|
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 21:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 21:06 travis wrote:
I think it's weird how much some of you obsess over who other people are supporting. It's not an obsession with who they are supporting as much as it is ab obsession with what psychological/societal things are taking place that give people any amount of confidence in either Bernie's viability as a candidate or his strength as a potential president. What is most interesting to me is seeing so many democrats/independents adopt the exact same self-centered perspective that led to the government shutdown. Completely unwilling to admit they are but one part of our population, they insist that their views are the only acceptable solution to our country. They don't see compromising with the majority of the country as acceptable. It's super interesting and I honestly just like watching the situation evolve. People are adopting thinking styles I never would have predicted.
By saying over and over again that Sanders is not viable as a candidate you're doing exactly that though, insisting that your own view of Sanders is the only acceptable.
|
On April 20 2016 21:38 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 21:19 Mohdoo wrote:On April 20 2016 21:06 travis wrote:
I think it's weird how much some of you obsess over who other people are supporting. It's not an obsession with who they are supporting as much as it is ab obsession with what psychological/societal things are taking place that give people any amount of confidence in either Bernie's viability as a candidate or his strength as a potential president. What is most interesting to me is seeing so many democrats/independents adopt the exact same self-centered perspective that led to the government shutdown. Completely unwilling to admit they are but one part of our population, they insist that their views are the only acceptable solution to our country. They don't see compromising with the majority of the country as acceptable. It's super interesting and I honestly just like watching the situation evolve. People are adopting thinking styles I never would have predicted. By saying over and over again that Sanders is not viable as a candidate you're doing exactly that though, insisting that your own view of Sanders is the only acceptable.
I'm not saying my view is the only acceptable view and you are misconstruing my words. "Bernie or bust" is the idea that the differences between Trump and Clinton are not significant because they are not differences that distinguish Bernie. And it is *only* these qualities of Bernie which are acceptable for a candidate to these people. It is a common thing for Bernie bros to say they are "sick and tired of compromising" by accepting candidates that they don't see as pristine as Bernie. They are saying most of the same things said by the tea party. They believe that they have already been compromising much more than they should and now intend to compromise EVEN LESS by saying someone in favor of abortion rights, gay rights and increasing the minimum wage is equivalent to someone who favors the opposite of all those things. Why? Because it is either Bernie or NOTHING. Those distinguishing qualities are not significant in the grand scale of Bernie vs others.
Do you see the distinction between me presenting a single interpretation of Bernie (my own), and the idea that there is no acceptable candidate other than Bernie?
Edit: Thought people might find this entertaining:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4fl2wj/no_i_will_not_yield/d29sjoo
Guys, honest question. Does phoenbanking even do anything? We called three million people and lost by a considerable margin.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
What do you mean by "viable"?
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
is viable being able to win the nomination, do the shit that he says or that the shit he says it not viable?
or is it just his general persona that you don't think is viable?
|
On April 20 2016 22:37 Incognoto wrote:
What do you mean by "viable"?
The same thing everyone else means by “viable”: My own personal metric set by me, now confirmed by the current state of the primaries. It is an fancy of way saying “Called it!”
|
0% performativity included.
|
On April 20 2016 22:40 Kipsate wrote:
is viable being able to win the nomination, do the shit that he says or that the shit he says it not viable?
or is it just his general persona that you don't think is viable?
He's losing the primary convincingly. What more needs to be said?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 20 2016 22:40 Kipsate wrote:
is viable being able to win the nomination, do the shit that he says or that the shit he says it not viable?
or is it just his general persona that you don't think is viable?
all of the above really but it wasnt my discussion
|
On April 20 2016 22:50 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 22:40 Kipsate wrote:
is viable being able to win the nomination, do the shit that he says or that the shit he says it not viable?
or is it just his general persona that you don't think is viable? all of the above really but it wasnt my discussion
In which case I don't understand your remark. Why wouldn't he be able to win the nomination or do the stuff which he says? You have no way of knowing any of that, so as another poster said, this is just saying "called it".
^^
I think that Bernie becoming president would have been a very interesting turn of events for the USA. Even if he had been unable to commit to carrying out the policies he was proposing (due to Congressional opposition), he would have stirred things up in a way which would shed some more light on the things the USA does wrong.
|
On April 20 2016 21:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 21:38 OtherWorld wrote:On April 20 2016 21:19 Mohdoo wrote:On April 20 2016 21:06 travis wrote:
I think it's weird how much some of you obsess over who other people are supporting. It's not an obsession with who they are supporting as much as it is ab obsession with what psychological/societal things are taking place that give people any amount of confidence in either Bernie's viability as a candidate or his strength as a potential president. What is most interesting to me is seeing so many democrats/independents adopt the exact same self-centered perspective that led to the government shutdown. Completely unwilling to admit they are but one part of our population, they insist that their views are the only acceptable solution to our country. They don't see compromising with the majority of the country as acceptable. It's super interesting and I honestly just like watching the situation evolve. People are adopting thinking styles I never would have predicted. By saying over and over again that Sanders is not viable as a candidate you're doing exactly that though, insisting that your own view of Sanders is the only acceptable. I'm not saying my view is the only acceptable view and you are misconstruing my words. "Bernie or bust" is the idea that the differences between Trump and Clinton are not significant because they are not differences that distinguish Bernie. And it is *only* these qualities of Bernie which are acceptable for a candidate to these people. It is a common thing for Bernie bros to say they are "sick and tired of compromising" by accepting candidates that they don't see as pristine as Bernie. They are saying most of the same things said by the tea party. They believe that they have already been compromising much more than they should and now intend to compromise EVEN LESS by saying someone in favor of abortion rights, gay rights and increasing the minimum wage is equivalent to someone who favors the opposite of all those things. Why? Because it is either Bernie or NOTHING. Those distinguishing qualities are not significant in the grand scale of Bernie vs others. Do you see the distinction between me presenting a single interpretation of Bernie (my own), and the idea that there is no acceptable candidate other than Bernie? Edit: Thought people might find this entertaining: https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4fl2wj/no_i_will_not_yield/d29sjooShow nested quote +Guys, honest question. Does phoenbanking even do anything? We called three million people and lost by a considerable margin.
I don't see what's wrong and/or surprising in the fact that opinion groups which are smaller in size - such as the Tea Party, or what I think we can now call the Social-Democrats or something, or the Libertarians - need to be more "extreme" (and dismissive of others) to be heard. I mean come on, do you think that if instead of saying "We need a political revolution", Sanders had said "Clinton is a really good candidate who I really respect, but I think I'm just a little bit better to be President", he would have more than fifty delegates right now?
Most Sanders supporters are not behaving like Democrats who have to chose between two Democrats, they're behaving like supporters of another party (Socialist? I'm not sure if Sanders fully qualifies as a Socialist [I'm talking about actual, "european" socialism here, not communism]), as shown when they sometimes equate Clinton to Trump. And they're completely right to do that, not because Clinton and Trump are objectively the same, but because that's what a third party would do.
And, when we look at policies and opinions, it's clear to me that Sanders and Clinton supporters have divergences that are too big to be considered as belonging to the same opinion group, "Democrats". Thus, if people with clear leftist views have been forced to compromise with people with clear center-left to center-right views since decades, I can understand that they've had enough of compromising - and I'd argue that in fact, they're correct in that assesment.
On April 20 2016 22:01 oneofthem wrote:saying bernie is unviable is a factual statement. it is true in this case. it would be another story if the evidence is overwhelmingly that he is viable but this is also not the case. guy was apparently 'politely declined' to participate in a commune beyond a few days. http://freebeacon.com/politics/bernie-sanders-asked-leave-hippie-commune/
"What I say is true because it's me who's saying it. No, I won't provide any evidence, who do you think I am?"
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you mean you want a basic math lesson?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 20 2016 23:11 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 22:50 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2016 22:40 Kipsate wrote:
is viable being able to win the nomination, do the shit that he says or that the shit he says it not viable?
or is it just his general persona that you don't think is viable? all of the above really but it wasnt my discussion In which case I don't understand your remark. Why wouldn't he be able to win the nomination or do the stuff which he says? You have no way of knowing any of that, so as another poster said, this is just saying "called it". ^^ I think that Bernie becoming president would have been a very interesting turn of events for the USA. Even if he had been unable to commit to carrying out the policies he was proposing (due to Congressional opposition), he would have stirred things up in a way which would shed some more light on the things the USA does wrong.
you dont understand how much he is losing and how far out his platform is?
|
if you're looking to get an explanation out of oneofthem that is anything other than 1) a terse, sloppily punctuated, and condescending single line or 2) a prolix-laden exercise in self-superiority that begs the question, you'd best give up now and save yourself the frustration 
|
On April 20 2016 23:43 oneofthem wrote:
you mean you want a basic math lesson?
Since all you did to criticize Sanders in this thread have been one-liners selling your opinion as the truth and long, hard to read arguments selling your own view of the world as the truth as well, yes, I'm all ears for your math lesson.
|
On April 20 2016 18:40 Godwrath wrote:
As they should if there is no candidate who represents them in any way.
That was the great reasoning which gave us George W. Bush instead of Al Gore.
|
On April 21 2016 00:01 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 18:40 Godwrath wrote:
As they should if there is no candidate who represents them in any way. That was the great reasoning which gave us George W. Bush instead of Al Gore.
So if you feel like there's no candidate who's representative of yourself and your ideas and opinions, you should just vote for someone who you do not support? That's not democracy.
|
On April 20 2016 23:44 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 23:11 Incognoto wrote:On April 20 2016 22:50 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2016 22:40 Kipsate wrote:
is viable being able to win the nomination, do the shit that he says or that the shit he says it not viable?
or is it just his general persona that you don't think is viable? all of the above really but it wasnt my discussion In which case I don't understand your remark. Why wouldn't he be able to win the nomination or do the stuff which he says? You have no way of knowing any of that, so as another poster said, this is just saying "called it". ^^ I think that Bernie becoming president would have been a very interesting turn of events for the USA. Even if he had been unable to commit to carrying out the policies he was proposing (due to Congressional opposition), he would have stirred things up in a way which would shed some more light on the things the USA does wrong. you dont understand how much he is losing and how far out his platform is?
Clinton was in a sizeable lead but the election was by no means over, since Sanders could have taken the remaining delegates in New York and other states and equalized things. He did have some momentum going for him.
I don't see how it's him not being "viable", what a silly way to put it.
|
On April 21 2016 00:04 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:01 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 18:40 Godwrath wrote:
As they should if there is no candidate who represents them in any way. That was the great reasoning which gave us George W. Bush instead of Al Gore. So if you feel like there's no candidate who's representative of yourself and your ideas and opinions, you should just vote for someone who you do not support? That's not democracy.
Kwisach is getting at the inevitable balancing test that one must undertake in deciding not to vote for someone. While there's certainly an argument that one ought not vote for someone who does not appropriately represent them or their views, that logic runs directly up against the perceived costs of abstaining to vote should an opposing candidate who is even less representative get voted into office. Harm reduction (or "the lesser of two evils" idea) is a controversial concept when it comes to voting motivations, but I definitely think it coexists with the notion of democracy generally.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:07 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 23:44 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2016 23:11 Incognoto wrote:On April 20 2016 22:50 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2016 22:40 Kipsate wrote:
is viable being able to win the nomination, do the shit that he says or that the shit he says it not viable?
or is it just his general persona that you don't think is viable? all of the above really but it wasnt my discussion In which case I don't understand your remark. Why wouldn't he be able to win the nomination or do the stuff which he says? You have no way of knowing any of that, so as another poster said, this is just saying "called it". ^^ I think that Bernie becoming president would have been a very interesting turn of events for the USA. Even if he had been unable to commit to carrying out the policies he was proposing (due to Congressional opposition), he would have stirred things up in a way which would shed some more light on the things the USA does wrong. you dont understand how much he is losing and how far out his platform is? Clinton was in a sizeable lead but the election was by no means over, since Sanders could have taken the remaining delegates in New York and other states and equalized things. He did have some momentum going for him. I don't see how it's him not being "viable", what a silly way to put it.
out of the 4 offered senses of nonviable i really only care about 3 and 4, a bit of 2. but just for the primaries, he's not going to make up 200 delegates with the remaining states. it's very obvious since florida and ohio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
