I am not a book posted:

And that's kind of my point, Snowden was the first person to actually give the population of the US(as opposed to select Congresspeople) something beyond "well they're spying on us". Which goes back to the original point:

zoux posted:

Caution: I also thought Barack Obama would be a transformative figure that would usher in a modern era of progressivism.

zoux posted:

You might as well vote for a magic lamp because it has the same chances of implementing policies as Bernie does.

Trabisnikof posted:

Zeroisanumber posted:

Polls don't mean much at this point, but he doesn't have a general election machine built at all and someone like Jeb or Rubio would eat him alive.

Ron Jeremy posted:

I'll only quibble with "first." Signing stuff has been around forever. Eschalon was the big bogie man in the 90s doing pretty much the same stuff Snowden revealed. This nsa stuff was all over Slashdot in the early 00s. What changed is the general public"s relationship to data. It went from a vague wonk issue to a deeply personal issue.

Phone posted:

Technically he is, but no one could have guessed the method of how. He's been a great vector to let people reveal how much of a racist shitlord they are, especially considering how ubiquitous the Internet has become.

Obama himself might not be the progressive we thought he might be, but he's definitely opened up and paved the path/opportunity.

Fried Chicken posted:

This is what I was most disappointed in by the debate, outside of the one vague statement from Bernie, nothing on how they would deal with the complete gridlock of a divided government. There was a great pattern of Bernie saying "This is a problem!", Clinton saying "here is a centrist technocratic attempt to solve that problem" and then quibbling on whether that proposal was sufficient to deal with the problem, but nothing on how to enact that proposal

ChairMaster posted:

I've gotta say that as a Canadian watching your miserably long election cycle from the outside, I really can't understand why anyone would support Hillary over Bernie. Just looking at their voting records alone seems to be enough to prove that Hillary is a complete shill and has no real beliefs or stances on any issues of substance, and that she doesn't give a poo poo about anything other than being elected. I mean I guess that's fine in a normal election where your only other options are weirdos like Webb and Chafee, but this election has an actual real human being in it who gives a poo poo about the country and seems to be willing to try to make real changes to try to repair some of the extensive damage that's been done to it since Reagan was elected, and there are still people on Hillary's side? I don't understand.

Is it only because they genuinely think that a lunatic republican would be too likely to win against a candidate who actually uses the word socialist as a positive so they feel they have to support Hillary lest you end up stuck with an actual lunatic in office? I guess that makes sense, but it seems like choosing the safe path to keeping the really horrible status quo in effect rather than taking a pretty good chance at enacting some real change.

Condiv posted:

sorry to double quote you, but why did you highlight sanders and hillary in my post? do you think i'm stealthily putting her down by using her first name (or secretly sexist towards her)? what was the point of that?

Trabisnikof posted:

I just find it really interesting that some people who hate Clinton, seem to only use her first name while referring to most men by their last names.


Oh sure, they'll claim its because we'd confuse her with her husband, but come on.

Condiv posted:

sorry to double quote you, but why did you highlight sanders and hillary in my post? do you think i'm stealthily putting her down by using her first name (or secretly sexist towards her)? what was the point of that?

foobardog posted:

I think this belief is founded on the idea that the DNC will leave Sanders in the wind, or that Clinton is so petty to reject helping Sanders. While banking on the ability for Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory rarely fails, I have to believe someone is paying enough attention to the importance of this election to know that we need a veto pen or we're supremely hosed.

Considering how well Romney did and still did not come close, the Republicans are working from a serious disadvantage. Comparisons to McGovern are ridiculous, in my opinion.

I think Jeb is hosed now, the establishment settling on Rubio seems more likely. Rubio will still be seen as a RINO, and even if Trump doesn't run 3rd party, he's still going to be sniping from the sidelines, and that'll depress the base.

I agree that Clinton has a better general chance than Sanders, but it's not that good. To the media and the right, being a Clinton may be worse than being a Socialist. "At least Bernie's honest!"

Trabisnikof posted:

Trabisnikof posted:

Noam Chomsky posted:

Condiv posted:

you'll notice in the post you carefully highlighted that i used both bernie and sanders to refer to bernie sanders. apparently i'm a secret sexist for using hillary's first name though

Fried Chicken posted:

As an American watching Canada I can't understand how people are supporting Harper, so...

Trabisnikof posted:

I just find it really interesting that some people who hate Clinton, seem to only use her first name while referring to most men by their last names.


Oh sure, they'll claim its because we'd confuse her with her husband, but come on.

Solkanar512 posted:

I just find it really interesting how everyone who has brought this up now or in 2007-2008 never bothered to look at a simple campaign sign.

Trabisnikof posted:

Its just something I like to note. You don't have to get bent out of shape about my bolding when I reply to posts that do it.

Zeroisanumber posted:

I think of him as more of a Goldwater than a McGovern. And in any event he's not really playing to win the primary either.

foobardog posted:

That's probably a better comparison. I don't think Bernie's as crazy, and there's now way any of the Republican candidates would look half as sane as Johnson in comparison.

Maybe it's because I'm in Seattle, but a Bernie version of the Daisy ad would be laughable to everyone except the most entrenched Bircher.

Trabisnikof posted:

Its just something I like to note. You don't have to get bent out of shape about my bolding when I reply to posts that do it.

zoux posted:

What would even be the equivalent in the modern age? An ISIS guy sneaking up behind Daisy and slitting her throat?

I am not a book posted:

That's fair. A previous draft of that comment used the word "specifics", because what I think we can all agree was so different about Snowden is that his leaks gave us insight into the nitty-gritty of how the Five Eyes actually accomplished their day to day spying(HOW they did it, versus THAT they were doing it). Thus the significance of the Google engineers swearing.
Better?

zoux posted:

What would even be the equivalent in the modern age? An ISIS guy sneaking up behind Daisy and slitting her throat?

Solkanar512 posted:

The implication is rather obnoxious, and it doesn't help when you throw in the passive "some people" bullshit either.

ChairMaster posted:

The same people supporting Harper are like the idiots voting Republican in America. They're that 50%-or-so of the population that's irredeemably braindead and should be put on an ice-float and sent away into the ocean.

quote:

People supporting Hillary are more like the people supporting Ignatieff in 2011.

Trabisnikof posted:

Well, that sounds like you've got some reflection about how you use language to do.



Seriously, if one feels confident in their language use my bolding should be just as easy to skip over as my posts are.

foobardog posted:

There's something so enjoyable about writing up conservatives' nightmare scenarios.

it's me, im the liberal fascist

zoux posted:

I think in general you are correct but in the specific case of Hillary I think she's traded on her first name for so long it's practically a mononym. I mean I'm not going to start calling the eventual GOP front runner by his first name, but I'll always call Hillary Hillary.

Or bae...

zoux posted:

I think in general you are correct but in the specific case of Hillary I think she's traded on her first name for so long it's practically a mononym. I mean I'm not going to start calling the eventual GOP front runner by his first name, but I'll always call Hillary Hillary.

Or bae...

foobardog posted:

If the frontrunner is Jeb! It'll make perfect sense. And honestly Bernie seems to be going for his first name too.

Fried Chicken posted:

This is what I was most disappointed in by the debate, outside of the one vague statement from Bernie, nothing on how they would deal with the complete gridlock of a divided government. There was a great pattern of Bernie saying "This is a problem!", Clinton saying "here is a centrist technocratic attempt to solve that problem" and then quibbling on whether that proposal was sufficient to deal with the problem, but nothing on how to enact that proposal

Trabisnikof posted:

And yet, you still seem unwilling to refer to Clinton by her last name, its kinda interesting to me, doesn't have to be to you.

Its just something I like to note. You don't have to get bent out of shape about my bolding when I reply to posts that do it.

showbiz_liz posted:

Well, it comes across that way, yeah.

Tempest_56 posted:

I got bad news for you. If they make up 50% or so of the population, democracy is working properly. Particularly in a multi-party parlamentary system.

Trabisnikof posted:

Well, that sounds like you've got some reflection about how you use language to do.

Seriously, if one feels confident in their language use my bolding should be just as easy to skip over as my posts are.

I am not a book posted:

No, it was not. As evidenced by Google having no idea that the NSA was watching their internal networks. You can argue that the computer security industry should have been aware of QUANTUM, but try walking up to someone on the street and telling them that it was being done. There's a massive difference between "yeah the NSA can spy on what you do online" and "The NSA compromises Google and Yahoo!'s foreign data centers in order to access your information."

I am not a book posted:

No, it was not. As evidenced by Google having no idea that the NSA was watching their internal networks. You can argue that the computer security industry should have been aware of QUANTUM, but try walking up to someone on the street and telling them that it was being done. There's a massive difference between "yeah the NSA can spy on what you do online" and "The NSA compromises Google and Yahoo!'s foreign data centers in order to access your information."

Chalets the Baka posted:

They don't. Canada has a FPTP electoral system too, and in fact one of the talking points in the last Canadian debate was the abolishment of the FPTP system. It's too bad we can't have the same discussions here, because it's key as to why we have gridlock - and only two parties - in the first place. A country is better off when people get the representation they vote for.

gohmak posted:

What I understand of Bernie Sanders plan is this:

a) These are a list of political goals that every progressive should get behind.

b) I am a candidate with a long history of uncompromisingly fighting for these goals.

c) These goals will not get accomplished without a poo poo load of people getting excited enough to vote for their best interests, "a"

d) "c" won't happen unless "b" is elected.