|
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 21 2016 00:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:36 OtherWorld wrote:On April 21 2016 00:35 Nebuchad wrote:
Chirac was not representative of plenty of people in 2002 and it was still an obvious vote. Bernie or bust is not a sustainable position when bust is something that is so clearly worse. It was good to learn that a center left platform in the US is viable and it was good to have some sensible debates, it bodes well for the future, but moderate right wing is better than far right on any scale and you ought to know that. If you're a rational left wing person and you're not doing your best to keep someone who pretends not to think climate change exists out of the White House, you're doing something wrong.
Now you get to hope that the next Bernie you'll have in eight years (or four) is as good as him, cause the climate is going to be much better for him to get elected. Chirac in 2002 is a special case, which I don't think has an equivalent in the US. I mean it's not the exact same situation but there are similiraties.
I don't know. I'm not sure Trump, whose long-term platform and views are largely unknown (I mean unless you consider that he'll really try to block all Muslims from entering the US ; we don't know what proportion of his propostions is just stuff said to make headlines and bring stupid voters in and what proportion is legit stuff), can be compared to JM Le Pen, who at the time already had three decades of political life to confirm the fact that he was actually very; very far-right and that all his hatemongering was not just a one-time thing.
|
On April 21 2016 00:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:04 OtherWorld wrote: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. You should vote based on how you want to sculpt the government and not on which douchebag in front of the mic makes you excited. You should care as much about local elections as general elections and spend as much time agonizing about your mayors and city councilmen as you do the president of the united states. You should spend your energy generating a coalition of senators, congressmen, and presidents who all have the different skill sets needed to get stuff done when used as a whole. THAT is democracy. Democracy is not about who says the most far out crazy things during the primaries, democracies is not just about who runs for president, democracy is voting and helping local elections so much that the president that shows up can't help but be the kind of person you agree with because the politicians he needs to pander to in order to get the nomination forces him to believe in the values you already believe in. You know what Hilary has learned from the Obama Administration? She learned that simply having majority democrats in the house and senate means JACK SHIT if you don't also have their support, their backing, and have something in it for them. Which is why she is the one with less FEC problems than Bernie, why she is the one getting funding for fellow dems than bernie, why she is the one who has been working on getting superdelagate support, instead of bernie. because while she's busy trying to get ready to run the country, bernie is just trying to get his face on another facebook meme.
So you expected Bernie, who doesn't represent the party line, to gather more support in the democratic party establishment than Hillary, and the fact that he didn't is proof to you that Hillary is the better candidate?
That's completely absurd. Hillary could have sit on her couch for six months and she would have had more support in the democratic party establishment than Bernie. Given that you're a rational person, I'm going to say that you're being disingenuous and not blind when you say that.
|
On April 21 2016 00:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man  For the most part, Bernie has mainly won in states with low voter turn out. So if he really wanted to win he would enforce voter suppression. He doesn't, of course, because to Bernie simply saying things that he knows isn't working is better than doing what needs to happen in order for him to win. Which, strangely, is also very fitting of his platform.
I think it would take away from his character if was overly seen maneuvering in procedure to get his way.
On April 21 2016 00:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man His views are being called shallow because he has no idea how to actually implement them.
The same criticisms are leveled at the left in every country. It's been the case here, Trudeau's plans were considered ridiculous, and the conservatives would call it impossible if it was a fact. Turns out it's just a narrative. If you start paying attention, you'll notice that the same happens in your State in the US, in your Province, or whatever local entities there may be. People get criticized for having no plan. People say "there's actually no way to implement that" whether or not it's true. It's just a low hanging fruit. People use it because cheap rhetoric flies high when you're preaching to the choir.
Nope you can't do that. Then they do it.
|
On April 21 2016 00:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:04 OtherWorld wrote: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. You should vote based on how you want to sculpt the government and not on which douchebag in front of the mic makes you excited. You should care as much about local elections as general elections and spend as much time agonizing about your mayors and city councilmen as you do the president of the united states. You should spend your energy generating a coalition of senators, congressmen, and presidents who all have the different skill sets needed to get stuff done when used as a whole.
Yes, that's true. I don't see how this contradicts what I said ; staying true to your values also applies to local stuff.
THAT is democracy. Democracy is not about who says the most far out crazy things during the primaries, democracies is not just about who runs for president, democracy is voting and helping local elections so much that the president that shows up can't help but be the kind of person you agree with because the politicians he needs to pander to in order to get the nomination forces him to believe in the values you already believe in.
I think that might be correct in a decentralized country like the US, but it simply can't be applied in France, so I won't comment.
You know what Hilary has learned from the Obama Administration? She learned that simply having majority democrats in the house and senate means JACK SHIT if you don't also have their support, their backing, and have something in it for them. Which is why she is the one with less FEC problems than Bernie, why she is the one getting funding for fellow dems than bernie, why she is the one who has been working on getting superdelagate support, instead of bernie. because while she's busy trying to get ready to run the country, bernie is just trying to get his face on another facebook meme.
So to sum it up : Clinton, a Democratic Party member since long ago, has the establishment's support, while Sanders, an Independant, doesn't. How surprising. Now onto the real question : if Sanders had decided that he should spend more time getting support from the powerful people instead of searching for popular support, would it be democracy? No. One candidate having more FEC problems because, by your own words, he doesn't "have something in it for" the establishment, is democracy? In what world? And then, people wonder why Sanders went from "literally unknown" to "getting support from 25% of the Democrat electorate" in 6 months...
By the way, working on a plan to run the country is "getting ready to run the country". Lobbying the establishment is not "getting ready to run the country" - or to be more precise, it doesn't have the same meaning.
|
On April 21 2016 00:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 21 2016 00:04 OtherWorld wrote: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. You should vote based on how you want to sculpt the government and not on which douchebag in front of the mic makes you excited. You should care as much about local elections as general elections and spend as much time agonizing about your mayors and city councilmen as you do the president of the united states. You should spend your energy generating a coalition of senators, congressmen, and presidents who all have the different skill sets needed to get stuff done when used as a whole. THAT is democracy. Democracy is not about who says the most far out crazy things during the primaries, democracies is not just about who runs for president, democracy is voting and helping local elections so much that the president that shows up can't help but be the kind of person you agree with because the politicians he needs to pander to in order to get the nomination forces him to believe in the values you already believe in. You know what Hilary has learned from the Obama Administration? She learned that simply having majority democrats in the house and senate means JACK SHIT if you don't also have their support, their backing, and have something in it for them. Which is why she is the one with less FEC problems than Bernie, why she is the one getting funding for fellow dems than bernie, why she is the one who has been working on getting superdelagate support, instead of bernie. because while she's busy trying to get ready to run the country, bernie is just trying to get his face on another facebook meme. So you expected Bernie, who doesn't represent the party line, to gather more support in the democratic party establishment than Hillary, and the fact that he didn't is proof to you that Hillary is the better candidate? That's completely absurd. Hillary could have sit on her couch for six months and she would have had more support in the democratic party establishment than Bernie. Given that you're a rational person, I'm going to say that you're being disingenuous and not blind when you say that.
I don't need him to do more than Hilary, I want him to show the work that's needed to get his stuff done. If he says things like "I believe in a political revolution" where we get back the house and senate, all while actively fighting against campaign contributions--little things like showing us how he's going to help the DNC afford to pay for races across the 50 states to help build back and ensure that revolution would be a start.
I don't need him to do things better than Hilary. I just need to know what he is doing to get the job done.
I remember Governor Brown in California when he was running what his plans for pulling California out of debt was. He said we need both tax hikes and budget cuts, that no one will be happy, but its what's necessary. He didn't need to go into details--but he had a plan. Then, after he said that plan, he began reaching out to various members of the CA leadership to ensure he got the support he needed to put that plan into action. Hilary is doing the same thing, and even Obama was doing the same thing during his first run.
*That* is one of my many issues with Bernie. I don't need him to be a better candidate than Hilary, or a better politician than Hilary. But I need to know that he's laying the groundwork, that he's getting the allies he needs. Hearing over and over again from senators that Bernie is "difficult to work with, but is honest" does not bode well to me when he's trying to push through reforms in a conservative country with a conservative house and senate.
|
Is there a chance Bernie can win CT if more independents registered as Democrats?
|
On April 21 2016 00:44 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 21 2016 00:36 OtherWorld wrote:On April 21 2016 00:35 Nebuchad wrote:
Chirac was not representative of plenty of people in 2002 and it was still an obvious vote. Bernie or bust is not a sustainable position when bust is something that is so clearly worse. It was good to learn that a center left platform in the US is viable and it was good to have some sensible debates, it bodes well for the future, but moderate right wing is better than far right on any scale and you ought to know that. If you're a rational left wing person and you're not doing your best to keep someone who pretends not to think climate change exists out of the White House, you're doing something wrong.
Now you get to hope that the next Bernie you'll have in eight years (or four) is as good as him, cause the climate is going to be much better for him to get elected. Chirac in 2002 is a special case, which I don't think has an equivalent in the US. I mean it's not the exact same situation but there are similiraties. I don't know. I'm not sure Trump, whose long-term platform and views are largely unknown (I mean unless you consider that he'll really try to block all Muslims from entering the US ; we don't know what proportion of his propostions is just stuff said to make headlines and bring stupid voters in and what proportion is legit stuff), can be compared to JM Le Pen, who at the time already had three decades of political life to confirm the fact that he was actually very; very far-right and that all his hatemongering was not just a one-time thing.
Well we don't know the specifics but I don't think it's in debate that he's going to be further to the right than her. There are a few topics, like climate change, where we just can't afford that. And I don't know of any topic where it would be beneficial to a country that has had right wing politics for many many years to become even more right wing.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man
His views are considered shallow by some because he propegates rhetoric aimed at solving problems the way we do in Europe, except he is American and this is America. Money doesn't come from thin air, comprises have to be made, Congress is a thing etc. Interestingly you generalize Hillary supporters/nonBernie supporters the same way right now that other people do to Berniebros.
People would want to live in his world but unfortunately that is not the world that you live in. He is an idealist rather then a pragmatist (you can even see Clinton positioning herself as someone who wants to get "shit done" to capitalize on this problem). Its not really a suprise that Sanders is really popular among younger people (as Clinton has in general been unable to win that vote). I think there is great value in him running to make (some) of his ideas more acceptable in the longterm but he is ahead of his time right now.
|
On April 21 2016 00:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:28 Godwrath wrote: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. Yes, and that one gave you Obama instead of Hillary nepothism Clinton. Short term, sure it can hurt what you wish, in the long run tho if you truly think you are right, screwing "your" party over will make them re-consider their candidates later. It's not the Democratic party leaders who received your message, "re-considered their candidates" and gave Obama the victory instead of Clinton. It's the electorate in the Democratic primary who granted him the nomination, and I fail to see how third-party voting in 2000 pushed them to vote for Obama rather than Clinton in any sizeable way which made the difference.
Ok, so first i will apologize for my shitty english, because it's obvious i am failing at getting my point accross. What you are implying is that you don't need any kind of support from the democratic party to start running for president, which i may be ignorant on it, but i think both Hillary and Obama had while Sander's has been really thin if any, correct me if i am wrong . Second, i am not only talking about the democrat party, but the democrat electorate aswell, as they feel more compelled to accomodate third party options as their own to be able to defeat the republicans. You know, politics as usual.
And i didn't say that they shouldn't right now and close that door, but if they don't feel represented in the general election, then they obviously shouldn't if they really want to get their point across. If that flies over your head, i don't know how else to tell you that it goes both ways, because then you are being a hypocrat if you think Sander's supporters should vote for Hillary while you are not willing to get a compromise with them, which of course, it has to be seen in the general elections, not now.
As i said before, if that's how you currently feel about being un-represented, if you want things to change you, voting is your strongest tool. Neglecting yourself to use it towards your own interests in how you want the goverment to be, in fear of short term issues (which with Obama's administration, even Bush administration clumsy actions had been proven to be elastic enough to be able to flip them over time).
Edit - Also, someone pointed earlier that young people are more likely to vote with the heart, while older people with the brain. I am not taking a punch at you or anything as i know you said it with a grain of salt, but if anything, older people just tend to be reactionaries, while younger people tends to be more liberal. It's not about the brain in both cases.
|
On April 21 2016 00:52 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man For the most part, Bernie has mainly won in states with low voter turn out. So if he really wanted to win he would enforce voter suppression. He doesn't, of course, because to Bernie simply saying things that he knows isn't working is better than doing what needs to happen in order for him to win. Which, strangely, is also very fitting of his platform. I think it would take away from his character if was overly seen maneuvering in procedure to get his way. Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:36 Gorsameth wrote:On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man His views are being called shallow because he has no idea how to actually implement them. The same criticisms are leveled at the left in every country. It's been the case here, Trudeau's plans were considered ridiculous, and the conservatives would call it impossible if it was a fact. Turns out it's just a narrative. If you start paying attention, you'll notice that the same happens in your State in the US, in your Province, or whatever local entities there may be. People get criticized for having no plan. People say "there's actually no way to implement that" whether or not it's true. It's just a low hanging fruit. Nope you can't do that. Then they do it.
But its not low hanging fruit. We already know what would happen here in the US because Obama already tried it. Obama did not realize how conservative a lot of democrats were and so he had to tone done the ACA and the Dodd Frank bills just to get it pushed through his own democratic majority. Hilary, not wanting a repeat, is talking to the senators and congressmen ahead of time, making the deals ahead of time, making sure that if she gets into office that her suggestions don't get railroaded for 6+ months because her fellow dems are holding her back. And if Obama could barely pass the ACA through a majority, how will Bernie get an even BIGGER version of it through a minority? Its not that "it can't be done" but more that "it has already been tried, and we need a different tactic than simply the support of popular opinion."
|
Democrats really racheting up the hate for bernie recently. Hes only down 200 or so delegates with 1200 left to go. Heck even republicans aren't hateing on trump this hard.
|
On April 21 2016 00:52 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man For the most part, Bernie has mainly won in states with low voter turn out. So if he really wanted to win he would enforce voter suppression. He doesn't, of course, because to Bernie simply saying things that he knows isn't working is better than doing what needs to happen in order for him to win. Which, strangely, is also very fitting of his platform. I think it would take away from his character if was overly seen maneuvering in procedure to get his way. Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:36 Gorsameth wrote:On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man His views are being called shallow because he has no idea how to actually implement them. The same criticisms are leveled at the left in every country. It's been the case here, Trudeau's plans were considered ridiculous, and the conservatives would call it impossible if it was a fact. Turns out it's just a narrative. If you start paying attention, you'll notice that the same happens in your State in the US, in your Province, or whatever local entities there may be. People get criticized for having no plan. People say "there's actually no way to implement that" whether or not it's true. It's just a low hanging fruit. Nope you can't do that. Then they do it.
If i wanted to vote based on faith I would vote for a religious party.
If you have an idea that is not commonly accepted as easy to do (like breaking up the banks) then show me how it will be done. We don't need to get into the nitty gritty but at this point Bernie doesn't even have a rough outline for his major election pieces.
If "I will give everyone a unicorn if I get elected" is enough to sway your vote then that is your prerogative but some people like a bit more substance from their politicians.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Lets say you are correct and that berniebro's will stay home to make a point, so you can sit in your home and be smug about it while Trump runs the country, a canidate which you share 10% with instead of a canidate that shares your viewpoint on many things.
eh
ill take the Clinton.
|
On April 21 2016 01:04 Kipsate wrote:
Lets say you are correct and that berniebro's will stay home to make a point, so you can sit in your home and be smug about it while Trump runs the country, a canidate which you share 10% with instead of a canidate that shares your viewpoint on many things.
eh
ill take the Clinton.
It is really unreasonable to expect that the president, who is elected by the entire country, should represent every one of our views. People complaint about voting for the lesser of two evils every election. But if they got exactly who they wanted as a candidate, someone else would have been faced with the same issue. I think people forget that during the primary season.
|
On April 21 2016 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:52 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man For the most part, Bernie has mainly won in states with low voter turn out. So if he really wanted to win he would enforce voter suppression. He doesn't, of course, because to Bernie simply saying things that he knows isn't working is better than doing what needs to happen in order for him to win. Which, strangely, is also very fitting of his platform. I think it would take away from his character if was overly seen maneuvering in procedure to get his way. On April 21 2016 00:36 Gorsameth wrote:On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man His views are being called shallow because he has no idea how to actually implement them. The same criticisms are leveled at the left in every country. It's been the case here, Trudeau's plans were considered ridiculous, and the conservatives would call it impossible if it was a fact. Turns out it's just a narrative. If you start paying attention, you'll notice that the same happens in your State in the US, in your Province, or whatever local entities there may be. People get criticized for having no plan. People say "there's actually no way to implement that" whether or not it's true. It's just a low hanging fruit. Nope you can't do that. Then they do it. But its not low hanging fruit. We already know what would happen here in the US because Obama already tried it. Obama did not realize how conservative a lot of democrats were and so he had to tone done the ACA and the Dodd Frank bills just to get it pushed through his own democratic majority. Hilary, not wanting a repeat, is talking to the senators and congressmen ahead of time, making the deals ahead of time, making sure that if she gets into office that her suggestions don't get railroaded for 6+ months because her fellow dems are holding her back. And if Obama could barely pass the ACA through a majority, how will Bernie get an even BIGGER version of it through a minority? Its not that "it can't be done" but more that "it has already been tried, and we need a different tactic than simply the support of popular opinion."
His plan was not to have a minority. He said he couldn't do it alone, and needed his movement to continue after the election and elect a senate or a house (I think? I'm not sure which one it is, I'm not American sorry) that could help him implement his views. Obama was criticized because he didn't use his movement further on after he was elected. Bernie didn't plan to do that. The comparison fails.
Besides, whatever your left-wing proposition is is going to have opposition from a conservative country. That is a given. When you have opposition, you compromise, and you end up with something that is less leftwing. If your starting point is very left-wing, then you end up with a compromise that is center-ish. If your starting point is somewhat leftwing, like Obama, then you end up with a compromise like the ACA. If your starting point is already the compromise because you want to get things done... Where do you end up?
|
On April 21 2016 01:00 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man His views are considered shallow by some because he propegates rhetoric aimed at solving problems the way we do in Europe, except he is American and this is America. Money doesn't come from thin air, comprises have to be made, Congress is a thing etc. Interestingly you generalize Hillary supporters/nonBernie supporters the same way right now that other people do to Berniebros. People would want to live in his world but unfortunately that is not the world that you live in. He is an idealist rather then a pragmatist (you can even see Clinton positioning herself as someone who wants to get "shit done" to capitalize on this problem). Its not really a suprise that Sanders is really popular among younger people (as Clinton has in general been unable to win that vote). I think there is great value in him running to make (some) of his ideas more acceptable in the longterm but he is ahead of his time right now.
Your argument is essentially America =/= Europe, which is fine, there are cultural and economic differences between America and Europe and it's great that people understand that. So, we've determined that two geographical locations are different and the conversation is over, right? Well, no... Why would it be? Proposing European politics in America isn't other-worldly, it's different. There is nothing to suggest that these things cannot work at all.
Calling it idealistic or shallow is nothing but a cop out. Pointing at the political and cultural differences of Europe and the US is also a cop out.
The conversation doesn't end at "It's different therefore it's impossible". The US and Canada are two very different countries in many ways, but we're very similar in many others. The US could gradually become more European and I think its people would benefit greatly. IMO, Sanders is no where near as shallow as the people who dismiss it because "America is different and that's the end of this discussion". I maintain that this is a cheap argument when it's used like this. Sure, there are differences and it would be difficult to convert a nation which is terrified of socialism because of cold war propaganda to a more social democratic way of doing politics. It's a discussion which must take place. But the second you say the US is different from Europe therefore these principles are impossible, you're simplifying something. And I think you're doing it maliciously, too, because if you're capable of reasoning this out, you also know that it's not that simple. At least I would think so.
|
On April 20 2016 12:03 Djzapz wrote:
There's nothing quite like the freedom to sell your house to pay for part of your medical bill.
HA
You're silly.
One of the members of a local band here came down with a recent cold virus that swept the area. It turned into a form of pneumonia and he got sick enough that he couldn't get out of bed. By the time his friends took him to the hospital (about two weeks) he had to have 1/4 of one of his lungs removed. His insurance lapsed during that period. He is now $100,000 in debt and will most likely live with his family until they die.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
but hillary is a goldman sachs md and she will start ww3 and sell the country to china
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 21 2016 01:10 oneofthem wrote:
but hillary is a goldman sachs md and she will start ww3 and sell the country to china
Wow that is level 99 shitposting if I've ever seen it.
|
On April 21 2016 01:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:04 Kipsate wrote:
Lets say you are correct and that berniebro's will stay home to make a point, so you can sit in your home and be smug about it while Trump runs the country, a canidate which you share 10% with instead of a canidate that shares your viewpoint on many things.
eh
ill take the Clinton. It is really unreasonable to expect that the president, who is elected by the entire country, should represent every one of our views. People complaint about voting for the lesser of two evils every election. But if they got exactly who they wanted as a candidate, someone else would have been faced with the same issue. I think people forget that during the primary season. What makes it unreasonable is that you have a bipartisan system where the winner takes it all, not that it's unreasonable per se.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
