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.
Sanders's perseverance in staying in the contest has more value than merely the outside chance that he will win (although there is that). There are also a lot of American voters who have been told early and often that he was unelectable and that his views don't have currency. Whatever expectations there were for his campaign (they weren't usually quantified), they have been shattered, and those same American voters have watched with raised eyebrows. Those American voters are now rightly interested in seeing the outcome of the remaining primaries and of the convention for themselves.
Basically, the difference between an overwhelming Clinton victory and a narrow Clinton victory (to say nothing of a Sanders victory) matters a lot for the future of the party and of the country. If Sanders had given up when certain people wanted him to, we'd never have learned the surprising truth about where the Democratic electorate actually stands.
(I know "surprising truth" sounds hokey. But it's apt: Nobody correctly called that Sanders could run a competitive campaign against Clinton, or that he would win multiple back-to-back landslides, or that he would come within 5% of her in national polling. The easy call was that he'd lose. The hard call was that it would be respectably close either way, and I saw nobody making that call until very recently.)
GH: Yes --- I meant pundits BTW: Thanks for posting news about Sanders in this thread. I am mostly a lurker but I often follow the discussion. Last year it was only from your posts (and then by verifying elsewhere) thath I learned about, for example, Sanders having some of the largest rallies of any candidate on either side. At the time this was an objectively relevant piece of news that never, ever came up in my left-leaning mainstream news sources of choice. BTW2: But don't think ya converted me. I was already going to vote Sanders if the vote ever came to California.
On April 23 2016 06:21 Djabanete wrote: Sanders's perseverance in staying in the contest has more value than merely the outside chance that he will win (although there is that). There are also a lot of American voters who have been told early and often that he was unelectable and that his views don't have currency. Whatever expectations there were for his campaign (they weren't usually quantified), they have been shattered, and those same American voters have watched with raised eyebrows. Those American voters are now rightly interested in seeing the outcome of the remaining primaries and of the convention for themselves.
Basically, the difference between an overwhelming Clinton victory and a narrow Clinton victory (to say nothing of a Sanders victory) matters a lot for the future of the party and of the country. If Sanders had given up when certain people wanted him to, we'd never have learned the surprising truth about where the Democratic electorate actually stands.
(I know "surprising truth" sounds hokey. But it's apt: Nobody correctly called that Sanders could run a competitive campaign against Clinton, or that he would win multiple back-to-back landslides, or that he would come within 5% of her in national polling. The easy call was that he'd lose. The hard call was that it would be respectably close either way, and I saw nobody making that call until very recently.)
I'd say those of us who were on board early and have stayed through everything are presumably exempt. But yes, I agree with the rest
On April 23 2016 06:21 Djabanete wrote: Sanders's perseverance in staying in the contest has more value than merely the outside chance that he will win (although there is that). There are also a lot of American voters who have been told early and often that he was unelectable and that his views don't have currency. Whatever expectations there were for his campaign (they weren't usually quantified), they have been shattered, and those same American voters have watched with raised eyebrows. Those American voters are now rightly interested in seeing the outcome of the remaining primaries and of the convention for themselves.
Basically, the difference between an overwhelming Clinton victory and a narrow Clinton victory (to say nothing of a Sanders victory) matters a lot for the future of the party and of the country. If Sanders had given up when certain people wanted him to, we'd never have learned the surprising truth about where the Democratic electorate actually stands.
(I know "surprising truth" sounds hokey. But it's apt: Nobody correctly called that Sanders could run a competitive campaign against Clinton, or that he would win multiple back-to-back landslides, or that he would come within 5% of her in national polling. The easy call was that he'd lose. The hard call was that it would be respectably close either way, and I saw nobody making that call until very recently.)
GH: Yes --- I meant pundits BTW: Thanks for posting news about Sanders in this thread. I am mostly a lurker but I often follow the discussion. Last year it was only from your posts (and then by verifying elsewhere) thath I learned about, for example, Sanders having some of the largest rallies of any candidate on either side. At the time this was an objectively relevant piece of news that never, ever came up in my left-leaning mainstream news sources of choice.
I told everyone that Bernie was future. That Hilary would be the only thing scary enough to revitalize the right. Then the debates and Trump showed up. Bernie showed himself to simply be an instigator, and a detail dodger while Trump was literally calling for attacks on races he disliked. Suddenly Hilary's problem of being the only thing that would revitalize the GOP voters was not an issue and it turns out Bernie was a sham.
Did I technically "call it?" kind of--but I was one of the first people amongst my peers to jump off the wagon.
BLM, like feminism, gets a lot of junk associated with it. The core point is that if a cop kills someone, the law should take its course, including if the person killed was black. You would think that this was a page that we could all be on. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in this thread, but if everyone in decision-making positions saw things this way, recent events would not have played out the way they did. Therefore I see a lot of validity in BLM advocating for this core point.
Naracs_Duc: I take issue with people who think he should give up because he is losing. If you think he's a sham, then it makes logical sense for you to think he ought to give it up, but in this case my disagreement with your position runs even deeper.
NEW YORK — United States Secretary of State John Kerry joined other world leaders Friday in New York for the official signing of the Paris climate agreement.
The signing ceremony formalized the agreement member countries reached in Paris last December as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC. The deal committed world leaders to taking national actions in their countries to reduce emissions by 2020, toward the collective goal of limiting global temperature rise to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius.
Representatives from about 170 countries were expected to participate in the signing ceremony, according to the UNFCCC. Kerry, who came to the stage carrying his toddler granddaughter, signed on behalf of the United States, as President Barack Obama is out of the country.
“When enough people come out and make their voices heard, when they turn their policy into a voting issue, when they work together toward the same real goal, then measurable change is possible,” Kerry said in his speech at the United Nations. “Today, as we think of the hard work ahead, I am reminded of Nelson Mandela’s very simple words: ‘It always seems impossible until it is done.’ While it isn’t done yet, today we are on the march.”
French President François Hollande was the first world leader to sign the document.
Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced last month that both their countries would take part in the signing ceremony, which corresponds with Earth Day. The participation of the U.S. and China is significant, as the two account for more than 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement goes into force once 55 countries accounting for at least 55 percent of global emissions officially sign.
While significant, the signing ceremony is only another step toward the agreement taking effect. Parties to the agreement will still have to go through the process of joining the agreement, which for most will require processes of approval in their home countries.
A senior State Department official said in a background call with reporters Wednesday that the United States is still going through the process of joining the agreement under executive action, and expects to join “as early as possible this year.”
On April 23 2016 07:03 Djabanete wrote: BLM, like feminism, gets a lot of junk associated with it. The core point is that if a cop kills someone, the law should take its course, including if the person killed was black. You would think that this was a page that we could all be on. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in this thread, but if everyone in decision-making positions saw things this way, recent events would not have played out the way they did. Therefore I see a lot of validity in BLM advocating for this core point.
Naracs_Duc: I take issue with people who think he should give up because he is losing. If you think he's a sham, then it makes logical sense for you to think he ought to give it up, but in this case my disagreement with your position runs even deeper.
I agree! I really wish BLM turned out that way. If they would have *only* focused on police brutality, the whole country would have been behind them. Then it turned into "the life of black people is just generally really shitty and we blame EVERY one of you"
Then things went down hill.
Edit: If Bernie somehow doesn't manage to win Pennsylvania, what about then? When does Bernie actually stop having a a chance to you?
On April 23 2016 07:03 Djabanete wrote: BLM, like feminism, gets a lot of junk associated with it. The core point is that if a cop kills someone, the law should take its course, including if the person killed was black. You would think that this was a page that we could all be on. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in this thread, but if everyone in decision-making positions saw things this way, recent events would not have played out the way they did. Therefore I see a lot of validity in BLM advocating for this core point.
Naracs_Duc: I take issue with people who think he should give up because he is losing. If you think he's a sham, then it makes logical sense for you to think he ought to give it up, but in this case my disagreement with your position runs even deeper.
I agree! I really wish BLM turned out that way. If they would have *only* focused on police brutality, the whole country would have been behind them. Then it turned into "the life of black people is just generally really shitty and we blame EVERY one of you"
Then things went down hill.
Edit: If Bernie somehow doesn't manage to win Pennsylvania, what about then? When does Bernie actually stop having a a chance to you?
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
On April 23 2016 07:03 Djabanete wrote: BLM, like feminism, gets a lot of junk associated with it. The core point is that if a cop kills someone, the law should take its course, including if the person killed was black. You would think that this was a page that we could all be on. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in this thread, but if everyone in decision-making positions saw things this way, recent events would not have played out the way they did. Therefore I see a lot of validity in BLM advocating for this core point.
Naracs_Duc: I take issue with people who think he should give up because he is losing. If you think he's a sham, then it makes logical sense for you to think he ought to give it up, but in this case my disagreement with your position runs even deeper.
I agree! I really wish BLM turned out that way. If they would have *only* focused on police brutality, the whole country would have been behind them. Then it turned into "the life of black people is just generally really shitty and we blame EVERY one of you"
Then things went down hill.
Edit: If Bernie somehow doesn't manage to win Pennsylvania, what about then? When does Bernie actually stop having a a chance to you?
Re: BLM: The BLM movement isn't very well defined (or maybe that's just because Fox News would have us believe that looters are part of BLM). People spend a lot of outrage crusading against "PC culture", and I agree that there is such a thing as wearing victimhood as a mark of pride, but this is not a pressing issue; to me, if you want to go crusade against something, there are human rights violations going on that are disproportionately more important. If PC culture is out of control (and that's a big if, Milo Y and lesser Trump), at least cut it some slack until real people aren't getting killed in the street without legal repercussion.
Edit: On "PC culture": You know, if women and black people can vote and if gay people can marry, it's because some bleeding-heart liberals---blacks, women, and gays and also like-minded people not in those groups---fought tooth and nail. I've seen the "victimhood as a mark of pride" phenomenon but there's real victimization too, but Milo Y and lesser Trump are just plain ignorant. That's the best thing I can say about them.
Re: Sanders: Personally, I'd at least like to have a chance to vote for him and then have a look at the final score. As for fighting over superdelegates, you can bet that Clinton would be fighting for them whether she won the popular vote or not, so I don't see why Sanders needs to roll over and die as a matter of principle. I still think superdelegates are a stupid system.
On April 23 2016 07:03 Djabanete wrote: Naracs_Duc: I take issue with people who think he should give up because he is losing. If you think he's a sham, then it makes logical sense for you to think he ought to give it up, but in this case my disagreement with your position runs even deeper.
I don't think its a secret that I honestly believe that what he is trying to do is dangerous for the liberal party. I don't mind that he's running, I don't even mind that he isn't quitting--but I do think that what he wants to implement especially in the political space we are in, with a conservative majority that we have will serve nothing but undermine the capability for liberals to win midterm elections in the future.
I really wanted him to be something of substance, so many of my FB friends wouldn't have been so annoying right now had I not been pushing Sanders on them so early. And it sucks how early I got convinced otherwise.
Problem with BLM up to a degree is that it doesn't seem to have a centralized core, it comes across as mostly unorganized. that means that people who do dumb shit in the name of BLM ruin it for those who actually want to make change happen and are open to dialogue.
On April 23 2016 07:03 Djabanete wrote: Naracs_Duc: I take issue with people who think he should give up because he is losing. If you think he's a sham, then it makes logical sense for you to think he ought to give it up, but in this case my disagreement with your position runs even deeper.
I don't think its a secret that I honestly believe that what he is trying to do is dangerous for the liberal party. I don't mind that he's running, I don't even mind that he isn't quitting--but I do think that what he wants to implement especially in the political space we are in, with a conservative majority that we have will serve nothing but undermine the capability for liberals to win midterm elections in the future.
I really wanted him to be something of substance, so many of my FB friends wouldn't have been so annoying right now had I not been pushing Sanders on them so early. And it sucks how early I got convinced otherwise.
Dangerous how?
I think that especially in the political space we are in, it's important that someone in a high position articulate and defend liberal ideas and get people fired up about participating politically. Sanders has the potential to bring a lot of skeptics and nonparticipants into the Democratic party fold. People who have given up or, hell, people who would otherwise vote Trump would be willing to vote Sanders. Clinton is never going to get those votes. I think that what the Democratic elites have done --- to turn their backs on Sanders and his supporters --- is much more dangerous.
As for whether Sanders is a real politician, he has a long history of achieving incremental gains even in the face of right-leaning majorities by cooperating with people like Ron Paul and John McCain and basically all the Democrats. Sure he went out on a limb at times, where nobody would follow him --- but that was for things like gay rights and opposing the Iraq War. Going out on a limb when it's the right thing to do, cooperating when it comes to nitty gritty details, and having an overarching vision for the future is exactly what I want in a politician.
On April 23 2016 07:03 Djabanete wrote: Naracs_Duc: I take issue with people who think he should give up because he is losing. If you think he's a sham, then it makes logical sense for you to think he ought to give it up, but in this case my disagreement with your position runs even deeper.
I don't think its a secret that I honestly believe that what he is trying to do is dangerous for the liberal party. I don't mind that he's running, I don't even mind that he isn't quitting--but I do think that what he wants to implement especially in the political space we are in, with a conservative majority that we have will serve nothing but undermine the capability for liberals to win midterm elections in the future.
I really wanted him to be something of substance, so many of my FB friends wouldn't have been so annoying right now had I not been pushing Sanders on them so early. And it sucks how early I got convinced otherwise.
Dangerous how?
I think that especially in the political space we are in, it's important that someone in a high position articulate and defend liberal ideas and get people fired up about participating politically. Sanders has the potential to bring a lot of skeptics and nonparticipants into the Democratic party fold. People who have given up or, hell, people who would otherwise vote Trump would be willing to vote Sanders. Clinton is never going to get those votes. I think that what the Democratic elites have done --- to turn their backs on Sanders and his supporters --- is much more dangerous.
As for whether Sanders is a real politician, he has a long history of achieving incremental gains even in the face of right-leaning majorities by cooperating with people like Ron Paul and John McCain and basically all the Democrats. Sure he went out on a limb at times, where nobody would follow him --- but that was for things like gay rights and opposing the Iraq War. Going out on a limb when it's the right thing to do, cooperating when it comes to nitty gritty details, and having an overarching vision for the future is exactly what I want in a politician.
You really want to change the party? Its really easy--much easier than the presidency.
Midterm and local elections have the lowest turnouts. Get liberals in there, and suddenly you have 400+ Bernie clones all with the super delegate power to dictate the direction of the party. You get congressmen and senators, all Bernie clones, who can dictate what the party is.
You know how you don't do it?
You don't do it by telling the american public that DNC backed candidates are corrupt liars who institute voter fraud to prevent voters from having a say in the election. You don't do it by making a stance at attacking Wallstreet funding at a time when you don't have the backup to get wallstreet money out of politics yet. You don't give wallstreet fundraisers a reason to shift their money to the GOP who are still okay with them. You do it by not undermining's the Dem's ability to support midterm elections by undermining their authenticity and main source of money.
Right now Sander's plans, the specific things he wants, will be the most destructive, regressive, and worse thing that could possibly happen to liberals in this country.
Look at the GOP. There's literally three different majority parties in the GOP right now between the Tea Party, the Christian Right, and the Neocons. A republican literally has his choice of vastly different options both in the midterms and the general and its all because they actually vote in their midterms. If you want to have a multiparty system, register republican and you have your pick of the lot--all without breaking GOP unity or threatening to undermine GOP unity.
Look at the Liberals, half the candidates are telling voters not to trust the DNC, not to trust democrats, and not to trust any establishment supported by the democrats. And you wonder why they lose the midterms and never have power in the house and senate. Bernie is about to make that worse, and possibly to the point of supermajority where they can just outright ignore him.
@slaughter Which is exactly what edgelords, who think decency and dignity are just SJW troll concepts, love as a counterbalance.
Anyways of to an other topic: As the recent timeout of oneofthem reminded me, it was actually possible to get coherent thoughtful posts out of him. One issue where it worked is still very dear to my heart (and mind) and i have no idea how to solve it still. The culture of work in current western societies and especially the disregard for non-work. Maybe it is fatalistic to think that way but when i see job prospects for PhDs being shitty that makes me concerned for society. A system (broadly: wage labour for capitalists) that optimizes people into being telemarketers, mc donalds fryers, walmart greeters or taxi drivers, instead of scholars, just because we have so many people that need to sustain themselfs, is not one to me, that seems to optimize societal greatness or welfare. Some might say "hah you deserve to be shit for doing gender studies" but personal choices are not the issue when there is no general societal demand for greatness, when there are not enough jobs in the sciences, that people can make a stable living improving mankind on a longer timescale than the average firm looks for their quarterly shareholder meetings.
There are some good jobs left of course, but there will never again be enough jobs for all, and not enough good jobs for it to be a meritocratic upward mobile society. So why then is it so hard to turn around the sentiment that humans are only "worthwhile" if they work, only deserve to life if they market themselfs to capitalists? (And how could one do it)
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
The single largest impediment to curb police violence and stop discrimination are liberal college students? Crippling poverty, the war on drugs and so on won't matter as long as the pesky pc students go away?
EPT
BTW: Thanks for posting news about Sanders in this thread. I am mostly a lurker but I often follow the discussion. Last year it was only from your posts (and then by verifying elsewhere) thath I learned about, for example, Sanders having some of the largest rallies of any candidate on either side. At the time this was an objectively relevant piece of news that never, ever came up in my left-leaning mainstream news sources of choice. BTW2: But don't think ya converted me. I was already going to vote Sanders if the vote ever came to California.
