|
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 23 2016 03:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 02:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 23 2016 02:24 Nebuchad wrote:On April 23 2016 01:56 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 23 2016 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 23 2016 00:36 TMagpie wrote:On April 22 2016 23:52 Simberto wrote:On April 22 2016 22:58 Mohdoo wrote:On April 22 2016 22:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
I don't see the problem with having to register early. When I started work, I got paid from day 1 but I didn't get my benefits until 6 months in, and my retirement has a vesting schedule so I only get part of it if I leave quickly. I have friends who got big fat signing bonuses, and if they leave before 2 years they have to give those back as well. It's a pretty low bar to jump.
If you're at the far end of the political spectrum, just register for the party that's closer to you. If you're extremely left leaning I think it's silly to register independent instead of Democrat since you're giving up a lot just to have an I next to your name to indicate your ideological purity. Just register D. You don't have to donate or vote unless you find a candidate you like. But that gets rid of people's ability to feel like they're "sticking it to the man", essentially the only reason anyone registers as independent. Maybe the reason to register as independent is to protest a shitty two-party system? Because there does not seem to be any legitimate way to change that in the US, so one might want to at least voice ones dissatisfaction with that fact. Abstaining from a system is not protesting it, it is making the choice to limit your own power to change things. The real issue people have is that they can't force others to agree with them. What is this disagreement about specifically? Cause I hear all of Bernie's ideas are really popular in the US, so I just have to wonder. The US has a multi spectrum political system, with a distillation filter through a two party binary. Everyone who is left of the preconceived (and fluidly defined) center registers for the Democratic Party, and everyone who is right of that center registers for the Republican Party. Within that party, there is a wide spectrum of political opinion's whose support and vocalization changes over time. Which is why Democrats used to be pro slavery and are now the ones focused on civil rights. It is also why the republicans turned from being the welfare focused politicians into the corporate focused politicians. These shifts in political stances are brought about based on who you vote for in the midterm and local elections, as that forms the base of the political party. Then, as an aggregate of the party's total population, and executive representative is put forward to be the leader of the US facing off against the opposing party's representative. Conservatives know this, and so they vote in local elections and are able to turn the party into what represents them over time. That's how we get reaganites, the christian right, tea party-ists, etc... Liberals do not, simply don't vote in the midterms, and then get confused why the US does not represent them. Why? Because liberals don't like negotiating with people and making real changes. They'd rather just make an unreasonable statement, say it, lose their vote, lose their power, lose their rights, and then pretend to be surprised why the power they gave away is no longer with them. In short, the problem is that they can't force people to see things their way. Magpie appears to be saying that the issue with independants is that they can't force others to agree with them. I'm wondering what about. I don't think it looks like I've asked for a series of obvious statements about the US political system. I was primarily talking about exactly that. People who usually register independent do so because they dislike the primary parties more so than they actually believe that their beliefs are part of the ideology of the independent party. As such, I was suggesting, that the reason they're even independent to begin with (and why independents are usually seen as being similar to people like Bernie) is because most liberals don't want to play the game of joining the Democratic party and changing it from the inside. Ie, they can't just make people believe what they believe so what's the point they'll just take their ball to play with someplace else. I understand what you're saying, it's not sophisticated. What does that have to do with forcing people to agree with you?
Nothing. The problem is that in a reasonable system, those people could vote for a party they believe in, and even if it does not win, still feel like they voted for what they want. This has nothing to do with "forcing others to believe what they believe" and everything to do with the ability to actually vote for what they believe. Which in the US, unless you are center right or crazy rightwing, you simply can not do, because there is only the center right party and the crazy rightwing party.
Thus, you can either choose to vote the lesser of two evils, or not vote at all. Of course, you could try to fight through the utterly weird and convoluted system and try to make one of the parties a party that you actually want to vote for. Naracs Duc seems to think that not wanting to do that comes from a realisation that you can't force others to believe what you want, which seems like a non sequitur to me.
The main problem is that for the people in power, there is absolutely no incentive to change how shitty that system is, because they won at it. I can see how a lot of other people become disillusioned and simply stop partaking in the process if even the simple right to vote for what they believe in is taken from them by an archaic broken two-party system.
|
On April 23 2016 03:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 02:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 23 2016 02:24 Nebuchad wrote:On April 23 2016 01:56 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 23 2016 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 23 2016 00:36 TMagpie wrote:On April 22 2016 23:52 Simberto wrote:On April 22 2016 22:58 Mohdoo wrote:On April 22 2016 22:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
I don't see the problem with having to register early. When I started work, I got paid from day 1 but I didn't get my benefits until 6 months in, and my retirement has a vesting schedule so I only get part of it if I leave quickly. I have friends who got big fat signing bonuses, and if they leave before 2 years they have to give those back as well. It's a pretty low bar to jump.
If you're at the far end of the political spectrum, just register for the party that's closer to you. If you're extremely left leaning I think it's silly to register independent instead of Democrat since you're giving up a lot just to have an I next to your name to indicate your ideological purity. Just register D. You don't have to donate or vote unless you find a candidate you like. But that gets rid of people's ability to feel like they're "sticking it to the man", essentially the only reason anyone registers as independent. Maybe the reason to register as independent is to protest a shitty two-party system? Because there does not seem to be any legitimate way to change that in the US, so one might want to at least voice ones dissatisfaction with that fact. Abstaining from a system is not protesting it, it is making the choice to limit your own power to change things. The real issue people have is that they can't force others to agree with them. What is this disagreement about specifically? Cause I hear all of Bernie's ideas are really popular in the US, so I just have to wonder. The US has a multi spectrum political system, with a distillation filter through a two party binary. Everyone who is left of the preconceived (and fluidly defined) center registers for the Democratic Party, and everyone who is right of that center registers for the Republican Party. Within that party, there is a wide spectrum of political opinion's whose support and vocalization changes over time. Which is why Democrats used to be pro slavery and are now the ones focused on civil rights. It is also why the republicans turned from being the welfare focused politicians into the corporate focused politicians. These shifts in political stances are brought about based on who you vote for in the midterm and local elections, as that forms the base of the political party. Then, as an aggregate of the party's total population, and executive representative is put forward to be the leader of the US facing off against the opposing party's representative. Conservatives know this, and so they vote in local elections and are able to turn the party into what represents them over time. That's how we get reaganites, the christian right, tea party-ists, etc... Liberals do not, simply don't vote in the midterms, and then get confused why the US does not represent them. Why? Because liberals don't like negotiating with people and making real changes. They'd rather just make an unreasonable statement, say it, lose their vote, lose their power, lose their rights, and then pretend to be surprised why the power they gave away is no longer with them. In short, the problem is that they can't force people to see things their way. Magpie appears to be saying that the issue with independants is that they can't force others to agree with them. I'm wondering what about. I don't think it looks like I've asked for a series of obvious statements about the US political system. I was primarily talking about exactly that. People who usually register independent do so because they dislike the primary parties more so than they actually believe that their beliefs are part of the ideology of the independent party. As such, I was suggesting, that the reason they're even independent to begin with (and why independents are usually seen as being similar to people like Bernie) is because most liberals don't want to play the game of joining the Democratic party and changing it from the inside. Ie, they can't just make people believe what they believe so what's the point they'll just take their ball to play with someplace else. I understand what you're saying, it's not sophisticated. What does that have to do with forcing people to agree with you?
I think he's pointing out the trend for Bernie supporters to have a very hard time feeling represented. For them, they are not willing to accept that their movement is just straight up not numerous enough to have the changes they want. They want a Bernie party because the democratic party can only fulfill some of their demands. If a party can only fulfill 5 of 20 demands, they say forget the whole thing. So they end up not being represented at all. In that way, it is easy to frame these people as being whiny, unreasonable and self-centered. They can't accept the fact that their views are just one of many. They want to feel absolute representation. That's not reasonable.
|
Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia has paved the way for more than 200,000 convicted felons to be eligible to vote with a historic executive order announced on Friday.
McAuliffe, a Democrat, declared “a day for celebration” in remarks outside the state Capitol. The action, he said, would help overturn a history of suppressing the black vote in Virginia, where felons have been barred from voting since the civil war.
“With this action, we will send a message to these 206,000 individuals and to the world that Virginia will no longer build barriers to the ballot box, we will break them down,” McAuliffe said, adding that individuals who have completed their sentences would no longer be treated as “second-class citizens”.
Civil rights, particular the right to vote, had been a centerpiece of McAuliffe’s 2013 gubernatorial campaign. Since assuming office in 2014, the governor has taken steps to restore voting rights to 18,000 Virginians. Under McAuliffe’s new order, felons convicted of both violent and non-violent crimes will be able to vote so long as they have carried out their sentences.
Although there has been some bipartisan consensus on criminal justice reform, voting rights has remained a wedge issue among both political parties. And with Virginia as a key battleground in the 2016 election, the politicization of McAuliffe’s action was immediately apparent.
Source
|
Dunno, in a good system, they could have a Bernie Party. Which they could then vote for. And if they didn't have a majority, at least they would feel like they voted for what they believe in, and the more numerous the votes for the Bernie Party are, the more seats that party would have in a parliament and the more powerful that party would be in coalition negotiations to make up a ruling coalition. That is how democracy works without FPTP nonsense enforcing a two-party system.
The problem is, currently if you want to vote for a Bernie party, you can't. You can only try to change the democratic party into a Bernie party, which apparently does barely not work, because a slight majority of democrats prefers to be more moderate. Which means that you simply can't vote for what you actually want to vote for, you can vote for something that is slightly less shitty than the alternative. Which does not feel good.
|
On April 23 2016 03:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 03:37 Nebuchad wrote:On April 23 2016 02:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 23 2016 02:24 Nebuchad wrote:On April 23 2016 01:56 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 23 2016 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 23 2016 00:36 TMagpie wrote:On April 22 2016 23:52 Simberto wrote:On April 22 2016 22:58 Mohdoo wrote:On April 22 2016 22:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
I don't see the problem with having to register early. When I started work, I got paid from day 1 but I didn't get my benefits until 6 months in, and my retirement has a vesting schedule so I only get part of it if I leave quickly. I have friends who got big fat signing bonuses, and if they leave before 2 years they have to give those back as well. It's a pretty low bar to jump.
If you're at the far end of the political spectrum, just register for the party that's closer to you. If you're extremely left leaning I think it's silly to register independent instead of Democrat since you're giving up a lot just to have an I next to your name to indicate your ideological purity. Just register D. You don't have to donate or vote unless you find a candidate you like. But that gets rid of people's ability to feel like they're "sticking it to the man", essentially the only reason anyone registers as independent. Maybe the reason to register as independent is to protest a shitty two-party system? Because there does not seem to be any legitimate way to change that in the US, so one might want to at least voice ones dissatisfaction with that fact. Abstaining from a system is not protesting it, it is making the choice to limit your own power to change things. The real issue people have is that they can't force others to agree with them. What is this disagreement about specifically? Cause I hear all of Bernie's ideas are really popular in the US, so I just have to wonder. The US has a multi spectrum political system, with a distillation filter through a two party binary. Everyone who is left of the preconceived (and fluidly defined) center registers for the Democratic Party, and everyone who is right of that center registers for the Republican Party. Within that party, there is a wide spectrum of political opinion's whose support and vocalization changes over time. Which is why Democrats used to be pro slavery and are now the ones focused on civil rights. It is also why the republicans turned from being the welfare focused politicians into the corporate focused politicians. These shifts in political stances are brought about based on who you vote for in the midterm and local elections, as that forms the base of the political party. Then, as an aggregate of the party's total population, and executive representative is put forward to be the leader of the US facing off against the opposing party's representative. Conservatives know this, and so they vote in local elections and are able to turn the party into what represents them over time. That's how we get reaganites, the christian right, tea party-ists, etc... Liberals do not, simply don't vote in the midterms, and then get confused why the US does not represent them. Why? Because liberals don't like negotiating with people and making real changes. They'd rather just make an unreasonable statement, say it, lose their vote, lose their power, lose their rights, and then pretend to be surprised why the power they gave away is no longer with them. In short, the problem is that they can't force people to see things their way. Magpie appears to be saying that the issue with independants is that they can't force others to agree with them. I'm wondering what about. I don't think it looks like I've asked for a series of obvious statements about the US political system. I was primarily talking about exactly that. People who usually register independent do so because they dislike the primary parties more so than they actually believe that their beliefs are part of the ideology of the independent party. As such, I was suggesting, that the reason they're even independent to begin with (and why independents are usually seen as being similar to people like Bernie) is because most liberals don't want to play the game of joining the Democratic party and changing it from the inside. Ie, they can't just make people believe what they believe so what's the point they'll just take their ball to play with someplace else. I understand what you're saying, it's not sophisticated. What does that have to do with forcing people to agree with you? I think he's pointing out the trend for Bernie supporters to have a very hard time feeling represented. For them, they are not willing to accept that their movement is just straight up not numerous enough to have the changes they want. They want a Bernie party because the democratic party can only fulfill some of their demands. If a party can only fulfill 5 of 20 demands, they say forget the whole thing. So they end up not being represented at all. In that way, it is easy to frame these people as being whiny, unreasonable and self-centered. They can't accept the fact that their views are just one of many. They want to feel absolute representation. That's not reasonable.
Well there is certainly disagreement there. I think Bernie supporters are saying if so many people weren't disillusioned with/displaced from the process, it would be numerous enough. But things like throwing in Hillary's super delegate lead in every report/mention about the race made many feel like their vote wouldn't matter, or as in NY ~3million people had to decide in October of 2015 if they wanted to vote in the D primary, it's only sensible to think many of them didn't realize they wanted to until they got more familiar with Bernie. I could go on and on, the point is, that there is an undeniable generational gap and the people are moving toward Sanders and away from Clinton regardless of what the party wants. People supporting Sanders had to fight against the entirety of the party just to be taken seriously (sort of), the Democratic party led by Hillary is representative of fewer and fewer people every day.
Whether Bernie wins or not, the fight isn't over. Either the Democratic party will change to represent the people or the people will find a new party to represent them. But there's more people outside of the parties than in either of them so it's only a matter of time.
Also your analysis is wrong in that it's not that less people agree with Bernie, it's that less of those people can/could/do vote. Bernie's issue isn't one about what people agree with, it's a turnout issue. Too many people who agree with Bernie have given up on politics thinking the system is rigged and Democrats like it that way. This process has all but proven them 100% right.
|
That should be a new party in my view. I don't think it's any fairer to ask a moderate right wing person to vote for either Bernie or Trump than it is to ask a leftwinger to vote for Hillary or Trump.
But regardless I still don't see what it has to do with forcing people to agree with you, I honestly don't think that's what Magpie was talking about.
But for the record, when you tell me that it's a negative thing to be annoyed that no candidate represents me, and that I should vote for the candidate that represents you instead, I can't help but wonder who is being self-centered...
|
On April 23 2016 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:
That should be a new party in my view. I don't think it's any fairer to ask a moderate right wing person to vote for either Bernie or Trump than it is to ask a leftwinger to vote for Hillary or Trump.
But regardless I still don't see what it has to do with forcing people to agree with you, I honestly don't think that's what Magpie was talking about.
But for the record, when you tell me that it's a negative thing to be annoyed that no candidate represents me, and that I should vote for the candidate that represents you instead, I can't help but wonder who is being self-centered...
GH's post embodies exactly what the discussion was about.
Despite Hillary winning by every metric Bernie's supporters think the party should change to accommodate them, the minority.
And surely they would not be the minority if only the system didn't work against them. again ignoring the fact they are losing on number of delegates, super delegates and the popular vote.
They have this unrealistic view that they are right and that everyone would agree with them if not for the 'system'.
Its a refusal to accept that maybe their view is not the majority but the minority. That the world should not bend to match their ideal.
|
You can choose to not vote or choose to vote for whoever, but when people who never vote or otherwise participate comes around once a blue moon to complain that their view is not represented, it's a bit hard to feel sympathetic.
|
On April 23 2016 04:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:
That should be a new party in my view. I don't think it's any fairer to ask a moderate right wing person to vote for either Bernie or Trump than it is to ask a leftwinger to vote for Hillary or Trump.
But regardless I still don't see what it has to do with forcing people to agree with you, I honestly don't think that's what Magpie was talking about.
But for the record, when you tell me that it's a negative thing to be annoyed that no candidate represents me, and that I should vote for the candidate that represents you instead, I can't help but wonder who is being self-centered... GH's post embodies exactly what the discussion was about. Despite Hillary winning by every metric Bernie's supporters think the party should change to accommodate them, the minority. And surely they would not be the minority if only the system didn't work against them. again ignoring the fact they are losing on number of delegates, super delegates and the popular vote. They have this unrealistic view that they are right and that everyone would agree with them if not for the 'system'. Its a refusal to accept that maybe their view is not the majority but the minority. That the world should not bend to match their ideal.
No, you are interpreting the Democratic party as representing far more people than they actually do. Most people are not Democrats, so what's popular/supported by them doesn't necessarily mean it's generally popular or that whatever is popular is what they represent.
What you are ignoring is Bernie Sanders support among Independents where he crushes Hillary ~80%-20%. So yeah Hillary is currently more popular within the party, but that absolutely does not mean her positions are more popular to the general public. In fact every metric we have shows that Hillary does far worse than Bernie outside of the Democratic party despite being to her "left".
On April 23 2016 04:23 ragz_gt wrote:
You can choose to not vote or choose to vote for whoever, but when people who never vote or otherwise participate comes around once a blue moon to complain that their view is not represented, it's a bit hard to feel sympathetic.
The argument is that this is the first person they've had to vote for, I've heard that from teens to people in their 60's and everyone in between. It's not that they don't care, it's that they have been convinced it doesn't matter. When they see several states investigating the process and countless voters saying they are being suppressed it's easy to just say forget it and get the hours at work or some extra rest.
It should also be noted that tons of Sanders supporters aren't Democrats and never have been. Of course they aren't going to pledge loyalty to the party if it still doesn't represent them. This leveraging of ballot access and the system is something I'd expect to see out of Republicans but seeing Democrats make this argument leaves a very sour taste in my mouth.
|
On April 23 2016 04:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:
That should be a new party in my view. I don't think it's any fairer to ask a moderate right wing person to vote for either Bernie or Trump than it is to ask a leftwinger to vote for Hillary or Trump.
But regardless I still don't see what it has to do with forcing people to agree with you, I honestly don't think that's what Magpie was talking about.
But for the record, when you tell me that it's a negative thing to be annoyed that no candidate represents me, and that I should vote for the candidate that represents you instead, I can't help but wonder who is being self-centered... GH's post embodies exactly what the discussion was about. Despite Hillary winning by every metric Bernie's supporters think the party should change to accommodate them, the minority. And surely they would not be the minority if only the system didn't work against them. again ignoring the fact they are losing on number of delegates, super delegates and the popular vote. They have this unrealistic view that they are right and that everyone would agree with them if not for the 'system'. Its a refusal to accept that maybe their view is not the majority but the minority. That the world should not bend to match their ideal.
Rofl. The "unrealistic view" that an opinion group is right is what leads to the creation of political parties. Republicans have the same "unrealistic view" that they're right (which is why they're basically preventing Obama from doing anything since a few years). Democrats will have the same "unrealistic view" when they'll no longer be in power. Sanders supporters do not think the Democratic party should change to accomodate them, they think that currently, there is no party to represent them and what they think. To remedy to this situation, there are two ways : either Sanders wins the nomination and there are great chances that the Democratic Party would then slowly become "Sanders' party" during his presidency, or Sanders doesn't win the nomination and a new party needs to be created.
You people who are criticizing Sanders' supporters for being too hard on Clinton are, in addition to not considering that Clinton supporters do the same, making the mistake of considering this primary as an actual primary, while it is closer to a two-party battle to determine who'll be the party representing the "left-wing" in the general elections.
|
After being removed along with all the other state flags for building renovations, Mississippi's state flag -- which includes a depiction of the Confederate battle flag -- will not go back up in a tunnel under the U.S. Capitol, nor will any of the other flags for U.S, states and territories, the chair of the committee on House Administration announced Thursday.
The decision was influenced by last year's outcry over the presence of the Mississippi flag and other Confederate symbols in the Capitol, after a white supremacist shot and killed nine African Americans in a South Carolina church.
"Given the controversy surrounding confederate imagery, I decided to install a new display," committee Chair Candice Miller (R-MI) said in a statement. "I am well aware of how many Americans negatively view the confederate flag, and, personally, I am very sympathetic to these views. However, I also believe that it is not the business of the federal government to dictate what flag each state flies."
The move was first reported by the Washington Post.
In the place of the state flags in the tunnel between the Rayburn House Office Building and the U.S. Capitol, the Architect of the Capitol will install a display of reproductions of each states' commemorative quarters. Mississippi's quarter bears a pair of magnolia blossoms, according to the Post.
The Post also notes that the Mississippi flag remains hung in a tunnel on the Senate side of the Capitol that leads to the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Source
|
On April 23 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:20 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2016 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:
That should be a new party in my view. I don't think it's any fairer to ask a moderate right wing person to vote for either Bernie or Trump than it is to ask a leftwinger to vote for Hillary or Trump.
But regardless I still don't see what it has to do with forcing people to agree with you, I honestly don't think that's what Magpie was talking about.
But for the record, when you tell me that it's a negative thing to be annoyed that no candidate represents me, and that I should vote for the candidate that represents you instead, I can't help but wonder who is being self-centered... GH's post embodies exactly what the discussion was about. Despite Hillary winning by every metric Bernie's supporters think the party should change to accommodate them, the minority. And surely they would not be the minority if only the system didn't work against them. again ignoring the fact they are losing on number of delegates, super delegates and the popular vote. They have this unrealistic view that they are right and that everyone would agree with them if not for the 'system'. Its a refusal to accept that maybe their view is not the majority but the minority. That the world should not bend to match their ideal. No, you are interpreting the Democratic party as representing far more people than they actually do. Most people are not Democrats, so what's popular/supported by them doesn't necessarily mean it's generally popular or that whatever is popular is what they represent. What you are ignoring is Bernie Sanders support among Independents where he crushes Hillary ~80%-20%. So yeah Hillary is currently more popular within the party, but that absolutely does not mean her positions are more popular to the general public. In fact every metric we have shows that Hillary does far worse than Bernie outside of the Democratic party despite being to her "left".
And for what party is Bernie running for the candidacy?
Right, the democratic party. A party where, as is apparent by the numbers, his views are not the majority.
|
On April 23 2016 04:30 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:20 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2016 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:
That should be a new party in my view. I don't think it's any fairer to ask a moderate right wing person to vote for either Bernie or Trump than it is to ask a leftwinger to vote for Hillary or Trump.
But regardless I still don't see what it has to do with forcing people to agree with you, I honestly don't think that's what Magpie was talking about.
But for the record, when you tell me that it's a negative thing to be annoyed that no candidate represents me, and that I should vote for the candidate that represents you instead, I can't help but wonder who is being self-centered... GH's post embodies exactly what the discussion was about. Despite Hillary winning by every metric Bernie's supporters think the party should change to accommodate them, the minority. And surely they would not be the minority if only the system didn't work against them. again ignoring the fact they are losing on number of delegates, super delegates and the popular vote. They have this unrealistic view that they are right and that everyone would agree with them if not for the 'system'. Its a refusal to accept that maybe their view is not the majority but the minority. That the world should not bend to match their ideal. Rofl. The "unrealistic view" that an opinion group is right is what leads to the creation of political parties. Republicans have the same "unrealistic view" that they're right (which is why they're basically preventing Obama from doing anything since a few years). Democrats will have the same "unrealistic view" when they'll no longer be in power. Sanders supporters do not think the Democratic party should change to accomodate them, they think that currently, there is no party to represent them and what they think. To remedy to this situation, there are two ways : either Sanders wins the nomination and there are great chances that the Democratic Party would then slowly become "Sanders' party" during his presidency, or Sanders doesn't win the nomination and a new party needs to be created. You people who are criticizing Sanders' supporters for being too hard on Clinton are, in addition to not considering that Clinton supporters do the same, making the mistake of considering this primary as an actual primary, while it is closer to a two-party battle to determine who'll be the party representing the "left-wing" in the general elections.
This is not true AFAIK. Vast majority of Clinton supporter I know have no real problem with Sanders. Many think he is too extreme or idealistic but that's policy disagreement rather than character assassinations or straight up conspiracy theory stuff. Their view of some of the Sanders' supporter on the other hand is slightly different.
|
On April 23 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2016 04:20 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2016 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:
That should be a new party in my view. I don't think it's any fairer to ask a moderate right wing person to vote for either Bernie or Trump than it is to ask a leftwinger to vote for Hillary or Trump.
But regardless I still don't see what it has to do with forcing people to agree with you, I honestly don't think that's what Magpie was talking about.
But for the record, when you tell me that it's a negative thing to be annoyed that no candidate represents me, and that I should vote for the candidate that represents you instead, I can't help but wonder who is being self-centered... GH's post embodies exactly what the discussion was about. Despite Hillary winning by every metric Bernie's supporters think the party should change to accommodate them, the minority. And surely they would not be the minority if only the system didn't work against them. again ignoring the fact they are losing on number of delegates, super delegates and the popular vote. They have this unrealistic view that they are right and that everyone would agree with them if not for the 'system'. Its a refusal to accept that maybe their view is not the majority but the minority. That the world should not bend to match their ideal. No, you are interpreting the Democratic party as representing far more people than they actually do. Most people are not Democrats, so what's popular/supported by them doesn't necessarily mean it's generally popular or that whatever is popular is what they represent. What you are ignoring is Bernie Sanders support among Independents where he crushes Hillary ~80%-20%. So yeah Hillary is currently more popular within the party, but that absolutely does not mean her positions are more popular to the general public. In fact every metric we have shows that Hillary does far worse than Bernie outside of the Democratic party despite being to her "left". And for what party is Bernie running for the candidacy? Right, the democratic party. A party where, as is apparent by the numbers, his views are not the majority.
I think Other summed it up pretty well. It's because the Democratic party has pushed out the people who agree with Bernie (~half of the people in the party and more in the general electorate)
I would love to see a general election poll with Hillary vs Bernie.
|
On April 23 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2016 04:20 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2016 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:
That should be a new party in my view. I don't think it's any fairer to ask a moderate right wing person to vote for either Bernie or Trump than it is to ask a leftwinger to vote for Hillary or Trump.
But regardless I still don't see what it has to do with forcing people to agree with you, I honestly don't think that's what Magpie was talking about.
But for the record, when you tell me that it's a negative thing to be annoyed that no candidate represents me, and that I should vote for the candidate that represents you instead, I can't help but wonder who is being self-centered... GH's post embodies exactly what the discussion was about. Despite Hillary winning by every metric Bernie's supporters think the party should change to accommodate them, the minority. And surely they would not be the minority if only the system didn't work against them. again ignoring the fact they are losing on number of delegates, super delegates and the popular vote. They have this unrealistic view that they are right and that everyone would agree with them if not for the 'system'. Its a refusal to accept that maybe their view is not the majority but the minority. That the world should not bend to match their ideal. No, you are interpreting the Democratic party as representing far more people than they actually do. Most people are not Democrats, so what's popular/supported by them doesn't necessarily mean it's generally popular or that whatever is popular is what they represent. What you are ignoring is Bernie Sanders support among Independents where he crushes Hillary ~80%-20%. So yeah Hillary is currently more popular within the party, but that absolutely does not mean her positions are more popular to the general public. In fact every metric we have shows that Hillary does far worse than Bernie outside of the Democratic party despite being to her "left". And for what party is Bernie running for the candidacy? Right, the democratic party. A party where, as is apparent by the numbers, his views are not the majority.
Hence the view that... there should be another possibility! Welcome to the end of the thought process.
|
On April 23 2016 04:30 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:20 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2016 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:
That should be a new party in my view. I don't think it's any fairer to ask a moderate right wing person to vote for either Bernie or Trump than it is to ask a leftwinger to vote for Hillary or Trump.
But regardless I still don't see what it has to do with forcing people to agree with you, I honestly don't think that's what Magpie was talking about.
But for the record, when you tell me that it's a negative thing to be annoyed that no candidate represents me, and that I should vote for the candidate that represents you instead, I can't help but wonder who is being self-centered... GH's post embodies exactly what the discussion was about. Despite Hillary winning by every metric Bernie's supporters think the party should change to accommodate them, the minority. And surely they would not be the minority if only the system didn't work against them. again ignoring the fact they are losing on number of delegates, super delegates and the popular vote. They have this unrealistic view that they are right and that everyone would agree with them if not for the 'system'. Its a refusal to accept that maybe their view is not the majority but the minority. That the world should not bend to match their ideal. Rofl. The "unrealistic view" that an opinion group is right is what leads to the creation of political parties. Republicans have the same "unrealistic view" that they're right (which is why they're basically preventing Obama from doing anything since a few years). Democrats will have the same "unrealistic view" when they'll no longer be in power. Sanders supporters do not think the Democratic party should change to accomodate them, they think that currently, there is no party to represent them and what they think. To remedy to this situation, there are two ways : either Sanders wins the nomination and there are great chances that the Democratic Party would then slowly become "Sanders' party" during his presidency, or Sanders doesn't win the nomination and a new party needs to be created. You people who are criticizing Sanders' supporters for being too hard on Clinton are, in addition to not considering that Clinton supporters do the same, making the mistake of considering this primary as an actual primary, while it is closer to a two-party battle to determine who'll be the party representing the "left-wing" in the general elections.
Your right, they don't see a party that supports their views and their reaction against this is not to make their own party but to subvert (probably to strong a word but you get the idea) another party to change to their views instead.
That is what Bernie is trying to do with his primary run as you say and the result is that he does not have the numbers to bring about this change, Hillary holds the popular vote after all.
Its an outside minority trying to get a party to change to their view against the wishes of the majority.
|
On April 23 2016 04:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2016 04:20 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2016 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:
That should be a new party in my view. I don't think it's any fairer to ask a moderate right wing person to vote for either Bernie or Trump than it is to ask a leftwinger to vote for Hillary or Trump.
But regardless I still don't see what it has to do with forcing people to agree with you, I honestly don't think that's what Magpie was talking about.
But for the record, when you tell me that it's a negative thing to be annoyed that no candidate represents me, and that I should vote for the candidate that represents you instead, I can't help but wonder who is being self-centered... GH's post embodies exactly what the discussion was about. Despite Hillary winning by every metric Bernie's supporters think the party should change to accommodate them, the minority. And surely they would not be the minority if only the system didn't work against them. again ignoring the fact they are losing on number of delegates, super delegates and the popular vote. They have this unrealistic view that they are right and that everyone would agree with them if not for the 'system'. Its a refusal to accept that maybe their view is not the majority but the minority. That the world should not bend to match their ideal. No, you are interpreting the Democratic party as representing far more people than they actually do. Most people are not Democrats, so what's popular/supported by them doesn't necessarily mean it's generally popular or that whatever is popular is what they represent. What you are ignoring is Bernie Sanders support among Independents where he crushes Hillary ~80%-20%. So yeah Hillary is currently more popular within the party, but that absolutely does not mean her positions are more popular to the general public. In fact every metric we have shows that Hillary does far worse than Bernie outside of the Democratic party despite being to her "left". And for what party is Bernie running for the candidacy? Right, the democratic party. A party where, as is apparent by the numbers, his views are not the majority. Hence the view that... there should be another possibility! Welcome to the end of the thought process.
The other possibility is to start a new party that does represent your views. You know, the democratic way?
Heck if enough people try to do that you might actually be able to break open the US 2 party system.
Your sure not going to do that with the current path.
And yes I know that makes the scenario of a Trump presidency much more likely but that's the downside of the way democracy works,
|
On April 23 2016 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 23 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2016 04:20 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2016 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:
That should be a new party in my view. I don't think it's any fairer to ask a moderate right wing person to vote for either Bernie or Trump than it is to ask a leftwinger to vote for Hillary or Trump.
But regardless I still don't see what it has to do with forcing people to agree with you, I honestly don't think that's what Magpie was talking about.
But for the record, when you tell me that it's a negative thing to be annoyed that no candidate represents me, and that I should vote for the candidate that represents you instead, I can't help but wonder who is being self-centered... GH's post embodies exactly what the discussion was about. Despite Hillary winning by every metric Bernie's supporters think the party should change to accommodate them, the minority. And surely they would not be the minority if only the system didn't work against them. again ignoring the fact they are losing on number of delegates, super delegates and the popular vote. They have this unrealistic view that they are right and that everyone would agree with them if not for the 'system'. Its a refusal to accept that maybe their view is not the majority but the minority. That the world should not bend to match their ideal. No, you are interpreting the Democratic party as representing far more people than they actually do. Most people are not Democrats, so what's popular/supported by them doesn't necessarily mean it's generally popular or that whatever is popular is what they represent. What you are ignoring is Bernie Sanders support among Independents where he crushes Hillary ~80%-20%. So yeah Hillary is currently more popular within the party, but that absolutely does not mean her positions are more popular to the general public. In fact every metric we have shows that Hillary does far worse than Bernie outside of the Democratic party despite being to her "left". And for what party is Bernie running for the candidacy? Right, the democratic party. A party where, as is apparent by the numbers, his views are not the majority. Hence the view that... there should be another possibility! Welcome to the end of the thought process. The other possibility is to start a new party that does represent your views. You know, the democratic way? Heck if enough people try to do that you might actually be able to break open the US 2 party system. Your sure not going to do that with the current path. And yes I know that makes the scenario of a Trump presidency much more likely but that's the downside of the way democracy works,
You need to break the two party system before you create a third party. Otherwise, you're not making a Trump presidency "more likely", you're basically making sure it happens. Nobody sane on the left wants that.
|
Norway28683 Posts
On the currency discussion.. Everyone is a product of their environment, for sure, and if you go 100 years or more back in time, very few people will pass moral scrutiny by today's moral compass.
But even though it is true that morality and norms have evolved in a way that makes everyone from the past varying degrees of 'backwards', it is also true that some people have contributed to the positive evolution of norms, morality and society as a whole, while others were rather proponents of the negative values that plagued their contemporary societies. It would to me seem like a no-brainer that we should choose to celebrate the historical figures that stood out as positive forces compared to their contemporary societies rather than the historical figures that rather stand as embodiments of the negative values associated with the same societies. We don't have to demonize Andrew Jackson to consider him a less worthy figure of continued celebration than Harriet Tubman.
Basically.. Do you guys who argue for Jackson's relative innocence realize that you're also arguing for Hitler's relative innocence? They were both genocidal country leaders who engaged in wars of conquest who lived in societies where their backwards racist attitudes were very common..
|
On April 23 2016 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 23 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2016 04:20 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2016 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:
That should be a new party in my view. I don't think it's any fairer to ask a moderate right wing person to vote for either Bernie or Trump than it is to ask a leftwinger to vote for Hillary or Trump.
But regardless I still don't see what it has to do with forcing people to agree with you, I honestly don't think that's what Magpie was talking about.
But for the record, when you tell me that it's a negative thing to be annoyed that no candidate represents me, and that I should vote for the candidate that represents you instead, I can't help but wonder who is being self-centered... GH's post embodies exactly what the discussion was about. Despite Hillary winning by every metric Bernie's supporters think the party should change to accommodate them, the minority. And surely they would not be the minority if only the system didn't work against them. again ignoring the fact they are losing on number of delegates, super delegates and the popular vote. They have this unrealistic view that they are right and that everyone would agree with them if not for the 'system'. Its a refusal to accept that maybe their view is not the majority but the minority. That the world should not bend to match their ideal. No, you are interpreting the Democratic party as representing far more people than they actually do. Most people are not Democrats, so what's popular/supported by them doesn't necessarily mean it's generally popular or that whatever is popular is what they represent. What you are ignoring is Bernie Sanders support among Independents where he crushes Hillary ~80%-20%. So yeah Hillary is currently more popular within the party, but that absolutely does not mean her positions are more popular to the general public. In fact every metric we have shows that Hillary does far worse than Bernie outside of the Democratic party despite being to her "left". And for what party is Bernie running for the candidacy? Right, the democratic party. A party where, as is apparent by the numbers, his views are not the majority. Hence the view that... there should be another possibility! Welcome to the end of the thought process. The other possibility is to start a new party that does represent your views. You know, the democratic way? Heck if enough people try to do that you might actually be able to break open the US 2 party system. Your sure not going to do that with the current path. And yes I know that makes the scenario of a Trump presidency much more likely but that's the downside of the way democracy works,
It's not "the downside of the way democracy works", it is the downside of the way the US two party system works. Here in Germany, they could make their own party, and if they get 5% of the vote, either federally or locally, they get seats in the government. In the US, if they make their own party, they need to get a majority of the vote to be relevant in any way. Which is not going to happen, partly because they might not be numerous enough, and partly because people don't want to "waste their vote" by voting for a third party that is not going to get any seats.
Basically, a two party FPTP system is shit. But the only people who could change it are the people who have absolutely no interest in changing it because they won in that system. I honestly have no idea how the US is ever going to escape from that trap and achieve a reasonable election system as opposed to this archaic crap they currently have, and it is kind of sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
