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 January 14 2016 23:10 RolleMcKnolle wrote: From what I've seen from Bernie he seems to be too classy to do that stuff. Another thing I like about him... He doesn't need to fling shit. He may or may not correct Chelsea, but he doesn't need to attack her personally. What would be the point anyway? He is trying to win by showing the voters that what he believes in is right, not by digging up that the daughter of his opponent has some horrible character flaw.
True. As much as I hope he loses, Bernie Sanders is something I never thought I'd see: an honest Democrat.
I hope it's a Sanders v. Trump race. It would be awesome to see the outsiders blow away both establishments and give America a real, honest choice.
Do you mean honest Liberal? Bernie hasn't run as a Democrat in 30 years.
The funniest thing about this Chelsea Clinton business is that using her to go after Bernie shows just how worried the Clintons must be that their nomination is in danger. It remains to be seen how well Bernie will be able to penetrate Southern states, but I suspect that victories in Iowa and NH (which seem ever more probable) will open the floodgates to additional support.
On January 15 2016 03:28 xDaunt wrote: The funniest thing about this Chelsea Clinton business is that using her to go after Bernie shows just how worried the Clintons must be that their nomination is in danger. It remains to be seen how well Bernie will be able to penetrate Southern states, but I suspect that victories in Iowa and NH (which seem ever more probable) will open the floodgates to additional support.
It'll be a long time before non white voters as a whole move from Clinton to Bernie. The older liberals in my family have been Clinton supporters for years, and polling data indicates that trend is largely true for members of racial minority groups nationwide - and don't forget that, for the dems, getting those ordinarily low turnout groups to show up is of critical importance.
On January 14 2016 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Well Clinton sent out her daughter and she herself have been attacking Sanders on Universal healthcare saying he wants to get rid of the ACA, medicare, medicaid, ect.
Clinton needs a back hand smack to the face
Clinton was all about the single payer system until she received a couple million in speaking fees from health care providers.
Please, she still is. She's just under the impression that running Romney's 2012 strategy from the left will get her the White House.
She also was receiving money from private prisons up until it became impossible to be a Democrat and take money from. I am not a fan of a lot of the groups she is receiving money from.
On January 14 2016 05:14 Deathstar wrote: Why is Jeb Bush still in this race? He should take his guacamole recipe and start a mexican restaurant instead.
Also, I hope dirt on Chelsea Clinton starts popping up. If you're going to send your daughter to do your campaign work she's fair game.
TBH, that is super gross. Peoples family should be able to participle and support their parents without the world trying to destroy them. I accept that some people are going to do some digging, but wishing it would happen is gross.
Chelsea Clinton talking about how great her mom is is different from Chelsea Clinton attacking other political candidates. There's a distinction IMO and one makes her deserving as a target.
One of the main problems with American elections in a nutshell. Attacking characters instead of arguing over solutions is what got it stuck in the hole it is in.
You have attacked the political process in the US and are now a valid target. Soon all the details of your life will be printed for all to see. Thank you for taking part in the political process, we hope you return soon.
Don't play the game if you don't want to lose anything. It's been a long-held standard that you don't attack people unless they stick their nose in (Wa-Po broke that rule with Cruz's daughters). If Chelsea stays on the sidelines and just cheerleaders for her mom, I think she should be completely left alone.
If she jumps in though then I think everyone should open up with both barrels. Elections are too important to use kid gloves with the opposing team.
what the hell do you mean? You think that once you involve yourself in politics you deserve to be ostracized for anything you've said or done that might not make you look like a saint even if it has no relation to any political ideas you are trying to fight for? Imo, 'elections are too important' to make stuff that isn't politically relevant significant, because we need to elect the leaders with the best ideas. How the hell would Chelsea smoking pot when she was 17 or cheating on her boyfriend when she was 20 or whatever the fuck it is you want them to target matter in the context of hillary being a good president?
Like, I get that if some candidate is being anti-drug while using drugs, that's relevant. If a candidate is incredibly pro-family yet a serial cheater, that's relevant. If a candidate in any way exposes himself as a serious hypocrite, that's relevant. But nobody is a saint, and even if somebody is a saint, that does not automatically mean that the person is the most suitable person for holding a political position. It's possible to dig up dirt on virtually anyone if you try hard enough - making this the focus point of a political debate (except when exposing hypocrisy - it is relevant then) only detract from the actually meaningful issues. And targeting sons or daughters - that's even worse, regardless of whether the son or daughter chooses to get involved.
No one is a saint, but the idea is that if you are involved in politics, all the times you Weren't a saint will get brought up.
Then the people can decide if it is serious enough for the candidate involved to lose their vote.
Now the people can be cruel, hypocritical, voyeuristic, and stupid with this process...However, they are the ones voting. (and if they think the other side is being too cruel/voyeuristic in what it brings up, then they can withhold their vote from the otherside)
So IF the Sanders campaign (or the Republican campaign) brings up some 'dirt' on Chelsea, then you (if US citizen) get to decide
-does that reflect poorly enough on Hillary to mean I vote for Sanders/Republican (or stay home/vote 3rd party) -do I not really care -does bringing it up reflect poorly enough on Sanders/Republican that I vote for Hillary (or stay home/vote 3rd party)
Of course you (as anyone) can also discuss it... but I think it largely depends on what 'dirt' was brought up, Its one thing if Chelsea smoked cigarettes for a few years in college. Its another if she was running Human trafficiking for Nestle in exchange for Foundation donations. [choosing two things that I am almost certain aren't true]
I seriously doubt there is any 'dirt' worth discussing, but I don't know (that's a decision for those who want to dig up the dirt)
Clinton was all about the single payer system until she received a couple million in speaking fees from health care providers.
Please, she still is. She's just under the impression that running Romney's 2012 strategy from the left will get her the White House.
She also was receiving money from private prisons up until it became impossible to be a Democrat and take money from. I am not a fan of a lot of the groups she is receiving money from.
On January 14 2016 05:14 Deathstar wrote: Why is Jeb Bush still in this race? He should take his guacamole recipe and start a mexican restaurant instead.
Also, I hope dirt on Chelsea Clinton starts popping up. If you're going to send your daughter to do your campaign work she's fair game.
TBH, that is super gross. Peoples family should be able to participle and support their parents without the world trying to destroy them. I accept that some people are going to do some digging, but wishing it would happen is gross.
Chelsea Clinton talking about how great her mom is is different from Chelsea Clinton attacking other political candidates. There's a distinction IMO and one makes her deserving as a target.
One of the main problems with American elections in a nutshell. Attacking characters instead of arguing over solutions is what got it stuck in the hole it is in.
You have attacked the political process in the US and are now a valid target. Soon all the details of your life will be printed for all to see. Thank you for taking part in the political process, we hope you return soon.
Don't play the game if you don't want to lose anything. It's been a long-held standard that you don't attack people unless they stick their nose in (Wa-Po broke that rule with Cruz's daughters). If Chelsea stays on the sidelines and just cheerleaders for her mom, I think she should be completely left alone.
If she jumps in though then I think everyone should open up with both barrels. Elections are too important to use kid gloves with the opposing team.
what the hell do you mean? You think that once you involve yourself in politics you deserve to be ostracized for anything you've said or done that might not make you look like a saint even if it has no relation to any political ideas you are trying to fight for? Imo, 'elections are too important' to make stuff that isn't politically relevant significant, because we need to elect the leaders with the best ideas. How the hell would Chelsea smoking pot when she was 17 or cheating on her boyfriend when she was 20 or whatever the fuck it is you want them to target matter in the context of hillary being a good president?
Like, I get that if some candidate is being anti-drug while using drugs, that's relevant. If a candidate is incredibly pro-family yet a serial cheater, that's relevant. If a candidate in any way exposes himself as a serious hypocrite, that's relevant. But nobody is a saint, and even if somebody is a saint, that does not automatically mean that the person is the most suitable person for holding a political position. It's possible to dig up dirt on virtually anyone if you try hard enough - making this the focus point of a political debate (except when exposing hypocrisy - it is relevant then) only detract from the actually meaningful issues. And targeting sons or daughters - that's even worse, regardless of whether the son or daughter chooses to get involved.
No one is a saint, but the idea is that if you are involved in politics, all the times you Weren't a saint will get brought up.
Then the people can decide if it is serious enough for the candidate involved to lose their vote.
Now the people can be cruel, hypocritical, voyeuristic, and stupid with this process...However, they are the ones voting. (and if they think the other side is being too cruel/voyeuristic in what it brings up, then they can withhold their vote from the otherside)
So IF the Sanders campaign (or the Republican campaign) brings up some 'dirt' on Chelsea, then you (if US citizen) get to decide
-does that reflect poorly enough on Hillary to mean I vote for Sanders/Republican (or stay home/vote 3rd party) -do I not really care -does bringing it up reflect poorly enough on Sanders/Republican that I vote for Hillary (or stay home/vote 3rd party)
Of course you (as anyone) can also discuss it... but I think it largely depends on what 'dirt' was brought up, Its one thing if Chelsea smoked cigarettes for a few years in college. Its another if she was running Human trafficiking for Nestle in exchange for Foundation donations. [choosing two things that I am almost certain aren't true]
I seriously doubt there is any 'dirt' worth discussing, but I don't know (that's a decision for those who want to dig up the dirt)
This argument is kind of stupid and doesn't respond to the argument that is being made (that 'dirt' matters insofar as it is a public concern). Let's be clear: if the 'dirt' is something that is that bad (like Chelsea participating in human trafficking), it ought to be known regardless of her involvement in her mother's campaign. I think there are very few who would dispute that.
What's more realistic is that some idiotic personal details that are really of no concern to the public become a campaign issue. For example, Sarah Palin ought not to be elected because of her demonstrated political incompetence and ignorant views on issues of importance, NOT because her daughter got pregnant while unmarried. The latter reasoning is an instance of 'dirt' that probably should be irrelevant to Palin's suitability for public office, but would certainly occupy the news if she was to run.
Though Bristol Palin sleeping around kind of undermines Sarah Palin's entire spiel about the traditional family, Christian virtue, etc. Not the best example, but I completely agree with the point you're trying to make.
Digging up every scrap of dirt on people is just the media competing for ratings and the campaigns using every weapon in their arsenal. Ideally we'd have only substantive news, but that only works if everyone agrees to play by those rules, and that time passed long ago.
IMO the turning point was probably during the 2004 election when Swiftboat happened and it's only gotten worse since then. Of course, we're taking a pretty rosy view since not-quite slander has been a hallmark of America since its founding. I'd much rather have our reps and senators duke it out in Congress like in Asia and Europe though.
Palin's inability to achieve "moral" (as she would see it) behaviour within her own direct family is absolutely a useful data point to consider when she claims to be able to provide moral leadership to the nation.
On January 15 2016 06:42 Introvert wrote: What would/will the Bernie cult be called?
Lol just because the conservatives didn't get off their ass and help a candidate, doesn't make Bernie supporters a "cult". It's called a political revolution.
EDIT: Bernie's candidacy shows you what I said before the election started was needed by the conservatives if they wanted a chance. They needed to rally around a single candidate very early. Instead they dicked around with Walker (but he left before Jindal) and while they were sitting around waiting to decide who they would support Trump came in and stole all of the "rage" conservatives leaving just the sliver of economic conservative, socially libertarian conservatives to choose between the evangelical conservative, and the former Democrat.
If someone told me in 2012 the leading Republican nominees would be a guy born in Canada who just stopped being a Canadian citizen and a former Democrat I don't think even Republicans would of believed it.
On January 15 2016 06:42 Introvert wrote: What would/will the Bernie cult be called?
Last I checked, you can't have a "cult" based on political ideology. Most Bernie supporters support him because of his positions, not because of his personality, charisma, oration, et. al. I say this as a Paul supporter since 2002. None of us supported him for anything other than his political philosophy and sterling integrity/honesty/track-record. You want to talk cult status...talk to Bush or Clinton supporters.
On January 15 2016 06:42 Introvert wrote: What would/will the Bernie cult be called?
Last I checked, you can't have a "cult" based on political ideology. Most Bernie supporters support him because of his positions, not because of his personality, charisma, oration, et. al. I say this as a Paul supporter since 2002. None of us supported him for anything other than his political philosophy and sterling integrity/honesty/track-record. You want to talk cult status...talk to Bush or Clinton supporters.
When you said Ron Paul supporter suddenly I understood the context of your comment.
And I disagree with your analysis that it's not about the person, considering that integrity and honesty, for instance, are words that describe people, not ideologies.
That being said, my comment was partially tongue-in-cheek. Partially.
On January 15 2016 06:42 Introvert wrote: What would/will the Bernie cult be called?
Last I checked, you can't have a "cult" based on political ideology. Most Bernie supporters support him because of his positions, not because of his personality, charisma, oration, et. al. I say this as a Paul supporter since 2002. None of us supported him for anything other than his political philosophy and sterling integrity/honesty/track-record. You want to talk cult status...talk to Bush or Clinton supporters.
When you said Ron Paul supporter suddenly I understood the context of your comment.
And I disagree with your analysis that it's not about the person, considering that integrity and honesty, for instance, are traits that describe people, not ideologies.
That being said, my comment was partially tongue-in-cheek. Partially.
Integrity/Honesty conveys trust that they mean what they say and do and will follow through. You can't really have one without the other (consistent philosophy with track record backing it up). Bernie supporters trust he is going to try and implement the philosophy and positions he espouses. Just like us Paul supporters trust he'll do likewise (there's a reason we are a bit sour on Rand as reluctant, but tepid support...though lately he's become the person he used to be so now you see more enthusiasm).
I just get tired of people claiming people with passion and a firm set of ideals as cults. It's meant to marginalize without ever being involved in substantive debates and back and forth. It's why I can't stand a large part of the GOP and its establishment vestiges. Of course, the establishment pukes are never spoken of in marginalizing tones.
But yeah, I'll stick up for the Bern folks against these types of accusations, because I've heard it all in the past decade, and that's not something I'd wish even on "those" folks :p
Donald Trump's lead over Ted Cruz has doubled nationally, and more Republican primary voters say they could see themselves supporting him, according to the results of the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Thursday evening, hours before the candidates square off in South Carolina.
But Trump falls when matched up in a hypothetical head-to-head with Cruz, his closest rival nationally and in Iowa, in particular.
The Manhattan businessman earned 33 percent, his highest share in that survey among Republicans, followed by Cruz with 20 percent. In the December NBC/WSJ survey, Trump led Cruz by 5 points, 27 percent to 22 percent. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio nabbed 13 percent, followed by Ben Carson with 12 percent, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 5 percent each, and no other candidate earning more than 3 percent support.
Matched against Cruz, Trump lost 51 percent to 43 percent. But against Rubio, Trump held a seven-point advantage, 52 percent to 45 percent. In a three-man race, Trump earned 40 percent, Cruz took 31 percent and Rubio finished with 26 percent.
On January 14 2016 09:55 cLutZ wrote: I am very surprised by how charitable you are all to politicians. I've seen very few of them who "evolve" more quickly on an issue than the majority within their own party. Gay Marriage and Immigration are two that very quickly come to mind. There are, of course, always principled crusaders like your Bernies or your Jeff Sessions but they don't evolve they are the one's who, if they successfully plead their case to the public, cause others to.
Obama got elected on political idealism. He was going to be a different kind of politician at the helm of a newly transparent political process, look at any speech 2007-2008. I think the charity remains, though now it's with Sanders, and the only afterthought is that Obama turned out to be a bad apple (or simply too much to do in too little time and later too much opposition.
There are big differences between Obama and Bernie. Obama's idealism was based on a firmly moderate liberalism that the democratic party platform had been trumpeting since Bill Clinton. The principal appeal of Obama was that he was smart, articulate, and unblemished by any Washington DC political scandals. Bernie is actually advocating for something closer to political revolution, a reformation of the party into a New Left.
Oneofthem doesn't like this because he prefers the Clintonian Third Way because he thinks that the globalized late capitalist regime that reached its apogee in the Clinton years can maybe return if another Clinton gets elected and if we watch everybody to prevent a serious terrorist attack from upsetting global markets.
On January 15 2016 06:42 Introvert wrote: What would/will the Bernie cult be called?
If you want a cult, check out the Trump supporters. They have an insane, fascist theme song sung by children that celebrates strength and radical nationalism. This video is straight North Korean levels of nonsense. The Bernie crew has no equivalent to this proto-fascist crap.
Trump earned 40 percent, Cruz took 31 percent and Rubio finished with 26 percent.
So with Rubio being the establishment's last hope is it realistic to think Cruz supporters will fall into the historic narrative and go to Rubio or do they break to Trump?
Seems like another year Republicans will have to count on their folks voting against the Democratic challenger rather than for their nominee no matter what. Would seem to me that it would be a lot easier to motivate Republicans to vote against Clinton than Sanders.
On January 15 2016 06:42 Introvert wrote: What would/will the Bernie cult be called?
If you want a cult, check out the Trump supporters. They have an insane, fascist theme song sung by children that celebrates strength and radical nationalism. This video is straight North Korean levels of nonsense. The Bernie crew has no equivalent to this proto-fascist crap.
On January 15 2016 06:42 Introvert wrote: What would/will the Bernie cult be called?
If you want a cult, check out the Trump supporters. They have an insane, fascist theme song sung by children that celebrates strength and radical nationalism. This video is straight North Korean levels of nonsense. The Bernie crew has no equivalent to this proto-fascist crap.
On January 15 2016 06:42 Introvert wrote: What would/will the Bernie cult be called?
If you want a cult, check out the Trump supporters. They have an insane, fascist theme song sung by children that celebrates strength and radical nationalism. This video is straight North Korean levels of nonsense. The Bernie crew has no equivalent to this proto-fascist crap.
EPT
