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 21 2016 13:05 Leporello wrote: Instead of lecturing your needed voters over being "practical", it might be better to, I don't know... try to embrace their views a little? Or at least make a show of it? Wouldn't that be the practical thing for Hillary to do, since this primary is all but officially over?
On May 21 2016 13:05 Leporello wrote: Why is Hillary's campaign blaming Bernie, himself, for the actions of his supporters at the Nevada convention? What good is pointing that finger going to do?
I don't see Hillary's campaign blaming Bernie directly for the actions of his supporters at the Nevada convention, but I do see Democrats asking Bernie to more actively try to allay the hate that some of his supporters have for Hillary and the DNC (often for misguided reasons), to do his part in healing the rift between the two camps, and to more forcefully condemn the (verbal) violence coming from some of his supporters (whether at/after the Nevada convention or at Hillary rallies). His statement on the Nevada convention included one throwaway line about condemning violence, surrounded by paragraphs legitimizing through debunked claims the anger which fueled the violence. So while Sanders was not directly responsible for how some of his supporters acted, he's still responsible for pushing a narrative indulging conspiracy theories, and for fostering a rift between his supporters and the rest of the Democratic party, notably through dishonest accusations against Hillary and the Democratic party (as well as for having his campaign actively encourage his delegates to be confrontational at the Nevada convention [see the section below "Nevada chaos"]).
On May 21 2016 13:05 Leporello wrote: She's too fake ("I always carry hot sauce with me")
Just wanted to address this quickly, since many Sanders supporters on reddit lost their mind about that quote, while it was actually factually true. Calling her fake for telling the truth (and it was a light-hearted response) is really something.
On May 21 2016 13:05 Leporello wrote: But yeah, let's preemptively start blaming Bernie Sanders for future results. Let's worry about what Bernie is doing, while simultaneously declaring his irrelevance. What a constructive and practical thing to do.
Of course we should worry about what Sanders is doing, because his campaign does not happen in a vacuum. His rhetoric has an impact on how people see Hillary and the Democrats in general. It's a fact that he has no real chance of becoming the nominee, and it's also a fact that he is still running a campaign that is doing the opposite of bringing both camps together. Hillary has been extending olive branches for weeks -- it's Sanders who's being deliberately confrontational. He initially toned down his criticism of Clinton following his defeat in Pennsylvania and other states, but he replaced it with negative (and just as populist) rhetoric towards the Democratic party itself. It's perfectly legitimate to be arguing that he should recognize that he has no shot at the nomination, and that he should focus instead on his own message and on the issues he cares about, in order to reinforce the progressive movement instead of damaging its chances for the general election.
Sanders has simply picked up Clinton's campaigning methods from 2008 after she didn't have a path to the nomination
People can whine about whether it would be fair or not, but it's not accurate to say that if Bernie ran 3rd party there are no options but for Trump to beat them by splitting votes. Sure Hillary "should" get to be the one, but if that meant Bernie ran 3rd party she could huff and puff about it on the way to losing the election for the entire left, or she could step aside and fully support Bernie. The choice of whether Trump wins or not becomes hers after a hypothetical Bernie decides to run indy.
Are you actually saying "If Bernie decided to ignore the election and run 3rd party, Clinton should end her run"? The person who wins should concede? I don't understand how you even think these things.
It makes as much sense as what most of the things the Hillary supporters in this forum are saying. I'm not a supporter of Bernie or Hillary, just a person who typically votes for the Democrats in a swing state, but the stuff I read Hillary supporters post is disgusting, and does nothing but turn me off further from her. Constant insults, belittling, and demands, all excused because someone else on Reddit said something similar? Come on... Also, winning doesn't mean you treat the loser and his supporters like shit, as others have pointed out, you need their votes, and their votes are not guaranteed. Sure, they might know that Hillary is better than Trump comparatively, but they might vote against their own interests when you constantly belittle them. Quite a few people, you included Mohdoo, really need to act a little more maturely. Sorry if I said too much.
I think there's a difference between pointing out flawed/incorrect understandings and belittling.
People can whine about whether it would be fair or not, but it's not accurate to say that if Bernie ran 3rd party there are no options but for Trump to beat them by splitting votes. Sure Hillary "should" get to be the one, but if that meant Bernie ran 3rd party she could huff and puff about it on the way to losing the election for the entire left, or she could step aside and fully support Bernie. The choice of whether Trump wins or not becomes hers after a hypothetical Bernie decides to run indy.
Are you actually saying "If Bernie decided to ignore the election and run 3rd party, Clinton should end her run"? The person who wins should concede? I don't understand how you even think these things.
It makes as much sense as what most of the things the Hillary supporters in this forum are saying. I'm not a supporter of Bernie or Hillary, just a person who typically votes for the Democrats in a swing state, but the stuff I read Hillary supporters post is disgusting, and does nothing but turn me off further from her. Constant insults, belittling, and demands, all excused because someone else on Reddit said something similar? Come on... Also, winning doesn't mean you treat the loser and his supporters like shit, as others have pointed out, you need their votes, and their votes are not guaranteed. Sure, they might know that Hillary is better than Trump comparatively, but they might vote against their own interests when you constantly belittle them. Quite a few people, you included Mohdoo, really need to act a little more maturely. Sorry if I said too much.
I think there's a difference between pointing out flawed/incorrect understandings and belittling.
Dude, oneofthem is one of you. Please.
Blaming Hillary for trolls like oneofthem makes as much sense as blaming Sanders for the worst of the redditors in /r/sandersforpresident. I don't think you want to go there.
People can whine about whether it would be fair or not, but it's not accurate to say that if Bernie ran 3rd party there are no options but for Trump to beat them by splitting votes. Sure Hillary "should" get to be the one, but if that meant Bernie ran 3rd party she could huff and puff about it on the way to losing the election for the entire left, or she could step aside and fully support Bernie. The choice of whether Trump wins or not becomes hers after a hypothetical Bernie decides to run indy.
Are you actually saying "If Bernie decided to ignore the election and run 3rd party, Clinton should end her run"? The person who wins should concede? I don't understand how you even think these things.
It makes as much sense as what most of the things the Hillary supporters in this forum are saying. I'm not a supporter of Bernie or Hillary, just a person who typically votes for the Democrats in a swing state, but the stuff I read Hillary supporters post is disgusting, and does nothing but turn me off further from her. Constant insults, belittling, and demands, all excused because someone else on Reddit said something similar? Come on... Also, winning doesn't mean you treat the loser and his supporters like shit, as others have pointed out, you need their votes, and their votes are not guaranteed. Sure, they might know that Hillary is better than Trump comparatively, but they might vote against their own interests when you constantly belittle them. Quite a few people, you included Mohdoo, really need to act a little more maturely. Sorry if I said too much.
I think there's a difference between pointing out flawed/incorrect understandings and belittling.
Dude, oneofthem is one of you. Please.
Blaming Hillary for trolls like oneofthem makes as much sense as blaming Sanders for the worst of the redditors in /r/sandersforpresident. I don't think you want to go there.
Guess I should edit my post and remove the part where I blame Hillary for it then.
People can whine about whether it would be fair or not, but it's not accurate to say that if Bernie ran 3rd party there are no options but for Trump to beat them by splitting votes. Sure Hillary "should" get to be the one, but if that meant Bernie ran 3rd party she could huff and puff about it on the way to losing the election for the entire left, or she could step aside and fully support Bernie. The choice of whether Trump wins or not becomes hers after a hypothetical Bernie decides to run indy.
Are you actually saying "If Bernie decided to ignore the election and run 3rd party, Clinton should end her run"? The person who wins should concede? I don't understand how you even think these things.
It makes as much sense as what most of the things the Hillary supporters in this forum are saying. I'm not a supporter of Bernie or Hillary, just a person who typically votes for the Democrats in a swing state, but the stuff I read Hillary supporters post is disgusting, and does nothing but turn me off further from her. Constant insults, belittling, and demands, all excused because someone else on Reddit said something similar? Come on... Also, winning doesn't mean you treat the loser and his supporters like shit, as others have pointed out, you need their votes, and their votes are not guaranteed. Sure, they might know that Hillary is better than Trump comparatively, but they might vote against their own interests when you constantly belittle them. Quite a few people, you included Mohdoo, really need to act a little more maturely. Sorry if I said too much.
I think there's a difference between pointing out flawed/incorrect understandings and belittling.
Dude, oneofthem is one of you. Please.
Blaming Hillary for trolls like oneofthem makes as much sense as blaming Sanders for the worst of the redditors in /r/sandersforpresident. I don't think you want to go there.
Guess I should edit my post and remove the part where I blame Hillary for it then.
Ok, fair point. I missed what this specific messaging thread was about. You're still blaming mohdoo for oneofthem's trolling. And while I agree mohdoo gets a bit enthusiastic at times, he's nowhere near oneofthem's level of vitriol. And GH does a good job of balancing him out with the special GH brand of Bernie support.
Modhoo is reacting against the notion that there is belittling of Sanders' supporters on this thread, which I find laughable. It should also be noted that I can't really remember the last time I've disagreed with GH on anything, so your argument might fall somewhat flat there, but I guess that one's on me.
People can whine about whether it would be fair or not, but it's not accurate to say that if Bernie ran 3rd party there are no options but for Trump to beat them by splitting votes. Sure Hillary "should" get to be the one, but if that meant Bernie ran 3rd party she could huff and puff about it on the way to losing the election for the entire left, or she could step aside and fully support Bernie. The choice of whether Trump wins or not becomes hers after a hypothetical Bernie decides to run indy.
Are you actually saying "If Bernie decided to ignore the election and run 3rd party, Clinton should end her run"? The person who wins should concede? I don't understand how you even think these things.
It makes as much sense as what most of the things the Hillary supporters in this forum are saying. I'm not a supporter of Bernie or Hillary, just a person who typically votes for the Democrats in a swing state, but the stuff I read Hillary supporters post is disgusting, and does nothing but turn me off further from her. Constant insults, belittling, and demands, all excused because someone else on Reddit said something similar? Come on... Also, winning doesn't mean you treat the loser and his supporters like shit, as others have pointed out, you need their votes, and their votes are not guaranteed. Sure, they might know that Hillary is better than Trump comparatively, but they might vote against their own interests when you constantly belittle them. Quite a few people, you included Mohdoo, really need to act a little more maturely. Sorry if I said too much.
I think there's a difference between pointing out flawed/incorrect understandings and belittling.
Dude, oneofthem is one of you. Please.
Blaming Hillary for trolls like oneofthem makes as much sense as blaming Sanders for the worst of the redditors in /r/sandersforpresident. I don't think you want to go there.
Guess I should edit my post and remove the part where I blame Hillary for it then.
Ok, fair point. I missed what this specific messaging thread was about. You're still blaming mohdoo for oneofthem's trolling. And while I agree mohdoo gets a bit enthusiastic at times, he's nowhere near oneofthem's level of vitriol. And GH does a good job of balancing him out with the special GH brand of Bernie support.
Though I do think that GH does go too far in some of his Hillary attacks and occasionally gives Bernie more credit than he deserves for some of his faults, I also think that he ends up looking a lot worse than he actually is by virtue of being outspoken. Almost always, a conversation of 4 vs 1 makes the one look like a moron, regardless of who is right. And this crowd is very definitively biased toward Hillary.
Well, according to the poll I took most people here would vote Bernie, then Trump, then Hillary. Which surprised me because most people who post here seem to favour Hillary. And as someone who argues Trump's side of things when viewing candidates on first impression it went like this:
Hillary - Probably the one I would vote for because she's the most sensible and has the most comprehensive plans. See her as corrupt and a liar, but still a very pragmatic individual whom I actually like. (Which is rare considering all the terrible shit surrounding her name). It's odd that I still like her even when I know she's lying through her teeth, and is one of the least liked candidates. Don't care about her hot sauce, she plans long term and she may not even like the stuff but she carried it in 1992 because she thought she might use it one day. That's the kind of candidate I think she is, one who may have delayed fake laughter on a joke and make every single sentence one thought out in advance and scripted. My main gripe though, is that people here will talk about how she has the most comprehensive plans, and she is the best candidate, but... politicians break promises constantly. Intentionally. Even Obama has intentionally broken promises and he was the face of hope and change. Do we expect a literal crony to enact her plans? Hell most people will just vote against whatever (R) they see next on the election regardless of what job she does as pundits and the establishment obscures the facts as much as possible and blames the other party as much as possible. This election is supposed to be a civil revolt against that as well.
Bernie - Ignorant of him and tried to learn fast, first impressions were from the clips linked on facebook about his integrity. Really liked him at first, but the more I got to know him the more I thought he wanted to live in an egalitarian fantasy world and was in fact not reasonable a person. Great ideals.. that's debatable. Good person? Also debatable. But someone who ardently stands for what he believes in? Admirable. He definitely has some points on corruption and corporations which have a long list of pros and cons to go with them. But I find him delusional on many points and the fact that he didn't come out and just say, very very strongly: "To my supporters and fans, I do not condone what happened in Chicago. In any form. You yourselves took things too far and acted completely irresponsibly, and dangerously. I do not want to see this happen again in the future. This is a civil process, and we must first and foremost act in a civil manner." A statement like that would have GAINED him supporters I think as a tonne of Hillary supporters would see him as more sensible. He would have upset his base, but that would have been a part of his base that needed to hear the truth on that matter.
Trump - Madman. God emperor. He goes by many names. He is the chosen one to lead us out of these dark times.
when the reality is that sandernistas have no grasp of policy or the actual positions of candidates, it is just a case of tough luck when you dont like the truth.
gems like legallird demanding hillary concessions that have been in her platform for months or nebuchad suggesting im low info are, from my highly informed perspective, very much deserving of some mocking. some of you are just unintentionally trolling through sheer ignorance
I think there are plenty of people here who are counted as Hillary supporters but who would prefer to vote for a Bernie with a plan. The problem is that Bernie does not have enough of a clear path to implement some his idea's and some are considered a bit to radical or rushed to be pushed for now (like implementing a Single Payer system after having just completely shaken up the insurance system for the ACA)
On May 21 2016 23:13 farvacola wrote: Again, like I've said before, the notion that "bernie or bust" folk make up any sort of "significant section" of Sanders' supporters generally deserves a great deal more scrutiny, particularly when pretty much every relevant poll suggests that, in fact, Sanders' supporters have broadly signaled their willingness to do whatever it takes to prevent a Republican from taking office.
if the sandernista sympathizers in this little thread take a quiz about what policies are in clinton's platform they would fail horribly.
you are like some kind of cold war leftist denying atrocities of the commies. kids like mao cant be too bad
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — With its last-minute decision to formally endorse Donald Trump, the National Rifle Association put itself out in front of the fight for Republican party unity.
Just a day later, it’s already taking heavy flak.
Chris Cox, the NRA’s top strategist, was met with raucous applause when he announced to the estimated 80,000 people gathered here for the group’s annual leadership forum on Friday that the nation’s biggest and most influential gun-rights organization was officially backing the presumptive Republican nominee. To endorse so early in the process is virtually unprecedented for the group; they didn’t get behind Mitt Romney in 2012 and Sen. John McCain in 2008 until October. “If your preferred candidate dropped out of the race, it’s time to get over it,” Cox said.
But not everyone is there yet.
“I have no clue why they did it,” said Brian Abney of Missouri. He was among the much smaller contingent that showed up to the NRA’s Annual Members Meeting on Saturday, hoping to grill the NRA’s brass about the decision to endorse a man who not long ago backed longer waiting periods to buy guns and a ban on assault weapons (which, NRA activists will tell you, is an inaccurate, anti-gun term for that category of firearms).
Trump has since disavowed those views, and on Friday, he called for an end to gun-free zones while warning that Clinton would overturn the Second Amendment.
“I will not let you down,” Trump vowed.
Abney is in complete agreement that Hillary Clinton is unacceptable.
“I don’t trust her,” Abney said, who traveled from St. Louis to attend his sixth NRA conference. “It seems like scandal follows her around.”
But of Trump, he added, “I think of him about the same way I think of Hillary,” noting the billionaire’s many position changes over the years. Abney said he hopes Trump can somehow win his trust, but he’s also considering a third party.
On May 22 2016 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote: I just wonder what path Hillary supporters would choose if she did win. Will they go full denial mode like many republicans and pretend like she's an amazing president until 4-8 years after she's out and then basically cop to everything being said during her presidency being bullshit political rhetoric meant to minimize damage with no regard for reality or their actual opinion. Or if they would be critical all along (highly doubtful based on the nomination process), or maybe just pull a SC and still tell themselves she was a great president.
Already clear if she loses they will blame Bernie no matter what. He's run a much nicer and cleaner campaign than either Hillary or Obama ran, if she can't win, that's her fault, no one else's (except maybe her supporters).
On May 22 2016 01:32 LegalLord wrote: Going third party is pretty much the nuclear option: it's guaranteed to sink Hillary, it's guaranteed to get Trump elected (R will unite behind him because they value unity more than Dems do), and it's guaranteed to make the Dem party hate Sanders for the rest of his political career. I don't think it's going to get there. However, the DNC has pretty consistently been severely biased against Bernie and has very consistently favored Hillary before any votes have been counted, which does represent a giant "fuck you" to his supporters. It's basically saying, "you don't really get to play a part in this, but vote for us anyway cuz the other guy is evil super-Hitler so anything we put up is better." People aren't really happy about that, and whether or not they do come around in November and vote for Hillary, it isn't going to be quite so simple as the DNC is making it out to be.
Personally I'd like to see DWS resign and the DNC have a change in leadership to a more reasonable group. She has been a pretty shitty leader and played no small part in the midterm losses because of a lack of a solid strategy.
DWS resigning (and not to get paid by Hillary's campaign again) would certainly be a step in the right direction. As for a third party run, it would always be possible for Hillary to put her personal ambition aside and rather then plunge into certain defeat she could step aside and turn her supporters toward Bernie the overwhelming majority would vote for him just the same.
People can whine about whether it would be fair or not, but it's not accurate to say that if Bernie ran 3rd party there are no options but for Trump to beat them by splitting votes. Sure Hillary "should" get to be the one, but if that meant Bernie ran 3rd party she could huff and puff about it on the way to losing the election for the entire left, or she could step aside and fully support Bernie. The choice of whether Trump wins or not becomes hers after a hypothetical Bernie decides to run indy.
Do you realize that the whole "Hillary is a liar, is crooked and has no word" is based on virtually nothing and that you are just being a foxbot at that point?
Clinton has had a campaign of propaganda for decades against her. And it looks like it has worked so well even the left people believe it. Thing is, it's all based on her being a bit cold as a human being, and the right capitalizing on that to make stuff out of thin air.
The US military on Saturday carried out an airstrike that targeted the Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansoor.
It was not immediately confirmed that he had been killed, but the Associated Press reported an American official saying the US believed Mansoor and another male had been killed in the strike, which was carried out by a drone and authorized by Barack Obama.
The official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss the operation, told the AP the attack was carried out by unmanned aircraft operated by US special operations forces, at about 6am ET, south-west of the Pakistani town of Ahmad Wal.
In a statement emailed to media, the Department of Defense said it had conducted the strike “in a remote area of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region”.
“We are still assessing the results of the strike and will provide more information as it becomes available,” the statement said.
On May 22 2016 05:21 oneofthem wrote: nebuchad suggesting im low info are
I shall therefore once again edit the part of my post where I said that.
But hey, if you read all of the high information that you get the way you read my post there, I guess it explains a few things.
I would argue that almost everyone here is low information on one issue or another, regardless of how well read you are. Some people are privy to facts you haven't read yet and vice versa. Which is a big point of these discussions in the first place. We argue, we fling crap, we inform, and we hopefully reach some consensus on some issues or begrudgingly accept another persons alternative view if they haven't convinced us properly for at least a test period of time and give their base a swing at bat on governance.
On May 22 2016 06:06 Biff The Understudy wrote: Do you realize that the whole "Hillary is a liar, is crooked and has no word" is based on virtually nothing and that you are just being a foxbot at that point?
I can't in good conscience believe that she's not a liar. We expect our politicians to be liars at this point. In fact, we expect them to be extremely good liars. We just hope that they really truly do have the best interests in mind for the country as a whole.
There are very easily disproved lies like the one of taking sniper fire in Bosnia for instance.
It's the "anti-establishment year" because people for a long time have decided that they do not have our best interests in mind and have been corrupted to a point where they have disdain for the will of the people.
On May 21 2016 23:13 farvacola wrote: Again, like I've said before, the notion that "bernie or bust" folk make up any sort of "significant section" of Sanders' supporters generally deserves a great deal more scrutiny, particularly when pretty much every relevant poll suggests that, in fact, Sanders' supporters have broadly signaled their willingness to do whatever it takes to prevent a Republican from taking office.
if the sandernista sympathizers in this little thread take a quiz about what policies are in clinton's platform they would fail horribly.
you are like some kind of cold war leftist denying atrocities of the commies. kids like mao cant be too bad
Your inability or unwillingness to understand inter-group differentiation relative to those who would claim to be supporters of Sanders is as surprising as your prose is dry, harsh, and lazy. In the context of large group identification dynamics, it's pretty commonly accepted that discounting the significance of the noisiest members of a given group is almost always a good idea. Accordingly, it makes a good bit of sense to step back and reconsider the notion that Sanders supporters can be easily classified, en mass, as ideologically immature and illogical when the loudest group is, in fact, rather ideologically immature and illogical.
Nevertheless, you routinely fall back on tired "cold war leftist" anti-divergent rhetoric in place of actually attempting to understand what it is that motivates people to support the ideas or person of someone like Sanders because you literally cannot stop arguing with the ghost of a GreenHorizons moderated subreddit gone bad.
Like I keep saying, let's just hope that the DNC doesn't do the same.
On May 21 2016 23:13 farvacola wrote: Again, like I've said before, the notion that "bernie or bust" folk make up any sort of "significant section" of Sanders' supporters generally deserves a great deal more scrutiny, particularly when pretty much every relevant poll suggests that, in fact, Sanders' supporters have broadly signaled their willingness to do whatever it takes to prevent a Republican from taking office.
if the sandernista sympathizers in this little thread take a quiz about what policies are in clinton's platform they would fail horribly.
you are like some kind of cold war leftist denying atrocities of the commies. kids like mao cant be too bad
Your inability or unwillingness to understand inter-group differentiation relative to those who would claim to be supporters of Sanders is as surprising as your prose is dry, harsh, and lazy. In the context of large group identification dynamics, it's pretty commonly accepted that discounting the significance of the noisiest members of a given group is almost always a good idea. Accordingly, it makes a good bit of sense to step back and reconsider the notion that Sanders supporters can be easily classified, en mass, as ideologically immature and illogical. Nevertheless, you routinely fall back on tired "cold war leftist" anti-divergent rhetoric in place of actually attempting to understand what it is that motivates people to support the ideas or person of someone like Sanders because you literally cannot stop arguing with the ghost of a GreenHorizons moderated subreddit gone bad.
Like I keep saying, let's just hope that the DNC doesn't do the same.
i've repeatedly stressed the information dynamic at play, the self radicalization aspect of the polarization of the information loop. sandernistas are extremely receptive to information that would likely discourage their eventual participation. stop writing fluff and look at the process.
fact of the matter is there is significant misinformation at play by either sanders campaign or followers, and this low or misinformation situation would play into the continued radicalization of the left.
as far as sanders attraction, i understand it fine. i just have the good sense of seeing the downside and darker currents.
EPT
