|
Riptor posted:That's right you should never come to conclusions based on evidence Wow, that is exactly what I said!
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
Realtalk: don't campaign on Bernie as a lost-cause presidential candidate because the entire point of Bernie's campaign isn't to win the white house. Campaign for it as what it is, a chance to see your beliefs represented in political discourse and pull the tone of conversation in your direction.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:I agree, taking away what little the working classes have is truly the path towards a better tomorrow. If you want to know what I think about societal change, it's that it's going to come from the reorganization of labor and a resurgence in the unions. Without that you won't have a consistent class identity for people to rally around and you won't have the kind of tribal group participation that really gets people's blood up and willing to fight for change. As it is, the average worker in this country doesn't have a unifying class identity and looks at all politicians as crooked. I agree that you can't vote capitalism away. It's going to take labor unrest similar to what we saw in the early 20th century for real change. I'm not saying bloody revolution and then Full Communism, but I do think that it is going to take physical resistance on the part of the worker. Part of that in my book is getting candidates like Sanders as much airtime/exposure as possible because it contributes toward the class discussion. I'm not convinced that if he's put in office he'll be able to sweeping change the country and make the houses do what he wants, but it will be a sign that people are really ready to have a class discussion. I don't think that rallying for candidates like Hillary is going to strike the same chords with the working classes that need to be struck. Social justice isn't going to be handed down from on high by establishment politicians no matter how sweet their intentions are.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:This sort of oligarchical overlord conspiracy overlooks the fact that the kind of people with the ambition to go for the presidency tend to not be so great at things like sharing power and keeping their egos in check. You're seeing conspiracy theories where none were put forward. quote:Voting idealism over pragmatism sure worked great in 2000 and the world is definitely a better place because of it. And following it up with what as far as I can tell is nonsense, and seems likely to be a factually unsupportable jab at Nader voters with the implication they cost Gore the election. Well done?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:You keep posting the same thing over and over again. Nobody here honestly likes HRC more than Bernie, you are arguing with someone who does not exist. Then what's with the defeatism?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:If you want to know what I think about societal change, it's that it's going to come from the reorganization of labor and a resurgence in the unions. Without that you won't have a consistent class identity for people to rally around and you won't have the kind of tribal group participation that really gets people's blood up and willing to fight for change. As it is, the average worker in this country doesn't have a unifying class identity and looks at all politicians as crooked. I agree that you can't vote capitalism away. It's going to take labor unrest similar to what we saw in the early 20th century for real change. I'm not saying bloody revolution and then Full Communism, but I do think that it is going to take physical resistance on the part of the worker. To get nominated Bernie Sanders would have to be establishment. You don't get elected in a 2 party system by being anti-establishment. Thinking that what the Dems right now need is a Tea Party 2.0 is insane because the tea party has done nothing but make things go from bad to worse for the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:I think some people just need to accept that you can't vote away capitalism. There is no means aside from waiting for some form of societal collapse to begin fundamentally changing the system, not even Bernie could do much more than Hillary in that regard should he win. Which is why direct action on top of voting in every election you can is also a good idea. Does anyone think the Justice Department would be investigating the Baltimore PD or would have investigated Ferguson and uncovered their horrendously racist police driven revenue system if there weren't massive protests and a little bit of violence to get the country's attention? Do you think Hillary would be mentioning police and judicial reform if things didn't get to the point where state national guard units had to patrol the streets in two American cities? I'm not calling for outright armed revolution to overthrow capitalism here because that will never work the way people fantasize it would, but direct action isn't always as useless or counterproductive as cynics think it is.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
I think Hillary would be much more effective at implementing policy than Sanders, and that policy would be farther to the left than the status quo.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:Then what's with the defeatism? Saying "I could not be Manny Pacquiao in a fight" isn't defeatism, it's reality. "Bernie will not get the nomination"isn't defeatism, it's reality. It sucks! Reality often does suck. Please don't vote republican/not vote in the general election.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/here-are-all-eight-media-questions-hillary-clinton-has-answered-during-her-campaign-20150427 I think this is a hilarious article.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
There are a whole lot of psychics in this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:There are a whole lot of psychics in this thread. Just in general, how often do you think a party's nomination goes to someone who has never been elected as a member of that party
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:There are a whole lot of psychics in this thread. I forgot how bad these threads got during the run up to the presidential election. More than a year to go!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
I would love if Bernie won, and will vote for him in the primary, but don't think he can win there. That said, the masturbatory defeatism in this thread from some of you is downright offensive. Being pessimistic is fine, but you're being smug about it for no god drat reason.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:Oh come on, really? You really don't think donations affect a persons behavior? So you're fine with our current system of PACs and corporations throwing money at candidates? Large speaking fees? You don't find this slightly corrupt at all? Let's not forget that Hillary raised $200 million for the 2008 primary. The finance sector was a relatively small overall portion of that. And she is a New York-based Senator, so no surprise that the top NY donors were backing her. While I agree that money has a corrupting influence in politics, the idea that she is beholden to these folks because of what is less than 1% of her total fundraising is absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Could you name for me one or two significant advantages you expect Bernie to have over Hillary in the primary and explain why you think that will be enough to give him a serious chance at victory?An Angry Bug posted:I would love if Bernie won, and will vote for him in the primary, but don't think he can win there. That said, the masturbatory defeatism in this thread from some of you is downright offensive. Being pessimistic is fine, but you're being smug about it for no god drat reason. We aren't proud, it's just annoying when people act like believing in a candidate who can't win makes them somehow superior.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Zelder posted:Saying "I could not be Manny Pacquiao in a fight" isn't defeatism, it's reality. I wasn't going to vote period until I heard Bernie Sanders was running. I'm in no danger of voting republican, but I do have a problem voting establishment because the republican stick is the alternative and it might clobber me if I don't. I live in Texas though so what's the point, right guys? It's a foregone red state so really I should give up now.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
I would like to consider the serious electoral chances of FDR's corpse rising from the grave and running for President.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:I wasn't going to vote period until I heard Bernie Sanders was running. I'm in no danger of voting republican, but I do have a problem voting establishment because the republican stick is the alternative and it might clobber me if I don't. "Things won't get better enough, so I guess I'll just let them get worse!" I wasn't around for the Paulites. Were they this bad? Venom Snake posted:I would like to consider the serious electoral chances of FDR's corpse rising from the grave and running for President. FDRisen would probably be an unironic powerhouse candidate as long as he still had human-looking skin.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:I wasn't going to vote period until I heard Bernie Sanders was running. I'm in no danger of voting republican, but I do have a problem voting establishment because the republican stick is the alternative and it might clobber me if I don't. Voting is very fun and should be done by everybody, provided their boss lets them off of work.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:I wasn't going to vote period until I heard Bernie Sanders was running. I'm in no danger of voting republican, but I do have a problem voting establishment because the republican stick is the alternative and it might clobber me if I don't. The purpler Texas gets, the more resources are likely to be invested in turning it blue (with the hopeful demographic shifts), and the higher morale is likely to be with the actual folks on the ground working toward that end. It'd obviously be more useful for you to actually contribute materially to Democratic registration and GOTV efforts and so on, but your vote is not entirely bereft of use. That said, I personally am more interested in voting in the primary, which you definitely should too - I'll be voting in the GOP primary but if you're stoked about Bernie and absolutely nothing else, may as well cast a vote to pull the Democratic party a teensy bit further left. Also, PupsOfWar posted:Voting is very fun and should be done by everybody, provided their boss lets them off of work.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:While we're at it, vote in every primary you are legally able to, not just in presidential primaries. Also be sure to vote in local podunk races and off-year municipal elections where like 700 people bother to show up and drag those leftward with your much less diluted ballot. Yeah, definitely vote every time it comes up for every position available. I mean just watch the news, you are seeing local candidates win by 15 votes in elections that had 41 people show up. The small races and in particular the small primaries matter a hell of a lot. I'm starting to come around to the idea that when volunteering you should prioritize local races over big ones as well. Yeah city-county council and state auditor aren't as sexy as house representative and president, but you have a hell of a lot more impact. It's also seeming to be a better way to build the networks that can percolate up to those higher levels Basically there isn't a silver bullet, or a final victory, or one for all the marbles where if you can just win this election things will be great forever. You have to win, and then stay engaged to push your agenda, and then win again to cement your agenda, and then stay engaged to defend your agenda, and then win to get the next group of politicians to accept your agenda as the new status quo, and then remain engaged to build your coalition to push someone higher up the food chain... It is a very long, very tedious process, but it's about the only way to get things done.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Jesus christ, it's okay for people to vote for the candidate they want. Browbeating them isn't going to change their vote to your Very Serious candidate, it's going to drive them away from the party and maybe from voting at all.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:"Things won't get better enough, so I guess I'll just let them get worse!" Much, much worse, actually. LF was originally created so we could get rid of the bastards who were poisoning just about every thread with Paulshevism. Bernie boosting isn't even close, or all that comparable really.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Feather posted:And following it up with what as far as I can tell is nonsense, and seems likely to be a factually unsupportable jab at Nader voters with the implication they cost Gore the election. Well done? Er, it's entirely factually supported. Nader did cost Gore the election. Exit polls showed Nader supporters were vastly more supportive of Gore than Bush. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes in Florida. Gore only needed to net 1k more votes from that 100k pile than Bush to win the election. Even if 90% of Nader's voters did not show up to vote without him on the ballot, Gore still would have won. There are actually very few situations in electoral politics in which the spoiler effect is more obviously detected.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Zelder posted:Saying "I could not be Manny Pacquiao in a fight" isn't defeatism, it's reality. A vote for Hillary is a vote for republican-lite policy, even if it's not for the paint-drinking far-right that forms the base of the republican party today. I agree that Bernie's a long shot (to put it mildly), but it's a bit silly to be motivated by fear. There is ample reason for many on the left to fear a Hillary presidency, although perhaps not the same degree or for the same reasons one should fear a $RepublicanCandidate presidency. One reason in particular: it further advances the meme that empathetic rhetoric and lip service has meaning, and that we should consider it important enough to decide our vote. Concerned Citizen posted:Er, it's entirely factually supported. Nader did cost Gore the election. Exit polls showed Nader supporters were vastly more supportive of Gore than Bush. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes in Florida. Gore only needed to net 1k more votes from that 100k pile than Bush to win the election. Even if 90% of Nader's voters did not show up to vote without him on the ballot, Gore still would have won. There are actually very few situations in electoral politics in which the spoiler effect is more obviously detected. That ignores the fact that more democrats voted for Bush than all of Nader's votes combined. There is nothing "obvious" about any spoiler effect in this case. If you want a better example of genuine spoiler effects, look to the clownshow of the Perot/Bush/Clinton '92 election. Nader is at best a meaningless footnote of 2000, no matter how cherry-picked the data. Feather fucked around with this message at 19:15 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
wow talking about the Democratic primary in the primary thread, these Bernie Ron Paulites are insane!!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:"Things won't get better enough, so I guess I'll just let them get worse!" I'm not an accelerationist. I've spent enough of my life in the past ruining my health worrying about establishment politics. I now see a candidate I actually believe in and I'm willing to subject myself to this nightmare again to work to get this guy elected. If he doesn't, and despite my best efforts, America chooses to go back to the status quo approved hellhole that it has chosen in the past, then I'll concentrate my efforts on building class awareness among the people I talk to every day in the hope that that's something positive I can put out in the world. I'm not going to take in the constant negativity and bullshit that gives me anxiety and makes me depressed for an establishment candidate, sorry guys.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:To get nominated Bernie Sanders would have to be establishment. You don't get elected in a 2 party system by being anti-establishment. Thinking that what the Dems right now need is a Tea Party 2.0 is insane because the tea party has done nothing but make things go from bad to worse for the Republicans. Bernie not being taken seriously as a candidate is something on a whole different level of what is wrong with the media than being establishment or anti establishment.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Feather posted:A vote for Hillary is a vote for republican-lite policy, even if it's not for the paint-drinking far-right that forms the base of the republican party today. The idea that Hillary is "Republican lite" is absurd. You guys focus on like two or three issues and then generalize them to create a picture. She's always been farther to the left than Bill, and she has drifted to the left over the past decade. Is she a centrist? Sure. Is she "Republican lite?" I think that's stretching it, considering she was generally a reliable vote for the center-left in the Senate and an advocate for policies farther to the left in the Clinton administration.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Could you name for me one or two significant advantages you expect Bernie to have over Hillary in the primary and explain why you think that will be enough to give him a serious chance at victory? A nonzero amount of people are excited about the prospect of him being the president, at least.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:"Joke candidate" Bernie raised more money in 24 hours than "serious candidate" Marco Rubio and is on track to out raise 2007 "serious candidate" John Edwards. If he was willing to set up a superPAC he'd probably be looking to beat more "serious candidates" overall this cycle as well. Going by 24 hour fundraising Ron Paul really will be President after all!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Feather posted:That ignores the fact that more democrats voted for Bush than all of Nader's votes combined. There is nothing "obvious" about any spoiler effect in this case. If you want a better example of genuine spoiler effects, look to the clownshow of the Perot/Bush/Clinton '92 election. Nader is at best a meaningless footnote of 2000, no matter how cherry-picked the data. That doesn't ignore anything. Your statistic has zero relevance to the fact at hand: if Nader was not on the Florida ballot, Al Gore would have won enough votes from Nader voters to win the election. What you're talking about only reflects the South's realignment away from Republican politics at the federal level during that time. Exit polls showed Nader voters favored Gore. There were overwhelmingly enough votes to swing the election. Statistics don't lie. The spoiler was real. Not to mention that Nader deliberately campaigned in Florida to take as many Gore votes as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
As least the Ron Paul supporters genuinely wanted their candidate, instead of being cynical assholes about it. I mean, they're selfish cynical assholes about lots of things, but not this one.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
If Gore didn't run a terrible campaign and lose tons of Floridian Democratic voters to Bush he would have won too.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:That doesn't ignore anything. Your statistic has zero relevance to the fact at hand: if Nader was not on the Florida ballot, Al Gore would have won enough votes from Nader voters to win the election. What you're talking about only reflects the South's realignment away from Republican politics at the federal level during that time.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Maybe the Democratic Party shouldn't have been shittily centrist enough to create a serious enough challenge from the left to lose them an election :shock: Even if the Democratic Party was too centrist, Nader still spoiled the election. That's the point. If Nader hadn't been on the ballot, George W. Bush would not have won and a lot of people would not have died. And frankly, even if the party had run to the left, there's no guarantee they still would not have been vulnerable to a challenge from the left (or lost more votes from the center than they would have gained).
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Maybe the Democratic Party shouldn't have been shittily centrist enough to create a serious enough challenge from the left to lose them an election Seriously, what is with this "yeah but the democrats don't beat the working class as hard as the republicans so that's got to count for something" I want a left government, not a lovely centrist one.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:The idea that Hillary is "Republican lite" is absurd. But but but she voted for a war once.  And there are banks donating to the campaign of a Presidental frontrunner! That's scandalous!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
Unless Bernie is going to keep running against Hillary after losing the primary, this is all irrelevant bullshit and you're just using this as an excuse to poo poo on people for not being jaded enough.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:25
|
|