|
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 20 2016 12:12 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:03 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 11:50 kwizach wrote:
Jeff Weaver, from the Sanders campaign, just admitted again (but even more clearly than before) on MSNBC that the Sanders campaign will try to win at the convention thanks to superdelegates even if Sanders is behind Hillary both in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates. Let that sink in. He supports the idea of superdelegates giving Sanders the nomination even if he loses the popular vote and has less pledged delegates than Hillary. Is anyone here going to defend that position?
I think there's no chance of that actually happening since Sanders will concede and work to support her, but it really shows the hypocrisy of the people working under him. It's already been established the winner will be determined by super delegates barring something huge. There's no scandal in acknowledging that. Not sure if anyone did the math on if super delegates followed their constituencies how that would add up? No, that is not what Weaver was saying here. Again, Weaver explicitly said that superdelegates should give Sanders the nomination even if he has LESS pledged delegates than Hillary and even if he has LOST the popular vote to Hillary. That is extremely different from simply saying that neither candidate is likely to reach the 2,384 delegate vote threshold through pledged delegates alone. Don't try to obfuscate on this issue. Do you support superdelegates overturning the votes of the people who participated in the Democratic primary, and the results both with regards to the popular vote total and to the respective pledged delegates numbers? Jeff Weaver does. Considering Hillary's national numbers have been falling I could see myself supporting that. If Hillary is losing 60-40 nationally during California, I think that would be 1 example of why I would support doing such. I can think of other scenarios. Not sure if your complaint is about an inconsistency for Bernie's campaign or that you don't like the idea? So let's get this clear. The primary season is over. All states have voted. We've reached the convention, and the situation is as follows: Hillary has won the popular vote. Hillary has won the most number of pledged delegates. Jeff Weaver says - and apparently you agree with him - that he supports Sanders getting the nomination anyway, through the support of superdelegates. I consider that contemptible, both because of the blatant disregard for the votes that were cast and because of the glaring hypocrisy coming from a campaign which initially decried the weight given to superdelegates. It is
I can think of several scenarios where that would be the rational choice yes.
The hypocrisy argument is more nuanced but at least we finally agree that super delegates shouldn't exist, funny it took until they may be a path to victory for Bernie for so many Hillary supporters to say they shouldn't be there.
They didn't seem to have any problem with them when they were bragging about the lead they gave her. They also don't seem to mind them being shown in corporate media delegate counts.
Finally you don't get to use the voters as a shield/crutch, either you're fine with Hillary's finance issues because "those are just the rules" and so your fine with Bernie using the rules to his advantage no matter how much it contradicts his platform, or you have a problem with both.
|
On April 20 2016 10:46 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 09:28 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 08:15 Leporello wrote:On April 20 2016 07:39 kwizach wrote:I have been too busy to post in the last few days, but it looks like recent developments can be summed up as the following: - Sanders' campaign still barely raises money for down-ballot Democrats, whines about Hillary doing so - Sanders' campaign whines about how Hillary is raising money through HVF, even though it's Sanders who just received a 270-page letter from the FEC about violations, not Hillary (hers was something like 3-4 pages). - Sanders' campaign have yet to find any aspect of Hillary's fundraising that isn't legal, and all there is to it is that the Clinton campaign using the current legal framework to beat Republicans instead of the one they wish we lived in -- exactly like Sanders would if he ended up being the nominee - Sanders whines about long-established voting rules in NY -- how dare Democrats select their own nominee without consulting independents!? - "Voter suppression" excuses magnifying a thousand times issues that will be due to lack of sufficient organization will be thinly blamed on Clinton and the DNC, through the usual leaps of logic about as rooted in reality as the flying spaghetti monster - Sanders is still completely unprepared with regards to his own policies: Q: Have you thought about exactly what your tariff scenario would look like?
A: No. All I will tell you is that the status quo, what exists today, is not acceptable. How ignorant this guy is about the effects of his own platform is seriously mind-blowing. This is not to try to bring down Sanders' numbers, because he's going to fall short today yet again with regards to his targets and I have no doubt whatsoever that Clinton will be the nominee, but this primary has been incredibly disappointing. The guy who initially wanted to run a positive campaign has seen his campaign managers and some of his success go to his head, and he's now doing actual damage to the chances of progressives in the general election by going negative against everyone who doesn't support him. To think that he was initially interested in discussing issues, instead of attacking Hillary's integrity non-stop... What a waste. He's still had a positive impact in terms of helping rehabilitate "socialist" ideas and policies, and I'm happy that he ran for that reason, but the nastiness that has become the mark of his campaign lately is truly sad. And he's not even attempting (or barely) to reign in his surrogates and supporters when they go even more negative than his campaign. I still have some hope he's going to do his best to support Hillary once she becomes the nominee, but GOP leaders are already rubbing their hands together at how many dishonest attacks from Sanders they're going to be using against Clinton. I think this is the tragedy of having two candidates -- you blame anti-Hillary sentiment on Bernie. And that's just too simple. The fact is people don't like or trust Hillary Clinton, and Bernie has little to do with that. Many liberal-minded people didn't even want her to be Secretary of State. After all, she had zero prior experience in diplomacy. Her career is built on opportunism. Not just in campaign contributions, but in measures such as the Clinton Foundation, the question isn't who she's taken money from, but rather who hasn't she received money from. It's a shame Biden isn't running, to clear this false dichotomy. Because as it is now, Clinton supporters have taken this stance that she is the party leader, and any questioning of her character is an assault on the party, and now you've got a singular name and face to blame for that "assault" -- her singular opponent, Bernie. But it's really not Bernie. If there were other people in the race, such as Biden, maybe you'd see the obvious fact that people have very good reasons to not trust Hillary. No, anti-Hillary sentiment is very largely the result of 25 years of GOP smears and attacks on her character, with the most recent attacks having the most effect. Saying "the fact is people don't like or trust Hillary Clinton" is meaningless without context. When she left her office of Secretary of State in 2013, Hillary Clinton was at an average favorability rating of +34,8. That was obviously partially the result of her association to Obama, but she was favorably seen throughout her mandate, and she also enjoyed pretty high favorability ratings as senator, with the exception of a relatively short period. This means that there are specific reasons for her drop in favorability since early 2013 -- "people don't like or trust Hillary Clinton" doesn't explain change. And the biggest reason for her drop in favorability has been the relentless character assassination Republicans have been engaging in over Benghazi; plenty of non-partisan reports have shown how deceptive their attacks have been, but they've been extremely effective none-the-less. The GOP then piled on the e-mail "scandal", completely blowing out of proportion an act of carelessness which was not more than that, and which certainly did not mean she was not serious about the job she was doing or the policies she was defending. This was the state of affairs towards the end of 2015. Clinton's name had been dragged through the mud by Republicans & Fox News (and, to an extent, by others in the media who love a good scandal), and no matter how unjustified the shit that was thrown against the wall was, some of it stuck due to how often it was being repeated. Enters Bernie. I and others have already extensively documented on this board the increasingly negative turn that his campaign has taken since early March, but some of the attacks on Hillary's character were already being used by many of his supporters and others on the left before that. This was exactly what the right was inciting some on the left to do -- they actively tried to get their traditional opponents to fall for GOP talking points by framing them in a way that would appeal to some on the left, in order to further weaken Hillary as a candidate. Now, is Bernie responsible for the 25 years of smears that Hillary has been facing from the right, and for the outrageous claims some have levied against her on Benghazi in particular? Of course not. But it doesn't change the fact that he has gone increasingly negative on her, and that instead of debating her on the issues like he initially claimed (and sincerely hoped) he would do, he has been attacking her character through dishonest attacks that seek to portray her as corrupt when 1. there is zero evidence of her ever being actually corrupted by any industry, 2. the evidence actually points to the opposite to be true, 3. she does not receive more money from the industries Sanders targets than Obama and plenty others on the left and 4. it is actually easier to make a case for Sanders to have defended the interests of the industries donating money to him, supporting his campaigns, or spending money in his state (the NRA, the dairy industry, the defense industry). Decrying Citizens United and the system in general is perfectly fine. His rhetoric against Clinton in particular isn't. Hillary Clinton has been fighting for issues she cared about since way before she ever aspired to a public office, let alone the highest public office. I'm absolutely not saying she's perfect -- she has many flaws, and there are several areas on which I disagree with her. I would describe myself as to the left of Sanders, in fact. Yet that doesn't mean I can't recognize baseless character attacks for what they are, and how damaging they could end up being to the Democrats and the progressive cause in general. This election is a historic opportunity for Democrats to make their biggest gains in a long time, and it's a fundamental election to win given the state of the Supreme court membership. It is profoundly egoistical and irresponsible for Sanders to be accusing Hillary of being corrupt and of "stealing the election" -- he knows it's not true, and he's doing it as part of a last-ditch effort to win the nomination. In doing so, he's handing the GOP ammunition they'll happily be using in the general election. It's perfectly fair for Sanders to be still hoping and campaigning to become the Democratic nominee, but it's pathetic for him to be smearing Clinton's character like he currently is. I gave context, unless you think Christopher Hitchens, speaking in 2008, is a GOP operative? And that's just a small part. I could also point to the 2008 election, which she lost, due to many of the same criticisms being levied at her today.
No, you certainly didn't give context. Hitchens attacking Hillary in 2008 for donations received by the Clinton foundation and her alleged lack of experience in foreign policy at the time (by the way, nevermind the fact that Hitchens foreign policy views would get much worse favorability ratings than Hillary's) is not context for understanding why Clinton's favorability went from extremely high in 2013 to low in 2015 and then 2016. The relevant context for that is right-wing exploiting the Benghazi attacks to smear her character, then piling on the revelations on her e-mail account. And Sanders attacking her for her speeches and donations has added to this.
On April 20 2016 10:46 Leporello wrote:
Bernie is "smearing" Clinton's character with recent attacks?
No, he is saying things people have been saying for over a decade, and not just inside the GOP.
The fact that other people have been trying to smear her for a long time doesn't magically mean that it's not smearing to call or imply that she's corrupt.
On April 20 2016 10:46 Leporello wrote:
And he really isn't saying them much at all. What's sad is he has run a very decent campaign, and the victim-card response is disheartening. What little criticism he has had against Hillary pales in comparison to what she always had and always will face, and some of it, believe it or not, is justified. Most of his criticisms come in the form of comparison, and he has every right to do that.
He ran a decent campaign until January, then ran a half-decent campaign until March. Since then, he has taken a negative turn that has been recognized pretty much everywhere by analysts. I certainly do not deny that there is plenty of justified criticism of Hillary to be voiced -- I've voiced plenty myself. Yet there's a difference between legitimate criticism and dishonest character attacks that are not based on facts, and that could just as well be applied to Obama & Biden.
On April 20 2016 10:46 Leporello wrote:
Again, this is why I wish Biden was in the race. You'd see the same thing, only you wouldn't have this dichotomy on which to blame Bernie Sanders for making Democrats dislike her. Because blaming Bernie Sanders for "smearing" Hillary is just... it's ignorant. It really is.
Except it's not, because that is what he is doing.
|
i'm at a similar level with oneofthem that some of you are with GH. pretty much ignore what he posts, because apparently i'm a dumbass "sandernista" (expected better) low information voter tard.
what the fuck sort of political discourse is that supposed to create?
hey sandernista tards vote for clinton you fucking shitwits!!!
wonder why some bernie supporters don't want to support clinton
|
fwiw oneofthem has clarified he uses those terms to refer to a specific segment of bernie supporters
|
i don't care; if i were to throw around insults to "specific segments of clinton supporters" and equate them to "retards," you would be right to call me an asshole for it.
didn't know we were 12 years old
|
That is why I said before; honestly there are four actual contending parties in the US right now (wielding significant support and power) although there is physically two. The divide seems pretty wide even considering this forum.
|
On April 20 2016 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:12 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:03 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 11:50 kwizach wrote:
Jeff Weaver, from the Sanders campaign, just admitted again (but even more clearly than before) on MSNBC that the Sanders campaign will try to win at the convention thanks to superdelegates even if Sanders is behind Hillary both in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates. Let that sink in. He supports the idea of superdelegates giving Sanders the nomination even if he loses the popular vote and has less pledged delegates than Hillary. Is anyone here going to defend that position?
I think there's no chance of that actually happening since Sanders will concede and work to support her, but it really shows the hypocrisy of the people working under him. It's already been established the winner will be determined by super delegates barring something huge. There's no scandal in acknowledging that. Not sure if anyone did the math on if super delegates followed their constituencies how that would add up? No, that is not what Weaver was saying here. Again, Weaver explicitly said that superdelegates should give Sanders the nomination even if he has LESS pledged delegates than Hillary and even if he has LOST the popular vote to Hillary. That is extremely different from simply saying that neither candidate is likely to reach the 2,384 delegate vote threshold through pledged delegates alone. Don't try to obfuscate on this issue. Do you support superdelegates overturning the votes of the people who participated in the Democratic primary, and the results both with regards to the popular vote total and to the respective pledged delegates numbers? Jeff Weaver does. Considering Hillary's national numbers have been falling I could see myself supporting that. If Hillary is losing 60-40 nationally during California, I think that would be 1 example of why I would support doing such. I can think of other scenarios. Not sure if your complaint is about an inconsistency for Bernie's campaign or that you don't like the idea? So let's get this clear. The primary season is over. All states have voted. We've reached the convention, and the situation is as follows: Hillary has won the popular vote. Hillary has won the most number of pledged delegates. Jeff Weaver says - and apparently you agree with him - that he supports Sanders getting the nomination anyway, through the support of superdelegates. I consider that contemptible, both because of the blatant disregard for the votes that were cast and because of the glaring hypocrisy coming from a campaign which initially decried the weight given to superdelegates. It is I can think of several scenarios where that would be the rational choice yes. The hypocrisy argument is more nuanced but at least we finally agree that super delegates shouldn't exist, funny it took until they may be a path to victory for Bernie for so many Hillary supporters to say they shouldn't be there. They didn't seem to have any problem with them when they were bragging about the lead they gave her. They also don't seem to mind them being shown in corporate media delegate counts. Finally you don't get to use the voters as a shield/crutch, either you're fine with Hillary's finance issues because "those are just the rules" and so your fine with Bernie using the rules to his advantage no matter how much it contradicts his platform, or you have a problem with both.
I haven't changed my position one bit -- it has always been my position that superdelegates should not hand over the victory to the candidate who otherwise lost the nomination. Stop constructing straw men of outrageous positions that you pretend Clinton supporters supposedly used to hold and abandoned to eventually join the Bernie crowd in the light.
The hypocrisy argument is not "more nuanced", it's as true as can be -- Jeff Weaver and you holding that position is the embodiment of hypocrisy. The Sanders campaign's initial position: superdelegates should not determine the race and overturn the will of the voters. The Sanders campaign's current position: superdelegates should determine the race and overturn the will of the voters. There is no universe in which this is not as hypocrite as it gets. The position reversal is purely motivated by their desire to see their candidate win.
I'm glad to have Jeff Weaver (and you) on record saying that superdelegates should give Sanders the nomination even if he loses to Clinton in pledged delegates and in the popular vote, though. It really provides perspective on how attached to democratic principles he is when democracy doesn't work in his favor.
|
On April 20 2016 12:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
fwiw oneofthem has clarified he uses those terms to refer to a specific segment of bernie supporters
Thanks for the clarification. I wonder how he would explain Sander's responsibility for the imagined phenomenon wherein crazy Sanders supporters are creating distrust in US politics. Subversives are a thing. "Sandernistas" and their conspiracy theories fit neatly in a platform which is critical of the status quo.
To blame anti-establishment platforms as disruptive is bad is a very curious way to look at a democracy or a republic. If you want stability you're in the wrong format of government. And a handful of conspiracy theorists is not going to shake the pillars of the US anyway, they'll write a few books and build tinfoil hats, supporting the metallurgy industry.
|
On April 20 2016 12:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:12 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:03 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 11:50 kwizach wrote:
Jeff Weaver, from the Sanders campaign, just admitted again (but even more clearly than before) on MSNBC that the Sanders campaign will try to win at the convention thanks to superdelegates even if Sanders is behind Hillary both in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates. Let that sink in. He supports the idea of superdelegates giving Sanders the nomination even if he loses the popular vote and has less pledged delegates than Hillary. Is anyone here going to defend that position?
I think there's no chance of that actually happening since Sanders will concede and work to support her, but it really shows the hypocrisy of the people working under him. It's already been established the winner will be determined by super delegates barring something huge. There's no scandal in acknowledging that. Not sure if anyone did the math on if super delegates followed their constituencies how that would add up? No, that is not what Weaver was saying here. Again, Weaver explicitly said that superdelegates should give Sanders the nomination even if he has LESS pledged delegates than Hillary and even if he has LOST the popular vote to Hillary. That is extremely different from simply saying that neither candidate is likely to reach the 2,384 delegate vote threshold through pledged delegates alone. Don't try to obfuscate on this issue. Do you support superdelegates overturning the votes of the people who participated in the Democratic primary, and the results both with regards to the popular vote total and to the respective pledged delegates numbers? Jeff Weaver does. Considering Hillary's national numbers have been falling I could see myself supporting that. If Hillary is losing 60-40 nationally during California, I think that would be 1 example of why I would support doing such. I can think of other scenarios. Not sure if your complaint is about an inconsistency for Bernie's campaign or that you don't like the idea? So let's get this clear. The primary season is over. All states have voted. We've reached the convention, and the situation is as follows: Hillary has won the popular vote. Hillary has won the most number of pledged delegates. Jeff Weaver says - and apparently you agree with him - that he supports Sanders getting the nomination anyway, through the support of superdelegates. I consider that contemptible, both because of the blatant disregard for the votes that were cast and because of the glaring hypocrisy coming from a campaign which initially decried the weight given to superdelegates. It is I can think of several scenarios where that would be the rational choice yes. The hypocrisy argument is more nuanced but at least we finally agree that super delegates shouldn't exist, funny it took until they may be a path to victory for Bernie for so many Hillary supporters to say they shouldn't be there. They didn't seem to have any problem with them when they were bragging about the lead they gave her. They also don't seem to mind them being shown in corporate media delegate counts. Finally you don't get to use the voters as a shield/crutch, either you're fine with Hillary's finance issues because "those are just the rules" and so your fine with Bernie using the rules to his advantage no matter how much it contradicts his platform, or you have a problem with both. I haven't changed my position one bit -- it has always been my position that superdelegates should not hand over the victory to the candidate who otherwise lost the nomination. Stop constructing straw men of outrageous positions that you pretend Clinton supporters supposedly used to hold and abandoned to eventually join the Bernie crowd in the light. The hypocrisy argument is not "more nuanced", it's as true as can be -- Jeff Weaver and you holding that position is the embodiment of hypocrisy. The Sanders campaign's initial position: superdelegates should not determine the race and overturn the will of the voters. The Sanders campaign's current position: superdelegates should determine the race and overturn the will of the voters. There is no universe in which this is not as hypocrite as it gets. I'm glad to have Jeff Weaver (and you) on record saying that superdelegates should give Sanders the nomination even if he loses to Clinton in pledged delegates and in the popular vote, though. It really provides perspective on how attached to democratic principles he is when democracy doesn't work in his favor.
lol If you don't want them to overturn voters, what do we need them for in the first place?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 20 2016 12:17 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:13 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2016 12:09 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 oneofthem wrote:the concern with the sandernistas is forward looking, not just this election. the new democrat is supposed to be about building trust in government and good governance. instead there is a bunch of conspiracy nuts running around telling people everyone is corrupt. it's precisely the wrong thing to happen in a time of weakness. obama is once again the most influential piece and he more than bumbling sanders would do the work of pulling these tards back into the fold. btw im pleased to report that hillary crushed bernie in my district, CD 10. http://www.benchmarkpolitics.com/ The conspiracy nuts existed before Sanders and will continue to exist after, and they're hardly the ones who build distrust in government. This theme is on both sides. The left wing nuts have these conspiracies, the right wing nuts have different conspiracies and they spout "from my cold dead hands" referring to the time they'll eventually open fire on government employees in the name of freedom. Fucking distrust in government is a large chunk of Trump's platform, it's just spun differently. Thing is, you can blame Trump directly for that rhetoric, whereas the conspiracy rhetoric is one that only shitters adopt. Can't exactly control what those people will do or say. of course i can blame trump or sanders for obfuscating the discourse to their simple 'government is corrupt, we need revolution' stuff. two of the dimmest rocks leading the revolution is not going to get you good things. You can do what you want, but if you think the government isn't corrupt you'll be sad to hear that it's pretty much considered normal in the US for politicians to actively try to give contracts to their buddies working in big corporations and that's how they keep their seats. It's not corruption necessarily, but it's not entirely democratic because decisions are being made based on political financing and much of it is at the very least extremely suspicious. Trust in the government is low because it ought to be. That being said, the ridiculously dumb idea that every single politician is a crook and is only in politics for personal gain is very naive and even juvenile, I don't think Sanders adopts that position. I think it's a convenient simplification of his platform. Convenient for you. bernie f35 vermont google it
|
On April 20 2016 12:31 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
fwiw oneofthem has clarified he uses those terms to refer to a specific segment of bernie supporters Thanks for the clarification. I wonder how he would explain Sander's responsibility for the imagined phenomenon wherein crazy Sanders supporters are creating distrust in US politics. Subversives are a thing. "Sandernistas" and their conspiracy theories fit neatly in a platform which is critical of the status quo. To blame anti-establishment platforms as disruptive is bad is a very curious way to look at a democracy or a republic. If you want stability you're in the wrong format of government. And a handful of conspiracy theorists is not going to shake the pillars of the US anyway, they'll write a few books and build tinfoil hats, supporting the metallurgy industry.
I mean, he probably is right that Hillary and most of the establish are corrupted to some degree. But at some point you have to look at the actual reality and cut your loses. Does Bernie want risk make Ted Cruz the president to make a point? I like Sander and a lot of his ideas, if not his "solution", but anything that might remotely leading a Cruz presidency scares the living fuck out of me.
|
On April 20 2016 12:34 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:17 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:13 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2016 12:09 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 oneofthem wrote:the concern with the sandernistas is forward looking, not just this election. the new democrat is supposed to be about building trust in government and good governance. instead there is a bunch of conspiracy nuts running around telling people everyone is corrupt. it's precisely the wrong thing to happen in a time of weakness. obama is once again the most influential piece and he more than bumbling sanders would do the work of pulling these tards back into the fold. btw im pleased to report that hillary crushed bernie in my district, CD 10. http://www.benchmarkpolitics.com/ The conspiracy nuts existed before Sanders and will continue to exist after, and they're hardly the ones who build distrust in government. This theme is on both sides. The left wing nuts have these conspiracies, the right wing nuts have different conspiracies and they spout "from my cold dead hands" referring to the time they'll eventually open fire on government employees in the name of freedom. Fucking distrust in government is a large chunk of Trump's platform, it's just spun differently. Thing is, you can blame Trump directly for that rhetoric, whereas the conspiracy rhetoric is one that only shitters adopt. Can't exactly control what those people will do or say. of course i can blame trump or sanders for obfuscating the discourse to their simple 'government is corrupt, we need revolution' stuff. two of the dimmest rocks leading the revolution is not going to get you good things. You can do what you want, but if you think the government isn't corrupt you'll be sad to hear that it's pretty much considered normal in the US for politicians to actively try to give contracts to their buddies working in big corporations and that's how they keep their seats. It's not corruption necessarily, but it's not entirely democratic because decisions are being made based on political financing and much of it is at the very least extremely suspicious. Trust in the government is low because it ought to be. That being said, the ridiculously dumb idea that every single politician is a crook and is only in politics for personal gain is very naive and even juvenile, I don't think Sanders adopts that position. I think it's a convenient simplification of his platform. Convenient for you. bernie f35 vermont google it
I like when I can agree with my opposition, so fudge* the f-35 and Bernie caving on that. On the other hand Bernie's explanation is somewhat satisfactory. I can't imagine the whole "I'd be voting against putting food on thousands of Vermonters plates, for a vote that won't change the outcome and is about where it gets built moreso than if" thing on my mind.
Not something I'm proud of Bernie for as I currently understand it though.
|
On April 20 2016 12:34 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:17 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:13 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2016 12:09 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 oneofthem wrote:the concern with the sandernistas is forward looking, not just this election. the new democrat is supposed to be about building trust in government and good governance. instead there is a bunch of conspiracy nuts running around telling people everyone is corrupt. it's precisely the wrong thing to happen in a time of weakness. obama is once again the most influential piece and he more than bumbling sanders would do the work of pulling these tards back into the fold. btw im pleased to report that hillary crushed bernie in my district, CD 10. http://www.benchmarkpolitics.com/ The conspiracy nuts existed before Sanders and will continue to exist after, and they're hardly the ones who build distrust in government. This theme is on both sides. The left wing nuts have these conspiracies, the right wing nuts have different conspiracies and they spout "from my cold dead hands" referring to the time they'll eventually open fire on government employees in the name of freedom. Fucking distrust in government is a large chunk of Trump's platform, it's just spun differently. Thing is, you can blame Trump directly for that rhetoric, whereas the conspiracy rhetoric is one that only shitters adopt. Can't exactly control what those people will do or say. of course i can blame trump or sanders for obfuscating the discourse to their simple 'government is corrupt, we need revolution' stuff. two of the dimmest rocks leading the revolution is not going to get you good things. You can do what you want, but if you think the government isn't corrupt you'll be sad to hear that it's pretty much considered normal in the US for politicians to actively try to give contracts to their buddies working in big corporations and that's how they keep their seats. It's not corruption necessarily, but it's not entirely democratic because decisions are being made based on political financing and much of it is at the very least extremely suspicious. Trust in the government is low because it ought to be. That being said, the ridiculously dumb idea that every single politician is a crook and is only in politics for personal gain is very naive and even juvenile, I don't think Sanders adopts that position. I think it's a convenient simplification of his platform. Convenient for you. bernie f35 vermont google it
Every candidate has a bunch of those things. That being said, if it had been me I would have written a short piece about it rather than "bernie f35 vermont google it" because that's incredibly lazy and frankly like... try to act like a civilized person. :/
Anyway Bernie probably did some of that shady shit. The way I understand, you don't stay a senator for very long if you don't spend tens of hours every week calling big contributors asking for cash. And then it follows that you tacitly owe them. I'd say there are more documented instances of Clinton doing that. Especially since it's not necessarily considered bad, amazingly.
On April 20 2016 12:36 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:31 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
fwiw oneofthem has clarified he uses those terms to refer to a specific segment of bernie supporters Thanks for the clarification. I wonder how he would explain Sander's responsibility for the imagined phenomenon wherein crazy Sanders supporters are creating distrust in US politics. Subversives are a thing. "Sandernistas" and their conspiracy theories fit neatly in a platform which is critical of the status quo. To blame anti-establishment platforms as disruptive is bad is a very curious way to look at a democracy or a republic. If you want stability you're in the wrong format of government. And a handful of conspiracy theorists is not going to shake the pillars of the US anyway, they'll write a few books and build tinfoil hats, supporting the metallurgy industry. I mean, he probably is right that Hillary and most of the establish are corrupted to some degree. But at some point you have to look at the actual reality and cut your loses. Does Bernie want risk make Ted Cruz the president to make a point? I like Sander and a lot of his ideas, if not his "solution", but anything that might remotely leading a Cruz presidency scares the living fuck out of me.
I mean... I understand you. It seemed to me like the one time, the one occasion the US would've had to not be voting for what I, as a Canadian, would consider a lesser evil.
|
On April 20 2016 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:12 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:03 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 11:50 kwizach wrote:
Jeff Weaver, from the Sanders campaign, just admitted again (but even more clearly than before) on MSNBC that the Sanders campaign will try to win at the convention thanks to superdelegates even if Sanders is behind Hillary both in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates. Let that sink in. He supports the idea of superdelegates giving Sanders the nomination even if he loses the popular vote and has less pledged delegates than Hillary. Is anyone here going to defend that position?
I think there's no chance of that actually happening since Sanders will concede and work to support her, but it really shows the hypocrisy of the people working under him. It's already been established the winner will be determined by super delegates barring something huge. There's no scandal in acknowledging that. Not sure if anyone did the math on if super delegates followed their constituencies how that would add up? No, that is not what Weaver was saying here. Again, Weaver explicitly said that superdelegates should give Sanders the nomination even if he has LESS pledged delegates than Hillary and even if he has LOST the popular vote to Hillary. That is extremely different from simply saying that neither candidate is likely to reach the 2,384 delegate vote threshold through pledged delegates alone. Don't try to obfuscate on this issue. Do you support superdelegates overturning the votes of the people who participated in the Democratic primary, and the results both with regards to the popular vote total and to the respective pledged delegates numbers? Jeff Weaver does. Considering Hillary's national numbers have been falling I could see myself supporting that. If Hillary is losing 60-40 nationally during California, I think that would be 1 example of why I would support doing such. I can think of other scenarios. Not sure if your complaint is about an inconsistency for Bernie's campaign or that you don't like the idea? So let's get this clear. The primary season is over. All states have voted. We've reached the convention, and the situation is as follows: Hillary has won the popular vote. Hillary has won the most number of pledged delegates. Jeff Weaver says - and apparently you agree with him - that he supports Sanders getting the nomination anyway, through the support of superdelegates. I consider that contemptible, both because of the blatant disregard for the votes that were cast and because of the glaring hypocrisy coming from a campaign which initially decried the weight given to superdelegates. It is I can think of several scenarios where that would be the rational choice yes. The hypocrisy argument is more nuanced but at least we finally agree that super delegates shouldn't exist, funny it took until they may be a path to victory for Bernie for so many Hillary supporters to say they shouldn't be there. They didn't seem to have any problem with them when they were bragging about the lead they gave her. They also don't seem to mind them being shown in corporate media delegate counts. Finally you don't get to use the voters as a shield/crutch, either you're fine with Hillary's finance issues because "those are just the rules" and so your fine with Bernie using the rules to his advantage no matter how much it contradicts his platform, or you have a problem with both.
I am pretty sure she has had a pledged delegate lead since South Carolina and that has not changed though it did grow massively as she was crushing him in the south and he did shrink it slightly on his win streak but at the end of the day she will have more votes. You cant argue you are fighting for the people and then when they reject you say "okay but make me the nominee anyway". Ignoring the fact that the superdelegates wont budge its just flies in the face of your message
The argument you are making though is also silly on its face. You are basically making the argument that despite the fact that the states voted a certain way if the polls say it would have gone different if it happened again they should just pretend those votes didnt happen. It reminds me of how in 2013 there were polls saying Romney would have beaten Obama had the election been held that day so by that argument we should have kicked Obama out in 2013 because the people changed there minds after they voted. The argument is just silly on its face.
|
|
|
On April 20 2016 10:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 09:54 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 09:41 farvacola wrote:On April 20 2016 09:28 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 08:15 Leporello wrote:On April 20 2016 07:39 kwizach wrote:I have been too busy to post in the last few days, but it looks like recent developments can be summed up as the following: - Sanders' campaign still barely raises money for down-ballot Democrats, whines about Hillary doing so - Sanders' campaign whines about how Hillary is raising money through HVF, even though it's Sanders who just received a 270-page letter from the FEC about violations, not Hillary (hers was something like 3-4 pages). - Sanders' campaign have yet to find any aspect of Hillary's fundraising that isn't legal, and all there is to it is that the Clinton campaign using the current legal framework to beat Republicans instead of the one they wish we lived in -- exactly like Sanders would if he ended up being the nominee - Sanders whines about long-established voting rules in NY -- how dare Democrats select their own nominee without consulting independents!? - "Voter suppression" excuses magnifying a thousand times issues that will be due to lack of sufficient organization will be thinly blamed on Clinton and the DNC, through the usual leaps of logic about as rooted in reality as the flying spaghetti monster - Sanders is still completely unprepared with regards to his own policies: Q: Have you thought about exactly what your tariff scenario would look like?
A: No. All I will tell you is that the status quo, what exists today, is not acceptable. How ignorant this guy is about the effects of his own platform is seriously mind-blowing. This is not to try to bring down Sanders' numbers, because he's going to fall short today yet again with regards to his targets and I have no doubt whatsoever that Clinton will be the nominee, but this primary has been incredibly disappointing. The guy who initially wanted to run a positive campaign has seen his campaign managers and some of his success go to his head, and he's now doing actual damage to the chances of progressives in the general election by going negative against everyone who doesn't support him. To think that he was initially interested in discussing issues, instead of attacking Hillary's integrity non-stop... What a waste. He's still had a positive impact in terms of helping rehabilitate "socialist" ideas and policies, and I'm happy that he ran for that reason, but the nastiness that has become the mark of his campaign lately is truly sad. And he's not even attempting (or barely) to reign in his surrogates and supporters when they go even more negative than his campaign. I still have some hope he's going to do his best to support Hillary once she becomes the nominee, but GOP leaders are already rubbing their hands together at how many dishonest attacks from Sanders they're going to be using against Clinton. I think this is the tragedy of having two candidates -- you blame anti-Hillary sentiment on Bernie. And that's just too simple. The fact is people don't like or trust Hillary Clinton, and Bernie has little to do with that. Many liberal-minded people didn't even want her to be Secretary of State. After all, she had zero prior experience in diplomacy. Her career is built on opportunism. Not just in campaign contributions, but in measures such as the Clinton Foundation, the question isn't who she's taken money from, but rather who hasn't she received money from. It's a shame Biden isn't running, to clear this false dichotomy. Because as it is now, Clinton supporters have taken this stance that she is the party leader, and any questioning of her character is an assault on the party, and now you've got a singular name and face to blame for that "assault" -- her singular opponent, Bernie. But it's really not Bernie. If there were other people in the race, such as Biden, maybe you'd see the obvious fact that people have very good reasons to not trust Hillary. + Show Spoiler +No, anti-Hillary sentiment is very largely the result of 25 years of GOP smears and attacks on her character, with the most recent attacks having the most effect. Saying "the fact is people don't like or trust Hillary Clinton" is meaningless without context. When she left her office of Secretary of State in 2013, Hillary Clinton was at an average favorability rating of +34,8. That was obviously partially the result of her association to Obama, but she was favorably seen throughout her mandate, and she also enjoyed pretty high favorability ratings as senator, with the exception of a relatively short period. This means that there are specific reasons for her drop in favorability since early 2013 -- "people don't like or trust Hillary Clinton" doesn't explain change. And the biggest reason for her drop in favorability has been the relentless character assassination Republicans have been engaging in over Benghazi; plenty of non-partisan reports have shown how deceptive their attacks have been, but they've been extremely effective none-the-less. The GOP then piled on the e-mail "scandal", completely blowing out of proportion an act of carelessness which was not more than that, and which certainly did not mean she was not serious about the job she was doing or the policies she was defending. This was the state of affairs towards the end of 2015. Clinton's name had been dragged through the mud by Republicans & Fox News (and, to an extent, by others in the media who love a good scandal), and no matter how unjustified the shit that was thrown against the wall was, some of it stuck due to how often it was being repeated. Enters Bernie. I and others have already extensively documented on this board the increasingly negative turn that his campaign has taken since early March, but some of the attacks on Hillary's character were already being used by many of his supporters and others on the left before that. This was exactly what the right was inciting some on the left to do -- they actively tried to get their traditional opponents to fall for GOP talking points by framing them in a way that would appeal to some on the left, in order to further weaken Hillary as a candidate. Now, is Bernie responsible for the 25 years of smears that Hillary has been facing from the right, and for the outrageous claims some have levied against her on Benghazi in particular? Of course not. But it doesn't change the fact that he has gone increasingly negative on her, and that instead of debating her on the issues like he initially claimed (and sincerely hoped) he would do, he has been attacking her character through dishonest attacks that seek to portray her as corrupt when 1. there is zero evidence of her ever being actually corrupted by any industry, 2. the evidence actually points to the opposite to be true, 3. she does not receive more money from the industries Sanders targets than Obama and plenty others on the left and 4. it is actually easier to make a case for Sanders to have defended the interests of the industries donating money to him, supporting his campaigns, or spending money in his state (the NRA, the dairy industry, the defense industry). Decrying Citizens United and the system in general is perfectly fine. His rhetoric against Clinton in particular isn't. Hillary Clinton has been fighting for issues she cared about since way before she ever aspired to a public office, let alone the highest public office. I'm absolutely not saying she's perfect -- she has many flaws, and there are several areas on which I disagree with her. I would describe myself as to the left of Sanders, in fact. Yet that doesn't mean I can't recognize baseless character attacks for what they are, and how damaging they could end up being to the Democrats and the progressive cause in general. This election is a historic opportunity for Democrats to make their biggest gains in a long time, and it's a fundamental election to win given the state of the Supreme court membership. It is profoundly egoistical and irresponsible for Sanders to be accusing Hillary of being corrupt and of "stealing the election" -- he knows it's not true, and he's doing it as part of a last-ditch effort to win the nomination. In doing so, he's handing the GOP ammunition they'll happily be using in the general election. It's perfectly fair for Sanders to be still hoping and campaigning to become the Democratic nominee, but it's pathetic for him to be smearing Clinton's character like he currently is. Like I already said in my fairly lengthy previous post that you have yet to respond to, there is little reason to attach any sort of meaningful significance to this "ammo" that Sanders' primary strategy is supposedly handing to Republicans. By your own admission, Republicans already have a huge stockpile of attacks ready and waiting for the general election, and yet, much like those attacks ended up falling flat against Obama, popular consensus and the general trend towards leftish policies suggest that attack-based strategies have waned in utility by huge margins since the days of John Kerry. Accordingly, in light of the fact that most polls suggest that "Bernie or Bust" folk are in the minority, it is nigh impossible to substantiate the claim that Sanders' chosen method of attacking Hillary in regards to her success among monied interests is doing any sort of real damage to the progressive cause. While the hyperbole is certainly disappointing, it is hardly damaging in the manner being alleged. This is not to say that Sanders' platform is not susceptible to attack in other ways; his lack of platform policy granularity in some areas, hypocrisy vis a vie the supposed "positivity" of his campaign, and refusal to complicate ideological generalities are all very viable routes of criticism that, in my mind, are significantly more productive in terms of building consensus among Democrats as to how we ought best give effect to progressive ideas in a pragmatic and realistic manner. Consequently, this whole "Sanders is poisoning the well" spiel is not only ineffective for its lack of substance, it is also unproductive for the same reasons it attempts to use to indict Sanders' campaign strategy. Do you have a link to your previous reply to me? I was away from home this last week, and before then I thought your previous post deserved a proper response that I felt I did not have the time to write at the time. With regards to what you said here, the fact that the GOP is going to attack her with the same talking points as ever is not something I'm disputing -- in this case, however, she'll be actively defending herself through her campaign, which is a significant difference from what the situation was between 2013 and 2015 (also, the media will be fact-checking those attacks in ways that they've haven't systematically been doing since 2013, in particular when independent reports on Benghazi had not yet been produced). There is, however, a substantial difference between the GOP using its usual talking points and attacks, and the GOP not only using its usual talking points and attacks but also using quotes, soundbites and videoclips from Hillary's main challenger in the Democratic primary, who also happened to have captured a huge portion of the youth vote. Will this make Hillary lose? I really don't think so -- I'm pretty confident that Hillary will be the next president. But where this might yield results for the GOP is in down-ballot races, where GOP candidates might be able to fend off their Democratic challengers more effectively if there is a lack of enthusiasm on the side of some Democrats towards the nominee. Now, luckily, most supporters of Sanders do not follow the "BernieorBust" movement, and they will overwhelmingly support Hillary in November. But Sanders' attacks on Hillary's character are clearly a step in the wrong direction, which can only serve to depress enthusiasm for her and provide ammo to the GOP. Whether that ammo will be effective or not is another matter and is harder to quantify, but it certainly makes their job a little easier than not being able to turn the left against itself. My previous post is here. Again, though, I think that you are dramatically overemphasizing the degree to which Sanders' chosen strategy will depress electorate enthusiasm; though I don't have links at hand and the information itself is likely not too susceptible to polling anyhow, darthfoley's linked poll in the previous page strongly challenges the notion that Sanders is depressing enthusiasm among Democrats. In fact, I really don't think its hard to substantiate the claim that Sanders' continued ability to force Hilary to address things about herself or her platform that she wouldn't otherwise is actually endearing both candidates to the public at large. The strong contrast between the two parties relative to debate performances, for example, counsels in favor of the notion that Sanders' ability to present an ideologically dissimilar yet popular, if not viable, alternative to the establishment Democratic candidate is actually bettering the plight of the Democratic Party generally. Translating any of this into down-ticket predictions is highly problematic, so while I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that Sanders has necessarily bettered the odds of House and Senate democrats, I definitely think that there is room to argue that the public image of Sanders v. Clinton reflects positively on the party while Trump v. Republican Party rages on in the background. As for oneofthem's comments, the idea that Bernie won't endorse Hillary post-nomination in an effective manner is utter nonsense.
Thanks for the link -- I'll keep it open in a tab and try to reply tomorrow.
With regards to the rest of your post, I don't think it will depress electorate enthusiasm by a sizeable margin, but it may still have an effect to a small degree - and a small degree is sometimes sufficient to tip the scale in the wrong direction, especially in down-ballot races. We'll have to see, and it will of course largely depend on what Sanders decides to do after conceding. Again, though, if the primary had remained on the issues instead, I agree that it would have been much more beneficial to the Democrats.
|
On April 20 2016 12:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:31 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:12 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:03 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 11:50 kwizach wrote:
Jeff Weaver, from the Sanders campaign, just admitted again (but even more clearly than before) on MSNBC that the Sanders campaign will try to win at the convention thanks to superdelegates even if Sanders is behind Hillary both in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates. Let that sink in. He supports the idea of superdelegates giving Sanders the nomination even if he loses the popular vote and has less pledged delegates than Hillary. Is anyone here going to defend that position?
I think there's no chance of that actually happening since Sanders will concede and work to support her, but it really shows the hypocrisy of the people working under him. It's already been established the winner will be determined by super delegates barring something huge. There's no scandal in acknowledging that. Not sure if anyone did the math on if super delegates followed their constituencies how that would add up? No, that is not what Weaver was saying here. Again, Weaver explicitly said that superdelegates should give Sanders the nomination even if he has LESS pledged delegates than Hillary and even if he has LOST the popular vote to Hillary. That is extremely different from simply saying that neither candidate is likely to reach the 2,384 delegate vote threshold through pledged delegates alone. Don't try to obfuscate on this issue. Do you support superdelegates overturning the votes of the people who participated in the Democratic primary, and the results both with regards to the popular vote total and to the respective pledged delegates numbers? Jeff Weaver does. Considering Hillary's national numbers have been falling I could see myself supporting that. If Hillary is losing 60-40 nationally during California, I think that would be 1 example of why I would support doing such. I can think of other scenarios. Not sure if your complaint is about an inconsistency for Bernie's campaign or that you don't like the idea? So let's get this clear. The primary season is over. All states have voted. We've reached the convention, and the situation is as follows: Hillary has won the popular vote. Hillary has won the most number of pledged delegates. Jeff Weaver says - and apparently you agree with him - that he supports Sanders getting the nomination anyway, through the support of superdelegates. I consider that contemptible, both because of the blatant disregard for the votes that were cast and because of the glaring hypocrisy coming from a campaign which initially decried the weight given to superdelegates. It is I can think of several scenarios where that would be the rational choice yes. The hypocrisy argument is more nuanced but at least we finally agree that super delegates shouldn't exist, funny it took until they may be a path to victory for Bernie for so many Hillary supporters to say they shouldn't be there. They didn't seem to have any problem with them when they were bragging about the lead they gave her. They also don't seem to mind them being shown in corporate media delegate counts. Finally you don't get to use the voters as a shield/crutch, either you're fine with Hillary's finance issues because "those are just the rules" and so your fine with Bernie using the rules to his advantage no matter how much it contradicts his platform, or you have a problem with both. I haven't changed my position one bit -- it has always been my position that superdelegates should not hand over the victory to the candidate who otherwise lost the nomination. Stop constructing straw men of outrageous positions that you pretend Clinton supporters supposedly used to hold and abandoned to eventually join the Bernie crowd in the light. The hypocrisy argument is not "more nuanced", it's as true as can be -- Jeff Weaver and you holding that position is the embodiment of hypocrisy. The Sanders campaign's initial position: superdelegates should not determine the race and overturn the will of the voters. The Sanders campaign's current position: superdelegates should determine the race and overturn the will of the voters. There is no universe in which this is not as hypocrite as it gets. I'm glad to have Jeff Weaver (and you) on record saying that superdelegates should give Sanders the nomination even if he loses to Clinton in pledged delegates and in the popular vote, though. It really provides perspective on how attached to democratic principles he is when democracy doesn't work in his favor. lol If you don't want them to overturn voters, what do we need them for in the first place?
I don't think a single person in this thread has ever said superdelegates had a useful role in a 1v1 race, and relatively few have even discussed the role they should play in a 1v1v1 race.
|
On April 20 2016 12:41 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:34 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2016 12:17 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:13 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2016 12:09 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 oneofthem wrote:the concern with the sandernistas is forward looking, not just this election. the new democrat is supposed to be about building trust in government and good governance. instead there is a bunch of conspiracy nuts running around telling people everyone is corrupt. it's precisely the wrong thing to happen in a time of weakness. obama is once again the most influential piece and he more than bumbling sanders would do the work of pulling these tards back into the fold. btw im pleased to report that hillary crushed bernie in my district, CD 10. http://www.benchmarkpolitics.com/ The conspiracy nuts existed before Sanders and will continue to exist after, and they're hardly the ones who build distrust in government. This theme is on both sides. The left wing nuts have these conspiracies, the right wing nuts have different conspiracies and they spout "from my cold dead hands" referring to the time they'll eventually open fire on government employees in the name of freedom. Fucking distrust in government is a large chunk of Trump's platform, it's just spun differently. Thing is, you can blame Trump directly for that rhetoric, whereas the conspiracy rhetoric is one that only shitters adopt. Can't exactly control what those people will do or say. of course i can blame trump or sanders for obfuscating the discourse to their simple 'government is corrupt, we need revolution' stuff. two of the dimmest rocks leading the revolution is not going to get you good things. You can do what you want, but if you think the government isn't corrupt you'll be sad to hear that it's pretty much considered normal in the US for politicians to actively try to give contracts to their buddies working in big corporations and that's how they keep their seats. It's not corruption necessarily, but it's not entirely democratic because decisions are being made based on political financing and much of it is at the very least extremely suspicious. Trust in the government is low because it ought to be. That being said, the ridiculously dumb idea that every single politician is a crook and is only in politics for personal gain is very naive and even juvenile, I don't think Sanders adopts that position. I think it's a convenient simplification of his platform. Convenient for you. bernie f35 vermont google it Every candidate has a bunch of those things. That being said, if it had been me I would have written a short piece about it rather than "bernie f35 vermont google it" because that's incredibly lazy and frankly like... try to act like a civilized person. :/ Anyway Bernie probably did some of that shady shit. The way I understand, you don't stay a senator for very long if you don't spend tens of hours every week calling big contributors asking for cash. And then it follows that you tacitly owe them. Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:36 ragz_gt wrote:On April 20 2016 12:31 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
fwiw oneofthem has clarified he uses those terms to refer to a specific segment of bernie supporters Thanks for the clarification. I wonder how he would explain Sander's responsibility for the imagined phenomenon wherein crazy Sanders supporters are creating distrust in US politics. Subversives are a thing. "Sandernistas" and their conspiracy theories fit neatly in a platform which is critical of the status quo. To blame anti-establishment platforms as disruptive is bad is a very curious way to look at a democracy or a republic. If you want stability you're in the wrong format of government. And a handful of conspiracy theorists is not going to shake the pillars of the US anyway, they'll write a few books and build tinfoil hats, supporting the metallurgy industry. I mean, he probably is right that Hillary and most of the establish are corrupted to some degree. But at some point you have to look at the actual reality and cut your loses. Does Bernie want risk make Ted Cruz the president to make a point? I like Sander and a lot of his ideas, if not his "solution", but anything that might remotely leading a Cruz presidency scares the living fuck out of me. I mean... I understand you. It seemed to me like the one time, the one occasion the US would've had to not be voting for what I, as a Canadian, would consider a lesser evil.
He also didn't really give any plan on how to achieve what he says he gonna achieve, you can only go so far on rainbows and unicorns, and his long tenure as senator with limited achievement is not exactly encouraging on that point either.
|
While I continue to think that Bernie has his heart in the right place, his view of the world is almost childlike. Things are black and white, him v. the world. This is compounded by his inability to meaningfully articulate his plans and his weird fixation on stuff that should be a means to an end (like single payer for universal healthcare, free public college for improved education).
Weaver is free to say what he wants about superdelegates or whatever l8test gr8est strategy he and Devine have come up with to win. I don't think the superdelegate argument holds any water at this point. They're free to try and do whatever they want as long as its within the rules and doesn't violate people's privacy, safety, etc. I don't like these particular moves, but it's their (handsomely compensated) responsibility to try and win. It does speak to a certain degree of desperation commensurate with their position though.
|
On April 20 2016 12:44 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:41 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:34 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2016 12:17 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:13 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2016 12:09 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 oneofthem wrote:the concern with the sandernistas is forward looking, not just this election. the new democrat is supposed to be about building trust in government and good governance. instead there is a bunch of conspiracy nuts running around telling people everyone is corrupt. it's precisely the wrong thing to happen in a time of weakness. obama is once again the most influential piece and he more than bumbling sanders would do the work of pulling these tards back into the fold. btw im pleased to report that hillary crushed bernie in my district, CD 10. http://www.benchmarkpolitics.com/ The conspiracy nuts existed before Sanders and will continue to exist after, and they're hardly the ones who build distrust in government. This theme is on both sides. The left wing nuts have these conspiracies, the right wing nuts have different conspiracies and they spout "from my cold dead hands" referring to the time they'll eventually open fire on government employees in the name of freedom. Fucking distrust in government is a large chunk of Trump's platform, it's just spun differently. Thing is, you can blame Trump directly for that rhetoric, whereas the conspiracy rhetoric is one that only shitters adopt. Can't exactly control what those people will do or say. of course i can blame trump or sanders for obfuscating the discourse to their simple 'government is corrupt, we need revolution' stuff. two of the dimmest rocks leading the revolution is not going to get you good things. You can do what you want, but if you think the government isn't corrupt you'll be sad to hear that it's pretty much considered normal in the US for politicians to actively try to give contracts to their buddies working in big corporations and that's how they keep their seats. It's not corruption necessarily, but it's not entirely democratic because decisions are being made based on political financing and much of it is at the very least extremely suspicious. Trust in the government is low because it ought to be. That being said, the ridiculously dumb idea that every single politician is a crook and is only in politics for personal gain is very naive and even juvenile, I don't think Sanders adopts that position. I think it's a convenient simplification of his platform. Convenient for you. bernie f35 vermont google it Every candidate has a bunch of those things. That being said, if it had been me I would have written a short piece about it rather than "bernie f35 vermont google it" because that's incredibly lazy and frankly like... try to act like a civilized person. :/ Anyway Bernie probably did some of that shady shit. The way I understand, you don't stay a senator for very long if you don't spend tens of hours every week calling big contributors asking for cash. And then it follows that you tacitly owe them. On April 20 2016 12:36 ragz_gt wrote:On April 20 2016 12:31 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
fwiw oneofthem has clarified he uses those terms to refer to a specific segment of bernie supporters Thanks for the clarification. I wonder how he would explain Sander's responsibility for the imagined phenomenon wherein crazy Sanders supporters are creating distrust in US politics. Subversives are a thing. "Sandernistas" and their conspiracy theories fit neatly in a platform which is critical of the status quo. To blame anti-establishment platforms as disruptive is bad is a very curious way to look at a democracy or a republic. If you want stability you're in the wrong format of government. And a handful of conspiracy theorists is not going to shake the pillars of the US anyway, they'll write a few books and build tinfoil hats, supporting the metallurgy industry. I mean, he probably is right that Hillary and most of the establish are corrupted to some degree. But at some point you have to look at the actual reality and cut your loses. Does Bernie want risk make Ted Cruz the president to make a point? I like Sander and a lot of his ideas, if not his "solution", but anything that might remotely leading a Cruz presidency scares the living fuck out of me. I mean... I understand you. It seemed to me like the one time, the one occasion the US would've had to not be voting for what I, as a Canadian, would consider a lesser evil. He also didn't really give any plan on how to achieve what he says he gonna achieve, you can only go so far on rainbows and unicorns, and his long tenure as senator with limited achievement is not exactly encouraging on that point either.
in my opinion: what sanders is best at is calling out all of the US's problems and bringing awareness to them, which is one of the main strengths of the presidency, and which clinton is unlikely to do. (trump would do it too, but he'd be a PR disaster as president.) congress is the one that actually has to translate that into practical accomplishments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
