|
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 04:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:41 Gorsameth wrote: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.
But your never going to break the system while at only 2 parties, that's the insanity of it.
Between the tea party on one hand the Sanders on the other (assuming he has the numbers his supporters claim) your not going to get a better time to force the system open for a long time.
On April 23 2016 04:52 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:41 Gorsameth wrote: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.
By the Republican and Democratic parties breaking having an actual 4/5 way election (the Greens may well get something done after such a breakup, who knows) and ending up with a 35/30/20/15 or whatever election result and then, when Congress gets presented with the job of sorting the election(which is also divided as hell, esp post breakup) and them changing the system to one where multiple parties can function.
|
On April 23 2016 04:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:41 Gorsameth wrote: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.
Well, depends if Republicans unite behind Trump or not. Assuming Clinton is the Democrat candidate and Sanders somehow runs as independent, I'm pretty sure that Republicans would be way more tempted to fuck Trump over and arbitrarily nominate someone else. Which would lead to a delicious 4-way battle which should be the election we should have seeing the ideological divergences between Sanders, Clinton, Trump and the Republicans.
|
I like the 2 party system. It forces each party to include as many interests as possible, thus enfranchising the most possible number of people into the currently sitting government. Obama/Hillary have made a point of trying to make the party into something that could maintain moderate and business interests (moreso Obama). At present, the Democratic party (especially during the Obama era) is a coalition that includes moderate, business, liberal, progressive, immigrant, union interests, and racially specific interests (see Holder Justice department). I think this is a good thing and helps make sure that the reforms we pass have the buy in of the industries we are trying to reform. Imagine of insurers didn't buy into ACA.
The Sandernistastas want to change the Democratic party so that it no longer represents moderate or business interests. A Sanders Democratic party would boot the moderate and business interests (and possibly the racially specific interests if the black voters in the south are correct) so that the new Sandercratic party would be the party of white, college educated liberals. Such a narrow party might make sense in a multi party system, but even then it would need to ally with the moderate-left party to form a government.
EDIT: Sanders would also kick out the professional class. Lawyers donate to Clinton 10-1 over Bernie. Bernie's taxes would really hit the professional class hard. And Sander's whole post-evidence, post-plan, post-knowledge campaign on the issues without explanation would hurt the Democratic party's standing amongst scientists and experts.
|
On April 23 2016 04:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:45 Nebuchad wrote:On April 23 2016 04:41 Gorsameth wrote: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. But your never going to break the system while at only 2 parties, that's the insanity of it. Between the tea party on one hand the Sanders on the other (assuming he has the numbers his supporters claim) your not going to get a better time to force the system open for a long time.
I don't think that's accurate, given the young generation's tendencies I hardly think it's now or never, I think you're going to get a more and more favourable situation.
|
Norway28653 Posts
On April 22 2016 03:58 Mohdoo wrote:
Ah yes, the ole demonizing of winning conflicts. Civilizations should just idly stand by as weak, conquerable lands are used by inferior civilizations. The strong societies should sit around and wait for a different strong society to seize the opportunity for growth. That way, we are being considerate of the shitty, undeveloped societies' right to be shitty and weak.
Are you serious? Like, I get that you can argue that people in the past can't be judged based on the same moral spectrum we judge people from the present based on. I'm not saying that we need to morally condemn greek slave owners from 2300 years back in time. But you're going far beyond 'not-judging-negatively', you're outright stating that genocide against 'weaker civilizations' is a historical positive.
Basically, ask yourself this; would you currently support going into the amazon forest and forcefully relocating (massacring them if unwilling to move peacefully) them so we can seize their land? If you answer no, then please explain how this is different. And if you answer yes, then please justify it morally..
To be clear here, you're not just justifying european conquest of the americas. Your extended argument also justifies Leopold's Congo, it justifies Japanese invasion of China in WW2 (including rape of nanjing) - your extended argument justifies every single case of a more powerful group brutalizing a weaker group. To me, one of the more significant pieces of historical progress in terms of morality and attitudes is that this is no longer a (morally) acceptable position to hold - and frankly, I'm kinda shocked to see you make this post.
|
On April 23 2016 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote: 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 don't see this as remotely legitimate. People could have registered as a democrat. There are very real reasons for having closed primaries and independents do not need to be so courted. This truly is a "boo fucking hoo" moment. If someone is even considering voting for Bernie, they are not anything near the current state of the republican party. They support planned parenthood, a $15 minimum wage, government breaking up private entities, the list goes on. An "independent" supporting Bernie means they are a hell of a lot more of a democrat than a republican. Them being whiny about feeling "represented enough" is the reason they didn't register as a democrat. None of us feel perfectly represented. I support basic income, something Clinton wouldn't touch with a 10 foot rod. I support a lot of wild shit that is just straight up unreasonable for our political climate. But Democrats are kind to planned parenthood and gay people, so they get an x in their box. I bet these independents that are voting for Bernie also like planned parenthood and gay people.
On April 23 2016 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
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.
This is ridiculous. If he's not getting delegates, not enough people agree with him. If they are letting themselves fall into high school anarchist nonsense like "BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME, ITS JUST OLIGARCHY!", then they are lazy, infantile people who have every right to throw away their vote. It takes effort to actually vote. If you want a political movement, you need the votes. It is absurd to cry foul when the votes aren't there. Blaming closed primaries is just silly. Anyone considering Bernie is so far from anything the GOP is offering.
On April 23 2016 05:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 03:58 Mohdoo wrote:
Ah yes, the ole demonizing of winning conflicts. Civilizations should just idly stand by as weak, conquerable lands are used by inferior civilizations. The strong societies should sit around and wait for a different strong society to seize the opportunity for growth. That way, we are being considerate of the shitty, undeveloped societies' right to be shitty and weak.
Are you serious? Like, I get that you can argue that people in the past can't be judged based on the same moral spectrum we judge people from the present based on. I'm not saying that we need to morally condemn greek slave owners from 2300 years back in time. But you're going far beyond 'not-judging-negatively', you're outright stating that genocide against 'weaker civilizations' is a historical positive. Basically, ask yourself this; would you currently support going into the amazon forest and forcefully relocating (massacring them if unwilling to move peacefully) them so we can seize their land? If you answer no, then please explain how this is different. And if you answer yes, then please justify it morally.. To be clear here, you're not just justifying european conquest of the americas. Your extended argument also justifies Leopold's Congo, it justifies Japanese invasion of China in WW2 (including rape of nanjing) - your extended argument justifies every single case of a more powerful group brutalizing a weaker group. To me, one of the more significant pieces of historical progress in terms of morality and attitudes is that this is no longer a (morally) acceptable position to hold - and frankly, I'm kinda shocked to see you make this post.
I elaborated in detail in the following post:
On April 22 2016 10:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 06:53 travis wrote:
Well, most of the world could be conquered by the U.S. right now. Are you advocating that? Why haven't I seen you advocate for more wars in general? There's conquerable land out there!
That's not true. The US can not just conquer a bunch of land because it would not be able to afford it, other countries would ally against the US and the economic damage from sanctions and a million other things would totally prevent it. There's no way. However, Crimea is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Crimea, Ukraine more broadly, did not have proper safety. Diplomatically/economically/whatever/alliances were not able to prevent Crimea from being annexed. Russia took what was undefended. Russia suffered some, but it was ultimately "profitable". Russia is not trying to take over Poland. Russia is not trying to take over Mongolia. It isn't able to because the governments in place have managed to secure the safety of their citizens through all the means I listed previously. At the end of the day, they were able to achieve safety. There is a massive difference between being militarily "capable" and being "actually capable". At the end of the day, would the conquest be profitable? If not, it won't happen. It was worthwhile for Russia to take Crimea, so they did. Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 06:53 travis wrote:
by inferior civilizations.
What does this even mean? A civilization that was unable to defend its citizens was overtaken by a power that was able to profitably take land. The society/government/whatever you want to call the unique system the natives developed was unable to protect its people from foreign aggressors. These foreign aggressors were able to conclude the cost:benefit made a ton of sense for just slaughtering everyone and stealing all their shit. This is no different than Crimea, just a totally different scale. If a society is able to have a net benefit from an act of aggression, it will always end up doing it. The reason Crimea doesn't happen as often as it did 300 years ago is the fact that we've become an entirely global culture and people. I think people really underestimate just how economically/militarily/EVERYTHING connected our planet has become. It's nearly impossible to just take over a country without it indirectly pissing someone off who can defend that country. And so that brings up another point: These countries are the countries that currently exist because the leadership of these countries, however it happened, were able to establish ties with other countries which granted them safety. They only exist now because of that. There were many different borders 300 years ago. These borders changed over time to match the power dynamics in a somewhat natural way. Simply put, when a country is unable to protect its citizens against a foreign power, it is inferior in its ability to protect. If we go back far enough, you need to consider the original reasons for establishing societies at all. In the beginning, it was essentially paying a group of guards. By having protection of these soldiers, you agree to pay a tax or fee or give crops or whatever. The fundamental motivation for banding together is to be stronger and more secure. When that purpose is not served, the citizens are not served. The structure unable to protect these people falls apart, either militarily or otherwise. Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 06:53 travis wrote:
What you are describing is theft. When you go in and take something that belongs to someone else, that is theft. If I get a gun and I take your shit, its not because you are weak - it's because I was an asshole and I took your shit with my gun because I wanted it.
That's true. However, you would only get a gun and take my shit if you decided the cost:benefit was favorable. You are unlikely to do that because there are a lot of aspects of our society which protect me. You are not likely to try to rob me *precisely* because the state I am a part of is functioning well. If I lived in Somalia, I would be vulnerable to you.
|
|
|
On April 23 2016 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote: 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. Them being whiny about feeling "represented enough" is the reason they didn't register as a democrat.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say that disliking the notion of not being represented in politics is a whiny attitude?
|
On April 23 2016 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote: 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 don't see this as remotely legitimate. People could have registered as a democrat. There are very real reasons for having closed primaries and independents do not need to be so courted. This truly is a "boo fucking hoo" moment. If someone is even considering voting for Bernie, they are not anything near the current state of the republican party. They support planned parenthood, a $15 minimum wage, government breaking up private entities, the list goes on. An "independent" supporting Bernie means they are a hell of a lot more of a democrat than a republican. Them being whiny about feeling "represented enough" is the reason they didn't register as a democrat. None of us feel perfectly represented. I support basic income, something Clinton wouldn't touch with a 10 foot rod. I support a lot of wild shit that is just straight up unreasonable for our political climate. But Democrats are kind to planned parenthood and gay people, so they get an x in their box. I bet these independents that are voting for Bernie also like planned parenthood and gay people.
On April 23 2016 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
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.
Mohdoo Quote (some formatting issue)
This is ridiculous. If he's not getting delegates, not enough people agree with him. If they are letting themselves fall into high school anarchist nonsense like "BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME, ITS JUST OLIGARCHY!", then they are lazy, infantile people who have every right to throw away their vote. It takes effort to actually vote. If you want a political movement, you need the votes. It is absurd to cry foul when the votes aren't there. Blaming closed primaries is just silly. Anyone considering Bernie is so far from anything the GOP is offering.
lol alright. That right there is why the parties are shrinking.
Democrats could have ballooned their party by truly welcoming in the new folks Bernie has brought to the process, instead they've gotten a whole lotta that stuff. These "the rules are the rules" arguments seem to ignore that people know the rules are crap. Most don't know how to describe it, but they realize the system is rigged against people who aren't part of the gangs parties. That worked while people were willing to tolerate it, but the party "leaders" and Americans (not just their loyal party followers) have grown too far apart for this to last.
|
On April 23 2016 05:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:On April 23 2016 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote: 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. Them being whiny about feeling "represented enough" is the reason they didn't register as a democrat. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say that disliking the notion of not being represented in politics is a whiny attitude?
It's not possible. Our country is too diverse. You can not ask half the country to agree on a list of 20 perspectives. This is all assuming a 2 party system, which is what we have. Our entire political system is built on that. I would MUCH rather we had a system that allowed for millions of parties. But that is not relevant at all to our current situation. The issue is whether a Bernie supporter should have just gone ahead and registered as a democrat, assuming their views would probably overlap a lot better.
On April 23 2016 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Democrats could have ballooned their party by truly welcoming in the new folks Bernie has brought to the process, instead they've gotten a whole lotta that stuff. These "the rules are the rules" arguments seem to ignore that people know the rules are crap. Most don't know how to describe it, but they realize the system is rigged against people who aren't part of the gangs parties. That worked while people were willing to tolerate it, but the party "leaders" and Americans (not just their loyal party followers) have grown too far apart for this to last.
Your average 55 year old democrat is not cool at all with socialism. Supporting socialism would have been a huge risk to take 8 months ago. I don't think there is a legitimate argument to be made against that call. 55+ are amazing voters. They sure do get to polls. Us young folks are garbage voters. We are so unreliable it's just nuts.
I do, however, think you will see a meeting in the middle in 2020/2024. The Bernie impact is totally irreversible at this point and it has to be respected. I don't think our next nominee will be as liberal as Bernie, but they will certainly be more liberal than Clinton.
Also, sorry for the really difficult to address post. Addressing multiple people makes it tough! I don't wanna be a double poster!
|
On April 23 2016 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:On April 23 2016 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote: 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 don't see this as remotely legitimate. People could have registered as a democrat. There are very real reasons for having closed primaries and independents do not need to be so courted. This truly is a "boo fucking hoo" moment. If someone is even considering voting for Bernie, they are not anything near the current state of the republican party. They support planned parenthood, a $15 minimum wage, government breaking up private entities, the list goes on. An "independent" supporting Bernie means they are a hell of a lot more of a democrat than a republican. Them being whiny about feeling "represented enough" is the reason they didn't register as a democrat. None of us feel perfectly represented. I support basic income, something Clinton wouldn't touch with a 10 foot rod. I support a lot of wild shit that is just straight up unreasonable for our political climate. But Democrats are kind to planned parenthood and gay people, so they get an x in their box. I bet these independents that are voting for Bernie also like planned parenthood and gay people. Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. Show nested quote +Mohdoo Quote (some formatting issue)
This is ridiculous. If he's not getting delegates, not enough people agree with him. If they are letting themselves fall into high school anarchist nonsense like "BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME, ITS JUST OLIGARCHY!", then they are lazy, infantile people who have every right to throw away their vote. It takes effort to actually vote. If you want a political movement, you need the votes. It is absurd to cry foul when the votes aren't there. Blaming closed primaries is just silly. Anyone considering Bernie is so far from anything the GOP is offering.
lol alright. That right there is why the parties are shrinking. Democrats could have ballooned their party by truly welcoming in the new folks Bernie has brought to the process, instead they've gotten a whole lotta that stuff. These "the rules are the rules" arguments seem to ignore that people know the rules are crap. Most don't know how to describe it, but they realize the system is rigged against people who aren't part of the gangs parties. That worked while people were willing to tolerate it, but the party "leaders" and Americans (not just their loyal party followers) have grown too far apart for this to last.
Totally disagree that Bernie was bringing in new people. Bernie wants to kick people out of the Democratic party. What do you think "get the money out of politics" means with regards to moderate and business interests? Do you think a Berniecratic party would accept letting the insurance industry, the finance industry, the tech industry, the energy industry, or the defense industry having a say in the Bernicratic party? Bernie is running on purifying the Democratic party of the Corporate and Moderate interests it still sorta listens to. Bernie was not bringing anyone new besides some ex-Ron-Paulers.
|
Norway28653 Posts
Mohdoo, the main thing I am getting from your long, elaboratory post is even more endorsement of a might makes right attitude. You're not distancing yourself from the rape of nanjing - you're justifying it further. (it's easier to conquer a people if you truly break their spirit, thus making permanent conquest more likely).
Honestly, you don't even have to answer. I just want you to take some time to ponder on the extended consequences of your stated opinions, and see whether you actually support the logical conclusion of them. I don't want to be condescending, but I really hope that you haven't done this before. From my reading of your posts, in your opinion, the Japanese and German mistakes in world war 2 were losing the war - not starting it. Extending your argument to individuals, the mistake Josef Fritzl made was getting caught, not imprisoning and raping his daughter for 24 years. You're arguing for a completely amoral society, one where 'power' should enable anyone to do anything they want to anyone with less 'power'. And I just don't understand how you can justify this.
|
|
|
On April 23 2016 05:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Mohdoo, the main thing I am getting from your long, elaboratory post is even more endorsement of a might makes right attitude. You're not distancing yourself from the rape of nanjing - you're justifying it further. (it's easier to conquer a people if you truly break their spirit, thus making permanent conquest more likely).
Honestly, you don't even have to answer. I just want you to take some time to ponder on the extended consequences of your stated opinions, and see whether you actually support the logical conclusion of them. I don't want to be condescending, but I really hope that you haven't done this before. From my reading of your posts, in your opinion, the Japanese and German mistakes in world war 2 were losing the war - not starting it. Extending your argument to individuals, the mistake Josef Fritzl made was getting caught, not imprisoning and raping his daughter for 24 years. You're arguing for a completely amoral society, one where 'power' should enable anyone to do anything they want to anyone with less 'power'. And I just don't understand how you can justify this.
I don't take it to be justified. I am saying that it will always happen. In what world would I really be saying "Genocide and rape! Sounds awesome!"? My point is that, throughout history, we will always see a group get aggressive either through opportunity or through need. We, as a planet, have come a long way in building a more unified people. But vulnerable areas are still up for grabs. I am not praising the nature of border dynamics. I am explaining why it happens and why it will continue to happen in rare cases. There will always be an evil, terrible leader who is willing to command people to kill other people. The only solution is for everyone to be protected. People who are not protected *will* be victimized. It's a sad, awful reality of humanity. It is something we have made tremendous progress in, but it still exists.
8.6 million. That is a minuscule amount of money. I'm just happy we bought it and not someone else. 8.6 is a tiny amount of money for us. But that much heavy water could be very valuable to the wrong person!
|
Norway28653 Posts
On April 23 2016 04:52 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:41 Gorsameth wrote: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.
Here in Norway, we got representative democracy rather than FTPT two party system (with parties creatively named 'Left' and 'Right', lol) as a reaction to the kinda communist labor party being in a position to possibly sweep the next election. Perhaps the Sanders-Trump success of this election cycle can install a similar fear of becoming disenfranchised among the current establishment? ;p
|
On April 23 2016 05:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 03:58 Mohdoo wrote:
Ah yes, the ole demonizing of winning conflicts. Civilizations should just idly stand by as weak, conquerable lands are used by inferior civilizations. The strong societies should sit around and wait for a different strong society to seize the opportunity for growth. That way, we are being considerate of the shitty, undeveloped societies' right to be shitty and weak.
Are you serious? Like, I get that you can argue that people in the past can't be judged based on the same moral spectrum we judge people from the present based on. I'm not saying that we need to morally condemn greek slave owners from 2300 years back in time. But you're going far beyond 'not-judging-negatively', you're outright stating that genocide against 'weaker civilizations' is a historical positive. Basically, ask yourself this; would you currently support going into the amazon forest and forcefully relocating (massacring them if unwilling to move peacefully) them so we can seize their land? If you answer no, then please explain how this is different. And if you answer yes, then please justify it morally.. To be clear here, you're not just justifying european conquest of the americas. Your extended argument also justifies Leopold's Congo, it justifies Japanese invasion of China in WW2 (including rape of nanjing) - your extended argument justifies every single case of a more powerful group brutalizing a weaker group. To me, one of the more significant pieces of historical progress in terms of morality and attitudes is that this is no longer a (morally) acceptable position to hold - and frankly, I'm kinda shocked to see you make this post.
Do you really think that the clashing of civilizations has been relegated to the dust bin of history --- that Western liberalism has "won" and will remain the dominant cultural force for all time?
|
Norway28653 Posts
Mohdoo, you were not arguing 'sadly, it is human nature that the strong will conquer the weak' or a variant thereof.. This was your post : Ah yes, the ole demonizing of winning conflicts. Civilizations should just idly stand by as weak, conquerable lands are used by inferior civilizations. The strong societies should sit around and wait for a different strong society to seize the opportunity for growth. That way, we are being considerate of the shitty, undeveloped societies' right to be shitty and weak.
This to me sounds like endorsement of the might makes right attitude, not regretful acceptance, because attempting to change this negative trait of the world/ humanity actually entails the demonizing of imperialism that you decided to chide.. I am happy to see a somewhat altered attitude in your last post though. 
|
On April 23 2016 06:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:Mohdoo, you were not arguing 'sadly, it is human nature that the strong will conquer the weak' or a variant thereof.. This was your post : Ah yes, the ole demonizing of winning conflicts. Civilizations should just idly stand by as weak, conquerable lands are used by inferior civilizations. The strong societies should sit around and wait for a different strong society to seize the opportunity for growth. That way, we are being considerate of the shitty, undeveloped societies' right to be shitty and weak. This to me sounds like endorsement of the might makes right attitude, not regretful acceptance, because attempting to change this negative trait of the world/ humanity actually entails the demonizing of imperialism that you decided to chide.. I am happy to see a somewhat altered attitude in your last post though.
My point was that when weakness is present, under no circumstances will it ever be permitted to continue. Some stronger force will always absorb a weak, failed state. Whether it is direct like slaughtering natives or indirect like ruining Africa, a foreign power that feels like it needs something from a weak state will always take it. One way or another, the hopelessly weak natives were going to have their land taken.
The key factor is the stronger states feeling like they need more resources and feeling threatened by competing states. So long as that keeps happening, weaker states will always be used.
So while I am not saying might makes right, I am saying weakness will always, eventually, be conquered. The native Americans would have gotten curb stomped eventually. Blaming the first ones to take dibs isn't necessarily appropriate. If it wasn't them, it was gonna be someone else. We'd be having this conversation about the French or something. As long as these powerful countries feel stressed, they're gonna keep having awful leaders who do shit like that.
|
London Mayor Boris Johnson, who is campaigning for Brexit, attacked Obama's comments.
"As much as I admire the United States, and as much as I respect the president, I believe he must admit that his country would not dream of embroiling itself in anything of the kind," he said, writing in The Sun, a tabloid newspaper. Johnson was referring to Britain's membership of the EU. He called Obama "part Kenyan" and suggested his African heritage was responsible for his "ancestral dislike of the British empire."
Source
What a good laugh.
|
Norway28653 Posts
On April 23 2016 06:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 05:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 22 2016 03:58 Mohdoo wrote:
Ah yes, the ole demonizing of winning conflicts. Civilizations should just idly stand by as weak, conquerable lands are used by inferior civilizations. The strong societies should sit around and wait for a different strong society to seize the opportunity for growth. That way, we are being considerate of the shitty, undeveloped societies' right to be shitty and weak.
Are you serious? Like, I get that you can argue that people in the past can't be judged based on the same moral spectrum we judge people from the present based on. I'm not saying that we need to morally condemn greek slave owners from 2300 years back in time. But you're going far beyond 'not-judging-negatively', you're outright stating that genocide against 'weaker civilizations' is a historical positive. Basically, ask yourself this; would you currently support going into the amazon forest and forcefully relocating (massacring them if unwilling to move peacefully) them so we can seize their land? If you answer no, then please explain how this is different. And if you answer yes, then please justify it morally.. To be clear here, you're not just justifying european conquest of the americas. Your extended argument also justifies Leopold's Congo, it justifies Japanese invasion of China in WW2 (including rape of nanjing) - your extended argument justifies every single case of a more powerful group brutalizing a weaker group. To me, one of the more significant pieces of historical progress in terms of morality and attitudes is that this is no longer a (morally) acceptable position to hold - and frankly, I'm kinda shocked to see you make this post. Do you really think that the clashing of civilizations has been relegated to the dust bin of history --- that Western liberalism has "won" and will remain the dominant cultural force for all time?
To invoke my inner Bernie, Let me be absolutely clear here: I am not advocating that we stop funding the military to such a degree that we become unable to defend ourselves. I'm not saying 'lets ignore realism', I'm saying 'let's be as idealistic as we reasonably can be', and that just because you can exploit someone for your own benefit, this does not entitle you to exploiting someone for your own benefit.
Further, I consider myself a historian, and as such, no way could I ever find myself thinking that we're at the end of history. I think we are engaged in a constant struggle, intellectually as well as politically, to promote values that benefit the world and help shape it to be the way we want it to be, but I also believe that these efforts operate in a kind of conjuncture-based manner, where one societal change frequently leads to a (often opposite) response. However, I also believe that as a whole, not necessarily on a year to year scale, but on a decade to decade scale, more positive values are adopted by a larger amount of people. However, this can change - the western world has seen a 1000-year-long decline in philosophical thought in the past, and it's certainly possible that something equally bad, or worse, than the dark ages, will happen again in the future.
I actually would like to post longer because you hit just the right buttons buut I have to go for the evening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
