EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3396
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Reaper9
United States1724 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 19 2016 04:58 SolaR- wrote: I dont think he deserved to be banned. Right or wrong he has a right to state his opinion. He wasn't aggressive or rude. He was only ignorant from your perspective. So you can't argue opinion unless it is the right opinon? Seems like socialism at work. I doubt it was his opinion at all. He made numerous, clear bad faith arguments where he would just ignore posters and continued to post in the frame of “You mad bro?” He seemed to come here for the sole purpose of riling people up. There was no discussion to be had. | ||
KwarK
United States44393 Posts
| ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 19 2016 04:44 KwarK wrote: You see those capital letters in Social and Democrat. That's because it's the name, not because they're social democrats. Take the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Is it democratic? Well by your argument of course it is, it says it right there. How could anyone disagree with that? It's right there, it's important to learn from words, right? Of course anyone making that argument seriously would be a total idiot who somehow doesn't understand that names aren't administrated by the Ministry of Making-Sure-It's-Not-Wrong. So, right now that's what you're doing. Are you sure that's what you want to keep doing? Or we could approach it from another angle. The Bolsheviks staged a revolutionary coup with no popular support. People who are democrats do not come to power through revolutionary coups, that would be a contradiction, however people who are communist revolutionaries are able to call themselves Democrats. I don't want to be the one who agrees with the crazy guy--but lets just be a bit more accurate here. Nazi's were Democratic Socialists. A lot of their programs were specifically introduced with the specific goal in mind of helping the community be better. The main difference is not that Democratic Socialists are evil, the main difference is that Democrat does not always mean Liberal--which is the main pain point when this kind of bullshit gets brought up. When someone says they are an american democrat, no one except crazy people thinks that means they want to institute slavery to maintain their cotton fields. At one point, being a democrat simple was being conservative. Definitions change and now we understand the term Democrat as being a liberal. But the real issue with his argument is not whether Nazis actually were or actually weren't democrats--a name is just a name after all. The issue is putting more importance in what names groups have as opposed to what policies groups have. That is really what he's twisting just to get a reaction from people. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12084 Posts
On March 19 2016 04:54 lord_nibbler wrote: We could go in the other direction and ask if true democracy is even possible in a non-socialist society...  That requires both a necessary definition of what constitutes a true democracy, and whether true democracy is a desirable political outcome or system of governance. I remain skeptical of such. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 19 2016 05:14 Lord Tolkien wrote: That requires both a necessary definition of what constitutes a true democracy, and whether true democracy is a desirable political outcome or system of governance. I remain skeptical of such. It also requires a specific definition of what a socialist society is. | ||
Soularion
Canada2764 Posts
Not meant to offend any Bernie supports or come off as anti-Bernie or anything. I'd be saying Hillary is basically dead in the water if Bernie had gone 5-0 with the margins she did on Tuesday. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On March 19 2016 05:25 Soularion wrote: Just to address Hillary vs Bernie quickly- it's pretty much over. Yes, there is a miracle run where Bernie can magically get the nomination.. but at this point, it would require something like ~56-58% victories in all of the remaining states, of which multiple are not just 50-50 but entirely Hillary-favored right now. It would require a huge push, and considering how hard everyone went for last Tuesday, there's no factual reason to predict that somehow a push far larger than that would happen. It's not technically over, but if Bernie winning from here is far (far far far far far) less likely - I'd say it's more likely Hillary gets indicted than Bernie wins by delegates - and therefor less important than him staying in to get his message. Not meant to offend any Bernie supports or come off as anti-Bernie or anything. I'd be saying Hillary is basically dead in the water if Bernie had gone 5-0 with the margins she did on Tuesday. As a Bernie supporter, this seems a fair assessment of the situation. | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
On March 19 2016 00:29 Ghanburighan wrote: Also, I didn't see anyone post the Emerson poll for NY (14-16 March): Clinton 71%, Sanders 23% Trump 64%, Cruz 12%, Kasich 1% Source That poll is a pretty big deal for the Republican race. NY is a "winner-take-most" state with a 20% threshold. If that poll's even in the ballpark Trump could walk away with all of NY's delegates, and a victory that steep would likely boost Trump's numbers in the contests a week later. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44393 Posts
| ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 19 2016 05:28 Nyxisto wrote: would it be sensible for Bernie to pull out of the race right now and get his supporters behind Hillary? It seems like there's a sizable population in the Bernie camp that would not vote for Hillary and it will probably take some time to sway them over. If he stays in the race too long it might be detrimental for the Democrats. Realistically speaking--the hardcore bernie supporters are barely showing up for bernie let alone Hilary. | ||
|
Soularion
Canada2764 Posts
On March 19 2016 05:28 Nyxisto wrote: would it be sensible for Bernie to pull out of the race right now and get his supporters behind Hillary? It seems like there's a sizable population in the Bernie camp that would not vote for Hillary and it will probably take some time to sway them over. If he stays in the race too long it might be detrimental for the Democrats. I think now's a low point in general mood along the Bernie camp, so it might be better for Bernie to pull out his string of victories and therefor heighten the mood of his voters before pulling off a big pro-Hillary speech at the convention or something. If he drops out now his fans are just gonna be depressed. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
But he needs to continue his campaign so progressives can identify which districts favor them for future elections and to keep the conversation going. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22667 Posts
On March 19 2016 05:28 Nyxisto wrote: would it be sensible for Bernie to pull out of the race right now and get his supporters behind Hillary? It seems like there's a sizable population in the Bernie camp that would not vote for Hillary and it will probably take some time to sway them over. If he stays in the race too long it might be detrimental for the Democrats. His goal is to influence policy and that will keep him in the race for as long as he can. Hopefully he makes a since good speech about how they need to work together when he throws in the towel to help his more fanatic followers see that voting Trump is the last thing he would ever want ectect. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On a non-sensible note; I'd say he should stay in, without spending money, just so that everyone in the Primaries that have yet to happen feel their votes are being heard. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Politico Inevitably, Garland’s liberalism has been more evident during the Obama administration. In the for-profit college case, the colleges claimed that an Education Department rule requiring them to deliver a minimum return on their students’ tuition investment was “arbitrary and capricious.” The D.C. circuit, headed by Garland, shot that down. In the mercury decision, the D.C. circuit upheld a 2012 Environmental Protection Agency rule that required industrial plants to reduce their emissions regardless of cost. The Supreme Court later reversed that decision and directed the EPA to take the price tag into account. But when the case returned to the D.C. circuit, Garland and the D.C. panel decided the mercury rule could remain in effect until the EPA fixed it. But Garland deferred similarly to federal agencies during the presidency of George W. Bush, irking many liberals with a 2003 ruling that denied Guantánamo detainees judicial review (later overturned by the Supreme Court) and with a string of pro-police rulings under Presidents Bill Clinton, Bush and Obama. “I don’t think Garland looks at who is president,” said Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda, a conservative. “I think he’s deferential to executive power.” To me, at least, it appears he imagines the government as more of a parliamentary system than one that envisions two separate political branches, which is antithetical to the role of the judiciary as an intermediary to ensure neither usurps the power of the other (I would guess he would have voted the other way in the line item veto case Clinton v. City of New York), and as a shield against either infringing on people's rights (I don't think he would have come out in the majority in Jones). People keep calling him a "Judge's Judge", I'd really say he is more of the "Executive's Judge" which is the job of the SG and AG, not a SCOTUS Justice. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12084 Posts
On March 19 2016 05:16 Naracs_Duc wrote: It also requires a specific definition of what a socialist society is. Let's not ask impossible-to-answer questions here. On March 19 2016 05:28 Nyxisto wrote: would it be sensible for Bernie to pull out of the race right now and get his supporters behind Hillary? It seems like there's a sizable population in the Bernie camp that would not vote for Hillary and it will probably take some time to sway them over. If he stays in the race too long it might be detrimental for the Democrats. No. The longer he stays in, the more leeway he has over the convention and the 2016 Democratic political platform. There is no real incentive for him to drop out: while it can be a positive for the Democratic party to unify earlier, it has no benefit for him and his campaign at this point, and there is always ample time after the convention for reconciliation in the face of HIGH ENERGY. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On March 19 2016 05:28 Nyxisto wrote: would it be sensible for Bernie to pull out of the race right now and get his supporters behind Hillary? It seems like there's a sizable population in the Bernie camp that would not vote for Hillary and it will probably take some time to sway them over. If he stays in the race too long it might be detrimental for the Democrats. This is a complicated question for a few reasons. First, predicting the number of Bernie supporters who would switch their vote to Hillary should he pull out now is not easy, particularly given the vehemence and volume of the "bernie bros" represented chiefly on platforms such as reddit. I firmly believe that they are very over-represented in the popular spotlight and should be accordingly discounted when considering the utility of Bernie remaining in the race, which brings me to my second point. Bernie, and his campaign more generally, is about furthering the idea that the Democratic party ought be harsher on Wall Street, more cognizant of the influence of money in politics, and more focused on infrastructure/domestic policy. Accordingly, to the extent that Bernie's presence exerts ideological and political pressure on both Hillary and the party more generally, Bernie's remaining in the race is a clear positive. Furthermore, Trump's ability to energize voters who cannot stand him counsels in favor of Bernie remaining in the race as it gives him room with which to effect his message without harming general election turnout in a material way. All in all, I definitely think Bernie should stick it out for at least a while longer. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On other news, there's plenty of evidence that the Dem message is currently too far to the left for the population to accept. Whatever your personal preference, there's need to realign after the primaries for a new electorate with different tastes. A Dem or GOP candidate isn't the most electable candidate. (For example, the following Vox tweet about Trump applies to both democrats currently as well.) But realigning takes time. Trump (the very likely GOP candidate) seems to be getting away with saying contradictory stuff, but I doubt the liberal crowd will be quite that accepting. | ||
| ||
