Which policies?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The South Carolina Primary & Nevada Caucuses |Feb 20, 23, 27| Continuing The Calm
- Thread starter NeoXChaos
- Start date
- Status
Which policies?
Speaking for myself as a Sanders supporter, I don't want to get rid of capitalism. I could probably be talked to supporting laws designed to make profit sharing and decision making in companies more democratic, but I would characterize myself as a Social Democrat in the European sense. The idea of Social Democracy, as I understand it, is to harness the positive aspects of capitalism to serve the ends of broader society. Speaking in very broad and imprecise terms, you combine the best aspects of socialism and capitalism.
Bulk metadata collection is unconstitutional. If you want to get someone's private communications, get a fucking search warrant. Period.
Socialism at its extreme is communism, the type of socialism that might be on your mind is the USSR, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. Those countries have state socialism, where a state has control over the means of production for a transitioning period. Socialism generally refers to a period where the working class are in control of the means of production. So instead of someone up top telling the workers what to do, the workers through democracy or some other means all decide for themselves (similar to modern workers coops). A state of any shape isn't required in socialist thought, libertarian socialism and anarchism deny the effectiveness of using state socialism as they say it leads to dictatorships.
I personally don't believe that the abolition of capitalism is possible through governmental reform, but I do agree that the average person in the United States wouldn't currently vote for it if possible.
According to who?
Basileus777
Member
It's deplorable even if there is some legal justification for it.
I feel like I'm staring into the abyss here.
Please, show me where it has been held to be unconstitutional. You're entire post shows a clear lack of understanding with regards to the law. First, the NSA can only obtain such data by a court order. Second, the government does not need to acquire a search warrant if they have no intention of using such evidence in a criminal proceeding. Also, as stated before Snowden is NOT a whistleblower simply read up on our whistleblower laws and you would understand why this is not the case.
COmplete BS. you didn't convince me in the least.Ethics are real, it is an option to have morals and not be bought. You finally have an option to move in a good direction....dont act like psychopaths SHOULD be rewarded. They are a hundred to one against because they have continuously been assassinated and colluded against by the masses since the cave people times. Collaboration is why humans took over the earth not being more successful assholes than the last guy. You are celebrating a dying breed.
A Black Falcon
Member
I didn't count, but I guess you are right about Obama winning 26 states in 2012. It would be more accurate to say that there are three categories of states, the ones the Dems mostly win, the ones Republicans mostly win, and mixed ones. I'm pretty sure there are more of their states than ours, which is the problem.
Of course, es, the Democrats' off-year turnout problems are definitely a huge part of the issue. That's a HUGE problem that the party desperately needs to figure out if it can solve. But looking at the map, it's not only that. With how Obama won most of the 'purple' or purpler states which could go either way. Even with presidential-year turnout, will we win the Pennsylvania and New Hampshire seats this year, for example? I know there are also Democratic senators from Republican states, but with how far right the Republican party has gone, it's getting harder for them to hang on. But particularly because of turnout, that's why 2018 will be such a huge problem... but even in an election year you can't count on winning all of those seats (North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, etc.) every time!
Prototype Viktor
Member
so now that HilDog has won when will TYT start shilling for Trump?
Battersea Power Station
Member
Probably when they start to tolerate racism and misogyny. When do you think that will be?
Well the argument I am seeing is that all special interests are evil, that lobbying is evil, even though you've probably benefited from this practice all your life in numerous ways. From the cheap milk that you drink, to beef, to high paying jobs as a result of some sort of tariff imposed on foreign goods. I mean you can go on and on, even to foreign policy and foreign government coups. Special interest have a say in practically everything. Some of it is considered good policy, some of it not (based on poor outcomes).
Not everyone that takes money for election campaigns is bought (thus the morals and ethics part). It's however naive to also claim that it can NOT have a pervasive effect the more personal the link to those donations becomes and the greater the needs for those funds becomes in order to run for office (and the greater the sums).
Like I said it's a fine line. Citizens United blows this out of proportion in that special interest posses leverage now, big time, and do swing tides. And the point of argument was - the american way. It clearly is.
You're only picturing the bad, corrupt crook movie-like villian that gets stoned to death after betraying a nation.
If Bernie finally decided to allow a Super Pac run for him in order to raise money to help spread his message and he so happens to win an election in part because of the help of the PAC does this mean he's bought? Let me make it easier. He gets elected president, beating the republican, thanks in part to his Super Pac and follows pound for pound every single campaign promise that he made. Did that money corrupt him? Or was it a net plus? Obviously not everyone is like this theoretical Bernie but generalities are full of holes.
Many representatives depend on the parties funds to run while not necessarily partaking in fund raising themselves etc etc...still money.
titiklabingapat
Member
I know it's a few pages but this, this type of sentiment is exactly the reason why Republicans are so much more organized and winning more local elections than Democrats.
Republicans will always vote the party line no matter what and they have been succesful politically as a result.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
I know it's fun for people here to shit on TYT but that's an asinine comment. It's a very liberal program.
Young Democrats: Great at talk, terrible at actually getting shit done.
Probably when they start tolerating racism, sexism, being anti-immagration, anti-choice, pro-corporate and anti-LGBT.
So, never?
I've seen you shilling for this numerous times. Look, it's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment. Criminal proceedings are not being conducted in many of these cases, but that does not mean that it's not a violation of the 4th amendment by the state. edit: They are equivalent to fishing expeditions, and are a clear violation of privacy.
It's disgusting, these stances. The intersection of socially-liberal policies with authoritarianism or corporatism, it's a perversion of progressiveness. And I'm shocked to see just how much of this sentiment is out there. We should aspire to better.
How? You cannot simply state a proposition without citing a source, so far the Supreme Court has not ruled that the bulk meta-data collection is unconstiutional and it has been upheld by numerous courts as per the Third Party doctrine laid out by the S.C. in Miller v. United States. So again, please cite your source beyond your own personal opinion.
You should probably take an intro to law course.
Except this never happened.
According to others present, the only person who said "English only" was the caucus moderator. http://www.snopes.com/sanders-english-only-huerta/
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
This is for another thread and a bit OT, so I apologize for this post.
The fact is, what the NSA is doing is in deliberate and direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. The "Stellar Wind" project was set up right after the September 11th attacks and was even public knowledge when Thomas Tamm did an interview with the New York Times in 2008. In part it was public knowledge by 2005 by it being admitted by the president himself. The Bush Administration even admitted the program was in violation of FISA that same year. Even in 2006 AT&T technician Mark Klein revealed how deep the rabbit hole could be.
Kirk Wiebe, Ed Loomis, and Thomas A. Drake, along with House Intelligence Committee staffer Diane Roark and the brilliant William Binney, one of the guys that helped create the NSA spying program, ended up trying to persuade the US Defense Department to investigate the NSA. Instead all of them were targeted by the Bush administration and had a large part of their lives ruined. I'm surprised none of them were murdered.
A bit of history:
Basically, there were two designs for the NSA spying program, one that was already developed, proven to work, and protected citizens privacy, and one that hadn't been developed yet, and was intended to bypass privacy and the constitution.
Thin Thread was the working prototype, protected citizens privacy, didn't violate FISA, and was proven to actually work. Trailblazer was a non working idea, did not protect citizens privacy, violated FISA, and was unconstitutional.
NSA went with Trailblazer, wasted upwards of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to develop it, and now uses interpretations of the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments to try and justify the illegal and unconstitutional wiretapping of millions of regular Americans.
So, in the end, what does it matter if Snowden's revelations are illegal or not? The NSA or more specifically the PSP (Presidential Spying Program) is the real issue here. That's the argument that should be paid attention to.
TLDR: Which is more important?
Some dude leaked some documents.
VS
An Government is committing crimes against all of it's citizens and using their money to do it.
airmangataosenai
Member
I dunno man. They put out a pretty racist anti Hillary video last week trying to hit her before South Carolina and Cenk had a mini meltdown where he sort of threatened that they and Bernie Bros wouldn't support her as the nominee should she win it. I really have come to dislike Cenk and his frat boy friends this past year.
Even still, doesn't mean they start arguing for Trump. They'll probably go for Jill Stein in a protest vote. She's already been on their show a bunch completely shitting on Obama and Clinton and the Democrat party and the power brokers behind it.
Oh please.
Again, you and others keep stating these programs were against the law or unconstitutional and yet cite not one single source despite the fact that they were routinely upheld by the courts. In fact, you seem to discount the entire situation that occurred within the Bush Administration regarding the NSA's collection activities that nearly resulted in the resignation of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and the Director of the FBI.
This occurred in 2004 when the Bush administration was seeking to recertify the NSA program in its current form, the program had to be continually reauthorized in order to be permissible. The problem was that lawyers within the DOJ had serious concerns with regards to certain elements of the program and refused to sign off on it. The confrontation went up to the eleventh hour with Bush officials trying to pressure the DOJ to sign off on the program. Things get interesting because the AG at the time, John Ashcroft, was hospitalized after undergoing a procedure and Bush officials including Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card went to the hospital to basically convince the bed stricken Ashcroft to sign off. However, James Comey, Deputy AG and others learned about this and rushed to the hospital to ensure that they didn't try to unduly pressure Ashcroft.
While at the hospital Ashcroft basically told the Bush officials that Comey was the Deputy AG and in charge at the moment. As a result, they had to go back home with nothing. What is surprising about this whole incident is that George W. Bush, the President, was apparently in the dark about his entire legal controversy. It was all being pushed for by Cheney and other officials. Comey basically went to Bush preparing to resign until Bush was basically like, "what the fuck is going?" Comey explained, baffled that he wasn't appraised of this whole dispute, and Bush told him to make whatever changes were necessary to make the program in compliance with the laws. He did so and the program continued in its amended form.
The whole dispute between DOJ and White House Officials specifically Cheney is what led to extremely strained relations between Bush and Cheney during his second term. Cheney basically took things right up the edge of the cliff, again to the point that several senior officials were preparing to resign, all without ever checking with the President.
But yeah, they are all operating like thugs with no regard for the laws...
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/washington/16nsa.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/us/politics/george-w-bush-made-retroactive-nsa-fix-after-hospital-room-showdown.html
Black Republican
Member
George P Bush to rise the family name from the ashes
A personal opinion is fine in a political discussion. This isn't a district court and you aren't a judge.
If the law were as black and white as many lawyers pretend it to be, the Supreme Court nomination process wouldn't be so politicized.
Could say that about anyone including yourself right now.
Except, that many users aren't talking about a political and/or ethical discussion regarding the NSA's collection efforts they are making specific legal accusations and charging the government with violating the law. This is patently not the case.
Alleging that they think something is unconstitutional is a political opinion. Many candidates argue that abortion and same-sex marriage should not be protected by the Constitution, for instance, despite court cases that have ruled to the contrary.
Ironically the best way to get a "future Bernie Sanders" is by having the people support him now. If he got blown away by Hillary it'd be a long time before anyone with his platform would attempt to run for President. The fact that he is doing so well particularly with young people means we have a real shot of having someone with his platform winning in the future. Sadly I do not feel we'll have an easy time having another candidate as genuine which is why I will be voting for him in my state primary. Hillary is not my top choice but her platform lines up enough with my beliefs that I'd feel comfortable voting for her in the general if it came to it. Bernie putting up a good fight win or lose is still a good thing for this country.
That said, when won't there be too much at stake? We will always be up against a Republican, and there's a good chance they won't be as easy to beat. Supreme Court spots are always on the table. I mean who foresaw Scalia passing? They will always try to regress this country. What I'd like to know is why you and others who share your view would take the "safe bet" this election but not in future ones?
"Should" is the operative word here. They do not, for example, deny the existence of Roe v. Wade and claim that the government is violating the law by allowing abortions.
Absolutely, but when they distort Clinton's position and froth at the mouth while reciting right wing hot jobs and celebrating anything with the word "email" in it I was turned off. There is being for a candidate, and then there is being completely against one candidate. They are trending towards the latter.
DragonSworne
Banned
Capitalism and Democratic Social can co exist guys.
Bernie isn't talking about economic socialism. We aren't all of a sudden going to start voting for CEOs as a nation and share profits from companies with everyone instead of just shareholders.
Bernie isn't talking about economic socialism. We aren't all of a sudden going to start voting for CEOs as a nation and share profits from companies with everyone instead of just shareholders.
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
I can't see this changing. I don't see Hillary capture a significant block of Sanders supporters were she to become the Nominee, and without them, I don't see her defeating Trump at the General.
teruterubozu
Member
Bernie will be blamed for screwing up the elections.
DeadPhoenix
Member
Many of them had said they will vote for Hilary in the general if they have to. In fact the only one who said she wouldn't vote for her that I can recall, also said that is because she is in California where she can get away with it. Most of them absolutely do not like Hilary(a few guys do seem okay with her, even if they do prefer Hilary though), but to suggest they would ever support Trump is a complete bullshit, that some idiots decide to apply to all Bernie supporters because a couple equal as stupid people suggested they would on the fringes of the internet.
Really all this mudslinging from both sides(I'd say mostly from the Hilary people, but then... well, guess which candidate I support. So I might be biased, but then so is everyone else in here from the looks of it.) makes it really hard for me to even look at these topics anymore.
If you read the comments on their latest video on how Hillary is a weak ge candidate, quite a few of their viewers say they would rather vote for Trump over Clinton or not vote at all. It's kinda scary. I generally like TYT, but their coverage on this year's election is embarrassing at times.
At times means all time. They are full on Bernie shills, and its even more hilarious when they try to pretend they are not when they are even called out on it by Ben Mankiewicz on the show.
I can't see this changing. I don't see Hillary capture a significant block of Sanders supporters were she to become the Nominee, and without them, I don't see her defeating Trump at the General.
That is something Clinton has failed on and still refuses to address. It is something a lot of Clinton supporters have been very hypocritical on. I've seen it a lot here with a threat of once Bernie loses, they still better come out and support Clinton. When Clinton hasn't done anything to get the youth vote like Sanders has been focusing on. It's no different than the argument to the Black vote. A lot of people are being disingenuous with the remarks, but she does need the young liberal white vote. The fact that Sanders has run this close so far is proof of that. There isn't a more valuable vote to her than that. Since it is now effecting voters age 18-45, which is around 40% of the total vote.
If she is going to rely on over 45 year Olds we might as well swear in president Rubio now.
Nope.
She also has a significant advantage amongst minorities, the Nevada caucus proved that. She also has like an 18-20% lead amongst African Americans in South Carolina.
TYT will get behind Hillary if she wins the nomination, which looks pretty likely now. They can be a little biased/stupid/trivial sometimes, but they're not crazy. They won't pretend Hillary is a perfect candidate, they will criticise her endlessly, but they will recognise she is an infinitely preferable alternative to any Republican candidate.
I can't see this changing. I don't see Hillary capture a significant block of Sanders supporters were she to become the Nominee, and without them, I don't see her defeating Trump at the General.
I'm no expert but I wouldn't worry too much about this. Most young Sanders supporters are smart enough to recognise Hillary is their next best option. Hopefully.
Bernie went from single digits when he first decided, against a candidate who has had her name in national news for the past 25 years and is running the election largely unopposed in her party.
Republicans took that 40 and above with Ronmey over Obama back in 2012. Even in 2008, it was closer(few % points). The 40 and below has always tipped the scale. They don't come out and vote, there is a much decent chance of us having a Republican in office.
The young vote is fickle, emotional, disillusioned, and most importantly to note... very unpredictable. They came out in full support for Obama because he's definitely been a one of a kind president with charisma that goes for miles. Neither of these two are him.
Contrary to popular rhetoric here, youth vote does matter.
Politico study: Youth vote was decisive
It matters a lot in general elections. The absence of the youth vote in midterms corresponding with the huge Republican gains should be obvious enough that the youth vote matters. Hillary needs to shore that up. Treating the issue as "well they don't matter" is inviting failure.
Politico study: Youth vote was decisive
It matters a lot in general elections. The absence of the youth vote in midterms corresponding with the huge Republican gains should be obvious enough that the youth vote matters. Hillary needs to shore that up. Treating the issue as "well they don't matter" is inviting failure.
shinra-bansho
Member
Voters aged 45-64 comprised about 38% of the electorate in the last two elections; President Obama won them in 2008 by about 2 pts, lost them in 2012 by about 4 pts.
No one is winning the Presidency without major backing from this age group.
The Nevada caucus had a turnout of about 80K voters, the most fervent of supporters. Something around a million voters will vote in the general election in Nevada.
She won women.
She won black voters.
Two demographics that a Democratic candidate needs to carry.
She will need to win younger voters too.
But if and when Clinton wins the nomination, Bernie Sanders will endorse her. He will actively campaign for her too. As will the sitting President.
This setting aside that the exit polls didn't actually end up completely reflecting the actual result. I.e. despite exit polls, she's also likely to have won the Latino vote, another constituency that a Democratic candidate will need to carry.
- Status