|
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 March 17 2016 23:33 farvacola wrote:
Bernie is not socialist Trump; he clearly doesn't give a fuck about his own image lol. But yes, he is definitely thinking long-term.
I have seen the future of the Democratic party: it will be the party of the Sandernista! The attitude of millennials towards socialism and other aspects of Bernie's platform is very different from previous generations of Democratic voters.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
bernie making bad ideas popular isnt longterm thinking. it is just bad
|
On March 18 2016 00:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 23:58 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:47 Sbrubbles wrote:On March 17 2016 23:20 xDaunt wrote:
Mainstream democrats' expectation that Bernie supporters will simply tow the party line and fully support Hillary at this point are misplaced and unreasonable. Hillary represents much of what Bernie is diametrically opposed to. It's not unreasonable to expect Bernie supporters to fully support Hillary when push comes to shove, but I do agree it is unreasonable to expect them to so while Bernie can still stick around to further his message. It is actually pretty unreasonable. Dems stay home if they don't like their own candidate. So them not voting for Hillary is very likely. If Romney were the Republican candidate, maybe. You're really going to tell me there won't be a rally to vote against Trump though? A rally against a candidate gets people to stay home, not vote for the opposition. They won't want Trump but they won't exactly rally behind Hillary either. You don't need to rally behind Hillary. You need to rally behind "anyone but Trump" which will propel Hillary to the White House. There is absolutely no requirement to support Hillary, or to want her to be president, to vote against Trump. In a two party system if you're against one candidate you are by default for the other. The strength of feeling against Trump can be greater than the strength of feeling for Hillary and people will still get out there and vote. For those people Hillary isn't campaigning under her own name, she's campaigning as "not Trump".
The "anyone but Hillary" train of thought is no weaker than the "anyone but Trump" one. If neither candidate is a good option, people will often choose simply not to vote. This happens a lot even when it isn't logical to do so.
"I suck but Trump sucks worse" doesn't exactly inspire people to "get out the vote." People actually have to like you. And Trump may just not be universally hated in the general, and Hillary will be shat on by most for being a genuinely sleazy and shitty politician.
|
United States43960 Posts
On March 18 2016 00:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 23:33 farvacola wrote:
Bernie is not socialist Trump; he clearly doesn't give a fuck about his own image lol. But yes, he is definitely thinking long-term. I have seen the future of the Democratic party: it will be the party of the Sandernista! The attitude of millennials towards socialism and other aspects of Bernie's platform is very different from previous generations of Democratic voters.
It's possibly a good thing too. I think there is certainly an argument to be made that in our lifetimes we may find ourselves in a post scarcity economy where human labour is not the main source of value. Capitalism has been a good means to an end for the last few hundred years but a generation willing to look at other models will be needed if capitalism fails to suit the new economy.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
goodwill wasted by a bad leader with poor platform is tragic or irrespnsible.
bernie could just be doing the power grab thing with strategic rather than sincere platform. this sort of commie shit is a grave danger to society
|
On March 18 2016 00:56 oneofthem wrote:
goodwill wasted by a bad leader with poor platform is tragic or irrespnsible.
bernie could just be doing the power grab thing with strategic rather than sincere platform. this sort of commie shit is a grave danger to society
I don't know if you even realize that calling Sanders' policies and ideas "communist" speaks a lot about your posts' credibility
|
On March 18 2016 00:25 oneofthem wrote:
bernie making bad ideas popular isnt longterm thinking. it is just bad
What bad ideas? What makes them bad?
Affordable education and healthcare are surely good ideas, right?
|
On March 18 2016 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 00:25 oneofthem wrote:
bernie making bad ideas popular isnt longterm thinking. it is just bad What bad ideas? What makes them bad? Affordable education and healthcare are surely good ideas, right?
I'd like to point out Hillary has the same goals in her platform. Bernie's plans to achieve those goals are terribad.
|
On March 18 2016 01:13 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 18 2016 00:25 oneofthem wrote:
bernie making bad ideas popular isnt longterm thinking. it is just bad What bad ideas? What makes them bad? Affordable education and healthcare are surely good ideas, right? I'd like to point out Hillary has the same goals in her platform. Bernie's plans to achieve those goals are terribad.
I agree that Hillary also wants those  I'm just wondering what the "bad ideas" are.
|
On March 18 2016 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 00:25 oneofthem wrote:
bernie making bad ideas popular isnt longterm thinking. it is just bad What bad ideas? What makes them bad? Affordable education and healthcare are surely good ideas, right?
No, that's awful and stupid.
Worker precarity and indifference in policy are important tools to keep in check the excesses of democracy.
People like the person you're quoting are highly class conscious and they would hate a system in which policy is dictated by educated public opinion.
|
On March 18 2016 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 00:25 oneofthem wrote:
bernie making bad ideas popular isnt longterm thinking. it is just bad What bad ideas? What makes them bad? Affordable education and healthcare are surely good ideas, right?
Of course and getting the cost of education in line should be a goal of any administration. The problem is getting it done. States regulate their universities, not the federal government. The process would require a huge amount of work, deal making and addressing the concerns of entrenched interests who are the tax bases of some states.
So yes, it can be done, but the question is if you think Bernie can accomplish that along with everything else.
|
On March 18 2016 01:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 01:13 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 18 2016 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 18 2016 00:25 oneofthem wrote:
bernie making bad ideas popular isnt longterm thinking. it is just bad What bad ideas? What makes them bad? Affordable education and healthcare are surely good ideas, right? I'd like to point out Hillary has the same goals in her platform. Bernie's plans to achieve those goals are terribad. I agree that Hillary also wants those I'm just wondering what the "bad ideas" are.
Some bad ideas:
-putting farmers on the fed (putting a bunch of guys who know nothing about high finance in charge of monetary policy is a terribad idea, and beyond that these are guys who by and large rely on huge subsidies to do business... which is a bit of a concern in and of itself and may have some impact on their view of finance)
-tax on equity trading (it doesn't work, look what happened to other nations which tired this-- it just gutted their markets and it will hurt retail/retirement investors more than investment firms)
-reinstating glass steagal (breaking up the banks is NOT a good thing at this point, and it doesn't matter since the commercial and investment divisions of the big banks are required to keep separate balance sheets, and if the banks that died in the financial crisis hadn't been acquired it would have been even worse potentially)
-medicare for all (the entire plan is godawful)
-against NAFTA (NAFTA is NOT a bad thing)
-against the ex/im bank (we need it to keep major firms like Boeing competitive against Airbus which is subsidized/ owned by several major Euro governments, it's just low cost financing which Boeing and others pay back)
-against nuclear energy (debate around this, but he opposes it for the wrong reasons)
-mandatory GMO labeling (we had this discussion, voluntary is fine with some regulation)
|
I'm sorry but again, no this isn't the question. The person he answered talked about "bad ideas", not "impractical good ideas".
edit: there you go.
|
Not sure it has been discussed in here yet but I am fascinated by this theory that Kasich is only remaining in the Republican race in order to ensure Trump wins the nomination and selects him as VP. After he won Ohio, he seems to be stressing the "whoever wins Ohio wins the presidency" point, and appears to now be buying ad time in states (like Utah) where Cruz has the strongest foothold to try to cut into his lead and bring Trump to the top. He's mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination himself, so what other reason could he possibly be staying in for?
As someone who has always viewed Kasich as the most reasonable Republican candidate by far, this disappoints the hell out of me. Maybe he thinks he can "control" Trump as VP, but more likely than not he becomes Christie 2.0, because as Trump has said many times, no one controls him and he controls everyone else.
|
On March 18 2016 00:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 00:17 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:58 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:47 Sbrubbles wrote:On March 17 2016 23:20 xDaunt wrote:
Mainstream democrats' expectation that Bernie supporters will simply tow the party line and fully support Hillary at this point are misplaced and unreasonable. Hillary represents much of what Bernie is diametrically opposed to. It's not unreasonable to expect Bernie supporters to fully support Hillary when push comes to shove, but I do agree it is unreasonable to expect them to so while Bernie can still stick around to further his message. It is actually pretty unreasonable. Dems stay home if they don't like their own candidate. So them not voting for Hillary is very likely. If Romney were the Republican candidate, maybe. You're really going to tell me there won't be a rally to vote against Trump though? A rally against a candidate gets people to stay home, not vote for the opposition. They won't want Trump but they won't exactly rally behind Hillary either. You don't need to rally behind Hillary. You need to rally behind "anyone but Trump" which will propel Hillary to the White House. There is absolutely no requirement to support Hillary, or to want her to be president, to vote against Trump. In a two party system if you're against one candidate you are by default for the other. The strength of feeling against Trump can be greater than the strength of feeling for Hillary and people will still get out there and vote. For those people Hillary isn't campaigning under her own name, she's campaigning as "not Trump". The "anyone but Hillary" train of thought is no weaker than the "anyone but Trump" one. If neither candidate is a good option, people will often choose simply not to vote. This happens a lot even when it isn't logical to do so. "I suck but Trump sucks worse" doesn't exactly inspire people to "get out the vote." People actually have to like you. And Trump may just not be universally hated in the general, and Hillary will be shat on by most for being a genuinely sleazy and shitty politician.
Not really. I fricking loathe Mark Rutte. But if NL had a two-party system and I had to choose between Rutte and Wilders, I would go and vote for Rutte. Now I am probably more politically involved than most. But there are definitely people who feel this way.
|
He's hoping to win in a brokered convention according to him, rather than to be the VP.
On March 18 2016 01:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 00:25 LegalLord wrote:On March 18 2016 00:17 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:58 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:47 Sbrubbles wrote:On March 17 2016 23:20 xDaunt wrote:
Mainstream democrats' expectation that Bernie supporters will simply tow the party line and fully support Hillary at this point are misplaced and unreasonable. Hillary represents much of what Bernie is diametrically opposed to. It's not unreasonable to expect Bernie supporters to fully support Hillary when push comes to shove, but I do agree it is unreasonable to expect them to so while Bernie can still stick around to further his message. It is actually pretty unreasonable. Dems stay home if they don't like their own candidate. So them not voting for Hillary is very likely. If Romney were the Republican candidate, maybe. You're really going to tell me there won't be a rally to vote against Trump though? A rally against a candidate gets people to stay home, not vote for the opposition. They won't want Trump but they won't exactly rally behind Hillary either. You don't need to rally behind Hillary. You need to rally behind "anyone but Trump" which will propel Hillary to the White House. There is absolutely no requirement to support Hillary, or to want her to be president, to vote against Trump. In a two party system if you're against one candidate you are by default for the other. The strength of feeling against Trump can be greater than the strength of feeling for Hillary and people will still get out there and vote. For those people Hillary isn't campaigning under her own name, she's campaigning as "not Trump". The "anyone but Hillary" train of thought is no weaker than the "anyone but Trump" one. If neither candidate is a good option, people will often choose simply not to vote. This happens a lot even when it isn't logical to do so. "I suck but Trump sucks worse" doesn't exactly inspire people to "get out the vote." People actually have to like you. And Trump may just not be universally hated in the general, and Hillary will be shat on by most for being a genuinely sleazy and shitty politician. Not really. I fricking loathe Mark Rutte. But if NL had a two-party system and I had to choose between Rutte and Wilders, I would go and vote for Rutte. Now I am probably more politically involved than most. But there are definitely people who feel this way.
Perhaps you would. At the end of the day I'll vote for Hillary because I realize that giving the presidency to the Republican Party is suicide for the nation. Problem is that too many people don't feel that way, and they just vote apathy. That is how it is in the US and it's part of why voter turnout is so low.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 18 2016 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm sorry but again, no this isn't the question. The person he answered talked about "bad ideas", not "impractical good ideas".
edit: there you go.
bad idea st the level of policy. he maybe has good will
|
Having a conversation with Bernie about nuclear energy would be a fascinating experience. A sneak peak into the utterly irrational.
|
On March 18 2016 01:32 LegalLord wrote:He's hoping to win in a brokered convention according to him, rather than to be the VP. Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 01:31 Acrofales wrote:On March 18 2016 00:25 LegalLord wrote:On March 18 2016 00:17 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:58 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:47 Sbrubbles wrote:On March 17 2016 23:20 xDaunt wrote:
Mainstream democrats' expectation that Bernie supporters will simply tow the party line and fully support Hillary at this point are misplaced and unreasonable. Hillary represents much of what Bernie is diametrically opposed to. It's not unreasonable to expect Bernie supporters to fully support Hillary when push comes to shove, but I do agree it is unreasonable to expect them to so while Bernie can still stick around to further his message. It is actually pretty unreasonable. Dems stay home if they don't like their own candidate. So them not voting for Hillary is very likely. If Romney were the Republican candidate, maybe. You're really going to tell me there won't be a rally to vote against Trump though? A rally against a candidate gets people to stay home, not vote for the opposition. They won't want Trump but they won't exactly rally behind Hillary either. You don't need to rally behind Hillary. You need to rally behind "anyone but Trump" which will propel Hillary to the White House. There is absolutely no requirement to support Hillary, or to want her to be president, to vote against Trump. In a two party system if you're against one candidate you are by default for the other. The strength of feeling against Trump can be greater than the strength of feeling for Hillary and people will still get out there and vote. For those people Hillary isn't campaigning under her own name, she's campaigning as "not Trump". The "anyone but Hillary" train of thought is no weaker than the "anyone but Trump" one. If neither candidate is a good option, people will often choose simply not to vote. This happens a lot even when it isn't logical to do so. "I suck but Trump sucks worse" doesn't exactly inspire people to "get out the vote." People actually have to like you. And Trump may just not be universally hated in the general, and Hillary will be shat on by most for being a genuinely sleazy and shitty politician. Not really. I fricking loathe Mark Rutte. But if NL had a two-party system and I had to choose between Rutte and Wilders, I would go and vote for Rutte. Now I am probably more politically involved than most. But there are definitely people who feel this way. Perhaps you would. At the end of the day I'll vote for Hillary because I realize that giving the presidency to the Republican Party is suicide for the nation. Problem is that too many people don't feel that way, and they just vote apathy. That is how it is in the US and it's part of why voter turnout is so low.
He stands no chance in a brokered convention, and is delusional if he actually believes that. I don't think he is delusional, but I do think he may be more cunning than anyone gave him credit for. And if he is prepared to impose Trump on the country in order to advance himself, then it's disappointing.
|
On March 18 2016 01:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Having a conversation with Bernie about nuclear energy would be a fascinating experience. A sneak peak into the utterly irrational.
not really sure what the point would be if one of the participants is a lftr fanboy arrogantly proclaiming everyone against nuclear to be an uninformed idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
