|
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. |
What's funny about this argument is that it showcases that the lions share of the arguments between the 2 campaigns is mostly squabbling amongst their followers. Meanwhile the actual two candidates just recently upgraded from tea party where they politely disagree to pillow fight.
|
On April 04 2016 18:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 18:12 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:
There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption. Not when that person is described and has always been described as representing the system and being the system's candidate... An individual person is not a system. Bernie Sanders himself made the distinction, and he made sure to stick to it until earlier this year, when he switched gears and began trying to smear Hillary's character. I've provided you with evidence documenting this fact. It's impressive that you are still discarding the evidence in favor of the lie that you're pushing that there has been no notable change in his campaigning. This discussion is just surreal. We're stuck on your unwillingness to make a logical inference of the most basic kind.
Yeah, I'm done with him for now.
Kwiz can call it what he likes but it seems obvious to me.
|
On April 04 2016 18:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 18:39 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:25 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:12 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:
There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption. Not when that person is described and has always been described as representing the system and being the system's candidate... An individual person is not a system. Bernie Sanders himself made the distinction, and he made sure to stick to it until earlier this year, when he switched gears and began trying to smear Hillary's character. I've provided you with evidence documenting this fact. It's impressive that you are still discarding the evidence in favor of the lie that you're pushing that there has been no notable change in his campaigning. This discussion is just surreal. We're stuck on your unwillingness to make a logical inference of the most basic kind. No, we're stuck on you pretending that criticizing a system is the same as singling out one individual and pretending that this individual is particularly different from others in the system. Sanders himself disagrees with you, Sanders' campaign disagrees with you, and analysts and commentators who've reported the change in Sanders' attacks disagree with you. You're wrong, simple as. Pretending that Clinton specifically is in the pockets of the oil & financial industries, and carefully avoiding any mention of Obama receiving even more money than her from those industries, is dishonest and false. A) I have negative things to say about a system. B) That person represents the system. Your inference: I am making no negative comment regarding that person in the context of the negative things I have to say about the system. When I start doing that later, that's a change in my position. That's what you're arguing. You're using Sanders' decision not to focus on Clinton from the start as evidence that there has been a switch in the content of his argument, when a quick analysis of the internal logic of the argument demonstrates that this isn't the case. This should not even be a discussion, and it blows my mind a little that it is.
Except that as I have repeatedly explained to you and as is documented in the article, Sanders is not only painting Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He is actively portraying her as something who is distinctively suspicious and whose integrity can be particularly questioned. That is why he is not simply equating her to other people who have accepted just as much money from the same industries, like Barack Obama. That this simple fact is still flying over your head is pretty impressive.
Also, even if this was not the case, there is still a difference between condemning a system and condemning a single person as representative of the system -- precisely because in the first case you're not saying anything about that specific person, which may or may not be representative of the system. When you start doing the latter, there is something new, since now you're also making a statement on that particular person, that you are characterizing as "part of the system". In any case, as I just explained, Sanders went beyond that to single out Clinton specifically, which is the entire issue. Again, do you hear him saying "by the way, Obama received even more money from Wall Street and the oil & gas industry"? No, because that would undermine the entire case he's trying to build specifically against her, not simply as a representative of something which affects everyone in the system.
Finally, let's not forget the two questions you keep dodging: could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? Would answering the first question put you in a difficult position with regards to the second one? 
On April 04 2016 18:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 18:25 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:12 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:
There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption. Not when that person is described and has always been described as representing the system and being the system's candidate... An individual person is not a system. Bernie Sanders himself made the distinction, and he made sure to stick to it until earlier this year, when he switched gears and began trying to smear Hillary's character. I've provided you with evidence documenting this fact. It's impressive that you are still discarding the evidence in favor of the lie that you're pushing that there has been no notable change in his campaigning. This discussion is just surreal. We're stuck on your unwillingness to make a logical inference of the most basic kind. Yeah, I'm done with him for now. Kwiz can call it what he likes but it seems obvious to me.
Of course it does.
|
On April 04 2016 18:52 Slaughter wrote:
What's funny about this argument is that it showcases that the lions share of the arguments between the 2 campaigns is mostly squabbling amongst their followers. Meanwhile the actual two candidates just recently upgraded from tea party where they politely disagree to pillow fight.
The funny thing is that you don't need to be a supporter of the other side. I don't support Clinton any more than I support, I don't know, Kasich or Cruz. I don't vote on US elections. I just try to figure out whats going on. But that's enough for the sandernista to see me as an enemy and launch ad hominems.
Not one of them.
|
On April 04 2016 18:52 Ghanburighan wrote:I'm just quoting myself from above. This is pointless. I commend Kwizach on attempting to reason with the sandernista but I think the last pages only demonstrate the following: Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 09:07 Ghanburighan wrote:
I think I've figured out the sandernista mo: they keep on justifying everything he does so more people would hear about him. It won't matter what you say to them, they will be glad to be able to preach the truth once more. They will not tire, they will not relent, you'll just argue yourself silly. If you feel like you have an argument or material to present, do so and move on. The squabbling demonstrably leads nowhere, and actually makes them happy.
Please just take a step back for one second and think with your head instead of with your candidate. I aspire to lead a political revolution because I'm fed up with the system. I think and argue that my opponent represents the system. Is it surprising that I have negative things to say about my opponent? Does it change the value of my message?
Remember, that is regardless of whether Sanders is right about Clinton or not. If Clinton is absolutely not corrupted and Sanders has been wrong about her and the system from the start, the situation is exactly the same.
This should not be hard. This should not take several pages.
|
On April 04 2016 19:02 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 18:52 Slaughter wrote:
What's funny about this argument is that it showcases that the lions share of the arguments between the 2 campaigns is mostly squabbling amongst their followers. Meanwhile the actual two candidates just recently upgraded from tea party where they politely disagree to pillow fight. The funny thing is that you don't need to be a supporter of the other side. I don't support Clinton any more than I support, I don't know, Kasich or Cruz. I don't vote on US elections. I just try to figure out whats going on. But that's enough for the sandernista to see me as an enemy and launch ad hominems. Not one of them.
No you just tried to use your ignorance to poke fun at the Bernie campaign so I called you out on it. You're not an enemy, not even close. I was just pointing out you're not as objective as you try to pretend.
|
On April 04 2016 19:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 04 2016 18:52 Slaughter wrote:
What's funny about this argument is that it showcases that the lions share of the arguments between the 2 campaigns is mostly squabbling amongst their followers. Meanwhile the actual two candidates just recently upgraded from tea party where they politely disagree to pillow fight. The funny thing is that you don't need to be a supporter of the other side. I don't support Clinton any more than I support, I don't know, Kasich or Cruz. I don't vote on US elections. I just try to figure out whats going on. But that's enough for the sandernista to see me as an enemy and launch ad hominems. Not one of them. No you just tried to use your ignorance to poke fun at the Bernie campaign so I called you out on it. You're not an enemy, not even close. I was just pointing out you're not as objective as you try to pretend.
Being objective isn't the same as always being right. It's doing due diligence and if you still get it wrong, you need to admit it.
The reason I give sandernista so much trouble is their unwillingness to engage with the thought that their candidate isn't right about everything.
|
On April 04 2016 19:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 18:52 Ghanburighan wrote:I'm just quoting myself from above. This is pointless. I commend Kwizach on attempting to reason with the sandernista but I think the last pages only demonstrate the following: On April 04 2016 09:07 Ghanburighan wrote:
I think I've figured out the sandernista mo: they keep on justifying everything he does so more people would hear about him. It won't matter what you say to them, they will be glad to be able to preach the truth once more. They will not tire, they will not relent, you'll just argue yourself silly. If you feel like you have an argument or material to present, do so and move on. The squabbling demonstrably leads nowhere, and actually makes them happy.
Please just take a step back for one second and think with your head instead of with your candidate. I aspire to lead a political revolution because I'm fed up with the system. I think and argue that my opponent represents the system. Is it surprising that I have negative things to say about my opponent? Does it change the value of my message? Remember, that is regardless of whether Sanders is right about Clinton or not. If Clinton is absolutely not corrupted and Sanders has been wrong about her and the system from the start, the situation is exactly the same. This should not be hard. This should not take several pages.
Again, Sanders is going beyond simply painting her as equivalent to any other member of "the system", as a representative of the system. I've said this to you repeatedly. It is documented in the NY Times article.
|
On April 04 2016 19:00 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 18:51 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:39 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:25 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:12 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:
There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption. Not when that person is described and has always been described as representing the system and being the system's candidate... An individual person is not a system. Bernie Sanders himself made the distinction, and he made sure to stick to it until earlier this year, when he switched gears and began trying to smear Hillary's character. I've provided you with evidence documenting this fact. It's impressive that you are still discarding the evidence in favor of the lie that you're pushing that there has been no notable change in his campaigning. This discussion is just surreal. We're stuck on your unwillingness to make a logical inference of the most basic kind. No, we're stuck on you pretending that criticizing a system is the same as singling out one individual and pretending that this individual is particularly different from others in the system. Sanders himself disagrees with you, Sanders' campaign disagrees with you, and analysts and commentators who've reported the change in Sanders' attacks disagree with you. You're wrong, simple as. Pretending that Clinton specifically is in the pockets of the oil & financial industries, and carefully avoiding any mention of Obama receiving even more money than her from those industries, is dishonest and false. A) I have negative things to say about a system. B) That person represents the system. Your inference: I am making no negative comment regarding that person in the context of the negative things I have to say about the system. When I start doing that later, that's a change in my position. That's what you're arguing. You're using Sanders' decision not to focus on Clinton from the start as evidence that there has been a switch in the content of his argument, when a quick analysis of the internal logic of the argument demonstrates that this isn't the case. This should not even be a discussion, and it blows my mind a little that it is. Except that as I have repeatedly explained to you and as is documented in the article, Sanders is not only painting Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He is actively portraying her as something who is distinctively suspicious and whose integrity can be particularly questioned. That is why he is not simply equating her to other people who have accepted just as much money from the same industries, like Barack Obama. That this simple fact is still flying over your head is pretty impressive.
That's not singling out Clinton, that's giving a pass to Obama. See, when you're talking about changing the status quo and your last president was Obama, that's not a great endorsement of his practices, as they represent the situation that needs changing. Of course you're not going to say that about Obama in a democratic primary when he's the last democratic president, but it's okay to connect the dots from time to time.
|
On April 04 2016 19:12 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 19:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 04 2016 18:52 Slaughter wrote:
What's funny about this argument is that it showcases that the lions share of the arguments between the 2 campaigns is mostly squabbling amongst their followers. Meanwhile the actual two candidates just recently upgraded from tea party where they politely disagree to pillow fight. The funny thing is that you don't need to be a supporter of the other side. I don't support Clinton any more than I support, I don't know, Kasich or Cruz. I don't vote on US elections. I just try to figure out whats going on. But that's enough for the sandernista to see me as an enemy and launch ad hominems. Not one of them. No you just tried to use your ignorance to poke fun at the Bernie campaign so I called you out on it. You're not an enemy, not even close. I was just pointing out you're not as objective as you try to pretend. Being objective isn't the same as always being right. It's doing due diligence and if you still get it wrong, you need to admit it. The reason I give sandernista so much trouble is their unwillingness to engage with the thought that their candidate isn't right about everything.
Well then your certainly not talking about me. I've already said I have my issues with Bernie from when he first started running. Pretty sure most supporters here have their issues, that you haven't picked up on them, then using that ignorance as a reason to belittle Sanders supporters, fits perfectly.
|
On April 04 2016 19:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:04 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:52 Ghanburighan wrote:I'm just quoting myself from above. This is pointless. I commend Kwizach on attempting to reason with the sandernista but I think the last pages only demonstrate the following: On April 04 2016 09:07 Ghanburighan wrote:
I think I've figured out the sandernista mo: they keep on justifying everything he does so more people would hear about him. It won't matter what you say to them, they will be glad to be able to preach the truth once more. They will not tire, they will not relent, you'll just argue yourself silly. If you feel like you have an argument or material to present, do so and move on. The squabbling demonstrably leads nowhere, and actually makes them happy.
Please just take a step back for one second and think with your head instead of with your candidate. I aspire to lead a political revolution because I'm fed up with the system. I think and argue that my opponent represents the system. Is it surprising that I have negative things to say about my opponent? Does it change the value of my message? Remember, that is regardless of whether Sanders is right about Clinton or not. If Clinton is absolutely not corrupted and Sanders has been wrong about her and the system from the start, the situation is exactly the same. This should not be hard. This should not take several pages. Again, Sanders is going beyond simply painting her as equivalent to any other member of "the system", as a representative of the system. I've said this to you repeatedly. It is documented in the NY Times article.
She is the wife of an ex president, has been in the political field as one of the main figure for years and she is the heir apparent to the presidency ... She has somewhat the same position as a democratic jeb bush in this campaign. Sanders don't need to paint her into anything, she is a representative of the system for anyone who's got little objectivity. Now will it prevent her from changing the world - and the system - for the better ? That's another question ; the pro sanders think not, you think yes, me think since you're no prophets only future will tell.
On April 04 2016 19:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:12 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 04 2016 19:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 19:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 04 2016 18:52 Slaughter wrote:
What's funny about this argument is that it showcases that the lions share of the arguments between the 2 campaigns is mostly squabbling amongst their followers. Meanwhile the actual two candidates just recently upgraded from tea party where they politely disagree to pillow fight. The funny thing is that you don't need to be a supporter of the other side. I don't support Clinton any more than I support, I don't know, Kasich or Cruz. I don't vote on US elections. I just try to figure out whats going on. But that's enough for the sandernista to see me as an enemy and launch ad hominems. Not one of them. No you just tried to use your ignorance to poke fun at the Bernie campaign so I called you out on it. You're not an enemy, not even close. I was just pointing out you're not as objective as you try to pretend. Being objective isn't the same as always being right. It's doing due diligence and if you still get it wrong, you need to admit it. The reason I give sandernista so much trouble is their unwillingness to engage with the thought that their candidate isn't right about everything. Well then your certainly not talking about me. I've already said I have my issues with Bernie from when he first started running. Pretty sure most supporters here have their issues, that you haven't picked up on them, then using that ignorance as a reason to belittle Sanders supporters, fits perfectly.
What is your issue with Sanders ? I'm interested.
|
On April 04 2016 19:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:00 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:51 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:39 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:25 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:12 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:
There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption. Not when that person is described and has always been described as representing the system and being the system's candidate... An individual person is not a system. Bernie Sanders himself made the distinction, and he made sure to stick to it until earlier this year, when he switched gears and began trying to smear Hillary's character. I've provided you with evidence documenting this fact. It's impressive that you are still discarding the evidence in favor of the lie that you're pushing that there has been no notable change in his campaigning. This discussion is just surreal. We're stuck on your unwillingness to make a logical inference of the most basic kind. No, we're stuck on you pretending that criticizing a system is the same as singling out one individual and pretending that this individual is particularly different from others in the system. Sanders himself disagrees with you, Sanders' campaign disagrees with you, and analysts and commentators who've reported the change in Sanders' attacks disagree with you. You're wrong, simple as. Pretending that Clinton specifically is in the pockets of the oil & financial industries, and carefully avoiding any mention of Obama receiving even more money than her from those industries, is dishonest and false. A) I have negative things to say about a system. B) That person represents the system. Your inference: I am making no negative comment regarding that person in the context of the negative things I have to say about the system. When I start doing that later, that's a change in my position. That's what you're arguing. You're using Sanders' decision not to focus on Clinton from the start as evidence that there has been a switch in the content of his argument, when a quick analysis of the internal logic of the argument demonstrates that this isn't the case. This should not even be a discussion, and it blows my mind a little that it is. Except that as I have repeatedly explained to you and as is documented in the article, Sanders is not only painting Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He is actively portraying her as something who is distinctively suspicious and whose integrity can be particularly questioned. That is why he is not simply equating her to other people who have accepted just as much money from the same industries, like Barack Obama. That this simple fact is still flying over your head is pretty impressive. That's not singling out Clinton, that's giving a pass to Obama. See, when you're talking about changing the status quo and your last president was Obama, that's not a great endorsement of his practices, as they represent the situation that needs changing. Of course you're not going to say that about Obama in a democratic primary when he's the last democratic president, but it's okay to connect the dots from time to time.
You're leaving out half of my post, and only responding to half of what you quoted. Let me copy/paste the first half of the quote you just cited: Sanders is not only painting Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He is actively portraying her as something who is distinctively suspicious and whose integrity can be particularly questioned.
He is not portraying Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He's singling her out and portraying her as particularly untrustworthy. This is explicitly acknowledged in the NY times article I cited as a strategy his campaign wanted him to pursue earlier. Please stop pretending otherwise.
Also, pretending that she's in the pocket of the financial & oil industries when she's not is still dishonest regardless of the validity of his general critique of the campaign finance system. You're committing logical fallacies left and right.
On April 04 2016 19:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:13 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 19:04 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:52 Ghanburighan wrote:I'm just quoting myself from above. This is pointless. I commend Kwizach on attempting to reason with the sandernista but I think the last pages only demonstrate the following: On April 04 2016 09:07 Ghanburighan wrote:
I think I've figured out the sandernista mo: they keep on justifying everything he does so more people would hear about him. It won't matter what you say to them, they will be glad to be able to preach the truth once more. They will not tire, they will not relent, you'll just argue yourself silly. If you feel like you have an argument or material to present, do so and move on. The squabbling demonstrably leads nowhere, and actually makes them happy.
Please just take a step back for one second and think with your head instead of with your candidate. I aspire to lead a political revolution because I'm fed up with the system. I think and argue that my opponent represents the system. Is it surprising that I have negative things to say about my opponent? Does it change the value of my message? Remember, that is regardless of whether Sanders is right about Clinton or not. If Clinton is absolutely not corrupted and Sanders has been wrong about her and the system from the start, the situation is exactly the same. This should not be hard. This should not take several pages. Again, Sanders is going beyond simply painting her as equivalent to any other member of "the system", as a representative of the system. I've said this to you repeatedly. It is documented in the NY Times article. She is the wife of an ex president, has been in the political field as one of the main figure for years and she is the heir apparent to the presidency ... She has somewhat the same position as a democratic jeb bush in this campaign. Sanders don't need to paint her into anything, she is a representative of the system for anyone who's got little objectivity. Now will it prevent her from changing the world - and the system - for the better ? That's another question ; the pro sanders think not, you think yes, me think since you're no prophets only future will tell.
Like I said in the very post you quoted, Sanders is going beyond painting her as simply representative of the system. And even if he was only painting her as a representative of the system, it would still be dishonest to insinuate that she is corrupt if there is no evidence to back up that assertion.
|
On April 04 2016 19:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:13 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 19:04 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:52 Ghanburighan wrote:I'm just quoting myself from above. This is pointless. I commend Kwizach on attempting to reason with the sandernista but I think the last pages only demonstrate the following: On April 04 2016 09:07 Ghanburighan wrote:
I think I've figured out the sandernista mo: they keep on justifying everything he does so more people would hear about him. It won't matter what you say to them, they will be glad to be able to preach the truth once more. They will not tire, they will not relent, you'll just argue yourself silly. If you feel like you have an argument or material to present, do so and move on. The squabbling demonstrably leads nowhere, and actually makes them happy.
Please just take a step back for one second and think with your head instead of with your candidate. I aspire to lead a political revolution because I'm fed up with the system. I think and argue that my opponent represents the system. Is it surprising that I have negative things to say about my opponent? Does it change the value of my message? Remember, that is regardless of whether Sanders is right about Clinton or not. If Clinton is absolutely not corrupted and Sanders has been wrong about her and the system from the start, the situation is exactly the same. This should not be hard. This should not take several pages. Again, Sanders is going beyond simply painting her as equivalent to any other member of "the system", as a representative of the system. I've said this to you repeatedly. It is documented in the NY Times article. She is the wife of an ex president, has been in the political field for years as one of the main figure for years and she is the heir apparent to the presidency ... She has somewhat the same position as a democratic jeb bush in this campaign. Sanders don't need to paint her into anything, she is a representative of the system for anyone who's got little objectivity. Now will it prevent her from changing the world for the better ? That's another question ; the pro sanders think not, you think yes, me think since you're no prophets only future will tell. Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 19:12 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 04 2016 19:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 19:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 04 2016 18:52 Slaughter wrote:
What's funny about this argument is that it showcases that the lions share of the arguments between the 2 campaigns is mostly squabbling amongst their followers. Meanwhile the actual two candidates just recently upgraded from tea party where they politely disagree to pillow fight. The funny thing is that you don't need to be a supporter of the other side. I don't support Clinton any more than I support, I don't know, Kasich or Cruz. I don't vote on US elections. I just try to figure out whats going on. But that's enough for the sandernista to see me as an enemy and launch ad hominems. Not one of them. No you just tried to use your ignorance to poke fun at the Bernie campaign so I called you out on it. You're not an enemy, not even close. I was just pointing out you're not as objective as you try to pretend. Being objective isn't the same as always being right. It's doing due diligence and if you still get it wrong, you need to admit it. The reason I give sandernista so much trouble is their unwillingness to engage with the thought that their candidate isn't right about everything. Well then your certainly not talking about me. I've already said I have my issues with Bernie from when he first started running. Pretty sure most supporters here have their issues, that you haven't picked up on them, then using that ignorance as a reason to belittle Sanders supporters, fits perfectly. What is your issue ? I'm interested.
3 that come to mind (EDIT: These are just ones I'm pretty sure I've mentioned here before)
1. His position on guns (he's only slightly better than other lefties who don't know much about the weapons they want to regulate and their propositions show as much),
2. F-35 program is something he's tied up in that I would much prefer he wasn't.
3. Labor unions, I think they often suffer from the same problems you get with any concentration of power and Bernie doesn't speak to that the way he does basically everywhere else you find it.
3a. More specifically he hasn't said enough (imo) about police union reforms particularly around things like contracts that protect them from being drug tested and other absurd features.
That's not in any particular order or comprehensive though.
|
it would still be dishonest to insinuate that she is corrupt if there is no evidence to back up that assertion.
It's an election, everybody is stretching the truth to be in a better position. Not to mention they believe that whoever win the primary will be president with Trump as an opposing figure.
|
Ok, I've had it with being called "ignorant", "propagandist", "biased" and all the other ad hominems. If you can't entertain a civil discussion, have at it. Every time you attack my character instead of my argument, in exchange I'll intentionally pour some shit on Sanders. Deal? Here's your first dose of shit:
Here's an 80's Sanders praising food lines as a good aspect of communist regimes:
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/video-surfaces-of-bernie-sanders-praising-breadlines-and-food-rationing/
I'm a child of the 80's, my sis' was older than me and I remember reading her diary from exactly the time that Sanders is talking about. It read: "today was my birthday, and I got sausage for the first time. It's a great day!" (minus the spelling mistakes).
For my sister, for me and millions of people living under communist regimes, starvation aka food lines was a very real issue. The shops were empty, and you only got access to guaranteed food if you became a communist party member (completely unacceptable to most people, especially due to the depraved things they had you do to prove your loyalty) or you knew someone who could smuggle you food. People lined up for food because if you were there early enough you had a chance to get some stale bread, or crappy rice that you might survive a few days on. There was no guarantee though.
At the same time the party elites were eating like kings, dining on caviar and champagne and all manner of western goods. I know because my uncle who was sent to Kazakhstan's copper mines for 20 years came back a (brainwashed) communist party member. I remember visiting him once or twice, his house and kitchen were stocked with food you'd expect anyone to have access to nowadays.
In conclusion, fuck Sanders for whitewashing communist crimes for his own political ideological gains, he was literally arguing that the Soviet Union was good for starving my sister and me.
|
On April 04 2016 19:34 Ghanburighan wrote:Ok, I've had it with being called "ignorant", "propagandist", "biased" and all the other ad hominems. If you can't entertain a civil discussion, have at it. Every time you attack my character instead of my argument, in exchange I'll intentionally pour some shit on Sanders. Deal? Here's your first dose of shit: Here's an 80's Sanders praising food lines as a good aspect of communist regimes: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/video-surfaces-of-bernie-sanders-praising-breadlines-and-food-rationing/I'm a child of the 80's, my sis' was older than me and I remember reading her diary from exactly the time that Sanders is talking about. It read: "today was my birthday, and I got sausage for the first time. It's a great day!" (minus the spelling mistakes). For my sister, for me and millions of people living under communist regimes, starvation aka food lines was a very real issue. The shops were empty, and you only got access to guaranteed food if you became a communist party member (completely unacceptable to most people, especially due to the depraved things they had you do to prove your loyalty) or you knew someone who could smuggle you food. People lined up for food because if you were there early enough you had a chance to get some stale bread, or crappy rice that you might survive a few days on. There was no guarantee though. At the same time the party elites were eating like kings, dining on caviar and champagne and all manner of western goods. I know because my uncle who was sent to Kazakhstan's copper mines for 20 years came back a (brainwashed) communist party member. I remember visiting him once or twice, his house and kitchen were stocked with food you'd expect anyone to have access to nowadays. In conclusion, fuck Sanders for whitewashing communist crimes for his own political ideological gains, he was literally arguing that the Soviet Union was good for starving my sister and me.
I've seen a video about Sanders where he defend the NASA project to go on Mars ... Do you even imagine that ? He is saying he is for colonialism !
People can't even disagree nowadays, it's all about who suffered what and who don't respect that suffering. Me and my sister we couldn't eat sausage....... My aunt died of hunger fifty years ago, and it was not in a "communist" society. Bernie, in this video, was doing what everybody with half a brain does when talking about communism, trying to distinguish the bad from the good. In relation to what he is saying, is it not true that Cuba, despite the embarguo and all that, achieved a high standard of education and a good healthcare ?
|
On April 04 2016 19:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +it would still be dishonest to insinuate that she is corrupt if there is no evidence to back up that assertion. It's an election, everybody is stretching the truth to be in a better position. Not to mention they believe that whoever win the primary will be president with Trump as an opposing figure.
I know that he's not being honest on this, that's my entire point. I'm not saying it's surprising, I'm saying it's disappointing and counter-productive with regards to the Democrats' chances in November. I'd be fine with Sanders still being in the race if he focused on his message and on criticizing Republicans.
|
On April 04 2016 19:37 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:34 Ghanburighan wrote:Ok, I've had it with being called "ignorant", "propagandist", "biased" and all the other ad hominems. If you can't entertain a civil discussion, have at it. Every time you attack my character instead of my argument, in exchange I'll intentionally pour some shit on Sanders. Deal? Here's your first dose of shit: Here's an 80's Sanders praising food lines as a good aspect of communist regimes: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/video-surfaces-of-bernie-sanders-praising-breadlines-and-food-rationing/I'm a child of the 80's, my sis' was older than me and I remember reading her diary from exactly the time that Sanders is talking about. It read: "today was my birthday, and I got sausage for the first time. It's a great day!" (minus the spelling mistakes). For my sister, for me and millions of people living under communist regimes, starvation aka food lines was a very real issue. The shops were empty, and you only got access to guaranteed food if you became a communist party member (completely unacceptable to most people, especially due to the depraved things they had you do to prove your loyalty) or you knew someone who could smuggle you food. People lined up for food because if you were there early enough you had a chance to get some stale bread, or crappy rice that you might survive a few days on. There was no guarantee though. At the same time the party elites were eating like kings, dining on caviar and champagne and all manner of western goods. I know because my uncle who was sent to Kazakhstan's copper mines for 20 years came back a (brainwashed) communist party member. I remember visiting him once or twice, his house and kitchen were stocked with food you'd expect anyone to have access to nowadays. In conclusion, fuck Sanders for whitewashing communist crimes for his own political ideological gains, he was literally arguing that the Soviet Union was good for starving my sister and me. I've seen a video about Sanders where he defend the NASA project to go on Mars ... Do you even imagine that ? He is saying he is for colonialism ! People can't even disagree nowadays, it's all about who suffered what and who don't respect that suffering. Me and my sister we couldn't eat sausage....... My aunt died of hunger fifty years ago, and it was not in a "communist" society. Bernie, in this video, was doing what everybody with half a brain does when talking about communism, trying to distinguish the bad from the good. In relation to what he is saying, is it not true that Cuba, despite the embarguo and all that, achieved a high standard of education and a good healthcare ?
Hahaha. I already have several stories prepared about both universal healthcare in communist countries and the education stories are juiciest. Teaser, imagine learning about Gagarin in biology.
|
On April 04 2016 19:25 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:15 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 19:00 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:51 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:39 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:25 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:12 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:
There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption. Not when that person is described and has always been described as representing the system and being the system's candidate... An individual person is not a system. Bernie Sanders himself made the distinction, and he made sure to stick to it until earlier this year, when he switched gears and began trying to smear Hillary's character. I've provided you with evidence documenting this fact. It's impressive that you are still discarding the evidence in favor of the lie that you're pushing that there has been no notable change in his campaigning. This discussion is just surreal. We're stuck on your unwillingness to make a logical inference of the most basic kind. No, we're stuck on you pretending that criticizing a system is the same as singling out one individual and pretending that this individual is particularly different from others in the system. Sanders himself disagrees with you, Sanders' campaign disagrees with you, and analysts and commentators who've reported the change in Sanders' attacks disagree with you. You're wrong, simple as. Pretending that Clinton specifically is in the pockets of the oil & financial industries, and carefully avoiding any mention of Obama receiving even more money than her from those industries, is dishonest and false. A) I have negative things to say about a system. B) That person represents the system. Your inference: I am making no negative comment regarding that person in the context of the negative things I have to say about the system. When I start doing that later, that's a change in my position. That's what you're arguing. You're using Sanders' decision not to focus on Clinton from the start as evidence that there has been a switch in the content of his argument, when a quick analysis of the internal logic of the argument demonstrates that this isn't the case. This should not even be a discussion, and it blows my mind a little that it is. Except that as I have repeatedly explained to you and as is documented in the article, Sanders is not only painting Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He is actively portraying her as something who is distinctively suspicious and whose integrity can be particularly questioned. That is why he is not simply equating her to other people who have accepted just as much money from the same industries, like Barack Obama. That this simple fact is still flying over your head is pretty impressive. That's not singling out Clinton, that's giving a pass to Obama. See, when you're talking about changing the status quo and your last president was Obama, that's not a great endorsement of his practices, as they represent the situation that needs changing. Of course you're not going to say that about Obama in a democratic primary when he's the last democratic president, but it's okay to connect the dots from time to time. You're leaving out half of my post, and only responding to half of what you quoted. Let me copy/paste the first half of the quote you just cited: Sanders is not only painting Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He is actively portraying her as something who is distinctively suspicious and whose integrity can be particularly questioned. He is not portraying Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He's singling her out and portraying her as particularly untrustworthy. This is explicitly acknowledged in the NY times article I cited as a strategy his campaign wanted him to pursue earlier. Please stop pretending otherwise.
You're responding to 0% of the post you quoted, so I guess I'm ahead on that front. What you're saying has already been adressed. This is a change in focus, not a change in content. Everything Sanders has ever said has been consistent with the notion that Clinton is untrustworthy, represents the system and won't bring the change that he wants to bring.
|
On April 04 2016 19:45 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:37 WhiteDog wrote:On April 04 2016 19:34 Ghanburighan wrote:Ok, I've had it with being called "ignorant", "propagandist", "biased" and all the other ad hominems. If you can't entertain a civil discussion, have at it. Every time you attack my character instead of my argument, in exchange I'll intentionally pour some shit on Sanders. Deal? Here's your first dose of shit: Here's an 80's Sanders praising food lines as a good aspect of communist regimes: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/video-surfaces-of-bernie-sanders-praising-breadlines-and-food-rationing/I'm a child of the 80's, my sis' was older than me and I remember reading her diary from exactly the time that Sanders is talking about. It read: "today was my birthday, and I got sausage for the first time. It's a great day!" (minus the spelling mistakes). For my sister, for me and millions of people living under communist regimes, starvation aka food lines was a very real issue. The shops were empty, and you only got access to guaranteed food if you became a communist party member (completely unacceptable to most people, especially due to the depraved things they had you do to prove your loyalty) or you knew someone who could smuggle you food. People lined up for food because if you were there early enough you had a chance to get some stale bread, or crappy rice that you might survive a few days on. There was no guarantee though. At the same time the party elites were eating like kings, dining on caviar and champagne and all manner of western goods. I know because my uncle who was sent to Kazakhstan's copper mines for 20 years came back a (brainwashed) communist party member. I remember visiting him once or twice, his house and kitchen were stocked with food you'd expect anyone to have access to nowadays. In conclusion, fuck Sanders for whitewashing communist crimes for his own political ideological gains, he was literally arguing that the Soviet Union was good for starving my sister and me. I've seen a video about Sanders where he defend the NASA project to go on Mars ... Do you even imagine that ? He is saying he is for colonialism ! People can't even disagree nowadays, it's all about who suffered what and who don't respect that suffering. Me and my sister we couldn't eat sausage....... My aunt died of hunger fifty years ago, and it was not in a "communist" society. Bernie, in this video, was doing what everybody with half a brain does when talking about communism, trying to distinguish the bad from the good. In relation to what he is saying, is it not true that Cuba, despite the embarguo and all that, achieved a high standard of education and a good healthcare ? Hahaha. I already have several stories prepared about both universal healthcare in communist countries and the education stories are juiciest. Teaser, imagine learning about Gagarin in biology.
And yet, everybody agree it was a rather efficient system, even in maoist China. In most developped countries, the education and the health is partly socialised right now... ho damn communis trying to get your sausage !
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
