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 27 2016 08:06 Atreides wrote: It's 3:00pm in alaska but you are ok with that being called as long as it's for Bernie? Hue hue
(I don't actually give a shit and in my area Bernie definitely was always gonna win by a landslide)
What you call a race on is a variety of factors. I wasn't one to make a big stink about the call, I think I called it "rude" to call it while people still had hours to wait in line iirc.
But yeah, I'm fine with the call.
Also not fine with widespread reports of missing surrogate affidavits even though Bernie is winning in a blowout.
On March 27 2016 08:40 Souma wrote: All this talk about hands getting me sad.
... my hands are smaller than most women's.
I can only reach one octave (+ one key if I try really hard). :|
Def wear big shoes when you go out. So is there a race again or bernie is still dead as was assumed a few pages back? If he takes the lead, do superdelegate begin to change?
maybe you can compensate for your hands by talking too much about them, your other "no problem" zone and how you think about violence against protestors and those bearded brown people?
On March 26 2016 02:57 Mohdoo wrote: This is my favorite thing about this election. Did we see this coming 48 hours ago? Did we have a fucking CLUE this would be the hot shit topic? What a wild ride. I never want it to end.
I strongly disagree. Even though I'm happy that the disgrace that is the Republican primary is going to hand over the White House to Hillary, secure a progressive Supreme Court and hopefully result in the Democrats gaining seats in both the House and Senate, a healthy democracy needs healthy political parties. The GOP absolutely has had its implosion coming, and it's their systematic obstructionism and the lies and extremism they've been feeding their base that brought them where they are today. In this respect, there's a part of me that does enjoy seeing them reaping what they've sown.
Despite this, however, the broader picture is that trust in elected representatives has been falling for quite some time, and that there is a growing sentiment that politicians are all the same, crooked, liars, and only interested in securing their own power. I'm obviously not saying this sentiment appeared out of thin air -- it has some legitimate foundations that I don't think I have to develop here. Yet it remains a very inaccurate picture of politics, of the U.S. system of government, and of a majority of elected officials at all levels of government. And seeing this sentiment spread is not a good sign for the health of democracy in the country. It results in people like Donald Trump getting traction, getting votes, and getting a real chance of being elected in positions of power, in which they will do lasting harm. Trump may only be the tip of the iceberg, however. If he remains an anomaly -- great. But if he heralds a new area in which far-right and authoritarian demagogues can attract as many people as him, it'll be a serious and very dangerous development. I'm hoping it won't come to that, and two huge factors will be how the state of the economy evolves and the way the Republican party deals with him, his electorate and his message going forward.
How is this connected to Cruz' affair? Well, this is obviously a minor element with respect to the broad picture I just referred to, but if die-hard conservatives who have resisted Trump so far realize that they can't trust the guy who made trust such an integral part of his campaign, it's again going to contribute to the disillusion felt by many. I hate Cruz with a passion, I disagree with him on almost everything, and he spreads lies constantly about Obama, the Democrats, their policies, minorities, and pretty much every aspect of the world we live in. Still, he embodies a version of conservatism that appeals to many people, and I would rather see these people vote for someone like Ted Cruz than for an authoritarian out of disgust with the political system.
Now, although this is much more of an issue on the right than on the left, I have to say that the way Sanders' campaign has evolved also makes me quite uneasy, albeit on a much smaller scale (I am NOT equating the two in any way). I've mentioned already that the way he promises policies that simply cannot be achieved in the time frame he mentions, or uses numbers that have no solid basis in reality, is something I strongly dislike (even though I do agree with many of his objectives and with the said policies -- only he's not being honest with regards to how to get to them). I've also argued that his increased attacks on Hillary's character have been dishonest and could do some damage to the Democrats' chances in the general election (probably not much, but still). But the larger issue is that Sanders and his campaign (mostly his campaign, but him as well) have started to indulge in populism, demagoguery, and even sometimes conspiratorial discourse.
This began by demonizing "the establishment" as a monolithic block, then by characterizing as "part of the establishment" every progressive official and organization who dared endorse Hillary or criticize aspects of Sanders' platform, such as Planned Parenthood (even though Sanders eventually walked back from his comments on the organization). It continued by painting Clinton (and, logically, many officials beyond her) as a puppet of Wall Street and "Big Pharma" for receiving donations from people and organizations in the finance and pharmaceutical industries. Do those donations exist? Sure. Do they make her a puppet, or corrupt? No they don't, just like Obama was never a puppet of Wall Street. Now, Sanders is completely dishonestly claiming that the Democratic party is currently not interested in the working class and the young, is not a 50-state party (this one is especially rich given how it is his campaign which basically left the South to Clinton), and is instead "to a significant degree" "a party of the upper middle class and the cocktail crowd and the heavy campaign contributors". Now, can the DNC, and people in the Democratic party be criticized for plenty of things? Of course. Yet the picture that Sanders is painting is not only fundamentally dishonest and wrong (in addition to being completely ignorant of the work, efforts and policies of many Democrats at all levels of government, including at the local and state levels), but it is also dangerous, because it simultaneously feeds into and nourishes the exact same kind of sentiment that I described earlier: "politicians don't care about us in the slightest". I hope that the reasonable Sanders supporters that post in this thread (farvacola and plenty of others) recognize this for what it is: dangerous rhetoric which reinforces disillusion with the political system and turns people away from the political process once their favorite candidate is no longer in the race.
Again, does this mean that one can't legitimately and rightly denounce the role of money in U.S. politics, want to overturn Citizens United, fight the corruption that does exist, criticize the policies who hurt the most vulnerable, etc.? Absolutely not -- I subscribe to all of that, and I subscribe to a progressive agenda that goes significantly beyond maintaining the status quo; I am myself very critical of plenty of policies that a majority of Democrats in Congress have supported in the past. But there's a difference between holding those positions, and pretending that all politicians are completely disconnected from the people, only care about donations and power, and that only a single enlightened figure can change all this. This is dangerous rhetoric, and although it is currently much more of a problem on the right with regards to its effects, we shouldn't be blind to the damage that such populist messages can result in when they come from the left.
So, before getting into the meat of the above post, I should preface this with an acknowledgement as to Sanders', and politicians generally, imperfection and how said acknowledgements are essential to a functioning electoral democracy, particularly when it comes to offices as important as the presidency. This super-human lens with which the popular media views candidates does real harm to the public's grasp of what actually goes into a functioning government led by real people, and it is along this vein that I do take issue with Sanders' rhetoric relative to money's influence on politics. Political donations, lobbyism, and special interest policy-making are all divisive yet essential components of US democracy, and Sanders' lack of nuance in this area does seem problematic, particularly against the backdrop of Trump's rise to the top of the Republican ticket. Furthermore, I definitely do not buy into the notion that Hillary's having accepted money from Wall Street automatically taints her beyond repair. Successfully furthering ones' agenda necessarily requires use of the devil's tools, so to speak, and in that sense, Hillary is far more qualified than Sanders as she has a long track-record of being able to successfully play the game in a way that Sanders simply does not. Yes, Sanders has carved himself out a nice niche in which he's been able to be an effective politician and legislator without eating from the apple tree, but the fact that other members of his political caucus have been making apple pie all along is a big part of what has enabled him to operate in such a way.
However, Sanders' lack of precision, broad rhetorical gestures, and idealistic bordering on unrealistic perspective must be weighed against other factors, and the specifics regarding said balancing act are where a "reasonable" individual's ideology is most likely to rear its head. It is in that sense that I'm willing to overlook Sanders' rough edges in favor of both what his campaign represents and what I'd expect to happen should he win the presidency. First, though, it is worth mentioning that I don't think an equivocation across both sides of the aisle as to "anti-establishment" sentiment holds up once scrutinized. While there are definitely similarities between Sanders and Trump when it comes to their indictment of the status quo, both camps inevitably rely on ideologies that are incommensurate with one another when viewed with a certain level of granularity, particularly in terms of platform specifics. Trump's base inevitably incorporates notions of individualism, "hard work," and a very stilted concept of success into its view of the world. Sanders's base, on the other hand, emphasizes community, a focus on the weakest in society, and fundamental notions of "fairness" relative to opportunity and interaction with authorities. Consequently, I really don't think that the "anti-establishment-ness" of both sides reduces down into the same brand of populism, and it is for that reason that I'm not concerned about Sanders taking liberties with his message in the same way that I am relative to Trump.
Additionally, I still maintain that outlets like reddit, supporters like GH, and detractors like oneofthem overshadow and misrepresent the silent majority of Sanders supporters who will, in fact, vote for Hillary should the primary turn out in her favor. Again, I'm lead to this conclusion based on, polls notwithstanding, the fact that Sanders' populist appeal hinges on a focus on those most vulnerable in society; it will become abundantly clear to general election voters, even those bumfuck, entitled, white-kid Sanders supporters that oneofthem likes to talk about so much, that the Democrat will, at the very least, do less harm than his/her Republican counterpart, and this notion of harm reduction will mitigate whatever damage ends up being done during the primary, especially because Trump's presence is very likely to transfer primary energy into the general in a way that has not happened in prior election cycles.
As for what would actually happen should Sanders win the presidency, I think Sanders would operate in much the same way that he did in the House and Senate. Specifically, he'd perform the role of a pragmatic ideologue who reaches across the aisle in the interest of actually getting things done while maintaining that there are certain principles that one ought not discount, namely that government ought focus on those on the bottom of the totem while being persistently aware of the creeping influence of monied interests. Furthermore, given Trump's popularity and the likelihood that Democrats capitalize on down-ticket success accordingly, Sanders has the unique opportunity to reformulate the federal agenda, particularly in terms of spending reprioritization and a focus on infrastructure. This notion that Sanders would surround himself with only like-minded administrative heads is nonsense that ignores his very real record of utilizing the expertise of those who don't agree with him ideologically.
The Democratic Party, as an "establishment" entity, has become entirely too comfortable in its role as Republican backstop, and though Sanders is running a demonstrably flawed campaign, his brand of populist yet moral progressive politics is precisely the sort of energizing framework that the party so desperately needs.
On March 27 2016 08:40 Souma wrote: All this talk about hands getting me sad.
... my hands are smaller than most women's.
I can only reach one octave (+ one key if I try really hard). :|
Def wear big shoes when you go out. So is there a race again or bernie is still dead as was assumed a few pages back? If he takes the lead, do superdelegate begin to change?
Still (virtually) dead. With regards to the superdelegates, I don't see them siding with a candidate that would have less pledged delegates, so I consider them pretty irrelevant.
edit: thanks for the reply, farva. I might not have enough time to reply in the next couple of days, but I hope to be able to do so soon.
On March 27 2016 08:43 puerk wrote: maybe you can compensate for your hands by talking too much about them, your other "no problem" zone and how you think about violence against protestors and those bearded brown people?
I don't know if you're being satirical, but just like Trump didn't start talking about wives (Cruz started it), Rubio (dropped out) was the one who brought up Trump's hands out of nowhere. Trump responded to it and everyone pretended to be aghast at him. Do you see the pattern?
On March 27 2016 08:40 Souma wrote: All this talk about hands getting me sad.
... my hands are smaller than most women's.
I can only reach one octave (+ one key if I try really hard). :|
Def wear big shoes when you go out. So is there a race again or bernie is still dead as was assumed a few pages back? If he takes the lead, do superdelegate begin to change?
Bernie wasn't really out based on previous results but he has, at best, a 20% chance of the nomination, Superdelegates will probably stick to Hillary until the convention, at which point they will probably support the winner. They have their own careers to worry about, and even if they support Sanders he is not exactly a favorite of the party itself.
On March 27 2016 00:52 oneofthem wrote: job subsidy at the extreme low end of productivity such as ghetto youth and ex convicts of drug charges. at the lower middle end you want more infrastructure/housing related aid. job subsidy is basically a reverse payroll tax, the beneficial effect would be on the employment side. you want to encourage job numbers
there is some empirical evidence that this approach works
Reading that i see a flaw with the conclusion, those subsidies acted as sort of a "job training" and not as a permanent fixture. They didn't create jobs, they just adjusted the participants better to taking the existing jobs than the nonpartisipants.
With this temporary measure you just increase and modify competition for the existing jobs (giving an advantage in hiring to those that can document their work experience/success in the temporary subsidized program), without changeing the amount of jobs.
The problem of the US (and most modern) labour markets is not that the competition (eagerness to get one) for jobs is to low, but that there is a hollowing out of jobs, there are high paying jobs and low paying, but the large bulk of the middle (especially manufacturing, and labour intensive white collar) disappeared.
Telling people to bridge the gap from shitty low payed (high replaceablitiy jobs) to high payed totally misses the mark: the over all of society ratio between those job types does not change depending on efforts the job seeking individuals.
This method is therefore inadequate at solving the structural issue of growing inequality, it stabilizes the problem on some level (people get a chance to prove themselfs in shitty low-pay jobs, so they can land a permanent shitty low-pay job, because there is no middle, and not everyone (or even a significant part) can make the jump to the high paying or not shitty jobs).
On March 27 2016 08:37 puerk wrote: it is totally unfair to say something negative about him, because he really has totally normal hands, you could even say that they are bigger than normal since he buys slightly smaller than large gloves. there is nothing wrong with them. seriously, let me show you. and when i meet people they all say that i have really nice hands, wouldn't you agree?
On March 27 2016 08:40 Souma wrote: All this talk about hands getting me sad.
... my hands are smaller than most women's.
I can only reach one octave (+ one key if I try really hard). :|
Def wear big shoes when you go out. So is there a race again or bernie is still dead as was assumed a few pages back? If he takes the lead, do superdelegate begin to change?
Bernie wasn't really out based on previous results but he has, at best, a 20% chance of the nomination, Superdelegates will probably stick to Hillary until the convention, at which point they will probably support the winner. They have their own careers to worry about, and even if they support Sanders he is not exactly a favorite of the party itself.
From Tuesday + today's results, Sanders has managed to get to approximately where he was before Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, Illinois and Ohio voted. That is to say, he is still very much behind.
It's moronic to say superdelegates are sticking with Hillary at this point because of career concerns. They stick with her because of loyalty. She's done a huge amount for them on the individual level personally and politically, in addition to her contributions to the Democratic party and arguably the US. She's had their back for 20+ years. Bernie hasn't. It's really that simple.
On March 27 2016 08:43 puerk wrote: maybe you can compensate for your hands by talking too much about them, your other "no problem" zone and how you think about violence against protestors and those bearded brown people?
I don't know if you're being satirical, but just like Trump didn't start talking about wives (Cruz started it), Rubio (dropped out) was the one who brought up Trump's hands out of nowhere. Trump responded to it and everyone pretended to be aghast at him. Do you see the pattern?
You must somehow mistake me for someone in the cruz/rubio camps.... All those republican clowns act totally unpresidential, and trump is just stupid. I am very highly educated, i have a masters in physics from a respectable german university with great history, i know words, i have the best words. Before i was just saying he is dumb, but now there is no better word than "stupid". There is none!
It doesn't substantively make up the deficit to the point where he can do as good as he is expected to and manage to pull it out, and (I think) every single person was expecting ~7 straight Sanders wins in the primaries. It's still good for him though.
In the microcosm the greater-than-expected margins are very nice to have. Unless he craters in Hawaii Sanders exceeds his 538 delegate targets by a substantial margin which is good news for him. It also bodes well for Wisconsin next week and Oregon later. The problem is that thus far one of his huge surprise margins comes in Alaska, which does not have that many delegates-winning WA was necessary for him, though he is winning by a fair bit more than he needed to, so that is great news for him as well.
If he exceeds targets to this degree in all remaining primaries, he would have a shot (I think). Unfortunately New York looms large and the few polls taken don't look like he will reach near his target of winning there.
Not everyones stream of consciousness qualifies as Irvine Welsh (edit: stupid mixup, sorry)...
HIATT: But just – given the Supreme Court rulings on libel — Sullivan v. New York Times — how would you change the law?
TRUMP: I would just loosen them up.
RUTH MARCUS: What does that mean?
[Crosstalk]
TRUMP: I’d have to get my lawyers in to tell you, but I would loosen them up. I would loosen them up. If The Washington Post writes badly about me – and they do, they don’t write good – I mean, I don’t think I get – I read some of the stories coming up here, and I said to my staff, I said, “Why are we even wasting our time? The hatred is so enormous.” I don’t know why. I mean, I do a good job. I have thousands of employees. I work hard.
I’m not looking for bad for our country. I’m a very rational person, I’m a very sane person. I’m not looking for bad. But I read articles by you, and others. And, you know, we’ve never – we don’t know each other, and the level of hatred is so incredible, I actually said, “Why am I – why am I doing this? Why am I even here?” And I don’t expect anything to happen–
In my book: if you find yourself in a place in an explanation about libel law where you have to explain how many employees you have and how hard you work, you must have a serious ego problem....
On March 27 2016 09:15 TheTenthDoc wrote: It doesn't substantively make up the deficit to the point where he can do as good as he is expected to and manage to pull it out, and (I think) every single person was expecting ~7 straight Sanders wins in the primaries. It's still good for him though.
In the microcosm the greater-than-expected margins are very nice to have. Unless he craters in Hawaii Sanders exceeds his 538 delegate targets by a substantial margin which is good news for him. It also bodes well for Wisconsin next week and Oregon later. The problem is that thus far one of his huge surprise margins comes in Alaska, which does not have that many delegates-winning WA was necessary for him, though he is winning by a fair bit more than he needed to, so that is great news for him as well.
If he exceeds targets to this degree in all remaining primaries, he would have a shot (I think). Unfortunately New York looms large and the few polls taken don't look like he will reach near his target of winning there.
As it stands neither is likely to make it to a majority of pledged delegates. However if Sanders at least keeps it close in NY he could have a surprise big upset in California that could change everything right before the convention
On March 27 2016 08:40 Souma wrote: All this talk about hands getting me sad.
... my hands are smaller than most women's.
I can only reach one octave (+ one key if I try really hard). :|
Def wear big shoes when you go out. So is there a race again or bernie is still dead as was assumed a few pages back? If he takes the lead, do superdelegate begin to change?
Bernie wasn't really out based on previous results but he has, at best, a 20% chance of the nomination, Superdelegates will probably stick to Hillary until the convention, at which point they will probably support the winner. They have their own careers to worry about, and even if they support Sanders he is not exactly a favorite of the party itself.
From Tuesday + today's results, Sanders has managed to get to approximately where he was before Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, Illinois and Ohio voted. That is to say, he is still very much behind.
It's moronic to say superdelegates are sticking with Hillary at this point because of career concerns. They stick with her because of loyalty. She's done a huge amount for them on the individual level personally and politically, in addition to her contributions to the Democratic party and arguably the US. She's had their back for 20+ years. Bernie hasn't. It's really that simple.
Why didn't they stick with her vs Obama if it's about loyalty?
EPT
