Support NeoGAF

[TyrantII]

Uhhh.... What???

My head hurts

NPR said this morning that only 11% of Democratic primary voters said that trade partnerships are "bad". Around 50% of all voters said they didn't know enough to have a strong opinion. A good number were OK " even if it means some American jobs are destroyed".

It kind of shows how the anti trade deal Bernie and his supporters are pushing is falling on deaf ears. More on the GOP surprisingly are against trade deals, but only if the GOP is running the show.

 

[Tesseract]

There is a thing called not single issue voters.

aka fuck you, i got mine

;0

 

[plagiarize]

Isn't Kasich just as evil as Cruz?

Not remotely. Although he's as bad when it comes to abortion rights. He's much less horrendous on plenty of other issues.

I stress *less* horrendous. He's still a bit further right than someone like Bush.

 

[E92 M3]

Isn't Kasich just as evil as Cruz?

Not even close, my friend.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Not even close, my friend.

no, but he is still a wolf in sheep clothing in terms of policy and his actions.

For example, "yes climate change is real, but that doesn't mean we have to stop burning coal, we can burn coal clean!"

On the surface it sounds like a great compromise till you realize that he is either talking about "clean coal" which is a farce in many ways and doesn't even touch the issue of CO2 emissions, or he's talking about carbon capture which makes burning coal not even worth it in terms of cost.

 

[royalan]

Uhhh.... What???

My head hurts

You can believe that trade in it's current form took away American jobs without being anti-trade in general. A lot of people think trade is a good thing, it's just been abused. I think Bernie Sanders, sensing an opening on Clinton, went a little too hard with the whole "DISASTROUS TRADE DEALS!!" attack angle and ended up sounding a little too isolationist as a result. Heck that last town hall was actually the first time I heard him mention trade in a positive light.

 

[Slayven]

So the Rahm attacks had no effect?

 

[E92 M3]

no, but he is still a wolf in sheep clothing in terms of policy and his actions.

No politicians are angles, and it's foolish to think otherwise. Cruz is a monstrous man that I don't anywhere near the Oval Office.

 

[plagiarize]

You can believe that trade in it's current form took away American jobs without being anti-trade in general. A lot of people think trade is a good thing, it's just been abused. I think Bernie Sanders, sensing an opening on Clinton, went a little too hard with the whole "DISASTROUS TRADE DEALS!!" attack angle and ended up sounding a little too isolationist as a result. Heck that last town hall was actually the first time I heard him mention trade in a positive light.

Right. American jobs aren't the be all and end all. Believing trade agreements cost jobs, isn't the same as believing trade agreements are bad. There's a lot of overlap there I'm sure, but the question wasn't asking people if they thought they were *bad*.

 

[giga]

So the Rahm attacks had no effect?

It did. She was dominating IL until the very end.

 

[Miles X]

What's happening in Missouri?

 

[plagiarize]

It did. She was dominating IL until the very end.

Yup. It cost her delegates for sure (as many as 20). It just didn't cost her the win.

What's happening in Missouri?

Slide rulers and abacuses I think.

 

[Dany]

We all need to stand together behind Hillary!!💁🏼

 

[harSon]

You can believe that trade in it's current form took away American jobs without being anti-trade in general. A lot of people think trade is a good thing, it's just been abused. I think Bernie Sanders, sensing an opening on Clinton, went a little too hard with the whole "DISASTROUS TRADE DEALS!!" attack angle and ended up sounding a little too isolationist as a result. Heck that last town hall was actually the first time I heard him mention trade in a positive light.

Don't most non-partisan studies show that trade deals like NAFTA had a negligible impact on American jobs as a whole?

 

[Pedrito]

That's not the issue here. The issue is people voting for somebody who SUPPORTED the trade agreements that led us here. AND she's also supported the TPP until she "took a deeper look at it".

I'm not a single issue voter. But Hillary has been bad on multiple issues historically. And it's just baffling that people look past that.



Again, not the issue here. Globalization is great, if it's fair, and big companies aren't penalized for moving their jobs off shore. You dont have to turn the clock back in order to balance it.

You can think that trade deals lead to a loss of US jobs and still vote for Clinton for a variety of reasons, right or wrong:

-Globalization is inevitable so whatever...
-Sanders will raise taxes
-Sanders is "unelectable"
-Sanders' plan isn't realistic
-Sanders is a scary "socialist"
-Clinton is a woman
-Clinton has more experience and can work with the party
-etc.

If the proportion was 80%-20%, yeah, you could say that i doesn't make sense, but not a 55%-45%.

 

[theignoramus]

Not remotely. Although he's as bad when it comes to abortion rights. He's much less horrendous on plenty of other issues.

I stress *less* horrendous. He's still a bit further right than someone like Bush.

Kasich cut back on food stamps in heavily AA, Democratic districts of Ohio while refusing to make the same cutbacks in rural, white areas. His Christian "compassion" is fraudulent.

 

[plagiarize]

We might lose some jobs. We might in return gain more tax revenue than we need to cover the cost of those lost jobs. We might get a favorable outcome in other agreements and deals about other international issues.

Personally, I don't want to see people living below the poverty line even when they aren't American. So yeah, I don't really lose my shit over a handful of jobs moving out of the country to another.

And it probably sucks more to be unemployed in Mexico and China than it does to be unemployed here in America.

Kasich cut back on food stamps in heavily AA, Democratic areas while refusing to make the same cutbacks in rural, white areas. His Christian "compassion" is fraudulent.

I think you read 'less horrendous' and took it to mean 'not horrendous' for some reason.

 

[Miles X]

Are there any Bernie fans that still think he can win?

I wanna see some crazy math!

 

[harSon]

Are there any Bernie fans that still think he can win?

I wanna see some crazy math!

Monica Lewinsky showing up dead in the back of Hilary's trunk is the only thing that needs to happen.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

This is an emotional argument, based on feelings. There are a multitude of options for letting your voice be known; the Presidency is but one of many avenues through which you can exert your voice. Work on the folks who actually author and negotiate laws, for instance.

Y'know what's asinine? Handing over the judiciary to folks who would see your vision buried for a generation.

Let's play-out a possible scenario, shall we?

Let's say that the temper tantrum throwers get their way here: Hillary loses here in 2016.
Great. The wench was too moderate anyway!
Trump or Cruz is elected instead.
The new President nominates Scalia's replacement, one in the mold of Scalia.
Ginsburg or Breyer are pretty old; odds are that one of them doesn't make it through the first term.
The new President replaces one. The court is now 6-3 conservative.
Anthony Kennedy turns 80 in a few months. He sees his shot at retiring when the new President takes office.
That 6-3 majority gets younger. The chance to flip the court to a liberal lean fades.
It'll be a few decades before the court could ever lean left again.

Then, in 2020, the voters have had enough of President Trump's asshattery - glorious backlash election occurs!
Bernie 2.0 is elected.
He brings with him coattails: a Democratic Congress!
The dream is being realized!

Bernie 2.0 and the new Congress set out immediately to enact their agenda.
The first batch of bills hits Bernie 2.0's desk. He takes out his pen and signs it, to great progressive celebration.
And as soon as the ink dries on Bernie 2.0's signature, the GOP or their corporate buddies file suit in court to stop this legislation from ever taking effect.

Ruling.
Appeal.
Appellate ruling.
Appeal.
SCOTUS, by a vote of 6-3 or 5-4, rules to kill Bernie 2.0's legislative achievement.

Repeat for anything remotely controversial that gets passed Bernie 2.0 and his Congress.

Liberals are horrified to realize: "what good is winning in 2020 and beyond if there's a judiciary in place, ready to kill anything that's challenged before them?"

..

I'm guessing that you consider yourself serious about the long-term viability of Bernie's policy agenda. In which case, I'd say it's foolish to condemn that agenda to judicial death for 20-30 years.

Don't give me a response on how you feel. Or how Hillary is too moderate, or too corporate, or too scheming. None of those responses substantively counter what I've plainly laid-out before you. The mechanics of how our system works don't give a damn about your feelings.

If you're at all serious about keeping Bernie's vision alive for the future, so that we can elect Bernie 2.0 knowing that his agenda is viable, there's only one logical choice in November.

Well said.

 

[massoluk]

I always say
that I'm glad American are creating jobs for other poorer countries, foreign trade is good to my ears

 

[SlimySnake]

That's not the issue here. The issue is people voting for somebody who SUPPORTED the trade agreements that led us here. AND she's also supported the TPP until she "took a deeper look at it".

I'm not a single issue voter. But Hillary has been bad on multiple issues historically. And it's just baffling that people look past that.



Again, not the issue here. Globalization is great, if it's fair, and big companies aren't penalized for moving their jobs off shore. You dont have to turn the clock back in order to balance it.

maybe some people understand that you are never going to be able to bring manufacturing jobs back to the states. no one here is going to sit in factories for hours and make iphones all day for minimum wage.

 

[Miles X]

Monica Lewinsky showing up dead in the back of Hilary's trunk is the only thing that needs to happen.

You've gone and jynxed her now.

 

[RustyNails]

All according to Berniekaku

 

[dave is ok]

The fact that Bernie has 5% of pledged superdelegates in spite of winning somewhere between 30-40% of the total votes at this point still shows the system sucks.

 

[CharminUltra]

All according to Berniekaku

There's still a chance!!!!1!1!1!-

 

[aspiegamer]

The fact that Bernie has 5% of pledged superdelegates in spite of winning somewhere between 30-40% of the total votes at this point still shows the system sucks.

Why? Supers are largely there to act in what they think is the best interests of the party. So how is going toward the heavy delegate and popular vote leader who's a stronger GE candidate proof that things "suck"? Supers are not meant to be proportional. That's the whole point.

 

[Nipo]

The fact that Bernie has 5% of pledged superdelegates in spite of winning somewhere between 30-40% of the total votes at this point still shows the system sucks.

If super delegates are proportional to vote totals there would be no point. They serve as a check to make sure a Trump like figure doesn't take over the party with less than 50% of the vote.

 

[Meowster]

All according to Berniekaku

This just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.

 

[TyrantII]

This is an emotional argument, based on feelings. There are a multitude of options for letting your voice be known; the Presidency is but one of many avenues through which you can exert your voice. Work on the folks who actually author and negotiate laws, for instance.

Y'know what's asinine? Handing over the judiciary to folks who would see your vision buried for a generation.

Let's play-out a possible scenario, shall we?

Let's say that the temper tantrum throwers get their way here: Hillary loses here in 2016.
Great. The wench was too moderate anyway!
Trump or Cruz is elected instead.
The new President nominates Scalia's replacement, one in the mold of Scalia.
Ginsburg or Breyer are pretty old; odds are that one of them doesn't make it through the first term.
The new President replaces one. The court is now 6-3 conservative.
Anthony Kennedy turns 80 in a few months. He sees his shot at retiring when the new President takes office.
That 6-3 majority gets younger. The chance to flip the court to a liberal lean fades.
It'll be a few decades before the court could ever lean left again.

Then, in 2020, the voters have had enough of President Trump's asshattery - glorious backlash election occurs!
Bernie 2.0 is elected.
He brings with him coattails: a Democratic Congress!
The dream is being realized!

Bernie 2.0 and the new Congress set out immediately to enact their agenda.
The first batch of bills hits Bernie 2.0's desk. He takes out his pen and signs it, to great progressive celebration.
And as soon as the ink dries on Bernie 2.0's signature, the GOP or their corporate buddies file suit in court to stop this legislation from ever taking effect.

Ruling.
Appeal.
Appellate ruling.
Appeal.
SCOTUS, by a vote of 6-3 or 5-4, rules to kill Bernie 2.0's legislative achievement.

Repeat for anything remotely controversial that gets passed Bernie 2.0 and his Congress.

Liberals are horrified to realize: "what good is winning in 2020 and beyond if there's a judiciary in place, ready to kill anything that's challenged before them?"

..

I'm guessing that you consider yourself serious about the long-term viability of Bernie's policy agenda. In which case, I'd say it's foolish to condemn that agenda to judicial death for 20-30 years.

Don't give me a response on how you feel. Or how Hillary is too moderate, or too corporate, or too scheming. None of those responses substantively counter what I've plainly laid-out before you. The mechanics of how our system works don't give a damn about your feelings.

If you're at all serious about keeping Bernie's vision alive for the future, so that we can elect Bernie 2.0 knowing that his agenda is viable, there's only one logical choice in November.

This dude gets what's at stake. With SCOTUS on the line for a generation +, even Green-Rainbow should be setting aside quabbles on policy and tactics to push hard to get the Dem in office.

The courts are extreemly corporate friendly due to the GOP stacking them since 1980 at all levels. This is the biggest chance progressive have had to shift the pendulum back in a generation, and it matters whether your a middle ground Democrat or a far left socialist.

 

[dave is ok]

Why? Supers are largely there to act in what they think is the best interests of the party. So how is going toward the heavy delegate and popular vote leader who's a stronger GE candidate proof that things "suck"? Supers are not meant to be proportional. That's the whole point.

If super delegates are proportional to vote totals there would be no point. They serve as a check to make sure a Trump like figure doesn't take over the party with less than 50% of the vote.

Then there is no point to supers in a democracy. Shit like this keeps me from voting/registering Democrat.

 

[aspiegamer]

Then there is no point to supers in a democracy. Shit like this keeps me from voting/registering Democrat.

The primary process has never been directly democratic. On pretty much every level. For either party.

 

[Nipo]

Then there is no point to supers in a democracy. Shit like this keeps me from voting/registering Democrat.

The US has never been a true democracy though... We don't elect the president by a majority vote, congress is designed to not mirror the country's population in the senate. Hell even the pledge of alliegence says we're a (constitutional) Republic.

Why would you expect a private party's primary system to be different?

 

[DragonSworne]

Then there is no point to supers in a democracy. Shit like this keeps me from voting/registering Democrat.

Who told you that the United States is a democracy?

 

[Grizzlyjin]

All according to Berniekaku

I feel bad for laughing so hard at this. I caught myself and realized some people will actually hang on to it, and felt like a jerk.

Heartbreak is part of politics. You put your time into a candidate, and sometimes they lose.

 

[TyrantII]

Then there is no point to supers in a democracy. Shit like this keeps me from voting/registering Democrat.

Good thing we're a Republic, like the founders intended.

 

[Miles X]

All according to Berniekaku

Dat 37 point win for Bernie in California incoming!!

Then there is no point to supers in a democracy. Shit like this keeps me from voting/registering Democrat.

If they were proportional or didn't exist Hillary would still be winning/will get the nom.

Basically you just don't like that they've chosen the most suitable candidate.

 

[numble]

Good thing we're a Republic, like the founders intended.

Scalia, the way the country's political processes work should not be bound by antiquated traditions.

 

[Phil N DeBlanc]

This is an emotional argument, based on feelings. There are a multitude of options for letting your voice be known; the Presidency is but one of many avenues through which you can exert your voice. Work on the folks who actually author and negotiate laws, for instance.

Y'know what's asinine? Handing over the judiciary to folks who would see your vision buried for a generation.

Let's play-out a possible scenario, shall we?

Let's say that the temper tantrum throwers get their way here: Hillary loses here in 2016.
Great. The wench was too moderate anyway!
Trump or Cruz is elected instead.
The new President nominates Scalia's replacement, one in the mold of Scalia.
Ginsburg or Breyer are pretty old; odds are that one of them doesn't make it through the first term.
The new President replaces one. The court is now 6-3 conservative.
Anthony Kennedy turns 80 in a few months. He sees his shot at retiring when the new President takes office.
That 6-3 majority gets younger. The chance to flip the court to a liberal lean fades.
It'll be a few decades before the court could ever lean left again.

Then, in 2020, the voters have had enough of President Trump's asshattery - glorious backlash election occurs!
Bernie 2.0 is elected.
He brings with him coattails: a Democratic Congress!
The dream is being realized!

Bernie 2.0 and the new Congress set out immediately to enact their agenda.
The first batch of bills hits Bernie 2.0's desk. He takes out his pen and signs it, to great progressive celebration.
And as soon as the ink dries on Bernie 2.0's signature, the GOP or their corporate buddies file suit in court to stop this legislation from ever taking effect.

Ruling.
Appeal.
Appellate ruling.
Appeal.
SCOTUS, by a vote of 6-3 or 5-4, rules to kill Bernie 2.0's legislative achievement.

Repeat for anything remotely controversial that gets passed Bernie 2.0 and his Congress.

Liberals are horrified to realize: "what good is winning in 2020 and beyond if there's a judiciary in place, ready to kill anything that's challenged before them?"

..

I'm guessing that you consider yourself serious about the long-term viability of Bernie's policy agenda. In which case, I'd say it's foolish to condemn that agenda to judicial death for 20-30 years.

Don't give me a response on how you feel. Or how Hillary is too moderate, or too corporate, or too scheming. None of those responses substantively counter what I've plainly laid-out before you. The mechanics of how our system works don't give a damn about your feelings.

If you're at all serious about keeping Bernie's vision alive for the future, so that we can elect Bernie 2.0 knowing that his agenda is viable, there's only one logical choice in November.

I wish more people paid attention to your message on this. Obama's Affordable Care Act was brought up to the Supreme Court twice. Once in 2012 and once in 2015. And it won't just be watching Bernie 2.0's stuff get struck down. Watch as certain civil rights recently gained get walked back and over turned.

 

[Matt_]

68.6% in cali?
yeahok.gif

 

[B-Dubs]

68.6% in cali?
yeahok.gif

That NY margin is even funnier.

 

[Goodstyle]

I feel bad for laughing so hard at this. I caught myself and realized some people will actually hang on to it, and felt like a jerk.

Heartbreak is part of politics. You put your time into a candidate, and sometimes they lose.

There's also money. Don't forget that a lot of people put their money into this candidate especially.

 

[giga]

All according to Berniekaku

Thank you for posting this and keeping the hope alive.

 

[Miles X]

Why is NC greyed out on that map as well, Hillary won that handily ...

(Not that it matters, picture is insane).

 

[royalan]

Why? Supers are largely there to act in what they think is the best interests of the party. So how is going toward the heavy delegate and popular vote leader who's a stronger GE candidate proof that things "suck"? Supers are not meant to be proportional. That's the whole point.

Ding ding ding..

If they were proportional THEN they'd be pointless.

 

[TyrantII]

I wish more people paid attention to your message on this. Obama's Affordable Care Act was brought up to the Supreme Court twice. Once in 2012 and once in 2015. And it won't just be watching Bernie 2.0's stuff get struck down. Watch as certain civil rights recently gained get walked back and over turned.

Citizen United.
Civil Marriage Rights
Voting Rights Act
EPA

List goes on and on. A few more Scalias and you have a court that legislates from the bench.

There's a reason the GOP is absolutely freaking the fuck out about Obama's nomination. One of the pillars of their strategy over the last 40 years was to stack courts to overturn anything not rubber stamped from the legislative branch.

 

[dave is ok]

I don't understand how people can defend superdelegates but hate gerrymandering and/or the electoral college.

It's all meant to disenfranchise the power of a vote and it's all done to keep the bullshit two party system we have rolling along.

 

[Arnie7]

Trump promising riots eh?

 

[RustyNails]

Why is NC greyed out on that map as well, Hillary won that handily ...

(Not that it matters, picture is insane).

Its an older picture, created before yesterday. This was what many clinged on to before Hillary sweeped yesterday.

 

[TyrantII]

I don't understand how people can defend superdelegates but hate gerrymandering and/or the electoral college.

It's all meant to disenfranchise the power of a vote and it's all done to keep the bullshit two party system we have rolling along.

The two party system has kept rolling since Adams and Jefferson were up for election when Washington stepped down. Our system has never supported third parties.

We could move to a parliamentary system, but thats rewriting the whole Constitution and needs to be done through amemdments.

The superdelegates are in place to thwart a tiny faction from willing their way to power within the party, to disastrous falts. It ensures that any move is generally agreed upon. It also moderates the factions within the party.

"I didn't get my way so fuck you" is exactly whhy it's set up. You want this? OK, what else are you bringing to the table?