|
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 April 07 2016 00:45 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 22:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 06 2016 21:58 Acrofales wrote:On April 06 2016 21:51 WhiteDog wrote:
We know protesting is not good, the truth is in the middle right ?
What a lame vision of the world. Protesting is great. Show you're unhappy about what's happening. But it takes more to lead the country than standing in a square waving a flag. For instance, I am quite qualified to protest, but severely underqualified to be president. Sanders is increasingly showing that he isn't really qualified either. I disagree with your post entirely. A president is a representative, not an expert. You are the representative of a country of 300 millions people, don't tell me you can't ask for experts to find solutions that goes in accordance with the value that your electorate asked you to defend. A president is here to cut, not to mold. To go back to Obama, for exemple, many people at some point wanted him to hire Krugman or Stiglitz. Do you expect Obama to understand the financial market after one of the biggest crisis of the last century, while even the most qualified don't ? He just have to pick the right people, and tell them the objectives. . That's how you get George W. Bush A president needs to be intellectually able to lead, if necessary also against the population or advisers if those happen to demand outrageous things.
What's even the point about G. W. Bush ? I said the president is not supposed to be an expert, I didn't say the president should be stupid and ignorant.
Merkel is completly incompetent about the economy, doesn't change the fact that she is a great european fuhrer.
Krugman is a nobel prize in economy who produced some very important work on economic geography, trade, and some other subject. Stiglitz was Clinon adviser, a nobel prize in economy, and developped some very important work in environmental economy, on information, inequalities, etc. Maybe they are not the best for the crisis, Krugman's keynesianism is kinda short sighted to me, but they are way better than most economists.
|
On April 07 2016 02:08 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 01:16 farvacola wrote:
Anyone willing to equivocate Sanders with Mussolini should be regarded with skepticism at best. It's clear that Magpie has no interest in wrestling with what and who Sanders represents, and like KwarK pointed out, it's precisely that disregard among Republicans that spawned the Tea Party. not that I disagree with you--but didn't the tea party start because of discontent with the bank bail out, the iraq war, discontent for wall street, and wanting a more isolationist stance in general to shift focus towards domestic policy for the poor/middle class instead of foreign policy?
So I think you're right, only that I'd argue that all of those policy viewpoints already existed among Republicans in one form or another prior to the formation of the Tea Party as a popular movement. It was Republican Party politics that led to their consolidation and divergence from the party's main platform in the form of a grassroots, ideologically charged movement al la the Tea Party.
|
On April 07 2016 02:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 00:45 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2016 22:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 06 2016 21:58 Acrofales wrote:On April 06 2016 21:51 WhiteDog wrote:
We know protesting is not good, the truth is in the middle right ?
What a lame vision of the world. Protesting is great. Show you're unhappy about what's happening. But it takes more to lead the country than standing in a square waving a flag. For instance, I am quite qualified to protest, but severely underqualified to be president. Sanders is increasingly showing that he isn't really qualified either. I disagree with your post entirely. A president is a representative, not an expert. You are the representative of a country of 300 millions people, don't tell me you can't ask for experts to find solutions that goes in accordance with the value that your electorate asked you to defend. A president is here to cut, not to mold. To go back to Obama, for exemple, many people at some point wanted him to hire Krugman or Stiglitz. Do you expect Obama to understand the financial market after one of the biggest crisis of the last century, while even the most qualified don't ? He just have to pick the right people, and tell them the objectives. . That's how you get George W. Bush A president needs to be intellectually able to lead, if necessary also against the population or advisers if those happen to demand outrageous things. Because Merkel knows anything about the economy ? She does not, having a degree in physics or anything else does not make you better in economy. Your G. W. Bush comment is dumb.
Intellectually able to lead =/= domain knowledge of a specific topic.
GW ran a campaign on emphasizing the middle class showing the people a person who understood the worries and interests of the common person. Much like Bernie, he focused on the insecurities and worries of the people and shifted the conversation away from specific policy discussions and towards "what do we deserve" rhetoric. Which is how he got a huge surge of middle class/lower income christians who finally felt like they had someone who represented their struggles.
He got into power *because* people didn't care about the details and voters cared more for what their vote represented, not what their vote would produce. Whether or not the specific experts acquired were correct or not is not relevant to the discussion.
|
On April 07 2016 02:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 00:45 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2016 22:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 06 2016 21:58 Acrofales wrote:On April 06 2016 21:51 WhiteDog wrote:
We know protesting is not good, the truth is in the middle right ?
What a lame vision of the world. Protesting is great. Show you're unhappy about what's happening. But it takes more to lead the country than standing in a square waving a flag. For instance, I am quite qualified to protest, but severely underqualified to be president. Sanders is increasingly showing that he isn't really qualified either. I disagree with your post entirely. A president is a representative, not an expert. You are the representative of a country of 300 millions people, don't tell me you can't ask for experts to find solutions that goes in accordance with the value that your electorate asked you to defend. A president is here to cut, not to mold. To go back to Obama, for exemple, many people at some point wanted him to hire Krugman or Stiglitz. Do you expect Obama to understand the financial market after one of the biggest crisis of the last century, while even the most qualified don't ? He just have to pick the right people, and tell them the objectives. . That's how you get George W. Bush A president needs to be intellectually able to lead, if necessary also against the population or advisers if those happen to demand outrageous things. What's even the point about G. W. Bush ? Stupid comment if you ask me. I said the president is not supposed to be an expert, I didn't say the president should be stupid and ignorant. Krugman is a nobel prize in economy who produced some very important work on economic geography, trade, and some other subject. Stiglitz was Clinon adviser, a nobel prize in economy, and developped some very important work in environmental economy, on information, inequalities, etc. Maybe they are not the best for the crisis, Krugman's keynesianism is kinda short sighted to me, but they are way better than most economists.
Krugman is an excellent economist. His work on international trade is crucial to this day and underpins a great deal of the thinking in the trade policy of both the US and the EU. But his columns have nothing to do with it, unfortunately.
|
On April 07 2016 02:17 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:08 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 01:16 farvacola wrote:
Anyone willing to equivocate Sanders with Mussolini should be regarded with skepticism at best. It's clear that Magpie has no interest in wrestling with what and who Sanders represents, and like KwarK pointed out, it's precisely that disregard among Republicans that spawned the Tea Party. not that I disagree with you--but didn't the tea party start because of discontent with the bank bail out, the iraq war, discontent for wall street, and wanting a more isolationist stance in general to shift focus towards domestic policy for the poor/middle class instead of foreign policy? So I think you're right, only that I'd argue that all of those policy viewpoints already existed among Republicans in one form or another prior to the formation of the Tea Party as a popular movement. It was Republican Party politics that led to their consolidation and divergence from the party's main platform in the form of a grassroots, ideologically charged movement al la the Tea Party.
Not disagreeing, just wanted to point out that the variables that jump started the tea party are the same variables that has jump started the bern party. Its relevant in that it shows that both Trump and Bernie are definitely part of the same zeitgeist movement, just opposite coins of it.
|
On April 07 2016 02:26 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:17 farvacola wrote:On April 07 2016 02:08 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 01:16 farvacola wrote:
Anyone willing to equivocate Sanders with Mussolini should be regarded with skepticism at best. It's clear that Magpie has no interest in wrestling with what and who Sanders represents, and like KwarK pointed out, it's precisely that disregard among Republicans that spawned the Tea Party. not that I disagree with you--but didn't the tea party start because of discontent with the bank bail out, the iraq war, discontent for wall street, and wanting a more isolationist stance in general to shift focus towards domestic policy for the poor/middle class instead of foreign policy? So I think you're right, only that I'd argue that all of those policy viewpoints already existed among Republicans in one form or another prior to the formation of the Tea Party as a popular movement. It was Republican Party politics that led to their consolidation and divergence from the party's main platform in the form of a grassroots, ideologically charged movement al la the Tea Party. Not disagreeing, just wanted to point out that the variables that jump started the tea party are the same variables that has jump started the bern party. Its relevant in that it shows that both Trump and Bernie are definitely part of the same zeitgeist movement, just opposite coins of it.
I think this analysis and comparison leaves out a crucial and highly differentiating factor, namely that the Tea Party and Trump movements incorporate a great deal of "small government" ideology into their platforms, whereas Sanders and his supporters necessarily rely on a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that "big government" and federal regulation are highly important/effective. While there are definitely similarities, I think it's a bit myopic to overlook that difference.
|
On April 07 2016 02:22 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:14 WhiteDog wrote:On April 07 2016 00:45 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2016 22:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 06 2016 21:58 Acrofales wrote:On April 06 2016 21:51 WhiteDog wrote:
We know protesting is not good, the truth is in the middle right ?
What a lame vision of the world. Protesting is great. Show you're unhappy about what's happening. But it takes more to lead the country than standing in a square waving a flag. For instance, I am quite qualified to protest, but severely underqualified to be president. Sanders is increasingly showing that he isn't really qualified either. I disagree with your post entirely. A president is a representative, not an expert. You are the representative of a country of 300 millions people, don't tell me you can't ask for experts to find solutions that goes in accordance with the value that your electorate asked you to defend. A president is here to cut, not to mold. To go back to Obama, for exemple, many people at some point wanted him to hire Krugman or Stiglitz. Do you expect Obama to understand the financial market after one of the biggest crisis of the last century, while even the most qualified don't ? He just have to pick the right people, and tell them the objectives. . That's how you get George W. Bush A president needs to be intellectually able to lead, if necessary also against the population or advisers if those happen to demand outrageous things. Because Merkel knows anything about the economy ? She does not, having a degree in physics or anything else does not make you better in economy. Your G. W. Bush comment is dumb. Intellectually able to lead =/= domain knowledge of a specific topic. GW ran a campaign on emphasizing the middle class showing the people a person who understood the worries and interests of the common person. Much like Bernie, he focused on the insecurities and worries of the people and shifted the conversation away from specific policy discussions and towards "what do we deserve" rhetoric. Which is how he got a huge surge of middle class/lower income christians who finally felt like they had someone who represented their struggles. He got into power *because* people didn't care about the details and voters cared more for what their vote represented, not what their vote would produce. Whether or not the specific experts acquired were correct or not is not relevant to the discussion.
My point was exactly that a president does not need to be an expert in everything, but rather defend certain value and give objectives to people he hire to tailor solutions that respect the value he is supposed to defend. Now ; can you explain me how what you say actually contredict my point ? You are basically repeating what I am saying.
Saying "bush bush" is no argument, the guy almost killed himself with a bretzel.
|
On April 07 2016 01:13 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 00:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 07 2016 00:44 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point. The assumption is that the supers won't overturn the popular vote and therefore aren't relevant. Supers can pledge support but they're not locked in and circumstances have changed drastically since they first pledged. The 67% is a red herring, he need only win the popular. being that Clinton has the popular vote and the delegate vote as well as a track recording with having a positive work relationship with most of these delegates--I see very little reason they won't stay. Superdelegates stuck with Obama last time despite the popular vote (which Hilary also had) because he had a good plan. Now they side with Hilary because not only does she have the popular vote, again, but she now has a solid plan. like Kwark said, it's not so much that people think super delegates will swap to change anything, it's like you should pretend they're not there to begin with and will just align with whoever wins the popular vote. Yes Hillary is winning that right now but to turn that around you need less than to turn that around + super delegates. And frankly if NY goes to Sanders he looks really, really good. He's what, 200 delegates behind right now ? And pretty much all the southern states are already done (actually he's literally just 89 delegates behind Cliton/ behind to where he should be at according to fivethirtyeight) . I don't see it (winning NY) happening but who knows.
But that's not actually how superdelegates work. Some might, but superdelegates are not actually there to ensure the popular vote gets the win. They are there as a sort of "steering correction" for the party, so that if it veers slightly towards a McGovern, it can be corrected. Whether the superdelegates see Sanders as a McGovern or not is up to the superdelegates. In 2008 they clearly saw Obama as a perfectly good choice, and with the momentum he had, as the best choice for the presidency: even though he wasn't the establishment's first choice, he was still perfectly acceptable to "the establishment". Is Sanders? I don't know, but the legwork Clinton has done, and is doing, to ensure the superdelegates are happy with her as the candidate, he has a real uphill battle ahead of him even if he does manage to win the popular delegate count (I think for winning the popular vote, the ship has sailed), which is an extremely tall order all by itself.
But it's way too early to say what the superdelegates might to in the hypothetical situation that he wins NY by enough of a margin to make it a race again. I think it's far more likely that Clinton wins NY, and then brings home NJ and maybe even PA off that momentum, which would put any hope of Bernie winning the primaries to bed before superdelegates even become relevant.
|
On April 07 2016 02:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:22 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 02:14 WhiteDog wrote:On April 07 2016 00:45 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2016 22:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 06 2016 21:58 Acrofales wrote:On April 06 2016 21:51 WhiteDog wrote:
We know protesting is not good, the truth is in the middle right ?
What a lame vision of the world. Protesting is great. Show you're unhappy about what's happening. But it takes more to lead the country than standing in a square waving a flag. For instance, I am quite qualified to protest, but severely underqualified to be president. Sanders is increasingly showing that he isn't really qualified either. I disagree with your post entirely. A president is a representative, not an expert. You are the representative of a country of 300 millions people, don't tell me you can't ask for experts to find solutions that goes in accordance with the value that your electorate asked you to defend. A president is here to cut, not to mold. To go back to Obama, for exemple, many people at some point wanted him to hire Krugman or Stiglitz. Do you expect Obama to understand the financial market after one of the biggest crisis of the last century, while even the most qualified don't ? He just have to pick the right people, and tell them the objectives. . That's how you get George W. Bush A president needs to be intellectually able to lead, if necessary also against the population or advisers if those happen to demand outrageous things. Because Merkel knows anything about the economy ? She does not, having a degree in physics or anything else does not make you better in economy. Your G. W. Bush comment is dumb. Intellectually able to lead =/= domain knowledge of a specific topic. GW ran a campaign on emphasizing the middle class showing the people a person who understood the worries and interests of the common person. Much like Bernie, he focused on the insecurities and worries of the people and shifted the conversation away from specific policy discussions and towards "what do we deserve" rhetoric. Which is how he got a huge surge of middle class/lower income christians who finally felt like they had someone who represented their struggles. He got into power *because* people didn't care about the details and voters cared more for what their vote represented, not what their vote would produce. Whether or not the specific experts acquired were correct or not is not relevant to the discussion. My point was exactly that a president does not need to be an expert in everything, but rather defend certain value and give objectives to people he hire to tailor solutions that respect the value he is supposed to defend. Now ; can you explain me how what you say actually contredict my point ? You are basically repeating what I am saying. Saying "bush bush" is no argument, the guy almost killed himself with a bretzel.
Merkel, as someone with a PhD, is intellectually able to lead because she understands the importance of evidence based conclusions. Bush, who ran on feelings and protesting of the (at the time) status quo of Clinton, got elected despite not having the intellectual intelligence or experience to show he knew how to find solutions to problems. He mainly told a disenfranchised group that he cared about they felt and because of that they showed up in droves to vote for him.
This is the complete opposite of what you said, I do not know how you would think I was not contradicting you.
|
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it.
|
On April 07 2016 02:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:26 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 02:17 farvacola wrote:On April 07 2016 02:08 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 01:16 farvacola wrote:
Anyone willing to equivocate Sanders with Mussolini should be regarded with skepticism at best. It's clear that Magpie has no interest in wrestling with what and who Sanders represents, and like KwarK pointed out, it's precisely that disregard among Republicans that spawned the Tea Party. not that I disagree with you--but didn't the tea party start because of discontent with the bank bail out, the iraq war, discontent for wall street, and wanting a more isolationist stance in general to shift focus towards domestic policy for the poor/middle class instead of foreign policy? So I think you're right, only that I'd argue that all of those policy viewpoints already existed among Republicans in one form or another prior to the formation of the Tea Party as a popular movement. It was Republican Party politics that led to their consolidation and divergence from the party's main platform in the form of a grassroots, ideologically charged movement al la the Tea Party. Not disagreeing, just wanted to point out that the variables that jump started the tea party are the same variables that has jump started the bern party. Its relevant in that it shows that both Trump and Bernie are definitely part of the same zeitgeist movement, just opposite coins of it. I think this analysis and comparison leaves out a crucial and highly differentiating factor, namely that the Tea Party and Trump movements incorporate a great deal of "small government" ideology into their platforms, whereas Sanders and his supporters necessarily rely on a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that "big government" and federal regulation are highly important/effective. While there are definitely similarities, I think it's a bit myopic to overlook that difference.
Two groups having different solutions to the same problem does not mean that they are part of vastly different movements. Malcolm X and Martin Luther had very different ideas on how to solve the civil rights problem, but it didn't mean that they were not part of the same cause.
|
On April 07 2016 02:52 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:33 farvacola wrote:On April 07 2016 02:26 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 02:17 farvacola wrote:On April 07 2016 02:08 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 01:16 farvacola wrote:
Anyone willing to equivocate Sanders with Mussolini should be regarded with skepticism at best. It's clear that Magpie has no interest in wrestling with what and who Sanders represents, and like KwarK pointed out, it's precisely that disregard among Republicans that spawned the Tea Party. not that I disagree with you--but didn't the tea party start because of discontent with the bank bail out, the iraq war, discontent for wall street, and wanting a more isolationist stance in general to shift focus towards domestic policy for the poor/middle class instead of foreign policy? So I think you're right, only that I'd argue that all of those policy viewpoints already existed among Republicans in one form or another prior to the formation of the Tea Party as a popular movement. It was Republican Party politics that led to their consolidation and divergence from the party's main platform in the form of a grassroots, ideologically charged movement al la the Tea Party. Not disagreeing, just wanted to point out that the variables that jump started the tea party are the same variables that has jump started the bern party. Its relevant in that it shows that both Trump and Bernie are definitely part of the same zeitgeist movement, just opposite coins of it. I think this analysis and comparison leaves out a crucial and highly differentiating factor, namely that the Tea Party and Trump movements incorporate a great deal of "small government" ideology into their platforms, whereas Sanders and his supporters necessarily rely on a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that "big government" and federal regulation are highly important/effective. While there are definitely similarities, I think it's a bit myopic to overlook that difference. Two groups having different solutions to the same problem does not mean that they are part of vastly different movements. Malcolm X and Martin Luther had very different ideas on how to solve the civil rights problem, but it didn't mean that they were not part of the same cause.
Bringing up Malcolm X and Martin Luther King as a basis for affirming your comparison is not exactly helpful; the notion that both were fighting for the same thing vis a vie "civil rights" boils down their goals past recognizability. Their movements wanted VERY different things.
|
United States42738 Posts
While superdelegates may exist to undermine the popular vote that doesn't mean that it's always prudent to do so and that they will. The Tea Party is a rebellion as much against the Republican establishment as it is against the left. They spend more time trying to push Republican candidates right, through threats to run against them, attack ads and controlling funding, than actually opposing the left. They feel that the mainstream doesn't represent them or their interests and that there has been a general shift towards compromise rather than ideological purity. Just because Dems aren't as naturally anti-government does not mean they can't protest the party establishment and can be safely ignored. That kind of arrogance is how you get the Tea Party.
Sure, superdelegates are meant to overpower the popular vote but I suspect they won't actually do it. You fuck with your base at your own peril.
|
On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it.
I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything.
|
On April 07 2016 02:24 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:14 WhiteDog wrote:On April 07 2016 00:45 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2016 22:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 06 2016 21:58 Acrofales wrote:On April 06 2016 21:51 WhiteDog wrote:
We know protesting is not good, the truth is in the middle right ?
What a lame vision of the world. Protesting is great. Show you're unhappy about what's happening. But it takes more to lead the country than standing in a square waving a flag. For instance, I am quite qualified to protest, but severely underqualified to be president. Sanders is increasingly showing that he isn't really qualified either. I disagree with your post entirely. A president is a representative, not an expert. You are the representative of a country of 300 millions people, don't tell me you can't ask for experts to find solutions that goes in accordance with the value that your electorate asked you to defend. A president is here to cut, not to mold. To go back to Obama, for exemple, many people at some point wanted him to hire Krugman or Stiglitz. Do you expect Obama to understand the financial market after one of the biggest crisis of the last century, while even the most qualified don't ? He just have to pick the right people, and tell them the objectives. . That's how you get George W. Bush A president needs to be intellectually able to lead, if necessary also against the population or advisers if those happen to demand outrageous things. What's even the point about G. W. Bush ? Stupid comment if you ask me. I said the president is not supposed to be an expert, I didn't say the president should be stupid and ignorant. Krugman is a nobel prize in economy who produced some very important work on economic geography, trade, and some other subject. Stiglitz was Clinon adviser, a nobel prize in economy, and developped some very important work in environmental economy, on information, inequalities, etc. Maybe they are not the best for the crisis, Krugman's keynesianism is kinda short sighted to me, but they are way better than most economists. Krugman is an excellent economist. His work on international trade is crucial to this day and underpins a great deal of the thinking in the trade policy of both the US and the EU. But his columns have nothing to do with it, unfortunately.
He's certainly no expert on the financial sector and how to break it up. Neither is Stiglitz.
Sanders not knowing anything about policy like in the interview makes him look like an incompetent candidate in my eyes. He could've already let an expert look at how to cut up the financial sector, read the main points and then use those to answer. Nobody expects him to give all the details but I do at least expect him to give something.
|
A judge sentenced former coal executive Don Blankenship to a year in prison on Wednesday for his role in the deadliest US mine explosion in four decades, saying he was part of a “dangerous conspiracy”.
One day after the sixth anniversary of the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion, which killed 29 men, US district judge Irene Berger gave the ex-Massey Energy CEO the maximum prison time and fined him the maximum of $250,000.
A federal jury convicted Blankenship on 3 December of a misdemeanor conspiracy to willfully violate mine safety standards at Upper Big Branch.
The judge talked about Blankenship’s résumé and said: “Instead of being able to tout you as a success story, we are here as a result of your part in a dangerous conspiracy.”
Blankenship spoke briefly and said he wanted to reassure the families of the fallen miners that they were “great guys, great coalminers”.
“It is important to everyone that you know that I’m not guilty of a crime,” Blankenship said.
Blankenship’s attorneys contended he should receive probation and a fine, at most. They promised to appeal against the sentence.
Source
|
On April 07 2016 02:57 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:52 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 02:33 farvacola wrote:On April 07 2016 02:26 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 02:17 farvacola wrote:On April 07 2016 02:08 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 01:16 farvacola wrote:
Anyone willing to equivocate Sanders with Mussolini should be regarded with skepticism at best. It's clear that Magpie has no interest in wrestling with what and who Sanders represents, and like KwarK pointed out, it's precisely that disregard among Republicans that spawned the Tea Party. not that I disagree with you--but didn't the tea party start because of discontent with the bank bail out, the iraq war, discontent for wall street, and wanting a more isolationist stance in general to shift focus towards domestic policy for the poor/middle class instead of foreign policy? So I think you're right, only that I'd argue that all of those policy viewpoints already existed among Republicans in one form or another prior to the formation of the Tea Party as a popular movement. It was Republican Party politics that led to their consolidation and divergence from the party's main platform in the form of a grassroots, ideologically charged movement al la the Tea Party. Not disagreeing, just wanted to point out that the variables that jump started the tea party are the same variables that has jump started the bern party. Its relevant in that it shows that both Trump and Bernie are definitely part of the same zeitgeist movement, just opposite coins of it. I think this analysis and comparison leaves out a crucial and highly differentiating factor, namely that the Tea Party and Trump movements incorporate a great deal of "small government" ideology into their platforms, whereas Sanders and his supporters necessarily rely on a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that "big government" and federal regulation are highly important/effective. While there are definitely similarities, I think it's a bit myopic to overlook that difference. Two groups having different solutions to the same problem does not mean that they are part of vastly different movements. Malcolm X and Martin Luther had very different ideas on how to solve the civil rights problem, but it didn't mean that they were not part of the same cause. Bringing up Malcolm X and Martin Luther King as a basis for affirming your comparison is not exactly helpful; the notion that both were fighting for the same thing vis a vie "civil rights" boils down their goals past recognizability. Their movements wanted VERY different things.
Yes, they did want different things. But they both did see the same problems, and just had different solutions for those problems. Very different solutions. Which is exactly what I said--I don't see the confusion? They both saw an issue, much like the Tea Party and the Bern Party saw an issue--and hence both went about wanting to fix that issue.
|
On April 07 2016 02:57 KwarK wrote:
While superdelegates may exist to undermine the popular vote that doesn't mean that it's always prudent to do so and that they will. The Tea Party is a rebellion as much against the Republican establishment as it is against the left. They spend more time trying to push Republican candidates right, through threats to run against them, attack ads and controlling funding, than actually opposing the left. They feel that the mainstream doesn't represent them or their interests and that there has been a general shift towards compromise rather than ideological purity. Just because Dems aren't as naturally anti-government does not mean they can't protest the party establishment and can be safely ignored. That kind of arrogance is how you get the Tea Party.
Sure, superdelegates are meant to overpower the popular vote but I suspect they won't actually do it. You fuck with your base at your own peril.
To give an extreme example. The entirety of the Tea party supporters could register as democrats and through the primary give Cruz the ability to run as the Democratic candidate.
The Super delegates allow the party to stop such a hostile takeover, an outside force usurping the party.
To use them to defy your own established base is suicide.
|
On April 07 2016 03:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:57 KwarK wrote:
While superdelegates may exist to undermine the popular vote that doesn't mean that it's always prudent to do so and that they will. The Tea Party is a rebellion as much against the Republican establishment as it is against the left. They spend more time trying to push Republican candidates right, through threats to run against them, attack ads and controlling funding, than actually opposing the left. They feel that the mainstream doesn't represent them or their interests and that there has been a general shift towards compromise rather than ideological purity. Just because Dems aren't as naturally anti-government does not mean they can't protest the party establishment and can be safely ignored. That kind of arrogance is how you get the Tea Party.
Sure, superdelegates are meant to overpower the popular vote but I suspect they won't actually do it. You fuck with your base at your own peril. To give an extreme example. The entirety of the Tea party supporters could register as democrats and through the primary give Cruz the ability to run as the Democratic candidate. The Super delegates allow the party to stop such a hostile takeover, an outside force usurping the party. To use them to defy your own established base is suicide.
Which counts more as the established base, the popular vote or the delegate vote?
|
On April 07 2016 03:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A judge sentenced former coal executive Don Blankenship to a year in prison on Wednesday for his role in the deadliest US mine explosion in four decades, saying he was part of a “dangerous conspiracy”.
One day after the sixth anniversary of the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion, which killed 29 men, US district judge Irene Berger gave the ex-Massey Energy CEO the maximum prison time and fined him the maximum of $250,000.
A federal jury convicted Blankenship on 3 December of a misdemeanor conspiracy to willfully violate mine safety standards at Upper Big Branch.
The judge talked about Blankenship’s résumé and said: “Instead of being able to tout you as a success story, we are here as a result of your part in a dangerous conspiracy.”
Blankenship spoke briefly and said he wanted to reassure the families of the fallen miners that they were “great guys, great coalminers”.
“It is important to everyone that you know that I’m not guilty of a crime,” Blankenship said.
Blankenship’s attorneys contended he should receive probation and a fine, at most. They promised to appeal against the sentence. Source
Willfully violate safety procedures, resulting in the death of 29 and you get a year?
how about 29 charges of involuntary manslaughter instead of a conspiracy charge...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
