Support NeoGAF

[infiniteloop]

It's Ron Paul all over again lol

 

[Ogimachi]

People say Trump might sabotage the GOP, but nominating a socialist is very dumb as well.
Not that I'm complaining, whatever makes it easier for the republican candidate is fine by me.

 

[gogosox82]

I'm still sitting here wondering what Bernie Sanders has to do with Al Gore

Apparently, because Sanders is leading Clinton that means that 2000 is going to happen all over again even though Bernie is running as a democrat so that doesn't happen again and Hilary would have that effect on the electorate, not Bernie. So basically no reason whatsoever.

 

[Inuhanyou]

People say Trump might sabotage the GOP, but nominating a socialist is very dumb as well.
Not that I'm complaining, whatever makes it easier for the republican candidate is fine by me.

Do scary sounding words you've been told to fear get you shaking?

 

[Chichikov]

 

[soleil]

I'm still sitting here wondering what Bernie Sanders has to do with Al Gore

Hillary's camp has no issue-based argument over Bernie. So they resort to other arguments like:

1) Supreme Court nominations, which is essentially trying to start the conversation at a point where it is ASSUMED that Bernie can't reach the White House to make his own

2) Pointing to general polling numbers and arguing that it means Hillary represents progressives more than Bernie, even though they know it is obviously affected by name recognition. And they will delusionally deny that name recognition plays a role in current polling numbers. A couple people on GAF have tried to argue to me that further name recognition won't increase Bernie's numbers.

3) Yell "socialism!!!!" even though the GOP tried that against Obama already. Then they point to abstract polls like polling on the actual word socialist instead of looking at polls that ask about Sanders vs. a Republican.

4) Call every poll that shows Bernie is on the rise an outlier.

Zero issues-based arguments put forth by the Hillary camp that Hillary is actually better than Bernie. Every argument is a matter of throwing shit on the wall and hoping something sticks.

 

[gogosox82]

Amusingly, Gore would have lost the election had he won at the Supreme Court.

The limited recount he wanted would have added many more votes to Bush. The statewide recount Gore opposed would have put Gore ahead.

That doesn't matter though since the Florida Supreme court ordered a statewide recount of the ballots and in every scenario Gore wins but it was overturned by the US Supreme Court and the recount halted because there wasn't enough time essentially which is one of the flimsiest reasons I've ever heard.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Hillary's camp has no issue-based argument over Bernie. So they resort to other arguments like:

1) Supreme Court nominations, which is essentially trying to start the conversation at a point where it is ASSUMED that Bernie can't reach the White House to make his own

2) Pointing to general polling numbers and arguing that it means Hillary represents progressives more than Bernie, even though they know it is obviously affected by name recognition. And they will delusionally deny that name recognition plays a role in current polling numbers. A couple people on GAF have tried to argue to me that further name recognition won't increase Bernie's numbers.

3) Yell "socialism!!!!" even though the GOP tried that against Obama already. Then they point to abstract polls like polling on the actual word socialist instead of looking at polls that ask about Sanders vs. a Republican.

4) Call every poll that shows Bernie is on the rise an outlier.

Zero issues-based arguments put forth by the Hillary camp that Hillary is actually better than Bernie. Every argument is a matter of throwing shit on the wall and hoping something sticks.

Sounds like it.

It seems people like to zero in on "socialism!" as a boogeyman, even though democratic socialism as Bernie defines it was what essentially drove the biggest amount of economic growth in this country during and after the second war, the biggest amount of civil liberties in this country in the 60s as well.

Applying federal government powers to spur social change and economic and political reform is essentially what has caused basically everything good in this country all throughout its existence.

 

[Dude Abides]

Hillary's camp has no issue-based argument over Bernie. So they resort to other arguments like:

1) Supreme Court nominations, which is essentially trying to start the conversation at a point where it is ASSUMED that Bernie can't reach the White House to make his own

2) Pointing to general polling numbers and arguing that it means Hillary represents progressives more than Bernie, even though they know it is obviously affected by name recognition. And they will delusionally deny that name recognition plays a role in current polling numbers. A couple people on GAF have tried to argue to me that further name recognition won't increase Bernie's numbers.

3) Yell "socialism!!!!" even though the GOP tried that against Obama already. Then they point to abstract polls like polling on the actual word socialist instead of looking at polls that ask about Sanders vs. a Republican.

4) Call every poll that shows Bernie is on the rise an outlier.

Zero issues-based arguments put forth by the Hillary camp that Hillary is actually better than Bernie. Every argument is a matter of throwing shit on the wall and hoping something sticks.

Since he isn't a threat, there's no reason to alienate his fans by going after him where it would hurt, like being a fake Democrat or guns.

 

[gutter_trash]

People say Trump might sabotage the GOP, but nominating a socialist is very dumb as well.
Not that I'm complaining, whatever makes it easier for the republican candidate is fine by me.

the biggest difference between Sanders is Trump is that Sanders has been set on his positions and convictions for over 3 to 4 decades, he is true to his beliefs (whether you agree with him or not).

Trump however has waffled on his positions depending on the opportune moment.

If you agree or disagree that Sanders' policy ideas are realistic or not, that is not question but Sanders is genuinely compassionate at helping the little guy and that is why he is enduring.

 

[soleil]

Since he isn't a threat, there's no reason to alienate his fans by going after him where it would hurt, like being a fake Democrat or guns.

No reason to alienate his fans, so they call his fans naive and short-sighted? And insult their intelligence by claiming Bernie is too far to the left while simultaneously claiming that there's no policy difference between Hillary and Bernie? Yeah okay. Good plan.

If you don't want to alienate Bernie's people, do the opposite of what's being done so far. Make all your arguments issues-based. Don't bother with any arguments that are NOT issues-based.

 

[Dude Abides]

No reason to alienate his fans, so they call his fans naive and short-sighted? And insult their intelligence by claiming Bernie is too far to the left while simultaneously claiming that there's no policy difference between Hillary and Bernie? Yeah okay. Good plan.

Who's they? I thought we were talking about the Hillary campaign, not random people online.

 

[soleil]

Who's they? I thought we were talking about the Hillary campaign, not random people online.

I'm saying her "camp" which includes not just her campaign but her political allies and any political pundits in her corner. Not "random people" at all.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm saying her "camp" which includes not just her campaign but her political allies and any political pundits in her corner. Not "random people" at all.

Eh, questioning Sanders' electability is fair game and quite mild. If that kind of thing alienates his fans they're in for a tough road.

 

[soleil]

Eh, questioning Sanders' electability is fair game and quite mild. If that kind of thing alienates his fans they're in for a tough road.

I wasn't claiming that questioning his electability alienates anyone. You made that claim.

 

[loki 16]

Here is an analysis by tyt of the current democratic race.

 

[Dude Abides]

I wasn't claiming that questioning his electability alienates anyone. You made that claim.

No I didn't. I said pointing out that he's a johnny-come-lately to the party and that he has wacky views on gun control might alienate them. You said that in fact they are alienating them. Also, who in the Hillary "camp" has said these horrible things that you're so upset about?

 

[soleil]

No I didn't. I said pointing out that he's a johnny-come-lately to the party and that he has wacky views on gun control might alienate them. You said that in fact they are alienating them. Also, who in the Hillary "camp" has said these horrible things that you're so upset about?

You brought "not wanting to alienate" people. And I said that calling his fans naive and such is indeed going to alienate them. The electability was not something I labeled as alienating. Go back and read it again.

 

[Dude Abides]

You brought "not wanting to alienate" people. And I said that calling his fans naive and such is indeed going to alienate them. The electability was not something I labeled as alienating. Go back and read it again.

The things you claim are alienating are essentially questioning his electability.

Still waiting for the names of the people in Hillary's "camp" who have besmirched the honor of the Honorable Sen. Sanders of Vermont.

 

[soleil]

The things you claim are alienating are essentially questioning his electability.

Still waiting for the names of the people in Hillary's "camp" who have besmirched the honor of the Honorable Sen. Sanders of Vermont.

I said that questioning his electability is not an issues-based argument.

Then you came in with the "alienating" argument. The "alienating" part did not enter the conversation until YOUR post.

Then I said if you don't want to alienate them, don't call them naive or short-sighted.

Again, read the conversation.

And your condescending tone is simply proving my point.

 

[Dude Abides]

I said that questioning his electability is not an issues-based argument.

Then you came in with the "alienating" argument. The "alienating" part did not enter the conversation until YOUR post.

Then I said if you don't want to alienate them, don't call them naive or short-sighted.

Again, read the conversation.

And your condescending tone is simply proving my point.

Calling his fans naive and short sighted (which again you have been unable to substantiate) ARE CRITIQUES OF HIS ELECTABILITY. What about this are you not getting?

If asking you to support your claims is condescending (and apparently I must qualify as part of Hillary's "camp" to be proving your point), you may be too thin-skinned for politics.

 

[Ecotic]

I honestly hope Bernie wins New Hampshire and a few other primaries. It'd be great for pulling future candidates towards anti corporatism and single payer healthcare.

 

[soleil]

Calling his fans naive and short sighted (which again you have been unable to substantiate) ARE CRITIQUES OF HIS ELECTABILITY. What about this are you not getting?

If asking you to support your claims is condescending, you may be too thin-skinned for politics.

They are critiques of his fans, not him.

And your ad-hominems are again, proving my point.

 

[Dude Abides]

They are critiques of his fans, not him.

And your ad-hominems are again, proving my point.

They are critiques of his fans for supporting an unelectable candidate. There was no ad hominem either.

Are you ever going to support your claim about Hillary's "camp" or is your advocacy for Sen. Sanders limited to umbrage taking?

 

[soleil]

They are critiques of his fans for supporting an unelectable candidate. There was no ad hominem either.

Are you ever going to support your claim about Hillary's "camp" or is your advocacy for Sen. Sanders limited to umbrage taking?

How is supporting an agenda that transforms politics with or without the actual election of the candidate naive? It's naive to change how the Democrats approach progressives by supporting Sanders even if Sanders loses? Sorry but that's unsubstantiated. Even a Sanders loss can accomplish great things. Where's the naivete in that?

And "...you may be too thin-skinned for politics" is an ad-hominem. Not reason for you to start lying now, by claiming there weren't any ad hominems.

And I don't need to teach you how to use google. Seriously, you'd ask for support for a claim that the sky is blue. Fucking google for opinion pieces written on Bernie Sanders. Obscure claims need citation but not this stuff. Seriously. First, the lying by claiming you didn't put out an ad hominem just now, and now you're asking for proof of something that comes up almost everyday in a simple ten second google search. That's a distraction tactic. Not honest discussion.

 

[Dude Abides]

How is supporting an agenda that transforms politics with or without the actual election of the candidate naive? It's naive to change how the Democrats approach progressives by supporting Sanders even if Sanders loses? Sorry but that's unsubstantiated. Even a Sanders loss can accomplish great things. Where's the naivete in that?

And "...you may be too thin-skinned for politics" is an ad-hominem. Not reason for you to start lying now, by claiming there weren't any ad hominems.

And I don't need to teach you how to use google. Seriously, you'd ask for support for a claim that the sky is blue. Fucking google for opinion pieces written on Bernie Sanders. Obscure claims need citation but not this stuff. Seriously. First, the lying by claiming you didn't put out an ad hominem just now, and now you're asking for proof of something that comes up almost everyday in a simple ten second google search. That's a distraction tactic. Not honest discussion.

Ok, so you make shit up and then get all offended when called on it. No point in discussing this further with someone so dishonest. Good luck transforming politics. See you in the spring when he concedes.

 

[soleil]

Ok, so you make shit up and then get all offended when called on it. No point in discussing this further. Good luck transforming politics. See you in the spring when he concedes.

Yes, deny the sky is blue, and then make another ad hominem by claiming I'm offended and focusing on that. Then bow out when I refuse to play your distraction-based games that refuse to respond the point. Only thing missing is to lie again by saying there was no ad hominem.

 

[gutter_trash]

Sanders' job is to force Hillary to work and not sit on her butt to wait for the nomination to come to her

Sanders doesn't have the money to survive Super Tuesday so Hillary will be the nominee due to money

 

[Camwi]

I wish The Big Lebowski and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia would stop fighting, because I love both the movie and the TV show.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Do scary sounding words you've been told to fear get you shaking?

Modern day mccarthyism

 

[dramatis]

Here is an analysis by tyt of the current democratic race.

This...isn't an analysis.

They spent a good amount of time talking about feelings. While they talk about the content of the poll, they didn't analyze what its numbers meant in relation to other polls and data, whether or not the poll itself is an outlier (never even questions it), or demographics of the poll sample. It's ironic to hear them talk about how other people don't understand poll science when they themselves demonstrate very little understanding of polls.



I thought the thread was bumped because there is new data. Are there no new polls?

 

[Inuhanyou]

Sanders doesn't have the money to survive Super Tuesday so Hillary will be the nominee due to money

Then we are well and truly fucked, if that's the case.

 

[dramatis]

Then we are well and truly fucked, if that's the case.

So, there's going to be an additional thousand years of darkness because Hillary Clinton will be the nominee?

The world doesn't run on extremes. Bernie not getting the Democratic nomination doesn't mean you are well and truly fucked. You just think you are. The world goes on.

 

[Days like these...]

So, there's going to be an additional thousand years of darkness because Hillary Clinton will be the nominee?

The world doesn't run on extremes. Bernie not getting the Democratic nomination doesn't mean you are well and truly fucked. You just think you are. The world goes on.

Not well and truly fucked just fucked if were lucky we might get some lube.

 

[JDSN]

Wow, two days straight talking about Bernie Sanders on The Nightly Show, Larry Wilmore is hard for the bern.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

So, there's going to be an additional thousand years of darkness because Hillary Clinton will be the nominee?

The world doesn't run on extremes. Bernie not getting the Democratic nomination doesn't mean you are well and truly fucked. You just think you are. The world goes on.

Inuhanyou and soleil are crazy big Bernie supporters.

I can understand why. I can't understand why they think him losing the primary is going to destroy everything. Can't remember which, but one actually said they'd rather support Trump than Hillary.

Which is hilarious. Diametrically opposed ideology is better than the same ideology with corporate backing?

 

[JustenP88]

I can understand why. I can't understand why they think him losing the primary is going to destroy everything. Can't remember which, but one actually said they'd rather support Trump than Hillary.

You gotta come with a quote if you're gonna say something like that.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

So, there's going to be an additional thousand years of darkness because Hillary Clinton will be the nominee?

The world doesn't run on extremes. Bernie not getting the Democratic nomination doesn't mean you are well and truly fucked. You just think you are. The world goes on.

No just 8 more. Seems you're the one being extreme.

I like my life. My life is great. But the whole point of voting for Bernie Sanders is so that this country becomes great as well. We have long forgotten to care about the underrepresented people in this country, and focus too much on individualism ideals.

 

[dramatis]

No just 8 more. Seems you're the one being extreme.

I like my life. My life is great. But the whole point of voting for Bernie Sanders is so that this country becomes great as well. We have long forgotten to care about the underrepresented people in this country, and focus too much on individualism ideals.

And...the whole country will become great because we vote for one person to become the president?

It takes more than one person. The country won't become great because we vote for Bernie Sanders. It also won't be plunged into 8 years of darkness because we vote for Hillary Clinton. If you're unaware, the "thousand years of darkness" refers to how Republicans describe Obama's decisions on everything. Thank you for only paying attention to politics during presidential election years. That you can only be arsed to pay attention now, it means even if you vote Bernie in, the years will still be pretty hopeless too.

Like I said, the world doesn't run on extremes. It's a strange irony for you to talk about how the country has focused too much on "individualism ideals" when here you are championing Bernie Sanders as the sole ticket to how this country can become great as well.

The world also doesn't run on idealism.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Inuhanyou and soleil are crazy big Bernie supporters.

I can understand why. I can't understand why they think him losing the primary is going to destroy everything. Can't remember which, but one actually said they'd rather support Trump than Hillary.

Which is hilarious. Diametrically opposed ideology is better than the same ideology with corporate backing?

I have stated that i would not support anyone, if Bernie doesn't win the primary. She'll have plenty of supporters who don't want a Conservative nomination.

This election in particular is not about ideology at its core, and right versus left.

(Even though i would refute you on Hillary having the same ideology at its core as Bernie considering her past history, basically voting for and supporting a majority of the same faulty concepts Bernie has always staunchly opposed, just now coming back to run for office having to say things she probably doesn't believe to begin with in order to secure the nomination)

This election is about the question: can someone who truly wants corrupting influences out of the political process and sticks to that belief win the Presidency?

If that answer is NO, then at the core, regardless of the severity of their stance, whether you have a republican like Jeb Bush, or a democrat like Hillary in the White house matters very little. Because they are still beholden to the puppet holding the strings. Where the money comes from and those beneficiaries.

You can have someone who supports corps without reform obviously like the scott walkers, the jeb bush's and the Rand Paul's. Or you can have someone who supports corps without reform while lying and saying they really don't like Hillary.

Both of those groups support NAFTA, CAFTA, the trans atlantic trade partnership and the health of large companies and institutions at large instead of the issues that really matter to the productivity of the country, so why should I see a difference between them? They obviously agree on that far more than they disagree on everything else.

 

[soleil]

And...the whole country will become great because we vote for one person to become the president?

It takes more than one person. The country won't become great because we vote for Bernie Sanders. It also won't be plunged into 8 years of darkness because we vote for Hillary Clinton. If you're unaware, the "thousand years of darkness" refers to how Republicans describe Obama's decisions on everything. Thank you for only paying attention to politics during presidential election years. That you can only be arsed to pay attention now, it means even if you vote Bernie in, the years will still be pretty hopeless too.

Like I said, the world doesn't run on extremes. It's a strange irony for you to talk about how the country has focused too much on "individualism ideals" when here you are championing Bernie Sanders as the sole ticket to how this country can become great as well.

The world also doesn't run on idealism.

This is the double standard that I keep seeing. If Bernie can't be the savior, it's not enough to earn your support. And as long as Hillary isn't the devil, it's good enough to earn your support.

 

[Dude Abides]

This election is about the question: can someone who truly wants corrupting influences out of the political process and sticks to that belief win the Presidency?

So you're supporting Lawrence Lessig then.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

And...the whole country will become great because we vote for one person to become the president?

It takes more than one person. The country won't become great because we vote for Bernie Sanders. It also won't be plunged into 8 years of darkness because we vote for Hillary Clinton. If you're unaware, the "thousand years of darkness" refers to how Republicans describe Obama's decisions on everything. Thank you for only paying attention to politics during presidential election years. That you can only be arsed to pay attention now, it means even if you vote Bernie in, the years will still be pretty hopeless too.

Like I said, the world doesn't run on extremes. It's a strange irony for you to talk about how the country has focused too much on "individualism ideals" when here you are championing Bernie Sanders as the sole ticket to how this country can become great as well.

The world also doesn't run on idealism.

Okay not only are you assuming things that I did not say, but you're also attempting to cut me out of the conversation because I "only paying attention to politics during presidential election years." (and that second part is another assumption on your part)

How twisted are you that your arguments are completely unsubstantiated and you have to denigrate the validity of my vote?

 

[Maxim726X]

Sanders' job is to force Hillary to work and not sit on her butt to wait for the nomination to come to her

Sanders doesn't have the money to survive Super Tuesday so Hillary will be the nominee due to money

Exactly. War chest is too large, and she hasn't even begun campaigning yet.

I'm more interested to see what the Republicans are going to do with Trump... As much as I like Bernie, he doesn't have a shot.

 

[FiggyCal]

So you're supporting Lawrence Lessig then.

Lessig and Bernie are running on the same platform, mostly. Lessig's problem was that Bernie had campaign finance as #10 on his list of issues, as opposed to #1. And I'm not sure why anyone would vote for him at all, especially given his own argument as to why we should elect him. He says that Bernie would not be able to pass any laws without first changing campaign finance. But he is running himself on the one issue. His plan is to pass that magically -- no word on how that is to be done. And then retire. As if there aren't three supreme court justices on the line that could also affect how corrupt our political system can be.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

You gotta come with a quote if you're gonna say something like that.

For the life of me, I can't find them.

But I'm usually very aware of my hallucinations, and I don't think that was one.

I have stated that i would not support anyone, if Bernie doesn't win the primary. She'll have plenty of supporters who don't want a Conservative nomination.

This election in particular is not about ideology at its core, and right versus left.

(Even though i would refute you on Hillary having the same ideology at its core as Bernie considering her past history, basically voting for and supporting a majority of the same faulty concepts Bernie has always staunchly opposed, just now coming back to run for office having to say things she probably doesn't believe to begin with in order to secure the nomination)

This election is about the question: can someone who truly wants corrupting influences out of the political process and sticks to that belief win the Presidency?

If that answer is NO, then at the core, regardless of the severity of their stance, whether you have a republican like Jeb Bush, or a democrat like Hillary in the White house matters very little. Because they are still beholden to the puppet holding the strings. Where the money comes from and those beneficiaries.

You can have someone who supports corps without reform obviously like the scott walkers, the jeb bush's and the Rand Paul's. Or you can have someone who supports corps without reform while lying and saying they really don't like Hillary.

Both of those groups support NAFTA, CAFTA, the trans atlantic trade partnership and the health of large companies and institutions at large instead of the issues that really matter to the productivity of the country, so why should I see a difference between them? They obviously agree on that far more than they disagree on everything else.

I have absolutely no faith that Bernie would stay out of the rabble.

To get anything done in this political arena takes greasing the undesirables. Corporate CEO's, Bankers. Don't forget the Rep House. Anyone that gets in that game is coming out dirty.

No question. Ideology can only take you so far. Bernie as president will compromise everything he holds dear to one degree or another. Our entire political system is rigged. Hell, I doubt the man could even be elected without some Bank or Corp bankrolling him.

Believing things can change is admirable. I just don't see any way that's possible. Given the minute he has the nomination he will have no choice but to compromise, or lose.

 

[Inuhanyou]

So you're supporting Lawrence Lessig then.

Firstly, Lessig has never officially announced a Presidency bid as of yet.

Secondly, i will not support Lessig even if he joined, i will support Bernie Sanders.

Lessig and Bernie both come from the same plane, but i have far more faith as well as trust in Bernie to put his 30 year plan into action than anyone else running. That includes a contender like Lessig who so far is known(for the most part) for only wanting to get money out of politics, while i know all of Bernie's major positions, with just one major position being getting money out of politics, along with his political and senatorial record.

I've followed Bernie for 9+ years, he's my candidate.

 

[Dude Abides]

Lessig and Bernie are running on the same platform, mostly. Lessig's problem was that Bernie had campaign finance as #10 on his list of issues, as opposed to #1. And I'm not sure why anyone would vote for him at all, especially given his own argument as to why we should elect him. He says that Bernie would not be able to pass any laws without first changing campaign finance. But he is running himself on the one issue. His plan is to pass that magically -- no word on how that is to be done. And then retire. As if there aren't three supreme court justices on the line that could also affect how corrupt our political system can be.

Firstly, Lessig has never officially announced a Presidency bid as of yet.

Secondly, i will not support Lessig even if he joined, i will support Bernie Sanders.

Lessig and Bernie both come from the same plane, but i have far more faith as well as trust in Bernie to put his 30 year plan into action than anyone else running. That includes a contender like Lessig who so far is known(for the most part) for only wanting to get money out of politics, while i know all of Bernie's major positions, with just one major position being getting money out of politics, along with his political and senatorial record.

I've followed Bernie for 9+ years, he's my candidate.

Lessig's clearly stronger on campaign reform than Bernie. It's all he cares about. So if that's your big issue, Lessig's your guy, not Bernie.

 

[FiggyCal]

Lessig's clearly stronger on campaign reform on that than Bernie. It's all he cares about. So if that's your big issue, Lessig's your guy, not Bernie.

There's no reason to believe that he can actually get meaningful changes passed, if we use his own argument. And there's more to political corruption than just the laws passed by congress. Let's say he passes and signs a bill year one. Congrats-- there's only the matter of the 3 Supreme Court justices that need to be replaced by his VP. Those same SC justices btw that Bernie and Hillary claim would have to go through a litmus test as to whether they oppose money in politics. It's a pointless run if I ever seen one.

 

[soleil]

Figgy and Inu, don't fall for this distraction play from Dude. By trying to re-frame it as Lessig vs. Bernie, Dude is trying to take focus off of the fact that Hillary is part of the problem.