The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

The Democratic Primary: Will Never End

24567102

Posts

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    You guys are driving me crazy with this. Bernie's new sin isn't that he agreed with Trump, but didn't disagree hard enough or long enough?

    His response is perfectly reasonable. Called Trump dumb and his ideas dumb and than went on to talk about his own issues and positions. Like, goddamn I can't help but feeling you are LOOKING for something to be displeased about.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Well I would guess you'd probably support legislation that would benefit your industry, given that it would in turn benefit you. But no, that's not a guarantee and it doesn't mean you're attempting to corrupt anyone.

    I thought it was interesting and wanted to bring it up for discussion, not accuse you of ruining democracy.

    Neither of them are necessarily wrong here, because it seems like they are interpreting things differently. Although personally I don't think what Bernie is saying is a lie. It might be considered intentionally misleading, although personally I don't think so. Do you?

    Fuck no.

    Vox has a piece explaining the situation. In short, it's a mess based on election law.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    So this is interesting. I personally don't think what Sanders is saying about her monetary contributions is a cruel lie or anything, so it surprises me to see Hillary say she's sick of his lies and stuff when this isn't a lie. Misleading, possibly! It's kind of unclear.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-apology-221457
    “I think she probably owes the senator an apology for that because the senator is not lying about her record,” Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told MSNBC. “He’s talking about her record. He’s talking about her practices. She obviously doesn’t like it, but that doesn’t make it lying because you don’t like it.”

    As far as I can tell, Hillary and Bernie have different ideas of what "taking money from the fossil fuel industry" is. But I wouldn't say Bernie is lying.
    Joel Benenson, a senior adviser to Clinton’s campaign, said Sanders’ camp has repeatedly accused Clinton of accepting money from the fossil fuel industry.

    “She doesn’t. Neither does he,” Benenson told MSNBC. “Neither one of them takes money from the fossil fuel industry. Both of them have individuals who work in that industry and have given that money.”

    I do not know the exact sources of that money so it's a little tricky I think. If it's lobbyists and higher ups in those companies making substantial contributions like that, then yeah that's somewhat troubling. But then again, Sanders too has received 50k. If it's just people who work in those companies, it's a big who cares other than the candidates yelling at each other about it. I am very unclear on if their money came from different places or what.

    Of course, then there's this:
    According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton has received more than $330,000 from donors with ties to the oil and gas industry, while Sanders has gotten more than $53,000. Accepting contributions directly from the industry would violate election law.

    Greenpeace reports that Clinton has received more than $4.5 million in total from oil, gas and coal lobbyists, bundlers to her campaign and allied super PAC.

    So an oil company can't give directly to a candidate, but their members can. If their members are giving a substantial amount, does that count as "receiving money from the fossil fuel industry" or not?

    Campaign finance!

    You do realize that I am an oil company member and have donated to both Hillary and Sanders, right?

    Does that mean that I'm trying to put them in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry?

    I'm someone who gives $500-1000 to Democratic candidates/parties/causes per election cycle since 06. I'm just not sure at what point I start to become part of the problem.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    You guys are driving me crazy with this. Bernie's new sin isn't that he agreed with Trump, but didn't disagree hard enough or long enough?

    His response is perfectly reasonable. Called Trump dumb and his ideas dumb and than went on to talk about his own issues and positions. Like, goddamn I can't help but feeling you are LOOKING for something to be displeased about.

    A general criticism is that he only cares about his issues and while he is supportive of things like racial justice or abortion rights, he is not going to be particularly focused on them when he is in the White House, in favor of his economic priorities. And those things are super important. So when he reinforces that belief the way he does here, it's problematic. But whatever, I was already for Clinton.

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    You guys are driving me crazy with this. Bernie's new sin isn't that he agreed with Trump, but didn't disagree hard enough or long enough?

    His response is perfectly reasonable. Called Trump dumb and his ideas dumb and than went on to talk about his own issues and positions. Like, goddamn I can't help but feeling you are LOOKING for something to be displeased about.

    I would say that Sanders belief that restricting abortion access is a position supported by fringe crazies is a much weaker response than Hillary's, which is that restricting abortion access is a serious issue that is actively and effectively being pursued by a vast portion of the Republican party.

    Yes, "not swinging hard enough and pivoting" is a criticism; that's why Clinton's $12 minimum wage proposal falls flat compared to Sanders $15.

    E: And to head it off at the pass: While he is a Senator, Bernie's belief on how serious an issue social issues are is irrelevant; he votes the right way. If he becomes president, the fact he believes restricting abortion access is a position supported by fringe crazies means he would probably feel safer putting it on the backburner.

    milski on
    I ate an engineer
  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    If you haven't sent a picture of an oil barrel and a list of demands along with every donation I don't think you're doing it right.

    They don't put oil in barrels, actually. Those barrels cost more than a barrel-volume of oil.

    You're going to want to stick with familiar imagery in your attempts at Washington extortion. No room for subtlety.

    Either way, I'm going in hard on barrel futures.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    You guys are driving me crazy with this. Bernie's new sin isn't that he agreed with Trump, but didn't disagree hard enough or long enough?

    His response is perfectly reasonable. Called Trump dumb and his ideas dumb and than went on to talk about his own issues and positions. Like, goddamn I can't help but feeling you are LOOKING for something to be displeased about.

    Reasonable isn't going to cut it in elections. Bernie needs to clear, he needs to make sure the voters he's appealing to with this subject have his support 100% and he mustn't leave an opening for Hillary to exploit. He utterly failed here with that. This is not a "big sin" but he does not need this right now. And Hillary's really, really good at using opportunities like this to undermine him with boring blocs they share.

    Harry Dresden on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    You guys are driving me crazy with this. Bernie's new sin isn't that he agreed with Trump, but didn't disagree hard enough or long enough?

    His response is perfectly reasonable. Called Trump dumb and his ideas dumb and than went on to talk about his own issues and positions. Like, goddamn I can't help but feeling you are LOOKING for something to be displeased about.

    No, the issue is that he pretty much dismissed the right wing war on abortion rights. Maddow basically put the ball on a tee, and he whiffed.

    Which is why Planned Parenthood and NARAL endorsed Clinton over him.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    You guys are driving me crazy with this. Bernie's new sin isn't that he agreed with Trump, but didn't disagree hard enough or long enough?

    His response is perfectly reasonable. Called Trump dumb and his ideas dumb and than went on to talk about his own issues and positions. Like, goddamn I can't help but feeling you are LOOKING for something to be displeased about.

    Reasonable isn't going to cut it in elections. Bernie needs to clear, he needs to make sure the voters he's appealing to with this subject have his support 100% and he mustn't leave an opening for Hillary to exploit. He utterly failed here with that. This is not a "big sin" but he does not need this right now. And Hillary's really, really good at using opportunities like this to undermine him with boring blocs they share.

    I don't buy it.

    Trump doesn't deserve the air time. Call him dumb and move on. End of story. The only opening it leaves is with people already unhappy with Bernie and are eager to jump on even something good as being "not good enough" based on some nebulous, undefined standard.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    You guys are driving me crazy with this. Bernie's new sin isn't that he agreed with Trump, but didn't disagree hard enough or long enough?

    His response is perfectly reasonable. Called Trump dumb and his ideas dumb and than went on to talk about his own issues and positions. Like, goddamn I can't help but feeling you are LOOKING for something to be displeased about.

    Reasonable isn't going to cut it in elections. Bernie needs to clear, he needs to make sure the voters he's appealing to with this subject have his support 100% and he mustn't leave an opening for Hillary to exploit. He utterly failed here with that. This is not a "big sin" but he does not need this right now. And Hillary's really, really good at using opportunities like this to undermine him with boring blocs they share.

    I don't buy it.

    Trump doesn't deserve the air time. Call him dumb and move on. End of story. The only opening it leaves is with people already unhappy with Bernie and are eager to jump on even something good as being "not good enough" based on some nebulous, undefined standard.

    You made the same mistake Bernie did in assuming the question has anything to do with Trump.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    You guys are driving me crazy with this. Bernie's new sin isn't that he agreed with Trump, but didn't disagree hard enough or long enough?

    His response is perfectly reasonable. Called Trump dumb and his ideas dumb and than went on to talk about his own issues and positions. Like, goddamn I can't help but feeling you are LOOKING for something to be displeased about.

    Reasonable isn't going to cut it in elections. Bernie needs to clear, he needs to make sure the voters he's appealing to with this subject have his support 100% and he mustn't leave an opening for Hillary to exploit. He utterly failed here with that. This is not a "big sin" but he does not need this right now. And Hillary's really, really good at using opportunities like this to undermine him with boring blocs they share.

    I don't buy it.

    Trump doesn't deserve the air time. Call him dumb and move on. End of story. The only opening it leaves is with people already unhappy with Bernie and are eager to jump on even something good as being "not good enough" based on some nebulous, undefined standard.

    "Call him dumb and move on" illustrates the point exactly. There is a serious and effective war on women's rights going on, supported by the GOP. It might honestly be the most effective they have been at legislating in a long time.

    Dismissing that as a dumb position supported by crazies and moving on to other issues is not really that great.

    I ate an engineer
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    You guys are driving me crazy with this. Bernie's new sin isn't that he agreed with Trump, but didn't disagree hard enough or long enough?

    His response is perfectly reasonable. Called Trump dumb and his ideas dumb and than went on to talk about his own issues and positions. Like, goddamn I can't help but feeling you are LOOKING for something to be displeased about.

    Reasonable isn't going to cut it in elections. Bernie needs to clear, he needs to make sure the voters he's appealing to with this subject have his support 100% and he mustn't leave an opening for Hillary to exploit. He utterly failed here with that. This is not a "big sin" but he does not need this right now. And Hillary's really, really good at using opportunities like this to undermine him with boring blocs they share.

    I don't buy it.

    This is exactly what he does to get his fanbase on board, so he needs to change tac for other demographics. It's not rocket science. He's not competing with Trump here, there's a large portion of demographics Hillary's fighting over with him.
    Trump doesn't deserve the air time. Call him dumb and move on. End of story. The only opening it leaves is with people already unhappy with Bernie and are eager to jump on even something good as being "not good enough" based on some nebulous, undefined standard.

    Trump gets the air time for various reasons, which is a separate conversation. Calling Trump dumb minimizes the issues he's supposed to fight for, and he needs to be seen fighting for those issues properly or his coalition will crumble. It's an opening any idiot politician would be a fool not to use against him, when they're targeting the same voters. What he needs to do has been defined already in this thread, it's not an opaque subject. It's Politics 101.

    Harry Dresden on
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    Like, imagine if Trump had said the rich don't have enough money and we need to increase the ease at which they siphon it up from the poor, maybe by allowing them to take 401ks from people they fire.

    And then Maddow asked Clinton for her thoughts on income inequality and wealth distribution and Clinton said look, Trump is constantly saying crazy things, why aren't we asking him for his policies on abortion and gay rights instead of focusing on this issue that's only being pushed by a crazy 1%.

    One would get the impression that she's not really concerned about income inequality.

  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    For fun, I was also really disappointed in the following exchange:
    MADDOW: Senator, you have been a fierce critic of the influence of the wealthy and big business on our politics, not just on who gets their way but who sets the agenda. As Republican legislators and governors have recently been weighing new laws that are discriminatory, particularly against LGBT people in North Carolina, in Georgia, in Missouri and Indiana, big business, including Bank of America, today in North Carolina, has weighed in strongly against those discriminatory laws. Do you think those businesses should butt out of those issues? Is it inappropriate for them to try to wield political influence even when they do it in a progressive way?

    SANDERS: Well, look, they have -- when we look at politics in America, you have CEO's of major corporations who have children who are gay, who have friends who are gay, whose wives or daughters have had abortions -- they live in the real world and they're responding to the type of very right win reactionary policies and I understand that and I appreciate that. When I talk about money in politics, what I talk about is the Koch brothers and billionaires spending hundreds of millions of dollars, along with Wall Street, to create a situation where politicians will be elected who represent the wealthy and the powerful.

    That's a really interesting question, especially from Sanders POV, and I wish we'd gotten something meaningful out of it. It's absolutely a weird position to be in as an anti-corporatist when the big corporations start fighting hard for certain aspects of your interests, and I honestly don't know how to work that reality into my politics just yet. This was a place where I would have appreciated some real ideological wonkery, given his reputation. Hate that Maddow let it go at that.

    Edit: To clarify, I think it's a great question because it's an issue where ideology meets reality, and the reality is that while the left has a strong streak of anti-big business, we're also seeing some of the most shameful anti-LGBT bills get shut down because of those big businesses. As somebody who is considered an ideologue, what do you do when this happens?

    No real answer is disappointing.

    OneAngryPossum on
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Like, imagine if Trump had said the rich don't have enough money and we need to increase the ease at which they siphon it up from the poor, maybe by allowing them to take 401ks from people they fire.

    And then Maddow asked Clinton for her thoughts on income inequality and wealth distribution and Clinton said look, Trump is constantly saying crazy things, why aren't we asking him for his policies on abortion and gay rights instead of focusing on this issue that's only being pushed by a crazy 1%.

    One would get the impression that she's not really concerned about income inequality.

    In your example I would applaud her for dismissing something crazy that would waste airtime so I could talk about the important issues. Because it's fairly clear the media loves to talk about Trump saying insane shit rather than report on substantial issues.

    Which is also what I think Bernie did, reading the excerpts you guys keep posting. However, if he wanted to appeal more to people on the fence and Clinton supporters, it would be good if he went a little more heavily into it.

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    Bernie and Clinton have very similar economic positions, but Bernie emphasizes them as more central, almost exclusive, to his message. Their biggest points of departure are the Sanders healthcare plan and $12 vs $15 dollar minimum wage.

    Clinton and Sanders largely have very similar social and racial positions, but Bernie emphasizes them much less and makes them very secondary. Their biggest points of departure is Sanders has been conservative on guns and Immigration in the Senate (and remains that way on guns).

    Its a bizarre double standard of this primary that Sander's emphasis on economic issues can only be a strength and his relative absence on social/racial issues is somehow unfair.

    Another part of the Maddow interview, Sanders asserted that only 5-10% of the country is really committed to socially conservative positions, that its the fringe. He thinks that because, as everything in his record and statements indicate, he doesn't believe people should be voting on non-economic issues. Which is why he emphasizes them much less.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Like, imagine if Trump had said the rich don't have enough money and we need to increase the ease at which they siphon it up from the poor, maybe by allowing them to take 401ks from people they fire.

    And then Maddow asked Clinton for her thoughts on income inequality and wealth distribution and Clinton said look, Trump is constantly saying crazy things, why aren't we asking him for his policies on abortion and gay rights instead of focusing on this issue that's only being pushed by a crazy 1%.

    One would get the impression that she's not really concerned about income inequality.

    In your example I would applaud her for dismissing something crazy that would waste airtime so I could talk about the important issues. Because it's fairly clear the media loves to talk about Trump saying insane shit rather than report on substantial issues.

    Which is also what I think Bernie did, reading the excerpts you guys keep posting. However, if he wanted to appeal more to people on the fence and Clinton supporters, it would be good if he went a little more heavily into it.
    Income inequality is crazy? It's worth dismissing? The crazy thing Trump said is a springboard to talk about the real issue, not the what the question is actually about.

    I need my fainting couch and smelling salts, I'm at a loss.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Like, imagine if Trump had said the rich don't have enough money and we need to increase the ease at which they siphon it up from the poor, maybe by allowing them to take 401ks from people they fire.

    And then Maddow asked Clinton for her thoughts on income inequality and wealth distribution and Clinton said look, Trump is constantly saying crazy things, why aren't we asking him for his policies on abortion and gay rights instead of focusing on this issue that's only being pushed by a crazy 1%.

    One would get the impression that she's not really concerned about income inequality.

    In your example I would applaud her for dismissing something crazy that would waste airtime so I could talk about the important issues. Because it's fairly clear the media loves to talk about Trump saying insane shit rather than report on substantial issues.

    Which is also what I think Bernie did, reading the excerpts you guys keep posting. However, if he wanted to appeal more to people on the fence and Clinton supporters, it would be good if he went a little more heavily into it.

    So you don't think abortion restrictions that would turn a miscarriage into a crime and punish mothers for not sufficiently proving it wasn't forced is a substantial issue?

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    For fun, I was also really disappointed in the following exchange:
    MADDOW: Senator, you have been a fierce critic of the influence of the wealthy and big business on our politics, not just on who gets their way but who sets the agenda. As Republican legislators and governors have recently been weighing new laws that are discriminatory, particularly against LGBT people in North Carolina, in Georgia, in Missouri and Indiana, big business, including Bank of America, today in North Carolina, has weighed in strongly against those discriminatory laws. Do you think those businesses should butt out of those issues? Is it inappropriate for them to try to wield political influence even when they do it in a progressive way?

    SANDERS: Well, look, they have -- when we look at politics in America, you have CEO's of major corporations who have children who are gay, who have friends who are gay, whose wives or daughters have had abortions -- they live in the real world and they're responding to the type of very right win reactionary policies and I understand that and I appreciate that. When I talk about money in politics, what I talk about is the Koch brothers and billionaires spending hundreds of millions of dollars, along with Wall Street, to create a situation where politicians will be elected who represent the wealthy and the powerful.

    That's a really interesting question, especially from Sanders POV, and I wish we'd gotten something meaningful out of it. It's absolutely a weird position to be in as an anti-corporatist when the big corporations start fighting hard for certain aspects of your interests, and I honestly don't know how to work that reality into my politics just yet. This was a place where I would have appreciated some real ideological wonkery, given his reputation. Hate that Maddow let it go at that.

    Edit: To clarify, I think it's a great question because it's an issue where ideology meets reality, and the reality is that while the left has a strong streak of anti-big business, we're also seeing some of the most shameful anti-LGBT bills get shut down because of those big businesses. As somebody who is considered an ideologue, what do you do when this happens?

    No real answer is disappointing.

    Personally, I'd go with "Happy they got shut down, but disappointed it was because big business was worried about optics and not because what was passed is horrible and got them chucked out of office."

    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • htmhtm Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Another part of the Maddow interview, Sanders asserted that only 5-10% of the country is really committed to socially conservative positions, that its the fringe. He thinks that because, as everything in his record and statements indicate, he doesn't believe people should be voting on non-economic issues. Which is why he emphasizes them much less.

    If he said that, he's f'ing insane. Or maybe he doesn't get out of VT enough.

  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    I have little patience with people who claim to feel so strongly about political issues that they refuse to meaningfully participate. Its a childish position and its a huge part of the reason that some of the worst strains of ideology have taken root and power in this country and its a primary reason that we didn't have a President Gore instead of a President Bush. If someone threatens to join that group, I'm not going to encourage the behavior by pretending its anything but working against my interests. I'm not going to blow smoke up anyone's ass to make them feel better about it. Especially because 100% if Sanders had won, the Sanders camp would expect the party to fall in line.

    I want to address the bolded since I perceived it to be directed at me, due to the position of the post in the conversation context. Perhaps you did not mean to address me personally, Pants, and that's fine, too. You raise a point worth engaging with in any case.

    I am far from a political non-participant. I vote in every election, big and small, publicized and not. I volunteer my time with both advocacy organizations for causes that matter to me and actual political campaigns. I volunteered for Obama as a college student; I volunteered for Elizabeth Warren's Senate campaign in 2012; I harangued my friends daily to vote in the dreadfully turned-out Boston City Council election this year, and, most recently, I phonebanked and knocked on doors for Bernie Sanders.

    I make what meager financial contributions I can: $10 here, $20 there. I don't have the time or money to support as many campaigns as I would like, but I do what I can to make my voice heard. I spend my precious time and money, when I can spare it, to support candidates who I believe in. So long as the Democratic candidate for president is a superior option to the Republican candidate for present, a trend I see continuing into the indefinite future, the Democratic candidate will have my vote. But not all of them are going to get my money or my time -- I frankly have better things to spend them on.

    If Al Gore couldn't inspire a winning coalition of voters, there is no one to blame for that but Al Gore. It is the job of candidate to make the case for supporting them. Relative to Sanders, Clinton didn't make a persuasive case to me. Obviously she did for you. It would be a mistake to interpret this difference of opinion as a difference in political engagement.

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    For fun, I was also really disappointed in the following exchange:
    MADDOW: Senator, you have been a fierce critic of the influence of the wealthy and big business on our politics, not just on who gets their way but who sets the agenda. As Republican legislators and governors have recently been weighing new laws that are discriminatory, particularly against LGBT people in North Carolina, in Georgia, in Missouri and Indiana, big business, including Bank of America, today in North Carolina, has weighed in strongly against those discriminatory laws. Do you think those businesses should butt out of those issues? Is it inappropriate for them to try to wield political influence even when they do it in a progressive way?

    SANDERS: Well, look, they have -- when we look at politics in America, you have CEO's of major corporations who have children who are gay, who have friends who are gay, whose wives or daughters have had abortions -- they live in the real world and they're responding to the type of very right win reactionary policies and I understand that and I appreciate that. When I talk about money in politics, what I talk about is the Koch brothers and billionaires spending hundreds of millions of dollars, along with Wall Street, to create a situation where politicians will be elected who represent the wealthy and the powerful.

    That's a really interesting question, especially from Sanders POV, and I wish we'd gotten something meaningful out of it. It's absolutely a weird position to be in as an anti-corporatist when the big corporations start fighting hard for certain aspects of your interests, and I honestly don't know how to work that reality into my politics just yet. This was a place where I would have appreciated some real ideological wonkery, given his reputation. Hate that Maddow let it go at that.

    Edit: To clarify, I think it's a great question because it's an issue where ideology meets reality, and the reality is that while the left has a strong streak of anti-big business, we're also seeing some of the most shameful anti-LGBT bills get shut down because of those big businesses. As somebody who is considered an ideologue, what do you do when this happens?

    No real answer is disappointing.

    It was a great question. When he's in front of his own rich donors he says things like “The truth is there are many people in this country who have money but also believe in social justice.” But that fundamentally undercuts his argument about Clinton and her donors so...

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Like, imagine if Trump had said the rich don't have enough money and we need to increase the ease at which they siphon it up from the poor, maybe by allowing them to take 401ks from people they fire.

    And then Maddow asked Clinton for her thoughts on income inequality and wealth distribution and Clinton said look, Trump is constantly saying crazy things, why aren't we asking him for his policies on abortion and gay rights instead of focusing on this issue that's only being pushed by a crazy 1%.

    One would get the impression that she's not really concerned about income inequality.

    In your example I would applaud her for dismissing something crazy that would waste airtime so I could talk about the important issues. Because it's fairly clear the media loves to talk about Trump saying insane shit rather than report on substantial issues.

    Which is also what I think Bernie did, reading the excerpts you guys keep posting. However, if he wanted to appeal more to people on the fence and Clinton supporters, it would be good if he went a little more heavily into it.
    Income inequality is crazy? It's worth dismissing? The crazy thing Trump said is a springboard to talk about the real issue, not the what the question is actually about.

    I need my fainting couch and smelling salts, I'm at a loss.
    the rich don't have enough money and we need to increase the ease at which they siphon it up from the poor, maybe by allowing them to take 401ks from people they fire.

    I didn't think this was a reasonable idea worth consideration or discussion. Hell, I already agreed that he should have discussed the issue more since it clearly is something many people wanted to hear.

    The tone of this thread is surprisingly hostile.

  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    If it's hostile, report it or don't engage. The continuing cries of "you guys are driving me crazy" or "things are so hostile" or "Man this is not how I expected the forums to be" are rather tiresome.

    I ate an engineer
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    Hachface wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    I have little patience with people who claim to feel so strongly about political issues that they refuse to meaningfully participate. Its a childish position and its a huge part of the reason that some of the worst strains of ideology have taken root and power in this country and its a primary reason that we didn't have a President Gore instead of a President Bush. If someone threatens to join that group, I'm not going to encourage the behavior by pretending its anything but working against my interests. I'm not going to blow smoke up anyone's ass to make them feel better about it. Especially because 100% if Sanders had won, the Sanders camp would expect the party to fall in line.

    I want to address the bolded since I perceived it to be directed at me, due to the position of the post in the conversation context. Perhaps you did not mean to address me personally, Pants, and that's fine, too. You raise a point worth engaging with in any case.

    I am far from a political non-participant. I vote in every election, big and small, publicized and not. I volunteer my time with both advocacy organizations for causes that matter to me and actual political campaigns. I volunteered for Obama as a college student; I volunteered for Elizabeth Warren's Senate campaign in 2012; I harangued my friends daily to vote in the dreadfully turned-out Boston City Council election this year, and, most recently, I phonebanked and knocked on doors for Bernie Sanders.

    I make what meager financial contributions I can: $10 here, $20 there. I don't have the time or money to support as many campaigns as I would like, but I do what I can to make my voice heard. I spend my precious time and money, when I can spare it, to support candidates who I believe in. So long as the Democratic candidate for president is a superior option to the Republican candidate for present, a trend I see continuing into the indefinite future, the Democratic candidate will have my vote. But not all of them are going to get my money or my time -- I frankly have better things to spend them on.

    If Al Gore couldn't inspire a winning coalition of voters, there is no one to blame for that but Al Gore. It is the job of candidate to make the case for supporting them. Relative to Sanders, Clinton didn't make a persuasive case to me. Obviously she did for you. It would be a mistake to interpret this difference of opinion as a difference in political engagement.

    I don't mean to point you out specifically. But if you say the Democratic party isn't the party for your political goals then the two options you have are to not participate meaningfully or to support the GOP.

    Yes its the job of the candidates to inspire the voters, but its the job of the voters to do their job well also. We get the government we deserve and a big part of our sins as a country that led to President George W Bush in 2000 was 5% of the left decided to support Nader because Gore wasn't pure enough

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • GatorGator An alligator in Scotland Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    The Democratic primary is happening to many people, and it will continue to happen. Do not fight it or despair. Resign, and accept that the Democratic primary will keep happening to you.


    %27Taming_the_Donkey%27%2C_painting_by_Eduardo_Zamacois_y_Zabala%2C_1868%2C_private_collection.jpg

    Wooo my schadenfreude was worth it

    you go donkey

    you go beat monkbro (who is Trump in this scenario I guess)

  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    Knight_ wrote: »
    For fun, I was also really disappointed in the following exchange:
    MADDOW: Senator, you have been a fierce critic of the influence of the wealthy and big business on our politics, not just on who gets their way but who sets the agenda. As Republican legislators and governors have recently been weighing new laws that are discriminatory, particularly against LGBT people in North Carolina, in Georgia, in Missouri and Indiana, big business, including Bank of America, today in North Carolina, has weighed in strongly against those discriminatory laws. Do you think those businesses should butt out of those issues? Is it inappropriate for them to try to wield political influence even when they do it in a progressive way?

    SANDERS: Well, look, they have -- when we look at politics in America, you have CEO's of major corporations who have children who are gay, who have friends who are gay, whose wives or daughters have had abortions -- they live in the real world and they're responding to the type of very right win reactionary policies and I understand that and I appreciate that. When I talk about money in politics, what I talk about is the Koch brothers and billionaires spending hundreds of millions of dollars, along with Wall Street, to create a situation where politicians will be elected who represent the wealthy and the powerful.

    That's a really interesting question, especially from Sanders POV, and I wish we'd gotten something meaningful out of it. It's absolutely a weird position to be in as an anti-corporatist when the big corporations start fighting hard for certain aspects of your interests, and I honestly don't know how to work that reality into my politics just yet. This was a place where I would have appreciated some real ideological wonkery, given his reputation. Hate that Maddow let it go at that.

    Edit: To clarify, I think it's a great question because it's an issue where ideology meets reality, and the reality is that while the left has a strong streak of anti-big business, we're also seeing some of the most shameful anti-LGBT bills get shut down because of those big businesses. As somebody who is considered an ideologue, what do you do when this happens?

    No real answer is disappointing.

    Personally, I'd go with "Happy they got shut down, but disappointed it was because big business was worried about optics and not because what was passed is horrible and got them chucked out of office."

    I'd be generally fine with that answer, but wouldn't expect to hear him say it. His popularity in the more leftist circles I have any window into is rooted very heavily in the notion of him as being anti-corporate, anti-establishment, anti-Wall Street. Given his sympathies for Latin American revolutionary movements, I sincerely doubt he's a big fan of Coca-Cola, for example, but they also just had a hand in stopping my current state's embarrassing legislation. The aforementioned more radically left friends of mine also don't really seem to be flipping their lids about what an awkward position this is if you don't have a more nuanced frame of reference for interpreting social change.

    Like Pants suggested, I'm beginning to think this was more awkward for Bernie as an image issue than an actual ideological struggle. Either way, doubling down on, "No, the real problems are just Wall Street and the Kochs and the big banks," is deeply unsatisfying. He's obviously an intelligent man, so I can't see this as anything but either a dodge or a refusal to deal with the more complicated reality he'll face when he's not a lone voice in the Senate.

    OneAngryPossum on
  • htmhtm Registered User regular
    I read this: Millennials Still Feeling Pretty Apathetic About the Election, and it made me wonder who Bernie's core supporters really are.

    The CW is he's big among Millennials, but if that polling is right, no one is actually big among Millennials. So where is his $40 million/month coming from? My somewhat snarky guess is old boomers, who did the leftist thing back in their college days. "Socialist" holds no stigma for them, and they've actually got money to give to political campaigns.

    In any case, it's somewhat disappointing. I'm not voting Bernie, but I'd love it if he were persuading young liberals to engage with politics. But it seems like he's not even doing that. Mostly, he's just firing up college students.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I can't see any article about "millenials" and not immediately think the author is screaming "I MISS MY YOUTH!"

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • htmhtm Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Yes its the job of the candidates to inspire the voters, but its the job of the voters to do their job well also. We get the government we deserve and a big part of our sins as a country that led to President George W Bush in 2000 was 5% of the left decided to support Nader because Gore wasn't pure enough

    This.

    And it helps a great deal if you think about voting as an exercise in harm minimization rather than as a medium for expressing your personal political aspirations.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Knight_ wrote: »
    For fun, I was also really disappointed in the following exchange:
    MADDOW: Senator, you have been a fierce critic of the influence of the wealthy and big business on our politics, not just on who gets their way but who sets the agenda. As Republican legislators and governors have recently been weighing new laws that are discriminatory, particularly against LGBT people in North Carolina, in Georgia, in Missouri and Indiana, big business, including Bank of America, today in North Carolina, has weighed in strongly against those discriminatory laws. Do you think those businesses should butt out of those issues? Is it inappropriate for them to try to wield political influence even when they do it in a progressive way?

    SANDERS: Well, look, they have -- when we look at politics in America, you have CEO's of major corporations who have children who are gay, who have friends who are gay, whose wives or daughters have had abortions -- they live in the real world and they're responding to the type of very right win reactionary policies and I understand that and I appreciate that. When I talk about money in politics, what I talk about is the Koch brothers and billionaires spending hundreds of millions of dollars, along with Wall Street, to create a situation where politicians will be elected who represent the wealthy and the powerful.

    That's a really interesting question, especially from Sanders POV, and I wish we'd gotten something meaningful out of it. It's absolutely a weird position to be in as an anti-corporatist when the big corporations start fighting hard for certain aspects of your interests, and I honestly don't know how to work that reality into my politics just yet. This was a place where I would have appreciated some real ideological wonkery, given his reputation. Hate that Maddow let it go at that.

    Edit: To clarify, I think it's a great question because it's an issue where ideology meets reality, and the reality is that while the left has a strong streak of anti-big business, we're also seeing some of the most shameful anti-LGBT bills get shut down because of those big businesses. As somebody who is considered an ideologue, what do you do when this happens?

    No real answer is disappointing.

    Personally, I'd go with "Happy they got shut down, but disappointed it was because big business was worried about optics and not because what was passed is horrible and got them chucked out of office."

    I'd be generally fine with that answer, but wouldn't expect to hear him say it. His popularity in the more leftists circles I have any window into is rooted very heavily in the notion of him as being anti-corporate, anti-establishment, anti-Wall Street. Given his sympathies for Latin American revolutionary movements, I sincerely doubt he's a big fan of Coca-Cola, for example, but they also just had a hand in stopping my current state's embarrassing legislation. The aforementioned more radically left friends of mine also don't really seem to be flipping their lids about what an awkward position this is if you don't have a more nuanced frame of reference for interpreting social change.

    Like Pants suggested, I'm beginning to think this was more awkward for Bernie as an image issue than an actual ideological struggle. Either way, doubling down on, no, the real problems are just Wall Street and the Kochs and the big banks is deeply unsatisfying. He's obviously an intelligent man, so I can't see this as anything but either a dodge or a refusal to deal with the more complicated reality he'll face when he's not a lone voice in the Senate.

    It's clearly a dodge imo. He needs to keep riding the anti-establishment, anti-Big-everything tiger to stay in this thing at all.

  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    Knight_ wrote: »
    For fun, I was also really disappointed in the following exchange:
    MADDOW: Senator, you have been a fierce critic of the influence of the wealthy and big business on our politics, not just on who gets their way but who sets the agenda. As Republican legislators and governors have recently been weighing new laws that are discriminatory, particularly against LGBT people in North Carolina, in Georgia, in Missouri and Indiana, big business, including Bank of America, today in North Carolina, has weighed in strongly against those discriminatory laws. Do you think those businesses should butt out of those issues? Is it inappropriate for them to try to wield political influence even when they do it in a progressive way?

    SANDERS: Well, look, they have -- when we look at politics in America, you have CEO's of major corporations who have children who are gay, who have friends who are gay, whose wives or daughters have had abortions -- they live in the real world and they're responding to the type of very right win reactionary policies and I understand that and I appreciate that. When I talk about money in politics, what I talk about is the Koch brothers and billionaires spending hundreds of millions of dollars, along with Wall Street, to create a situation where politicians will be elected who represent the wealthy and the powerful.

    That's a really interesting question, especially from Sanders POV, and I wish we'd gotten something meaningful out of it. It's absolutely a weird position to be in as an anti-corporatist when the big corporations start fighting hard for certain aspects of your interests, and I honestly don't know how to work that reality into my politics just yet. This was a place where I would have appreciated some real ideological wonkery, given his reputation. Hate that Maddow let it go at that.

    Edit: To clarify, I think it's a great question because it's an issue where ideology meets reality, and the reality is that while the left has a strong streak of anti-big business, we're also seeing some of the most shameful anti-LGBT bills get shut down because of those big businesses. As somebody who is considered an ideologue, what do you do when this happens?

    No real answer is disappointing.

    Personally, I'd go with "Happy they got shut down, but disappointed it was because big business was worried about optics and not because what was passed is horrible and got them chucked out of office."

    I'd be generally fine with that answer, but wouldn't expect to hear him say it. His popularity in the more leftist circles I have any window into is rooted very heavily in the notion of him as being anti-corporate, anti-establishment, anti-Wall Street. Given his sympathies for Latin American revolutionary movements, I sincerely doubt he's a big fan of Coca-Cola, for example, but they also just had a hand in stopping my current state's embarrassing legislation. The aforementioned more radically left friends of mine also don't really seem to be flipping their lids about what an awkward position this is if you don't have a more nuanced frame of reference for interpreting social change.

    Like Pants suggested, I'm beginning to think this was more awkward for Bernie as an image issue than an actual ideological struggle. Either way, doubling down on, "No, the real problems are just Wall Street and the Kochs and the big banks," is deeply unsatisfying. He's obviously an intelligent man, so I can't see this as anything but either a dodge or a refusal to deal with the more complicated reality he'll face when he's not a lone voice in the Senate.

    It's one of the problems with focusing your campaign's message down to a knife's edge. When all you have is a hammer, as it were.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    Just generally I do really wonder how much of his recent comments are based on needing to stick with a specific message to stay viable.

    It seems like that his biggest funding has been coming from his "fuck the system man!" message. He picked a fight with the DNC and his funding went bananas and he's basically been playing that card ever since. He can't pivot to any other kind of messaging without losing his main source of campaign funding. Can't admit he would endorse Clinton should she win because it'll fuck his ability to fundraise. Can't talk about supporting the Democratic ticket because his funding success depends on saying "fuck the democratic party".

    Socialism, free college, universal healthcare, all good but it's yelling "fuck the system" that actually pays the bills.

    shryke on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    htm wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Yes its the job of the candidates to inspire the voters, but its the job of the voters to do their job well also. We get the government we deserve and a big part of our sins as a country that led to President George W Bush in 2000 was 5% of the left decided to support Nader because Gore wasn't pure enough

    This.

    And it helps a great deal if you think about voting as an exercise in harm minimization rather than as a medium for expressing your personal political aspirations.

    Disagree. Voting is about getting the policy you want implemented. It's just that you it also involves admitting that you aren't the only one who's opinion matters and you need to accept compromises. And the further along you move, the more you need to accept. (ie - Primaries are where you can be much more ideologically stringent because that's what they are for. As the general approaches you need to be willing to accept candidates that may be not be as close to exactly what you want.)

    shryke on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    I don't mean to point you out specifically. But if you say the Democratic party isn't the party for your political goals then the two options you have are to not participate meaningfully or to support the GOP.

    Or work to change the party.

    By, say, supporting candidates you like in the primary.

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    Hachface wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    I don't mean to point you out specifically. But if you say the Democratic party isn't the party for your political goals then the two options you have are to not participate meaningfully or to support the GOP.

    Or work to change the party.

    By, say, supporting candidates you like in the primary.

    Followed by supporting the party in the General, regardless of which candidate won.

  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    I don't mean to point you out specifically. But if you say the Democratic party isn't the party for your political goals then the two options you have are to not participate meaningfully or to support the GOP.

    Or work to change the party.

    By, say, supporting candidates you like in the primary.

    Followed by supporting the party in the General, regardless of which candidate won.

    Sure, as soon as you've spent every cent of influence you earn through contest. I don't think Bernie's cupboard is quite bare. He has resources that the party can use. If Clinton, once nominated, wants him to put those resources to use supporting her, he has a right to make some conditions. And, anyway, as long as his campaign is still bringing in donations and organizing people, his pot of resources that the party can use will only grow.

  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Like, imagine if Trump had said the rich don't have enough money and we need to increase the ease at which they siphon it up from the poor, maybe by allowing them to take 401ks from people they fire.

    And then Maddow asked Clinton for her thoughts on income inequality and wealth distribution and Clinton said look, Trump is constantly saying crazy things, why aren't we asking him for his policies on abortion and gay rights instead of focusing on this issue that's only being pushed by a crazy 1%.

    One would get the impression that she's not really concerned about income inequality.

    In your example I would applaud her for dismissing something crazy that would waste airtime so I could talk about the important issues. Because it's fairly clear the media loves to talk about Trump saying insane shit rather than report on substantial issues.

    Which is also what I think Bernie did, reading the excerpts you guys keep posting. However, if he wanted to appeal more to people on the fence and Clinton supporters, it would be good if he went a little more heavily into it.
    Income inequality is crazy? It's worth dismissing? The crazy thing Trump said is a springboard to talk about the real issue, not the what the question is actually about.

    I need my fainting couch and smelling salts, I'm at a loss.
    the rich don't have enough money and we need to increase the ease at which they siphon it up from the poor, maybe by allowing them to take 401ks from people they fire.

    I didn't think this was a reasonable idea worth consideration or discussion. Hell, I already agreed that he should have discussed the issue more since it clearly is something many people wanted to hear.

    The tone of this thread is surprisingly hostile.
    Sorry, I need to take some deep breaths. I just can't tell if I'm really awful at communicating or if this isn't as obvious as I think it is, since I've been trying variations on this topic for a while now.

    Sanders said that Trump is uniquely stupid in that view. Maddow pointed out that Cruz is actually more extreme, nudging him towards the "real" issue instead of just Trump, and he waved it away as being a "fringe" thing that only a couple of crazies support.

    Imagine if Clinton waved off income inequality as a "fringe" thing that only a couple of crazies support.

    It would be completely out of touch with what's currently happening.

    If it helps, replace the 401k thing with something equally ludicrous that is an actual consequence of income inequality that proponents of it don't want to admit, because that's more in line with what actually happened.

    edit: I can feel myself growing more hyperbolic so please scale things down as needed.

    Surfpossum on
  • htmhtm Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    htm wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Yes its the job of the candidates to inspire the voters, but its the job of the voters to do their job well also. We get the government we deserve and a big part of our sins as a country that led to President George W Bush in 2000 was 5% of the left decided to support Nader because Gore wasn't pure enough

    This.

    And it helps a great deal if you think about voting as an exercise in harm minimization rather than as a medium for expressing your personal political aspirations.

    Disagree. Voting is about getting the policy you want implemented. It's just that you it also involves admitting that you aren't the only one who's opinion matters and you need to accept compromises. And the further along you move, the more you need to accept. (ie - primaries are where you can be much more ideologically stringent because that's what they are for)

    I think that any ethical approach to voting has to account for the likely outcome of the election, too. Voting isn't about you, it's about the future welfare of the country. If you know your vote (or non-vote) risks changing the winner of the election from someone you don't prefer to someone who will wreck the country, then you have an ethical obligation to vote for the person you don't prefer.

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    There was a segment on Maddow about a fake bomb alarm at an airport day or two ago.
    Not a hoaks or a prank, just a prop that got mistaken for real.
    It belonged to a woman who goes around the US visiting abortion clinics and teaching the staff there to recognice and deal with bombs and other things like that.

    That, is how serious an issue abortion and reproductive rights are.
    Not merely legislation, or activism, but out and out terrorism.
    And trying to imply that this is somehow a minor fringe issue, is fucking horrible stance to take.

This discussion has been closed.