular positions on social issues but they are the same positions he's had for decades. I think it's fair to say they didn't really know what they were supporting with Paul though.
So I'm jelly of people relying on intangibles? ok. I say the more the merrier. Given the way things look now, the more Democrats can drag Hilliary through the mud, better for the Republicans. Works for me! I've never ruled anyone out, but if we play the odds...
|
On July 17 2015 16:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2015 16:31 Introvert wrote:On July 17 2015 15:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2015 15:27 Introvert wrote:Dissatisfaction with Republican leaders is common for a lot a of people on the right too. But I don't see any data suggesting that they would vote for Sanders. Also, this “The recent rise of Bernie Sanders,” wrote Vox’s Jonathan Allen last week, “points as much to [Hillary] Clinton’s vulnerability as Sanders’s strength.” Allen went on to argue that Joe Biden should run for president. “The Sanders surge shows that Democratic activists want an alternative to Clinton,” he explained.
We’ve seen this idea before. For at least a year, journalists have been urging, sometimes almost begging, Biden to enter the race. The more elaborate versions of the idea liken the 2016 campaign to 1968, a year in which the incumbent president, Lyndon B. Johnson, withdrew after the liberal, anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy finished a close second in the New Hampshire primary. The nomination was eventually won by Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, after Robert F. Kennedy (who had entered the race after New Hampshire) was assassinated. In the 2016 narrative, Clinton is Johnson, Sanders is McCarthy and Biden is some composite of Kennedy and Humphrey.
But these comparisons suffer from a fatal flaw. Unlike LBJ, who (mostly because of the Vietnam War) had approval ratings only in the mid-50s or low 60s among Democrats during the 1968 campaign, Hillary Clinton is beloved by voters in her party. In national polls, her favorability ratings among Democrats usually exceed 80 percent. SourceNo one is afraid of Sanders. At least Hillary isn't. Biden, like Jeb Bush supporters, are often mentioned, but no one has actually ever seen the elusive beings in the real world. If you think Hillary isn't getting scared of Sanders, you haven't been paying attention to her campaign and it's advocates. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Bernie is heading to Texas and Phoenix, watch as he continues to have bigger rallies than anyone else even in red states. I suspect within a month or so we'll have moved on to the "fighting" part. We'll be done with the ignoring and laughing. Did you even read the article? Seriously your Bernie posts are becoming more and more... weird. And like the Jeb or Biden supporters, I've never seen the mythical libertarians who support Sanders. Might just be people who like to root for the crazy ones. I doubt they were very libertarian beyond weed and gay marriage. Edit: and I've seen this. People who claim they are libertarians or support Paul because they like the idea of just "letting people do what they want." Pretty shallow. Haha, I don't know who you're supporting but I sense a little jelly. I read that article when it came out actually. Some things you'll notice missing from the analysis... Turnout, new voters, that Sanders has just started his multi-cultural outreach. Sanders has also been activating lots of voters that previously haven't voted or didn't vote in recent elections. They are less likely to show up as "likely voters" There has already been a shift in the coverage of Sanders and it's only going to get better. Meanwhile the entire Republican field (and their SuperPAC's) are going to be firing shots at Hillary while Bernie goes untouched. Essentially doing his dirty work for him, right up until they realize they aren't so sure Hillary will beat him. EDIT: A lot of former Ron Paul supporters (particularly the younger ones) have been saying that they are just fed up with the pandering to social issues that every Republican has resorted to. Bernie takes popular positions on social issues but they are the same positions he's had for decades. I think it's fair to say they didn't really know what they were supporting with Paul though.
EDIT2: I should add Nate knows his stuff obviously it's just what's different about this campaign isn't in the polls yet.
And neither do liberals such as yourself.
Sanders has bent the knee to Israel during their slaughters, backed Obama twice, has been backing the military industrial complex of Vermont, and seems think that not bombing a country is enough to make him anti-war and a dove when congratulating Obama on his diplomacy regarding Iran.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/15/chris-hedges-on-bernie-sanders-and-the-corporate-democrats/
|
On July 17 2015 16:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2015 16:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2015 16:31 Introvert wrote:On July 17 2015 15:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2015 15:27 Introvert wrote:Dissatisfaction with Republican leaders is common for a lot a of people on the right too. But I don't see any data suggesting that they would vote for Sanders. Also, this “The recent rise of Bernie Sanders,” wrote Vox’s Jonathan Allen last week, “points as much to [Hillary] Clinton’s vulnerability as Sanders’s strength.” Allen went on to argue that Joe Biden should run for president. “The Sanders surge shows that Democratic activists want an alternative to Clinton,” he explained.
We’ve seen this idea before. For at least a year, journalists have been urging, sometimes almost begging, Biden to enter the race. The more elaborate versions of the idea liken the 2016 campaign to 1968, a year in which the incumbent president, Lyndon B. Johnson, withdrew after the liberal, anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy finished a close second in the New Hampshire primary. The nomination was eventually won by Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, after Robert F. Kennedy (who had entered the race after New Hampshire) was assassinated. In the 2016 narrative, Clinton is Johnson, Sanders is McCarthy and Biden is some composite of Kennedy and Humphrey.
But these comparisons suffer from a fatal flaw. Unlike LBJ, who (mostly because of the Vietnam War) had approval ratings only in the mid-50s or low 60s among Democrats during the 1968 campaign, Hillary Clinton is beloved by voters in her party. In national polls, her favorability ratings among Democrats usually exceed 80 percent. SourceNo one is afraid of Sanders. At least Hillary isn't. Biden, like Jeb Bush supporters, are often mentioned, but no one has actually ever seen the elusive beings in the real world. If you think Hillary isn't getting scared of Sanders, you haven't been paying attention to her campaign and it's advocates. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Bernie is heading to Texas and Phoenix, watch as he continues to have bigger rallies than anyone else even in red states. I suspect within a month or so we'll have moved on to the "fighting" part. We'll be done with the ignoring and laughing. Did you even read the article? Seriously your Bernie posts are becoming more and more... weird. And like the Jeb or Biden supporters, I've never seen the mythical libertarians who support Sanders. Might just be people who like to root for the crazy ones. I doubt they were very libertarian beyond weed and gay marriage. Edit: and I've seen this. People who claim they are libertarians or support Paul because they like the idea of just "letting people do what they want." Pretty shallow. Haha, I don't know who you're supporting but I sense a little jelly. I read that article when it came out actually. Some things you'll notice missing from the analysis... Turnout, new voters, that Sanders has just started his multi-cultural outreach. Sanders has also been activating lots of voters that previously haven't voted or didn't vote in recent elections. They are less likely to show up as "likely voters" There has already been a shift in the coverage of Sanders and it's only going to get better. Meanwhile the entire Republican field (and their SuperPAC's) are going to be firing shots at Hillary while Bernie goes untouched. Essentially doing his dirty work for him, right up until they realize they aren't so sure Hillary will beat him. EDIT: A lot of former Ron Paul supporters (particularly the younger ones) have been saying that they are just fed up with the pandering to social issues that every Republican has resorted to. Bernie takes popular positions on social issues but they are the same positions he's had for decades. I think it's fair to say they didn't really know what they were supporting with Paul though. So I'm jelly of people relying on intangibles? ok. I say the more the merrier. Given the way things look now, the more Democrats can drag Hilliary through the mud, better for the Republicans. Works for me! I've never ruled anyone out, but if we play the odds...
They're not really "dragging her through the mud" Basically every "negative" thing that's pointed out about her can be said about every republican candidate usually they are almost always worse by comparison.
Trump is the one slinging crap at every other candidate (and leading partly as a result). I actually think Bernie is the only one he hasn't really talked about (I might have just missed it though).
|
On July 17 2015 16:55 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2015 16:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2015 16:31 Introvert wrote:On July 17 2015 15:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2015 15:27 Introvert wrote:Dissatisfaction with Republican leaders is common for a lot a of people on the right too. But I don't see any data suggesting that they would vote for Sanders. Also, this “The recent rise of Bernie Sanders,” wrote Vox’s Jonathan Allen last week, “points as much to [Hillary] Clinton’s vulnerability as Sanders’s strength.” Allen went on to argue that Joe Biden should run for president. “The Sanders surge shows that Democratic activists want an alternative to Clinton,” he explained.
We’ve seen this idea before. For at least a year, journalists have been urging, sometimes almost begging, Biden to enter the race. The more elaborate versions of the idea liken the 2016 campaign to 1968, a year in which the incumbent president, Lyndon B. Johnson, withdrew after the liberal, anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy finished a close second in the New Hampshire primary. The nomination was eventually won by Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, after Robert F. Kennedy (who had entered the race after New Hampshire) was assassinated. In the 2016 narrative, Clinton is Johnson, Sanders is McCarthy and Biden is some composite of Kennedy and Humphrey.
But these comparisons suffer from a fatal flaw. Unlike LBJ, who (mostly because of the Vietnam War) had approval ratings only in the mid-50s or low 60s among Democrats during the 1968 campaign, Hillary Clinton is beloved by voters in her party. In national polls, her favorability ratings among Democrats usually exceed 80 percent. SourceNo one is afraid of Sanders. At least Hillary isn't. Biden, like Jeb Bush supporters, are often mentioned, but no one has actually ever seen the elusive beings in the real world. If you think Hillary isn't getting scared of Sanders, you haven't been paying attention to her campaign and it's advocates. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Bernie is heading to Texas and Phoenix, watch as he continues to have bigger rallies than anyone else even in red states. I suspect within a month or so we'll have moved on to the "fighting" part. We'll be done with the ignoring and laughing. Did you even read the article? Seriously your Bernie posts are becoming more and more... weird. And like the Jeb or Biden supporters, I've never seen the mythical libertarians who support Sanders. Might just be people who like to root for the crazy ones. I doubt they were very libertarian beyond weed and gay marriage. Edit: and I've seen this. People who claim they are libertarians or support Paul because they like the idea of just "letting people do what they want." Pretty shallow. Haha, I don't know who you're supporting but I sense a little jelly. I read that article when it came out actually. Some things you'll notice missing from the analysis... Turnout, new voters, that Sanders has just started his multi-cultural outreach. Sanders has also been activating lots of voters that previously haven't voted or didn't vote in recent elections. They are less likely to show up as "likely voters" There has already been a shift in the coverage of Sanders and it's only going to get better. Meanwhile the entire Republican field (and their SuperPAC's) are going to be firing shots at Hillary while Bernie goes untouched. Essentially doing his dirty work for him, right up until they realize they aren't so sure Hillary will beat him. EDIT: A lot of former Ron Paul supporters (particularly the younger ones) have been saying that they are just fed up with the pandering to social issues that every Republican has resorted to. Bernie takes popular positions on social issues but they are the same positions he's had for decades. I think it's fair to say they didn't really know what they were supporting with Paul though.
EDIT2: I should add Nate knows his stuff obviously it's just what's different about this campaign isn't in the polls yet. And neither do liberals such as yourself. Sanders has bent the knee to Israel during their slaughters, backed Obama twice, has been backing the military industrial complex of Vermont, and seems think that not bombing a country is enough to make him anti-war and a dove when congratulating Obama on his diplomacy regarding Iran. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/15/chris-hedges-on-bernie-sanders-and-the-corporate-democrats/
I read that too, it was the same thing the SA people were saying at the Boston rally. It is an issue but Sanders got his people into the Democratic caucus before and he can do it again. They will take more convincing but Sanders is taking over the democratic party not being absorbed like the tea party (which is what SA and those like them are afraid of).
EDIT: I know what I'm supporting. It's not as if there is a better option on those issues anyway.
|
That chris hedges article seems pretty suspect, and doesn't actually claim much of note in any real detail.
|
On July 17 2015 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2015 16:55 Shiragaku wrote:On July 17 2015 16:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2015 16:31 Introvert wrote:On July 17 2015 15:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2015 15:27 Introvert wrote:Dissatisfaction with Republican leaders is common for a lot a of people on the right too. But I don't see any data suggesting that they would vote for Sanders. Also, this “The recent rise of Bernie Sanders,” wrote Vox’s Jonathan Allen last week, “points as much to [Hillary] Clinton’s vulnerability as Sanders’s strength.” Allen went on to argue that Joe Biden should run for president. “The Sanders surge shows that Democratic activists want an alternative to Clinton,” he explained.
We’ve seen this idea before. For at least a year, journalists have been urging, sometimes almost begging, Biden to enter the race. The more elaborate versions of the idea liken the 2016 campaign to 1968, a year in which the incumbent president, Lyndon B. Johnson, withdrew after the liberal, anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy finished a close second in the New Hampshire primary. The nomination was eventually won by Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, after Robert F. Kennedy (who had entered the race after New Hampshire) was assassinated. In the 2016 narrative, Clinton is Johnson, Sanders is McCarthy and Biden is some composite of Kennedy and Humphrey.
But these comparisons suffer from a fatal flaw. Unlike LBJ, who (mostly because of the Vietnam War) had approval ratings only in the mid-50s or low 60s among Democrats during the 1968 campaign, Hillary Clinton is beloved by voters in her party. In national polls, her favorability ratings among Democrats usually exceed 80 percent. SourceNo one is afraid of Sanders. At least Hillary isn't. Biden, like Jeb Bush supporters, are often mentioned, but no one has actually ever seen the elusive beings in the real world. If you think Hillary isn't getting scared of Sanders, you haven't been paying attention to her campaign and it's advocates. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Bernie is heading to Texas and Phoenix, watch as he continues to have bigger rallies than anyone else even in red states. I suspect within a month or so we'll have moved on to the "fighting" part. We'll be done with the ignoring and laughing. Did you even read the article? Seriously your Bernie posts are becoming more and more... weird. And like the Jeb or Biden supporters, I've never seen the mythical libertarians who support Sanders. Might just be people who like to root for the crazy ones. I doubt they were very libertarian beyond weed and gay marriage. Edit: and I've seen this. People who claim they are libertarians or support Paul because they like the idea of just "letting people do what they want." Pretty shallow. Haha, I don't know who you're supporting but I sense a little jelly. I read that article when it came out actually. Some things you'll notice missing from the analysis... Turnout, new voters, that Sanders has just started his multi-cultural outreach. Sanders has also been activating lots of voters that previously haven't voted or didn't vote in recent elections. They are less likely to show up as "likely voters" There has already been a shift in the coverage of Sanders and it's only going to get better. Meanwhile the entire Republican field (and their SuperPAC's) are going to be firing shots at Hillary while Bernie goes untouched. Essentially doing his dirty work for him, right up until they realize they aren't so sure Hillary will beat him. EDIT: A lot of former Ron Paul supporters (particularly the younger ones) have been saying that they are just fed up with the pandering to social issues that every Republican has resorted to. Bernie takes popular positions on social issues but they are the same positions he's had for decades. I think it's fair to say they didn't really know what they were supporting with Paul though.
EDIT2: I should add Nate knows his stuff obviously it's just what's different about this campaign isn't in the polls yet. And neither do liberals such as yourself. Sanders has bent the knee to Israel during their slaughters, backed Obama twice, has been backing the military industrial complex of Vermont, and seems think that not bombing a country is enough to make him anti-war and a dove when congratulating Obama on his diplomacy regarding Iran. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/15/chris-hedges-on-bernie-sanders-and-the-corporate-democrats/ I read that too, it was the same thing the SA people were saying at the Boston rally. It is an issue but Sanders got his people into the Democratic caucus before and he can do it again. They will take more convincing but Sanders is taking over the democratic party not being absorbed like the tea party (which is what SA and those like them are afraid of). EDIT: I know what I'm supporting. It's not as if there is a better option on those issues anyway.
Adam Kokesh said the same thing about Ron Paul and the Republicans and although I am not exactly sympathetic to those guys, they were wrong and disappointed.
And the reason why so many on the left do not want to be part of Sanders and his Democratic Party is because the Democrats have betrayed the left, the working class, and the poor over and over again. Clinton promised to strengthen the welfare system in his campaign speeches but ended up axing the welfare state and signing NAFTA. After the horror of Bush and the idiotic myths about Nader ruining the Democrats and allowing this horror to happen, almost everyone who would have supported the Greens or Nader backed Obama and he strengthened the security state, wars in more countries than Bush embarked, gave unconditional support to Israel for the longest time, and refused to touch the banks and a crappy product you have to buy called Obamacare.
Look, I am sick and tired of hearing outcry and rage when a Republican gets in office and then excuses and false promises whenever a Democrat proves to be sub par, they go "Well what can you do? Do you have a better solution?" The memory of the hope and inspiration Nick Clegg, Alexis Tsispras, the Orange Coalition, and Obama are still crystal clear to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
