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 May 17 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote: lets continue to hold hillary to a separate, higher bar shall we
i feel like people's opinions about the transcripts are almost a litmus test at this point. when they come out they'll be a rorschach test
i expect her to come out with the transcripts after the primary is over, though i dont particularly care. obama will probably be like "for crying out loud its the same stuff i say at commencements" if people try to make a fuss about it
What separate higher bar? She and her supporters keep saying that, but can't point to what speeches others aren't releasing.
The bar where Sanders doesn't need a plan, just a promise for change that will magically happen when the GOP majority magically leaves and manufacturing just magically comes back while 15 trillion in spending is okay while hilary's 10 trillion in spending makes her a corporate shill.
The bar where Hilary uses normal nomenclature in a video for decades past is more anti-black than Bernie calling blacks violent psychopaths is simply "out of context."
The bar where almost every single democratic ally in the house and senate already are supportive and wanting to help Hilary push forward her plans, but they are derided by you for not wanting to do what an old white guy says.
The part where Hilary is 2-3 million votes ahead of Sanders but SHE is the one you accuse of being unlikable.
The part where Bernie could not even tell people whether or not he could even break up big banks when asked directly, or (after hounding Hilary for it for months) eventually said he'd just do what hilary was saying she'd do and use Dodd Frank to make his big attack on the banks.
The fact that he keeps not saying anything, only doing the things Hilary and Obama already are doing, all while telling people not to trust the DNC or Democrats in his attempt to ensure a republican house and senate.
Bernie is dangerous to liberals--much more than Trump. Not because Trump has less dangerous goals--but Bernie is much more competent at actually following through with his dangerous plans than trump.
1. Politicians have always made promises without a concrete plan on how to do it. See Obama "hope and change"
2. "Super predator" isn't normal nomenclature at any point in history. People don't even use that for super sexual predators.
3. If it was just what an old white guys says the primary wouldn't be contested as it is. People wanting the progressive party to actually be progressive isn't just "wanting to do what an old white guy says"
4. She has terrible likability in polls of people. This isn't something that people are just accusing her of it has polling data to back it up.
5. See number 1.
6. This point of yours makes no sense and is a lie at the best of interpretation.
7. Bernie isn't dangerous to Liberals hes dangerous to conservative and moderate democrats that don't want to worry about their base and want them to just keep voteing them into office without moving the country anywhere.
People said the same things about Obama being held to a different standard just because hes black.but instead its because shes a woman. The answer is no and yes. Sexists gets to disagree with her because shes sexist and hide behind shitty reasons and regular people get called sexist because they disagree with her on legitimate reasons.
On May 17 2016 05:07 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Bernie Bonus: his supporters are thugs who try to use heckler's vetos to shut down delegate processes. Hillary won Nevada by 5% but they tried to bully their way into a Sanders "Win" in Nevada by shouting and yelling and refusing to abide by the voted results. We hear endless whining about how the system is Rigged and Corrupt, but these Berniebros certainly love trying to overturn Democratic processes via thuggery.
EDIT: the Nevada caucus results were 52.6% Hillary, 47.3% Bernie. No amount of yelling and intimidation should result in a Bernie "Win" when he lost at the voting level.
what in the fuck is a "heckler's veto" its called people being dumb enough to use voice votes in a contested election. If you read anything about it you'd see how much of a farce Nevada was. The recount people motioned for was because they handed out petitions as people were coming in and in the lines to register which ment that delegates weren't voting on anything.
You'd think a party calling itself the democratic party would have experience with holding a democratic process in their meetings.
1st Off
When Obama said he would reach out to liberal republicans and conservative democrats because that's the middle ground that allows for compromises to made--that was a specific tool for change.
When Obama said he would push healthcare reform--and then passed healthcare reform. That was a goal implemented using the plan he designed.
When he said he was against the Iraq War but not against the Afghanistan War, that showed that he wasn't simply being anti-war or anti-foreign policy, but actually wanted to make decisions on a case by case basis. When he said he would cut taxes on the middle class, and did cut taxes on the middle class.
Obama had a lot of big ideas. But he also had a lot of specific backend plans to help push those ideas. He had super delegate support, he had corporate money to fund both his and his allies, he had a goal of reaching out to specific voter bases that he actually followed through on.
Hope and Change was just the meme. But his been spouting off the need for inclusive politics since the beginning with an emphasis not on saying the craziest things possible, but on looking for middle grounds between both sides and not just his.
2nd Off
Non-Democrats telling democrats to stop being democrats is not "being progressive," ignoring global policies in an attempt to stop globailization is not "being progressive," being stuck with 60 year old policies instead of adapting policies to the current trends of the time is not "being progressive." And citing everyone that disagrees with you as being the enemy is simply the talents on non-liberals.
When you have a group of people yelling at liberals for not doing it how they used to do it 60+ years ago, that's not being progressive that's being regressive. And telling me that polls dislike Hilary when 3million more people voted for her is just so out of touch it makes sense why you'd be a sandernista.
Lol at half your post. The "2nd off" is purely devoid of sense. You show no understanding on how tent building or likability polls work. Healthcare was a power play to ensure democratic supremacy for a generation while they had a super majority to do it. Obama's campaign was based on change that turned to pragmatism once he finaly got into office. What progressive things has obama done in office or has campaigned for? It isn't controversial to say the party took a right turn with bill clinton and continued it with the moderates of Obama and hillary.
And I'm not a sandernista. I'm a confirmed conservative. But good job generalizing anyone who doesn't agree with you with your enemy. Which by your standards makes you not a liberal so welcome to the republican party buddy.
On May 17 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote: lets continue to hold hillary to a separate, higher bar shall we
i feel like people's opinions about the transcripts are almost a litmus test at this point. when they come out they'll be a rorschach test
i expect her to come out with the transcripts after the primary is over, though i dont particularly care. obama will probably be like "for crying out loud its the same stuff i say at commencements" if people try to make a fuss about it
What separate higher bar? She and her supporters keep saying that, but can't point to what speeches others aren't releasing.
The bar where Sanders doesn't need a plan, just a promise for change that will magically happen when the GOP majority magically leaves and manufacturing just magically comes back while 15 trillion in spending is okay while hilary's 10 trillion in spending makes her a corporate shill.
The bar where Hilary uses normal nomenclature in a video for decades past is more anti-black than Bernie calling blacks violent psychopaths is simply "out of context."
The bar where almost every single democratic ally in the house and senate already are supportive and wanting to help Hilary push forward her plans, but they are derided by you for not wanting to do what an old white guy says.
The part where Hilary is 2-3 million votes ahead of Sanders but SHE is the one you accuse of being unlikable.
The part where Bernie could not even tell people whether or not he could even break up big banks when asked directly, or (after hounding Hilary for it for months) eventually said he'd just do what hilary was saying she'd do and use Dodd Frank to make his big attack on the banks.
The fact that he keeps not saying anything, only doing the things Hilary and Obama already are doing, all while telling people not to trust the DNC or Democrats in his attempt to ensure a republican house and senate.
Bernie is dangerous to liberals--much more than Trump. Not because Trump has less dangerous goals--but Bernie is much more competent at actually following through with his dangerous plans than trump.
1. Politicians have always made promises without a concrete plan on how to do it. See Obama "hope and change"
2. "Super predator" isn't normal nomenclature at any point in history. People don't even use that for super sexual predators.
3. If it was just what an old white guys says the primary wouldn't be contested as it is. People wanting the progressive party to actually be progressive isn't just "wanting to do what an old white guy says"
4. She has terrible likability in polls of people. This isn't something that people are just accusing her of it has polling data to back it up.
5. See number 1.
6. This point of yours makes no sense and is a lie at the best of interpretation.
7. Bernie isn't dangerous to Liberals hes dangerous to conservative and moderate democrats that don't want to worry about their base and want them to just keep voteing them into office without moving the country anywhere.
People said the same things about Obama being held to a different standard just because hes black.but instead its because shes a woman. The answer is no and yes. Sexists gets to disagree with her because shes sexist and hide behind shitty reasons and regular people get called sexist because they disagree with her on legitimate reasons.
On May 17 2016 05:07 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Bernie Bonus: his supporters are thugs who try to use heckler's vetos to shut down delegate processes. Hillary won Nevada by 5% but they tried to bully their way into a Sanders "Win" in Nevada by shouting and yelling and refusing to abide by the voted results. We hear endless whining about how the system is Rigged and Corrupt, but these Berniebros certainly love trying to overturn Democratic processes via thuggery.
EDIT: the Nevada caucus results were 52.6% Hillary, 47.3% Bernie. No amount of yelling and intimidation should result in a Bernie "Win" when he lost at the voting level.
what in the fuck is a "heckler's veto" its called people being dumb enough to use voice votes in a contested election. If you read anything about it you'd see how much of a farce Nevada was. The recount people motioned for was because they handed out petitions as people were coming in and in the lines to register which ment that delegates weren't voting on anything.
You'd think a party calling itself the democratic party would have experience with holding a democratic process in their meetings.
1st Off
When Obama said he would reach out to liberal republicans and conservative democrats because that's the middle ground that allows for compromises to made--that was a specific tool for change.
When Obama said he would push healthcare reform--and then passed healthcare reform. That was a goal implemented using the plan he designed.
When he said he was against the Iraq War but not against the Afghanistan War, that showed that he wasn't simply being anti-war or anti-foreign policy, but actually wanted to make decisions on a case by case basis. When he said he would cut taxes on the middle class, and did cut taxes on the middle class.
Obama had a lot of big ideas. But he also had a lot of specific backend plans to help push those ideas. He had super delegate support, he had corporate money to fund both his and his allies, he had a goal of reaching out to specific voter bases that he actually followed through on.
Hope and Change was just the meme. But his been spouting off the need for inclusive politics since the beginning with an emphasis not on saying the craziest things possible, but on looking for middle grounds between both sides and not just his.
2nd Off
Non-Democrats telling democrats to stop being democrats is not "being progressive," ignoring global policies in an attempt to stop globailization is not "being progressive," being stuck with 60 year old policies instead of adapting policies to the current trends of the time is not "being progressive." And citing everyone that disagrees with you as being the enemy is simply the talents on non-liberals.
When you have a group of people yelling at liberals for not doing it how they used to do it 60+ years ago, that's not being progressive that's being regressive. And telling me that polls dislike Hilary when 3million more people voted for her is just so out of touch it makes sense why you'd be a sandernista.
Lol at half your post. The "2nd off" is purely devoid of sense. You show no understanding on how tent building or likability polls work. Healthcare was a power play to ensure democratic supremacy for a generation while they had a super majority to do it. Obama's campaign was based on change that turned to pragmatism once he finaly got into office. What progressive things has obama done in office or has campaigned for? It isn't controversial to say the party took a right turn with bill clinton and continued it with the moderates of Obama and hillary.
And I'm not a sandernista. I'm a confirmed conservative. But good job generalizing anyone who doesn't agree with you with your enemy. Which by your standards makes you not a liberal so welcome to the republican party buddy.
Before Obama was even a blip on the radar he showed up to my town and talked to us about reaching across the aisle for pragmatic middle ground solutions. Even when he got more and more popularity he continually cried out that it wasn't about red states or blue states. When he got into office he would present plans that were combinations of conservative and liberal ideals, much like the ACA using Romney's own state healthcare plan as its starting structure.
He was very much for the pulling of troops out of Iraq as direct attack on the Bush directive, but was also for increasing presence in Afghanistan in direct accordance with the Bush directive. And while under his watch we have seen "Don't Ask Don't Tell", Gay Marriage, and almost two Supreme Court Nominees, and the Amnesty Act he decreed be executive order--all this and more has move the company left. We also have a more explicated Patriot Act policy that is an expansion from the Bush years. All things he promised since before the first debate, all things he followed through on. The stuff he promised to the crowd I was in in 2007 was exactly what he delivered in 2008 and 2012. He was pragmatic from day 1, he was moderate from day 1, and it was that moderation that allowed him to pull the country leftward in respect to how right it had become in the Bush years.
"In common parlance, the term is used to describe situations where hecklers and/or demonstrators silence a speaker without intervention of the law."
Stamping your feet when you lose and screaming at the speakers until they have to escorted out of the building isn't Democracy. Hecklers don't have the right to shut down public speakers because they want to yell.
Are you sure about that? Isn't the proud American political move of the Filibuster basically a heckler trying to prevent democracy from following its rightful course by holding up a vote?
Filibusters are not hecklers.
Filibusters happen because in a democracy every is given a chance to say something--even if that thing is wrong. There is a part in the process of dialogue where the other guy gets their turn before a decision is made.
Hecklers are specific people doing so out of turn.
But isn't the basic idea of a filibuster that you can stop a decision from ever being made just as long as you don't stop talking?
Cart before the horse.
The reason the Filibuster is used is because it abuses a core concept of democratic debates.
Its more that people made "practical" rules for how congressmen and senators make decisions--and then a gamer ruined it.
Heckling is the opposite, it is speaking out of turn in order to interrupt a speech, as opposed to waiting until the speaker is done and then starting an argument from there--which is what happens with filibusters.
On May 17 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote: lets continue to hold hillary to a separate, higher bar shall we
i feel like people's opinions about the transcripts are almost a litmus test at this point. when they come out they'll be a rorschach test
i expect her to come out with the transcripts after the primary is over, though i dont particularly care. obama will probably be like "for crying out loud its the same stuff i say at commencements" if people try to make a fuss about it
What separate higher bar? She and her supporters keep saying that, but can't point to what speeches others aren't releasing.
The bar where Sanders doesn't need a plan, just a promise for change that will magically happen when the GOP majority magically leaves and manufacturing just magically comes back while 15 trillion in spending is okay while hilary's 10 trillion in spending makes her a corporate shill.
The bar where Hilary uses normal nomenclature in a video for decades past is more anti-black than Bernie calling blacks violent psychopaths is simply "out of context."
The bar where almost every single democratic ally in the house and senate already are supportive and wanting to help Hilary push forward her plans, but they are derided by you for not wanting to do what an old white guy says.
The part where Hilary is 2-3 million votes ahead of Sanders but SHE is the one you accuse of being unlikable.
The part where Bernie could not even tell people whether or not he could even break up big banks when asked directly, or (after hounding Hilary for it for months) eventually said he'd just do what hilary was saying she'd do and use Dodd Frank to make his big attack on the banks.
The fact that he keeps not saying anything, only doing the things Hilary and Obama already are doing, all while telling people not to trust the DNC or Democrats in his attempt to ensure a republican house and senate.
Bernie is dangerous to liberals--much more than Trump. Not because Trump has less dangerous goals--but Bernie is much more competent at actually following through with his dangerous plans than trump.
1. Politicians have always made promises without a concrete plan on how to do it. See Obama "hope and change"
2. "Super predator" isn't normal nomenclature at any point in history. People don't even use that for super sexual predators.
3. If it was just what an old white guys says the primary wouldn't be contested as it is. People wanting the progressive party to actually be progressive isn't just "wanting to do what an old white guy says"
4. She has terrible likability in polls of people. This isn't something that people are just accusing her of it has polling data to back it up.
5. See number 1.
6. This point of yours makes no sense and is a lie at the best of interpretation.
7. Bernie isn't dangerous to Liberals hes dangerous to conservative and moderate democrats that don't want to worry about their base and want them to just keep voteing them into office without moving the country anywhere.
People said the same things about Obama being held to a different standard just because hes black.but instead its because shes a woman. The answer is no and yes. Sexists gets to disagree with her because shes sexist and hide behind shitty reasons and regular people get called sexist because they disagree with her on legitimate reasons.
On May 17 2016 05:07 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Bernie Bonus: his supporters are thugs who try to use heckler's vetos to shut down delegate processes. Hillary won Nevada by 5% but they tried to bully their way into a Sanders "Win" in Nevada by shouting and yelling and refusing to abide by the voted results. We hear endless whining about how the system is Rigged and Corrupt, but these Berniebros certainly love trying to overturn Democratic processes via thuggery.
EDIT: the Nevada caucus results were 52.6% Hillary, 47.3% Bernie. No amount of yelling and intimidation should result in a Bernie "Win" when he lost at the voting level.
what in the fuck is a "heckler's veto" its called people being dumb enough to use voice votes in a contested election. If you read anything about it you'd see how much of a farce Nevada was. The recount people motioned for was because they handed out petitions as people were coming in and in the lines to register which ment that delegates weren't voting on anything.
You'd think a party calling itself the democratic party would have experience with holding a democratic process in their meetings.
1st Off
When Obama said he would reach out to liberal republicans and conservative democrats because that's the middle ground that allows for compromises to made--that was a specific tool for change.
When Obama said he would push healthcare reform--and then passed healthcare reform. That was a goal implemented using the plan he designed.
When he said he was against the Iraq War but not against the Afghanistan War, that showed that he wasn't simply being anti-war or anti-foreign policy, but actually wanted to make decisions on a case by case basis. When he said he would cut taxes on the middle class, and did cut taxes on the middle class.
Obama had a lot of big ideas. But he also had a lot of specific backend plans to help push those ideas. He had super delegate support, he had corporate money to fund both his and his allies, he had a goal of reaching out to specific voter bases that he actually followed through on.
Hope and Change was just the meme. But his been spouting off the need for inclusive politics since the beginning with an emphasis not on saying the craziest things possible, but on looking for middle grounds between both sides and not just his.
2nd Off
Non-Democrats telling democrats to stop being democrats is not "being progressive," ignoring global policies in an attempt to stop globailization is not "being progressive," being stuck with 60 year old policies instead of adapting policies to the current trends of the time is not "being progressive." And citing everyone that disagrees with you as being the enemy is simply the talents on non-liberals.
When you have a group of people yelling at liberals for not doing it how they used to do it 60+ years ago, that's not being progressive that's being regressive. And telling me that polls dislike Hilary when 3million more people voted for her is just so out of touch it makes sense why you'd be a sandernista.
Lol at half your post. The "2nd off" is purely devoid of sense. You show no understanding on how tent building or likability polls work. Healthcare was a power play to ensure democratic supremacy for a generation while they had a super majority to do it. Obama's campaign was based on change that turned to pragmatism once he finaly got into office. What progressive things has obama done in office or has campaigned for? It isn't controversial to say the party took a right turn with bill clinton and continued it with the moderates of Obama and hillary.
And I'm not a sandernista. I'm a confirmed conservative. But good job generalizing anyone who doesn't agree with you with your enemy. Which by your standards makes you not a liberal so welcome to the republican party buddy.
Before Obama was even a blip on the radar he showed up to my town and talked to us about reaching across the aisle for pragmatic middle ground solutions. Even when he got more and more popularity he continually cried out that it wasn't about red states or blue states. When he got into office he would present plans that were combinations of conservative and liberal ideals, much like the ACA using Romney's own state healthcare plan as its starting structure.
He was very much for the pulling of troops out of Iraq as direct attack on the Bush directive, but was also for increasing presence in Afghanistan in direct accordance with the Bush directive. And while under his watch we have seen "Don't Ask Don't Tell", Gay Marriage, and almost two Supreme Court Nominees, and the Amnesty Act he decreed be executive order--all this and more has move the company left. We also have a more explicated Patriot Act policy that is an expansion from the Bush years. All things he promised since before the first debate, all things he followed through on. The stuff he promised to the crowd I was in in 2007 was exactly what he delivered in 2008 and 2012. He was pragmatic from day 1, he was moderate from day 1, and it was that moderation that allowed him to pull the country leftward in respect to how right it had become in the Bush years.
And all of this proves my point. The fact that you state that he decided to increase troops in iraq and not increase troops in Afghanistan apparently didn't happen to you but that okay. but that you decide to point to two supreme court cases and an executive order (that you for some reason call an amnesty act despite not having anything to do with amnesty but a lack of enforcement of laws on the books) is the best you can come up with to go alongside his one great legislative victory in repealing DADT?
And how did this get about Obama your suppose to be defending Hillary. What good things did she do during the obama administration?
Ralph Nader coming out in support of Bernie and saying democrats are rigging the election just like they did against him. My god, could this get any more clear.
His wife, though. Not him, right? I don't think this is even somewhat relevant if it only involves his wife.
This hits really close to his "free public college" campaign plank, and she does an awful lot of cable news interviews. Tough to sell free college to the supporters when your wife actually tanked a college (or at least was at the helm when the college tanked). This makes his refusal to disclose his tax returns make a lot more sense. They definitely don't want the details of her arrangement at Burlington coming out.
The former staffer to a Wisconsin state Republican senator who went public last month with accusations that the state's voter ID law was passed by GOPers looking for a political advantage elaborated on the claims in federal court Monday and identified the previously unnamed legislators he said were gleeful over the law.
Todd Allbaugh, testifying in a case challenging the law, named then-Sens. Mary Lazich, Glenn Grothman, Leah Vukmir and Randy Hopper as being "giddy" in a 2011 private caucus meeting about passing the bill, the Journal Sentinel reported. Allbaugh previously confirmed to TPM that Grothman, now a U.S. congressman, was among the state legislators who cheered the political implications of the voter ID requirement -- which opponents say disenfranchise minorities and lower income people -- after Grothman told a local TV station it would help Republicans win the state in 2016.
According to Allbaugh's testimony Monday, Grothman said at the 2011 meeting, "'What I'm concerned about here is winning and that's what really matters here. ... We better get this done quickly while we have the opportunity."
Lazich, meanwhile, "got up out of her chair and hit her fist or her finger on the table," Allbaugh recounted, and said, "'Hey, we've got to think about what this would mean for the neighborhoods around Milwaukee and the college campuses.'" Milwaukee is a minority-majority city.
Allbaugh also identified a handful of Republicans who were visibly uncomfortable -- "ashen-faced" in Allbaugh's account -- over the bill. His boss at the time, then-Sen. Dale Schultz, had already left the meeting due to his objections to the legislation. Schultz has resisted confirming or denying Allbaugh's account of the meeting but has indicated he believed Allbaugh to be trustworthy.
When Allbuagh first made the claim that Grothman was among those cheering the bill, the congressman told the Journal Sentinel that Allbaugh's "memory is faulty or he's outright lying."
Allbaugh also said in his testimony Monday that Grothman had contacted Allbaugh after he made the initial claims to tell him the ex-staffer was not remembering things correctly.
His wife, though. Not him, right? I don't think this is even somewhat relevant if it only involves his wife.
This hits really close to his "free public college" campaign plank, and she does an awful lot of cable news interviews. Tough to sell free college to the supporters when your wife actually tanked a college (or at least was at the helm when the college tanked). This makes his refusal to disclose his tax returns make a lot more sense. They definitely don't want the details of her arrangement at Burlington coming out.
I guess I still find myself wondering what role Bernie had in her work with the college. Did he contribute in a way to led to stuff going poorly? If not, are we to assume she would have an impact on the country at a presidential level? I would hope/assume not. I just don't see the two as influencing each other in those ways. Am I wrong here? I suppose I can question her influence on him, but to a degree the country should worry about?
On May 17 2016 10:54 Kipsate wrote: It shouldn't influence anything but during political campaigns does that really matter.
So who's the new practicant under the desk then, when she's in office? And how sleazy will she bend rules, like Bill did at the rally?
.. yeah, no. It simply shouldn't be. Especially not in a day and age when females are certainly able to do their own decisions without the man "running the show". It's entirely possible and plausible that she (or her predecessor) screwed that school, without Bernies "zomglolsocialism" playing any role in it.
On May 17 2016 12:11 Jaaaaasper wrote: Ohh look sanders supporters having been threatening the lives of Nevada democratic officials abcnews.go.com
Bernie has energized the electorate and brought new people into politics. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party (of which Bernie is not a part of and bears no responsibility for) need to find a way to unify these people into the Democratic party. #WheresTheTranscripts?
EDIT: Non-snark, actual Bernie campaign spokesperson:
EPT
