|
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 01:12 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Or in other terms, a standard oneofthem post.
|
On April 21 2016 01:10 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Should've worked harder when he had the chance ey?
On April 21 2016 01:13 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:12 Djzapz wrote: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. Or in other terms, a standard oneofthem post.
I guess. I try to keep my shitposting mild.
|
On April 21 2016 01:02 Gorsameth 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. 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.
AGREED!
The details can be very vague so long as there is a direction and way to keep tabs on it.
"I don't know how to do it, so I am talking to ___, ___, and ____. Once we have a plan setup with more details, I will share it with you"
OR
"Here is my plan to ensure we take back the house and senate so that we can pass the necessary reforms even through filibusters"
OR
"It works in Sweden, in fact, I am talking to the Swedes right now, asking them how they did, how they got their things passed, and I will share with you what they are doing that allows it to work"
Hilary is willing to make these statements, and name drop the people she is working with to do it. In fact, the main attacks on her is that she's too ingrained in making these coalitions and allies to get things done. So when Bernie says that Obama's policies are shit when Obama is at one of his highest approval ratings, with one of the longest running job growths in history--he needs more than rhetoric to change the things that people are already happy with.
|
On April 21 2016 01:12 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:07 Plansix wrote: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.
There is only one slot up for grabs. We cannot split this baby.
|
On April 21 2016 01:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote: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?
There was zero compromise with Obama. He was compromising with fellow democrats. None of the Republicans cast their vote, but none were needed. The issue Obama faced was that it was fellow democrats where the problem.
|
On April 21 2016 01:10 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:00 Kipsate 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 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.
Sigh, again no we are not saying it is impossible but it is considerably more difficult because of the American culture and so he has to come up with more then just "we will do it", "how?" "I don't know. we just will".
One of his major campaign points is breaking up the banks, to fight wall street but he has not a single clue how or what he will do to break up those banks. He has nothing but empty air and hope.
You need more then fairy tales if you want to revolutionize a country.
You need a plan.
|
No one is really saying the Washington should emulate Stockholm by 2016 guys...
|
It isn’t going to because we have a bunch of voters who are very not comfortable with that. And if you go hard down that path, they make you lose the house and senate. Single payer isn’t going to happen until people become comfortable with the ACA and that they need to buy health insurance.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 21 2016 01:12 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
would probably get 99 upvotes in sandersforpresident
|
On April 21 2016 01:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:10 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 01:00 Kipsate 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 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. Sigh, again no we are not saying it is impossible but it is considerably more difficult because of the American culture and so he has to come up with more then just "we will do it", "how?" "I don't know. we just will". One of his major campaign points is breaking up the banks, to fight wall street but he has not a single clue how or what he will do to break up those banks. He has nothing but empty air and hope. You need more then fairy tales if you want to revolutionize a country. You need a plan.
Here, Trudeau's plan was called fairy tales by the conservatives who, like you, called his plan fairytales and other things high and loud as if it was a basic fact of life. You know why you keep asking for a plan? Because you heard someone ask for it and now you think it's a good argument. It may very well convince people, but let's be honest. Sanders right now is campaigning, just like Justin Trudeau here in Canada. He utters general principles, like Trudeau and thousands of politicians before him. Now that Trudeau is in office, his impossible plans seem much less impossible.
And we're looking back at the conservative rhetoric. Impossible they said. And we laugh, even though we don't particularly like Trudeau.
Yes, it's hard. Do you think the men who built all this had it easy? You think the politicians had elaborate plans before they got elected?
"You got no plan" is the oldest argument in the fucking book. No shit, campaigning candidates ACROSS THE WORLD get accused of having no plan before taking office and drawing up elaborate plans there. And sometimes they take office and get accused of failing to put their ideal dream world into practice. At the end of the day, no one has yet forged world peace despite repeatedly calling for it. No one has fixed everything as they've promised during their campaign. "Give us the plan" they say even though they'd say the plan wouldn't work if they could see it. Yet when elected, regardless of whether the utopia is created, the country is still generally nudged in the desired direction.
|
On April 21 2016 01:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:09 Nebuchad wrote:On April 21 2016 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote: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? There was zero compromise with Obama. He was compromising with fellow democrats. None of the Republicans cast their vote, but none were needed. The issue Obama faced was that it was fellow democrats where the problem.
So that should be the moment where you ask yourself why all of those democrats are the representatives of a party whose candidate was Obama, and of the left wing of a country who elected Obama based on his progressive policies. And perhaps you attempt to change that.
Or that is the moment where you blame the left for not being "prepared" or "savvy" enough to be friends with the conservatives. And you pretend to ignore that those words are code for "conservative enough".
Those are your two options really.
|
On April 21 2016 01:21 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:12 Djzapz wrote: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. would probably get 99 upvotes in sandersforpresident
3x reddit gold. would have been 5x reddit gold if you claimed Bernie has won the popular vote and that Clinton is only winning because of gerrymandering.
|
On April 21 2016 01:21 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:12 Djzapz wrote: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. would probably get 99 upvotes in sandersforpresident
Reddit is a garbage fire and only represents people that use reddit. Shockingly, all the people who support Sanders on not on that website. If you are going to shit post, I demand a higher, more amusing quality that what I am being provided at this time.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it wasn't even a shitpost though. if you have someone who sincerely believes in the hillary corruption, what can change that person?
this sanders hand in encouraging this view is highly responsible
|
On April 21 2016 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
it wasn't even a shitpost though. if you have someone who sincerely believes in the hillary corruption, what can change that person?
this sanders hand in encouraging this view is highly responsible
You should be nicer to the Sandernistas unless you plan on turning Republican. The Sandernista is very clearly the near future of the Democrat Party. Regardless of whether she wins, Hillary and her platform very clearly are not the future.
|
Hamilton to say on $10, Jackson getting replaced by Tubman
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on Wednesday will announce plans to both keep Alexander Hamilton on the front of the $10 bill and to knock Andrew Jackson off the front of the $20 in favor of Harriet Tubman, sources tell POLITICO.
Lew is expected to roll out a set of changes that also include putting leaders of the women’s suffrage movement on the back of the $10 bill, and incorporating civil rights era leaders and other important moments in American history into the $5 bill.
Also, Jackson isn’t getting completely booted off the $20 bill. He’s likely to remain on the back.
Lew's reversal comes after he announced last summer that he was considering replacing Hamilton on the $10 bill with a woman. The plan drew swift rebukes from fans of Hamilton, who helped create the Treasury Department and the modern American financial system. Critics immediately suggested Lew take Jackson off the $20 bill given the former president's role in moving Native Americans off their land.
Lew told POLITICO last July that Treasury was exploring ways to respond to critics. “There are a number of options of how we can resolve this,” Lew said. “We’re not taking Alexander Hamilton off our currency.”
Supporters of putting a woman on the $10 bill have complained that it will take too long to put a woman on the $20 bill. But people familiar with the matter said new designs for the bills should be ready by 2020. Treasury is likely to ask the Federal Reserve, which makes the final decision, to speed the process and get the bills into circulation as quickly as possible.
The movement to keep Hamilton on the $10 bill gathered strength after the Broadway musical named after the former Treasury Secretary and founding father became a runaway smash hit.
“Hamilton” creator Lin-Manuel Miranda even directly lobbied Lew last month on Hamilton’s behalf, after which Miranda said Lew told him “you’re going to be very happy” with the redesign plan.
Reaction to Tubman, a Civil War-era abolitionist, replacing Jackson on the front of the $20 was widely positive. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) tweeted: "If this is true, great news! Tubman on $20 is the right call. The redesign needs to happen as soon as possible. Women have waited long enough."
~ http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/treasurys-lew-to-announce-hamilton-to-stay-on-10-bill-222204
|
On April 21 2016 01:09 Nebuchad wrote:
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?
Ah, that's some great advice on negotiation strategy.
His results were not leftish enough, because be simply didn't start far enough to the left! I would recommend starting with communism next time, just in case selfcalled socialism still doesn't drag the compromise far enough left.
Seriously, what nonsense is this? No, just starting farther out does not guarantee a compromise more to your linking. If I want a 5% raise, I may ask my boss for 8% and hope to end at 5%. And it may turn out, that I still get only 4% more. And by your great logic, if only I would have asked for a 25% raise instead, I may have gotten my 5%. Or maybe I would be just fired. Yeah whatever!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 21 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
it wasn't even a shitpost though. if you have someone who sincerely believes in the hillary corruption, what can change that person?
this sanders hand in encouraging this view is highly responsible You should be nicer to the Sandernistas unless you plan on turning Republican. The Sandernista is very clearly the near future of the Democrat Party. Regardless of whether she wins, Hillary and her platform very clearly are not the future.
there's a very real social cohesion problem on the left in precisely the fault line sanders has opened. they should stop but the policymakers should also recognize the anger and dissatisfaction.
but this is what i've been saying before sanders even came up. i was talking about hollowing out middle class and young people for like years but sanders is a particularly unhelpful happening in terms of translating that political energy into actions. the solution is in creating new opportunities not wishful thinking about stopping globalization.
as it is now the young people are being captured by the really unhinged left that thinks corporations are enemies and wall street should be nuked. it's really just a protest position.
|
On April 21 2016 01:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote: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?
You end up not compromising because people actually agree with you.
On April 21 2016 01:09 Nebuchad wrote:
democrats are the representatives of a party
The key point you're missing is that not all democrats are the same. The viewpoints of the democrats in a very liberal state like in the North East is different from that of a democrat in a swing state. The democrat in the swing state is going to be a lot more conservative because the people in that state are more conservative. They are representatives of the people, not blind followers of the president that happens to have the same party name.
Starting the policy further left is just going to make it require more compromise, not allow you to end up in a favorable position.
|
On April 21 2016 01:41 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:09 Nebuchad wrote:
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? Ah, that's some great advice on negotiation strategy. His results were not leftish enough, because be simply didn't start far enough to the left! I would recommend starting with communism next time, just in case selfcalled socialism still doesn't drag the compromise far enough left. Seriously, what nonsense is this? No, just starting farther out does not guarantee a compromise more to your linking. If I want a 5% raise, I may ask my boss for 8% and hope to end at 5%. And it may turn out, that I still get only 4% more. And by your great logic, if only I would have asked for a 25% raise instead, I may have gotten my 5%. Or maybe I would be just fired. Yeah whatever!
You're dealing with someone who is not going to grant you exactly what you asked. If your goal is to obtain compromise A, you should start from a position B that is further on that compromise A, because the person you're dealing with is going to fight you. If your starting position is compromise A, the person will not suddenly stop fighting you and accept compromise A because you're being nice to them. This is really really basic.
No, it doesn't guarantee that you obtain what you want, because that's what having opponents mean. However, starting from the compromise guarantees that you don't obtain what you want.
And no, it doesn't mean that you should start from communism, because then your opponents can easily dismiss you given that you don't have electoral support for your position. You start from a rational moderate left-wing position. Exactly where Bernie started.
All of this is incredibly basic.
On April 21 2016 01:45 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:09 Nebuchad wrote:On April 21 2016 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote: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? You end up not compromising because people actually agree with you.
After eight years of Obama you still think conservatives are going to be nice to you if you're good enough to them?
Besides you already compromised so even if that were true, you don't end up not compromising, you just ensure they don't have to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
