|
UberJew posted:Oh, we don't hate Jeb for his bloodline I want to know what the deal is with this guy who apparently worked for Lincoln
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
Many people will disagree with me on this, and that's fine, but I think when MIGF says he likes Sanders more because of his positions on Israel and guns, he's onto something. Now, imagine some scenario where he gets the nomination: when staring down the double barrels of the most insane poo poo the Republicans have to offer, do we really think most of the rest of the party is going to just sit it out? No, of course not, the rest of the machine will kick into gear. Now, when he is in rural areas of swing states...he's a Vermonter. Rick Perry would look like the fake cowboy he is compared to Sanders speaking *about* what he did in his state, he won't need to "prove" himself by doing awkward hunting photo shoots. Similarly, his stance on Israel will help with Florida. If you think about it, he's got the North East, anti-TPP plays well in the rust belt...I'm just saying, he actually is smart enough to be viable and ruthless (notice the timing of his Senate bill, keeping the momentum going, working up to putting Hillary on the spot). He says he won't run a negative campaign - what if he didn't? What if every advertisement were him saying how he understands things are hard, or that we feel like Washington is unresponsive and we're worried about our democracy, whatever, and he mentions what's important to him and his proposal to fix whatever problem he mentions. People in this country, for the most part, aren't overly concerned with intellectual matters - they will see Sanders call *himself* a democratic Socialist, confirmed by his opponent, and some of them will connect the words he is saying and his label - they won't have a problem with it. There is no guarantee because it would require a ton of people to put some good effort forward trying to get done what needs getting done, and even then, there are a lot of factors that no one can influence - but, it seems like a tremendously smart investment of energy given the potential for returns.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
he's not getting the nomination because he's not getting the money and he doesn't have the connections to beat out clinton, so how well he would do against the republicans is pretty irrelevant unless clinton suddenly dies or something
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I want to know what the deal is with this guy who apparently worked for Lincoln The Diaz-Balarts are a political family and thus you have to differentiate them by first name.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:he's not getting the nomination because he's not getting the money and he doesn't have the connections to beat out clinton, so how well he would do against the republicans is pretty irrelevant unless clinton suddenly dies or something Hence where us trying comes in.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
Yes, of course, THIS time just trying to calmly explain things to Americans will beat the ingrained lizard brain response. That's always been the lefts problems, not using facts dryly to change opinions.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
But I really like Bernie and he's the first candidate I can look at and say -- yes, I actually want this guy running the country. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:The Diaz-Balarts are a political family and thus you have to differentiate them by first name. I like my version of this story better
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:But I really like Bernie and he's the first candidate I can look at and say -- yes, I actually want this guy running the country. embrace the absurdity of political campaigning in the postmodern universe, work hard and get absolutely nothing in return dehumanise yourself and face to bloodshed
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:But I really like Bernie and he's the first candidate I can look at and say -- yes, I actually want this guy running the country. Were you just not paying attention last time or did you actually not like Jill Stein?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:Many people will disagree with me on this, and that's fine, but I think when MIGF says he likes Sanders more because of his positions on Israel and guns, he's onto something. Yeah man I'm sure this time the American public will think for themselves and not just cow to mass media and public opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
do not allow yourself to feel hope while volunteering for candidates like this, or you will turn bitter and rationalising your bitterness will turn you "older and wiser", i.e. republican even if he won through some cosmic accident it would make very marginal difference due to the way the american political system is set up and he'd have to seriously sell out to get anywhere
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Were you just not paying attention last time or did you actually not like Jill Stein? That shows how much coverage she got, it took me a second to think of who she was. I don't generally like Green Party candidates because of the support for homeopathic remedies and stuff, as well as their stance on nuclear energy, but I don't know her exact positions on that. Mostly I didn't really see much about her and it was mid-way through the Obama years so...
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
2016 Presidential Primary: bernie_sanders_fanfic.odt
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yes, of course, THIS time just trying to calmly explain things to Americans will beat the ingrained lizard brain response. You seem to be misunderstanding: my point wasn't that we are assured of victory, my point is that because of just how critical the situation has become, our choosing to whine and sit on our hands is completely immoral. And I think Bernie stands a great chance of speaking more closely to the lizard brain, as you put it, of the average voter than does a Scott "plain oatmeal" Walker, a Ted "eats feeder mice" Cruz, or a Jeb "Son of the Dynasty" Bush - so your assertion here that Sanders will adhere to the Bush-era stereotype is something that you have madec completely devoid of support.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
Zelder posted:Yeah man I'm sure this time the American public will think for themselves and not just cow to mass media and public opinion. Where did I say the American public was going to think for itself? Did your reading comprehension completely fail you when I pointed out that I thought Sanders was smart for supporting Israel and being pro-gun? The point isn't that he is simultaneously an "ideal" candidate that is also completely incapable of taking shrewd political action - the point is that he has found a way to make substantial gains for the left in a way that is desperately needed for our Democracy to survive - and all lazy cowards like you can do is try to convince yourself that somehow you have access to a crystal ball that is so accurate that you are somehow exempt from your moral obligation to the rest of the living things on this planet. We are not exempt. The point is that because it is possible for him to win if enough people step up and try, it is selfish, immoral, cowardly, and hypocritical not to do so - otherwise, none of the rest of your words mean poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:Where did I say the American public was going to think for itself? Did your reading comprehension completely fail you when I pointed out that I thought Sanders was smart for supporting Israel and being pro-gun? The point isn't that he is simultaneously an "ideal" candidate that is also completely incapable of taking shrewd political action - the point is that he has found a way to make substantial gains for the left in a way that is desperately needed for our Democracy to survive - and all lazy cowards like you can do is try to convince yourself that somehow you have access to a crystal ball that is so accurate that you are somehow exempt from your moral obligation to the rest of the living things on this planet. you seem to be harbouring the delusion that you, as an individual without extraordinary wealth, matter in the system americans blithely call a democracy you should stop that, it's only going to end with you burning out
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you seem to be harbouring the delusion that you, as an individual without extraordinary wealth, matter in the system americans blithely call a democracy This is such dumb tired unfunny bullshit. I'm not saying that you're completely wrong, but it's useless and adds nothing. Even loving Nietzsche recognized that nihilism is a disease and not a goal. I've found a candidate that I agree with on about 90% of his platform, I'm going to work to get him elected. What else is there to do at this point? If you really think this way why are you even posting in a political thread? Wouldn't you be better off playing on your ipad and trying to forget that any of this poo poo is even going on around you?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:This is such dumb tired unfunny bullshit. I'm not saying that you're completely wrong, but it's useless and adds nothing. Even loving Nietzsche recognized that nihilism is a disease and not a goal. I've found a candidate that I agree with on about 90% of his platform, I'm going to work to get him elected. What else is there to do at this point? If you really think this way why are you even posting in a political thread? Wouldn't you be better off playing on your ipad and trying to forget that any of this poo poo is even going on around you? embrace the pointlessness of it all, then do it anyway, just do it without hope an analysis can be flawed and still be pursued. the notion that action should only be undertaken for a concrete result is one of the most pernicious parts of the contemporary mentality
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you seem to be harbouring the delusion that you, as an individual without extraordinary wealth, matter in the system americans blithely call a democracy That is fascinating, I don't recall using the word "I," boy I seem to remember a lot of "we" and "us" type language, but maybe you read something different? Let's see, who knows anything about campaigns? Are yard signs most important? Noooo...very good. What has the tendency to get people to vote the most reliably come election day? Donation and in person conversation you say? Why yes canvasser, I believe you're right. Well golly gee willickers, do you suppose that if we know ahead of time that in order for a particular political subculture to be established during election season that some amount of effort is required in order to get that political subculture organized to such an extent that they are able to then focus in large numbers on canvassing and building support from the ground up, that we might then perhaps consider...attempting to do that which is required for us to get what we want? And, let's see...are the people who participate in this process groups...or individuals? Well geez seems they are comprised of groups of organs, groups of cells, and so on, but seeing as how they're also individuals, let's try that for now. Now, what would a group, or a...movement require of its constituent pieces in order for it to be successful? Why, I imagine trying may play a role in that. Hence, my donating, my volunteering, my posting here: group participation does not have its origins in leftist masturbation. The Real Paddy fucked around with this message at 14:01 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:embrace the pointlessness of it all, then do it anyway, just do it without hope Warning: You're disappearing up your own rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:embrace the pointlessness of it all, then do it anyway, just do it without hope One of the biggest roadblocks to progress is the notion that it's impossible. If I want Sanders in the White House the narrative about his viability as a candidate has to change. Part of that means that I need to start thinking about this guy like he can win. I mean, yeah there's a kind of personal security in cynicism because you can't be wrong but cynicism provides no catalyst for change at all. I've already tried the "gently caress the world nothing works nothing gets better" outlook and I can tell you it didn't enrich my life much. Not only that, but the world didn't get any better. We're not at the place where there's going to be a proletariat uprising to seize the means of production and create a socialist utopia. I'm not going to sit around and wait for progress to come to me anymore. I've got no patience for cynicism right now because it isn't going to help his campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
you will give of yourself to this machine and you will get nothing in return. you will be burned by this, but you'll soldier on for a while until you realise that it's so much easier and so much more rewarding to just be on the winning side this is what happened to the boomers, collectively. they allowed themselves the delusion of hope in a political system that has no room for it and now they're all republicans.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you will give of yourself to this machine and you will get nothing in return. you will be burned by this, but you'll soldier on for a while until you realise that it's so much easier and so much more rewarding to just be on the winning side 1. The sample size is far too small. 2. You have no proof of this, you simply state your conclusion as fact, which is certainly welcome as worthy opinion in a place of discussion, but is as a result not convincing. 3. You assume I'll become bitter: I'm doing this so I can look myself in the mirror - I'm doing this to avoid regrets, not because I think I'll have any for having integrity.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
As much as I admire Sanders (although I confess to being a Clinton partisan), I don't think he is going to be able to get any traction in this campaign cycle. Clinton is going to co-opt any message she wants from Sanders that proves popular with the base and would be tenable in the general election. Sanders has already said that he won't be doing any negative campaigning, and the Clinton political machine is a juggernaut compared to his Ron Paul-esque base of support. If Sanders were to begin posing any kind of threat to the Clinton campaign it will get squashed, although I would imagine the squashing will be more of a suffocation by the Clinton machine. Additionally, despite all of the hand-wringing and echo chamber noise in this thread about Clinton being an undesirable candidate, I actually think she is charismatic and a good retail politician. She only announced three weeks ago (and presumably hasn't even hit her full stride) and you can watch her at these round-table discussions, giving speeches, and projecting authority in a way that demonstrates exactly WHY she is at the top of the political class in this country. It's still very early but I have found myself liking Clinton more every time she addresses whatever the issue of the day is: mass incarceration, immigration, etc. By the time this election has become more mature she will have staked out policy stances that are far beyond the tepid garbage that the Republicans are putting forward. Clinton remains popular with democrats even with a mature Republican smear operation and before her candidacy has even started full-bore politicking.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
If Bernie's such a socialist how come all my socialist friends hate him and call him a democrat?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:You seem to be misunderstanding: my point wasn't that we are assured of victory, my point is that because of just how critical the situation has become, our choosing to whine and sit on our hands is completely immoral. And I think Bernie stands a great chance of speaking more closely to the lizard brain, as you put it, of the average voter than does a Scott "plain oatmeal" Walker, a Ted "eats feeder mice" Cruz, or a Jeb "Son of the Dynasty" Bush - so your assertion here that Sanders will adhere to the Bush-era stereotype is something that you have madec completely devoid of support. "Oh, you like guns and Israel. Well, now that you've said that, I'm sure I can sit still for 50 minutes and pay attention while you're explaining what socialism actually means, instead of listening to the far, far easier to hear and remember "National SOCIALIST!" chant your opponents are doing. And I know you're saying you want nice things, but all these ads by your opponent are saying you want to take all my money away." But do go on about how Americans can't ever be tricked to voting against their own self interest.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Shark bomb, I agree with you that Clinton is both a viable candidate and far superior to the Republicans, and should Bernie not win, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. But Sanders is better. Not only that, but according to your own analysis, Clinton will attempt to co-opt Sanders campaign. Do you think there will be more pressure on her to do so if Sanders' supporters believe in their cause and put forth sincere effort, or if they don't? Obviously, the greater the pressure, the more likely she is to move left. Therefore, either he we wins, which is most preferable, or volunteering for Sanders and working to get others to do the same is the smartest way to push her to the left. Either way, putting forth sincere effort for the Sanders campaign is the correct action to take. The Real Paddy fucked around with this message at 14:31 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:Obviously, the greater the pressure, the more likely she is to move left. Only if primary voters are representative of general election voters (they're not).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:"Oh, you like guns and Israel. Well, now that you've said that, I'm sure I can sit still for 50 minutes and pay attention while you're explaining what socialism actually means, instead of listening to the far, far easier to hear and remember "National SOCIALIST!" chant your opponents are doing. And I know you're saying you want nice things, but all these ads by your opponent are saying you want to take all my money away." Once again, when did I say that? In what ways does your critique not apply to the torrent of insanity that will be flung at Hillary by the right? I never said they couldn't be tricked - in fact, if you were capable of having an intellectually honest discussion in the face of the oh so scary threat of a person suggesting that we could possibly benefit from a brief expression of sincerity, you would have acknowledged that I specifically pointed out that there exists no guarantee of victory but that supporting Sanders is by far our best and most logical option. Alas, I see you are intent upon driving home the point of not overestimating the average American.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Only if primary voters are representative of general election voters (they're not). In which case then it is nonetheless one of the most effective methods available for moving her left, thus rendering your critique, in practice, irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:he's not getting the nomination because he's not getting the money and he doesn't have the connections to beat out clinton, so how well he would do against the republicans is pretty irrelevant unless clinton suddenly dies or something According to actuarial tables, there's a 2% percent chance that a healthy woman of Hillary's age drops dead in the next 18 months. There's also a possibility she has a stroke or some other illness that prevents her from running. It's not wholly impossible, which is why at least talking about a backup plan is important.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:Once again, when did I say that? In what ways does your critique not apply to the torrent of insanity that will be flung at Hillary by the right? Let me try to explain this to you - the word socialist is not going to be redeemed this cycle. It will remain one of the worst things that the Republicans will try to smear their enemies with. Hillary Clinton has proven she is made of loving Teflon - they can try to smear her as hard as they like, none of that poo poo is ever going to stick. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is standing there saying that the worst thing they will say about him is true. Republicans don't even have to keep digging, cause Socialist is the motherlode of attacks for them, and here Bernie is agreeing with them on it. He can try to follow that up with a lecture on why socialist is not a bad thing, and its going to mean sweet gently caress all because everyone stopped listening at true.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:Shark bomb, I agree with you that Clinton is both a viable candidate and far superior to the Republicans, and should Bernie not win, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. I am curious to see if Sanders can actually get to Clinton's left flank during this campaign in a meaningful way, or if he simply serves as a lightning rod for liberal policy desires. It seems like policy-wise there wouldn't be substantial differences between them during the primary, but Clinton is forced to be tempered by general election considerations. It should be noted that I am commenting on this 2016 campaign cycle rather than past positions -- I think I am much more forgiving towards politicians that change positions over long periods of time than many in this thread. Hillary Expected to Adopt All of Sanders’s Positions by Noon The New Yorker posted:In an online video posted Thursday morning, Clinton welcomed Sanders to the race, adding, “To those who agree with Bernie Sanders on the issues, let me say this: I am Bernie Sanders.”
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
We will get more left-wing rhetoric out of Hillary in primary season, thanks to Bernie, but it's not really going to change her actual behavior in office. The best to hope for is that the primary captures enough attention to keep his ideas in the mainstream. The 2007-8 primary season did a lot for how the right wing developed over the next few years.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:In which case then it is nonetheless one of the most effective methods available for moving her left, thus rendering your critique, in practice, irrelevant. Not necessarily. If it'll give her a slight bump in the polls and she doesn't really compromise anything, sure she'll co-opt it. And if Bernie Sanders is tied or has a lead on her, sure she'll co-opt his platform. Anything in between is not really popular enough to abandon her position and isn't palatable enough to conform to her existing positions, so she'll ignore them.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:The fact that she is not standing there saying "Yep, its totally true, they're right about me". So how is any of this relevant for an argument against supporting Sanders in the primaries? I see we have moved from debating whether he can win anything to arguing why he would be dangerous to nominate - if he has no chance of winning the nomination, then surely there is no danger in supporting him with the understanding that, given the options available to us, supporting Sanders is likely one of the most effective routes of moving Hillary left, right? Or do you think Sanders is wrong when he says we should be ashamed that 1 in 5 kids goes hungry in this country? Maybe you think we've been too hard on the banks? If not, then surely, as so many maintain, since he "has no chance of winning the primary," there could be nothing to worry about in regards to supporting him? However, in regards to your prognostication regarding his inevitable defeat should he face off against a Republican, I maintain that the specifics of his message combined with the backing of the Democratic Party machine, in the context of the half joke half horror show that is the Republican field, are powerful enough such that no pre-determined outcome that you seem convinced you are capable of predicting exists. But, seeing as how you're convinced he can't win the primary, none of that should be a problem, should it?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Not necessarily. In which case then the worst case scenario is that nothing will change - sounds like great news to me.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:In which case then the worst case scenario is that nothing will change - sounds like great news to me. Well no, the worst case scenario is that she ignores him and moves right but thankfully the electorate is going the opposite direction.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
edit whoops wrong thread
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:52
|
|
