| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8082 Posts
On July 27 2020 16:44 GreenHorizons wrote: The first primary was literally not valid, but you probably don't see this all as enabling either. I don't know what you are talking about, but I don't think it's all that productive a discussion, so I suggest we give it a rest. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
On July 27 2020 16:56 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't know what you are talking about, but I don't think it's all that productive a discussion, so I suggest we give it a rest. Exactly. Anyone that's dealt with addiction knows this classic line of enabling. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8082 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
On July 27 2020 17:04 Biff The Understudy wrote: Sure, that's exactly it. I mean, presuming you actually don't know, who did the AP officially call as the winner of the first nomination contest this cycle (Iowa)? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Whether or not they would have ultimately won in a fair contest is another question, but it takes some serious cognitive dissonance to call whatever that primary was “fair.” And especially to do so two presidential cycles in a row. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8082 Posts
On July 27 2020 17:07 LegalLord wrote: Honestly, anyone who watched the last few Democratic primaries and still insists that the non party favorite candidate was given a fair shake... I’m not sure what to say. It was very clearly not the case. Whether or not they would have ultimately won in a fair contest is another question, but it takes some serious cognitive dissonance to call whatever that primary was “fair.” And especially to do so two presidential cycles in a row. I'm all for reforming the DNC, but Biden victory has nothing to do with the system being rigged. Sanders had momentum but lost it because the positions he defends are still relatively unpopular and he was seen, for good or bad reasons, as too risky a candidate in a cycle where what people see as most important is to stop Trump. I think it's fair to say that he had a shot. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8082 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On July 27 2020 17:07 LegalLord wrote: Honestly, anyone who watched the last few Democratic primaries and still insists that the non party favorite candidate was given a fair shake... I’m not sure what to say. It was very clearly not the case. Whether or not they would have ultimately won in a fair contest is another question, but it takes some serious cognitive dissonance to call whatever that primary was “fair.” And especially to do so two presidential cycles in a row. Can you be more specific? Is this like calling California for Bernie late? | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5160 Posts
"We'll just explain why it's bad to vote for Trump, that'll sway them!" You want volatility. This way you'll be able to expose him even more and to actually tackle him on issues. Instead we'll now get bogged down in mudslinging contests. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10884 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 27 2020 21:11 Sadist wrote: Can you be more specific? Is this like calling California for Bernie late? Kind of, but that feels like an example chosen to be asinine while relevant. Targeted unfavorable media coverage, incompetence that is weirdly systematically to Bernie's detriment, and generally a candidate crowd that tactically acted to screw Bernie over (at the South Carolina primary). Sure, Bernie voters ultimately failed to show up in the numbers they needed to, but primaries are exceedingly volatile and a conspiracy against a candidate will have a strong material difference to their support. Yes, he probably would have still lost, but it's not good to be an enabler for "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" from the Democrats. I'm sure a lot of what happened could be chalked up to, "well that's not proof!" if you really want to. Which is true. But it certainly is a very convenient set of coincidences that seem entirely in line with the generously provided-by-Russia "proof" from last time of a clear anti-Bernie conspiracy within the DNC. You'd really have to be willfully ignorant not to see the exact same game at play this time around. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
EDIT: As acro demonstrates below. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On July 27 2020 23:23 LegalLord wrote: Kind of, but that feels like an example chosen to be asinine while relevant. Targeted unfavorable media coverage, incompetence that is weirdly systematically to Bernie's detriment, and generally a candidate crowd that tactically acted to screw Bernie over (at the South Carolina primary). Sure, Bernie voters ultimately failed to show up in the numbers they needed to, but primaries are exceedingly volatile and a conspiracy against a candidate will have a strong material difference to their support. Yes, he probably would have still lost, but it's not good to be an enabler for "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" from the Democrats. I'm sure a lot of what happened could be chalked up to, "well that's not proof!" if you really want to. Which is true. But it certainly is a very convenient set of coincidences that seem entirely in line with the generously provided-by-Russia "proof" from last time of a clear anti-Bernie conspiracy within the DNC. You'd really have to be willfully ignorant not to see the exact same game at play this time around. How is that different from what Republicans tried to do to Trump? Unsurprisingly the clique tries to protect their own. It just so happens that Trump tapped into a voter sentiment and message that got him enough votes to win the primary, but Bernie didn't. But mainstream media being against a candidate that is unpopular with mainstream reporters is fairly obvious. Do I think you need better media? Hell yes, but I'm from a country where we haven't systematically broken down public broadcasting. As long as most of your media is private, it's not fair to blame the Democratic party for what the media says about the candidates. The other candid banding together against him also makes sense, if they agree more with one another than with him. They saw what happened with Trump, and if the other Republicans had joined together early under Kasich, Rubio or Cruz's banner, that candidate would probably have won. But they kept fighting and splitting the vote, so Trump ran away with the plurality. Now I'm not saying the primaries are a good system, they fairly obviously aren't. But I don't see any evidence they were unfair towards Bernie in any way that wasn't initially obvious, nor any more or less unfair than Republican primaries, which *were* won by an outsider. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On July 27 2020 23:23 LegalLord wrote: Kind of, but that feels like an example chosen to be asinine while relevant. Targeted unfavorable media coverage, incompetence that is weirdly systematically to Bernie's detriment, and generally a candidate crowd that tactically acted to screw Bernie over (at the South Carolina primary). Sure, Bernie voters ultimately failed to show up in the numbers they needed to, but primaries are exceedingly volatile and a conspiracy against a candidate will have a strong material difference to their support. Yes, he probably would have still lost, but it's not good to be an enabler for "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" from the Democrats. I'm sure a lot of what happened could be chalked up to, "well that's not proof!" if you really want to. Which is true. But it certainly is a very convenient set of coincidences that seem entirely in line with the generously provided-by-Russia "proof" from last time of a clear anti-Bernie conspiracy within the DNC. You'd really have to be willfully ignorant not to see the exact same game at play this time around. I can see how it can appear slimy but to me this is nothing like 2016 with the caucusing and super delegates. The Media coverage of Bernie is not really the DNCs resp. The candidates pulling out as to not split the vote is not that unusual either. I wanted Bernie to win and voted for him in the Mich primary but he got destroyed. I see vague references to the DNC being dumb for choosing Biden and being corrupt etc but I think all of those posts are kinda meaningless. Biden won on votes not by any superdelegates or anything like that. Hes who the bulk of the party chose in the systen we have so Im not sure how the DNC is at fault for anything. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
On July 28 2020 01:21 Sadist wrote: I can see how it can appear slimy but to me this is nothing like 2016 with the caucusing and super delegates. The Media coverage of Bernie is not really the DNCs resp. The candidates pulling out as to not split the vote is not that unusual either. I wanted Bernie to win and voted for him in the Mich primary but he got destroyed. I see vague references to the DNC being dumb for choosing Biden and being corrupt etc but I think all of those posts are kinda meaningless. Biden won on votes not by any superdelegates or anything like that. Hes who the bulk of the party chose in the systen we have so Im not sure how the DNC is at fault for anything. Who did the DNC/AP say won Iowa (the first contest in their primary)? When people answer that question, they should see one of the most blatant and undeniable examples. As LL points out, whether it ultimately changes the nominee is tangential to how easily Democrats moved on from a clearly botched election contest in Iowa to start the nomination process. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On July 28 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Who did the DNC/AP say won Iowa (the first contest in their primary)? When people answer that question, they should see one of the most blatant and undeniable examples. As LL points out, whether it ultimately changes the nominee is tangential to how easily Democrats moved on from a clearly botched election contest in Iowa to start the nomination process. Iowa was a mess but Biden didnt win it so I dont see the big deal. It was one primary. Historically Im not sure how important Iowa is. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
But they dont do that either,instead they keep blaming the democratic party for their inability to get enough votes for their preferred candidate to go to the final. They had a point in 2016 to some extend but this primary has been different and bernie pulled out himself long before the end. Like if you see this and want things to change,then start your own movement. You can not bend reality your way on this subject,you have to be pragmatic. Its still kinda sad that sanders did pull out so early btw,i dont think it was a lost cause yet but he did and its done now. I also kinda wonder if even sanders would have been acceptable for the most leftwing elements in american politics. Sanders did go very far considering his position,further then anyone else before. He managed to get substantial support for his platform and that kind of platform is the way to go for the most left wing elements if they want to have a change nationwide. But you need more then just a platform,you also need a leader that can inspire many people like sanders. I kinda wonder how the far left in the usa sees the future of their movement,now that sanders has left the stage. There doesnt seem to be another leader who can gain so much support and the far left now faces the risk of becoming to fragmented to have a change in the future. At below:yes i agree,not all is lost but without a charismatic leader the most leftwing elements face a though challenge for the future. And now you see these ideas like defund the police,ideas that will never ever get nationwide support. Sanders did show the direction to go but now that he has left i see the left becoming more fragmented and at the same time more radical. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8082 Posts
On July 28 2020 01:38 pmh wrote: As said before,the radical "left" in the usa would do best to start their own movement. Its pretty obvious that they will never get there within the democratic party. But they dont do that either,instead they keep blaming the democratic party for their inability to get enough votes for their preferred candidate to go to the final. They had a point in 2016 to some extend but this primary has been different and bernie pulled out himself long before the end. Like if you see this and want things to change,then start your own movement. You can not bend reality your way on this subject,you have to be pragmatic. Its still kinda sad that sanders did pull out so early btw,i dont think it was a lost cause yet but he did and its done now. Progressives are gaining ground within the democratic party and wield much more influence there than they would in a fringe party no one would talk about. And they will certainly win the day they have a majority of americans agreeing with their ideas, which is not the case yet but might be sometimes soon. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
On July 28 2020 01:34 Sadist wrote: Iowa was a mess but Biden didnt win it so I dont see the big deal. Democrats ignored a botched election where the wrong winner was called by the state party (but not most respectable publications) and you don't see the problem looking toward November? they will certainly win the day they have a majority of americans agreeing with their ideas, which is not the case yet but might be sometimes soon. More Democrats agree with Bernie's ideas (as does the entire developed world pretty much), but the political system we have has convinced them (accurately or not) they have to vote for who they think will win (boy were they wrong in 2016) instead of the person that best represents their ideals. This was obvious during the primary when one of the few things people agreed on was that Biden sucked relative to the rest of the field. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
WardiTV Spring Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
