2 Super 2 Tuesday |OT| I'm Really Feeling (The Bern) (3/15, 3/22, 3/26 Contests)

Status
Not open for further replies.
skylenorman said:
Sanders supporters have become some of the worst human beings
Click to expand...

See it's shit like this that's just cartoonishly awful. I can easily and provably say the same thing about plenty of Hillary supporters, but I don't, because it's not true about the vast vast majority of them. Why do you feel the need to generalize like this?

(Though going back to read my earlier post, I realize I did exactly that, lol. I generalized. Wasn't my intention, but I did it! So fuck me I guess.)
 
Averon said:
I just hope this "my queen" shit is tongue-in-cheek and dies quickly. It is a disturbing level of idolization.
Click to expand...

I'm always dumbfounded at the number of people seemingly offended or disturbed by people saying "Yas queen!" or whatever.

It's just a lighthearted show of excitement. It's no different from "Feel the Bern!" No one has ever used it in a way that wasn't at least a little tongue-in-cheek. We don't actually think she's a literal female monarch.
 
Russ T said:
See it's shit like this that's just cartoonishly awful. I can easily and provably say the same thing about plenty of Hillary supporters, but I don't, because it's not true about the vast vast majority of them. Why do you feel the need to generalize like this?
Click to expand...

Because I watched it happen. I'm not saying Clinton supporters are saints, i'm saying there's a ton of shittalking and venom going out there and it started when Reddit learned who Bernie Sanders was.
 
skylenorman said:
Because I watched it happen. I'm not saying Clinton supporters are saints, i'm saying there's a ton of shittalking and venom going out there and it started when Reddit learned who Bernie Sanders was.
Click to expand...

It started when there entered a viable opposing candidate. Period. It would've been the same thing if Bernie had been the shoe-in, and Hillary had come in later. You can't just blame one side for it. Both sides are responsible. I've been supporting Bernie for a long time, and I've never attacked anyone for backing Hillary, but I've been attacked many times, for being "ignorant" for being "irresponsible" for taking "risks", etc. And this has been happening for a while.
 
Averon said:
I just hope this "my queen" shit is tongue-in-cheek and dies quickly. It is a disturbing level of idolization.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with silly names for candidates?

Obama has been called everything from Bams, Obummer, God King, B-Rock, etc

It's just for fun, mostly poking fun at conservatives who believe it's the end of the world if a Democrat wins.
 
Averon said:
I just hope this "my queen" shit is tongue-in-cheek and dies quickly. It is a disturbing level of idolization.
Click to expand...

Nah not tongue-in-cheek. I literally think Hillary is going to be Queen of this great monarchy of ours. Just like Obama has been our all-benevolent king. Truth is this election is just marriage arrangements. Obama has to marry Hillary to make her our Queen.
 
Russ T said:
It started when there entered a viable opposing candidate. Period. It would've been the same thing if Bernie had been the shoe-in, and Hillary had come in later. You can't just blame one side for it. Both sides are responsible. I've been supporting Bernie for a long time, and I've never attacked anyone for backing Hillary, but I've been attacked many times, for being "ignorant" for being "irresponsible" for taking "risks", etc. And this has been happening for a while.
Click to expand...

Well my friend, you're in the minority. Sweeping generalizations are plaguing this cycle on both sides of Blue. Hell, I'm guilty of it too as you've seen.

You probably should vote for Clinton. She's huge with minorities.
 
Miles X said:
He basically follows the polls and tweaks and hopes it favours him so he looks like some type of amazing foreteller.

Edit - Oh he's a Bernie supporter, so his bias is probably what got his Michigan prediction right, rather than whatever other methods he claims he uses.

He overestimated Bernie in all 5 states.
Click to expand...

He underestimated him in NC slightly actually. How things in Ohio and NC shaked out was really weird lol.
 
Russ T said:
It's so weird for people to vehemently defend Clinton.

Is it so outside of your realm of thought that someone could dislike the way she does things?

Creepy idolization does no one any good.

And yes I feel that way about hardcore Bernie fans, too.
Click to expand...

I only defend her when she gets slammed with unfair accusations. I mean, we have hit jobs claiming, based entirely on "unnamed sources" that she was a warhawk pushing the U.S. into Libya, then we have Obama outright stating that the main reason they went into Libya was because of pressure from European allies wanting America to carry their water in a foreign conflict.

Maybe it's the Utopian Europe myth that so many Sanders advocates seem to have bouncing around in their heads that makes them unable to see that France and the U.K. were the primary drivers for U.S. involvement in Syria, maybe it's because Clinton has to maintain a strong foreign policy facade as a woman running for commander in chief and they buy into it too fully. The reality is that her original introduction into the democratic party was through an anti-war effort, she and her husband campaigned for McGovern, a pretty legitimate anti-war candidate, and her husband's administration that she played a big role in was not a heavy handed foreign actor by any means compared to his predecessors (which is what really matters, the U.S. is too heavily interwoven in the defense of too many allies to quickly pivot to a non-interventionist policy without leaving some friends dangerously exposed).

She isn't the warhawk in democrat's clothing she's being painted as. She is a moderate who has made it very clear that her personal views are something she can set aside in order to execute the will of the people. In short, the ideal manager of affairs for the next 8 years until the country has taken the additional steps needed demographically to begin pushing more progressive policies.

She will run an incredibly effective census, be influential in the DNC's efforts to re-district based on that census, and will go hard after states with substantial conservative gerrymandering. Her SCOTUS nominee(s) will be strong voter protection advocates. These are the things that really matter here. She sees as clearly as Obama that the majority of Americans want less foreign military involvement, not more, and will likely maintain his policies in that respect. Domestically she paves the path for continued progress and, ultimately, the dream of Sanders supporters everywhere to see an electorate where Clinton would be a centrist with a slight right leaning and Sanders seen as only a moderately left wing candidate.
 
Russ T said:
If that is true, then non-shittalking Shillaries are also in the minority. :3

But actually the reality is both sides do it equally. On GAF, it seems Shillaries do it more, though.
Click to expand...

Not before yesterday they didn't. From Michigan to the night before ST2, Bernie supporters were just as bad as Hillary supporters are now. Arguably worse, because the nature of the attacks on Hillary were very different from how Sanders gets targeted.
 
Drek said:
I only defend her when she gets slammed with unfair accusations. I mean, we have hit jobs claiming, based entirely on "unnamed sources" that she was a warhawk pushing the U.S. into Libya, then we have Obama outright stating that the main reason they went into Libya was because of pressure from European allies wanting America to carry their water in a foreign conflict.

Maybe it's the Utopian Europe myth that so many Sanders advocates seem to have bouncing around in their heads that makes them unable to see that France and the U.K. were the primary drivers for U.S. involvement in Syria, maybe it's because Clinton has to maintain a strong foreign policy facade as a woman running for commander in chief and they buy into it too fully. The reality is that her original introduction into the democratic party was through an anti-war effort, she and her husband campaigned for McGovern, a pretty legitimate anti-war candidate, and her husband's administration that she played a big role in was not a heavy handed foreign actor by any means compared to his predecessors (which is what really matters, the U.S. is too heavily interwoven in the defense of too many allies to quickly pivot to a non-interventionist policy without leaving some friends dangerously exposed).

She isn't the warhawk in democrat's clothing she's being painted as. She is a moderate who has made it very clear that her personal views are something she can set aside in order to execute the will of the people. In short, the ideal manager of affairs for the next 8 years until the country has taken the additional steps needed demographically to begin pushing more progressive policies.

She will run an incredibly effective census, be influential in the DNC's efforts to re-district based on that census, and will go hard after states with substantial conservative gerrymandering. Her SCOTUS nominee(s) will be strong voter protection advocates. These are the things that really matter here. She sees as clearly as Obama that the majority of Americans want less foreign military involvement, not more, and will likely maintain his policies in that respect. Domestically she paves the path for continued progress and, ultimately, the dream of Sanders supporters everywhere to see an electorate where Clinton would be a centrist with a slight right leaning and Sanders seen as only a moderately left wing candidate.
Click to expand...

Amazing post, and pretty much sums up my thoughts.
 
Meowster said:
Hillary Clinton (3/15/2016 votes): 3,703,372
Donald Trump (3/15/2016 votes): 3,191,698

I was told Hillary doesn't generate excitement?
Click to expand...

To be fair, the Republican voters are spread a lot thinner - but I definitely agree that the 'excitement' narrative is grossly overstated. Especially in regards to the Democratic race.
 
Grief51 said:
I can't believe you guys grossly underestimate Trump so much. You seem to all assume Hillary will beat Trump - perhaps even by a landslide.
Remember when everyone said

"No way Trump is serious about running for president it's just a publicity stunt", and then later
"No way Trump will sustain his high poll numbers it will all collapse eventually like all joke candidates before him" and then
"No way Trump is coming back after losing Iowa. The so called "winner" is already a loser LOL" and then
"Trump is finished now after flirting with the KKK".
The list goes on and on... You could also mention the muslim ban or insulting John McCain. The normal rules of politics just don't seem work on Drumpf.

As an outsider not from the USA, with a degree in Political Science, Trump seems like the typical charismatic Right-wing populist combined with an unique skill to dominated the news cycle. Remember Trump has been in show business for decades now and understands how the media works better than any politician.
Clever democrats are not underestimating Trump and neither should you: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/democrats-on-donald-trump-threat-220118

Trump is a master at framing his opponent when he really wants to. "Low energy Jeb", "Little Marco", "Lyin Ted" etc. He will relentlessly go after Hillary with some childish nickname which will eventually stick.
In my life, besides Putin, I have never seen a more Machiavellian politician than Trump. I also think the rumours, that Trump learned about public speaking by keeping a collection of Hitler speeches by his bedside, are true.

There is still a long time until the General election. Most voters in the country are not paying attention right now or have a short memory and will have forgotten Trumps scandals by November. Of course democrats will do everything to remind voters of the KKK stuff etc. The truth is there still is plenty of time for him to pivot towards the General Election. Sure Trump has burned his bridges with liberals, but there still is plenty of time to mend the fences with moderates and conservatives sceptical of him.

I suspects it is correct when Trump claims he can put Rust-belt states like Michigan and Minnesota in play and increase turnout among white voters. I would not be surprised if Trump dramatically boost turnout with Republican leaning White working class voters. This is a group which has been drifting gradually away from the Democrats during Obama.

Will minorities rally around the Dems to stop Trump? Maybe. Will highly educated voters flee the vague promises of Trump towards the technocratic Clinton? It certainly is possible.
In my estimation there is at least a 30-40 % chance Trump defeats Hillary in a general election match up. Any one that thinks this will be a walk in the park victory is a bit of a fool imo. There only way democrats can win in the fall is if they start mobilizing all the passion and urgency they mustered in 2008.
Right now I'm not sure they are up to the task.
Click to expand...

You're not framing your argument around any basis of reality.

"No way Trump is serious about running for president it's just a publicity stunt", and then later
"No way Trump will sustain his high poll numbers it will all collapse eventually like all joke candidates before him" and then
"No way Trump is coming back after losing Iowa. The so called "winner" is already a loser LOL" and then
"Trump is finished now after flirting with the KKK".
The list goes on and on... You could also mention the muslim ban or insulting John McCain. The normal rules of politics just don't seem work on Drumpf.
Click to expand...

This phenomenon is situated entirely within the GOP primary, a party that is in complete shambles, has no leadership, and has jettisoned every form of rational thought in favor of mass hysteria. That people got these primary predictions wrong isn't so much a fault of those making the predictions so much as a fault of us overestimating the GOP to get its shit together and the GOP voter base to not be a complete loon bin.

The landscape shifts massively in the general election. Primary voters of the GOP only make up a subset of GOP voters, and even within this subset Trump almost never gets a majority of voters in the states he wins, only a plurality. He's getting at the moment a subset of a subset of voters, in a system that makes the loud minority matter the most. He won't have that luxury.

"He hasn't truly started attacking Hillary" isn't any real cause of concern. What will he do, childish name-calling and more catchy-but-not-very-catchy names? More ad-hominems? That only plays well with the uneducated, low-information voter he has pulled in. He's not gonna pull in any more at this point. Sure, his raw numbers increase once you factor in the lifetime GOP voters who vote simply along party lines, but as 2008 AND 2012 showed us you can't rely on this demographic to get you through a general election. Trump's courting the same demographic that failed to elect McCain and Romney.

Grief51 said:
Head to head numbers between Hillary and Trump means nothing right now. He has barely started attacking her. Everyone Trumps attacks goes down in the poll. It is not just luck it as a very potent skill Trump has.

And btw "there is not enough white males to elect Trump" just isn't true. The electorate is going to be 72 % white and those numbers is without the increase in white working class voters which I think will happen. The record number participants in the GOP primary could be a sign of things to come. Also a lot of minorites are concentrated in California and New York where the Dems already has a big majority.

Sure it is a short sighted strategy - and will not work in the long run - but right now in 2016 Trump can win by running up the white vote. Especially because unions have been fatally wounded in recent years in many Midwestern states. A lot of these people will be receptive to the nationalism and protectionism of Trump. States like Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconson aren't necessarily solid democratic states anymore.
Click to expand...

You overestimate Trump. He doesn't have a "potent skill", you're only buying into the media BS and his BS as well. Trump's "tactics" are little more than schoolyard bully behavior that is extremely transparent and anyone with half a brain can see through them.

The electorate being 72% white does nothing to ensure that Trump will get that 72?%. Trump's supporters are white racists, but not every white is a racist or a Trump supporter. For all we know he's likely courting these voters in deep-red counties that would've voted Republican regardless of who was on the ticket, and again, it won't be enough to elect him based on everything else.

Nobody's saying we should just chill. Trump needs to be hits hard and crushed like the piece of shit he is. But the picture isn't anywhere near as dire as you paint it to be. His tactics have only worked because he's working within the craziest, least educated subset of voters, and he simply does not have the numbers to pull a general election off. Even with the lower turnout Hillary has amassed more primary voters than Trump.

harSon said:
To be fair, the Republican voters are spread a lot thinner - but I definitely agree that the 'excitement' narrative is grossly overstated. Especially in regards to the Democratic race.
Click to expand...

That's true, but as you said it also shows Trump-fever is being overstated. The dude can't get a plurality in most of the states he wins. In every state look at the percentage of people who vote NOT-Trump. Really big chunks of voters who pick other candidates even despite the mania that Trump's idiocy is creating.
 
Russ T said:
I'm not going to call out anyone specifically, because that's not nice. But that's an extremely generous way of describing what the common aggressive thread (as opposed to sincere or passive threads) is for Hillary lovers around here. Some people (not myself, 'cause I'm dumb and often fail to communicate properly) offer seriously well thought out criticisms of Hillary and the response is "wow way to buy into the GOP's propaganda". Like, really? No. No.

I don't really visit any other communities that talk about politics to this degree - just my small groups of friends here and there - so I can only speak to what I see here on GAF. And I see it a lot.

And I definitely see people say that to Bernie supporters.

And, again, it absolutely goes both ways. But Hillary supporters seem way more... hmm, smug? about it.
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered that they are smug about it because they have been saying since last summer that Bernie has no chance because of the exact reasons that we're seeing play out in front of us? They were told that no, this is a political revolution, once he gets his message out there he will win.

It's an "I told you so" that people have been saying was going to happen for the past year and now that it's happening people are pretending that they were never told this very thing was going to happen just as it is happening.
 
Tesseract said:
When is Clinton going to prison
Click to expand...

About the same time as Trump will be in court defending his sham of a university. He would have been in court sooner if the state actually felt he was inciting violence at his rallies, but because basically saying "I wish I could violently silence all detractors at my rallies" and not telling him supports to actually do that saved him.
 
E1veaNr.jpg
 
TyrantII said:
The courts are extreemly corporate friendly due to the GOP stacking them since 1980 at all levels.
Click to expand...
Minor point: the Democrats have now appointed majorities of both the federal district and appellate courts, thanks to winning 4 of the last 6 presidential elections. The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, is now acting as the last brake on an otherwise liberal judiciary.

If Hillary wins, let alone if she serves two terms, the judiciary will be incredibly liberal at all levels.
 
Drek said:
I only defend her when she gets slammed with unfair accusations. I mean, we have hit jobs claiming, based entirely on "unnamed sources" that she was a warhawk pushing the U.S. into Libya, then we have Obama outright stating that the main reason they went into Libya was because of pressure from European allies wanting America to carry their water in a foreign conflict.

Maybe it's the Utopian Europe myth that so many Sanders advocates seem to have bouncing around in their heads that makes them unable to see that France and the U.K. were the primary drivers for U.S. involvement in Syria, maybe it's because Clinton has to maintain a strong foreign policy facade as a woman running for commander in chief and they buy into it too fully. The reality is that her original introduction into the democratic party was through an anti-war effort, she and her husband campaigned for McGovern, a pretty legitimate anti-war candidate, and her husband's administration that she played a big role in was not a heavy handed foreign actor by any means compared to his predecessors (which is what really matters, the U.S. is too heavily interwoven in the defense of too many allies to quickly pivot to a non-interventionist policy without leaving some friends dangerously exposed).

She isn't the warhawk in democrat's clothing she's being painted as. She is a moderate who has made it very clear that her personal views are something she can set aside in order to execute the will of the people. In short, the ideal manager of affairs for the next 8 years until the country has taken the additional steps needed demographically to begin pushing more progressive policies.

She will run an incredibly effective census, be influential in the DNC's efforts to re-district based on that census, and will go hard after states with substantial conservative gerrymandering. Her SCOTUS nominee(s) will be strong voter protection advocates. These are the things that really matter here. She sees as clearly as Obama that the majority of Americans want less foreign military involvement, not more, and will likely maintain his policies in that respect. Domestically she paves the path for continued progress and, ultimately, the dream of Sanders supporters everywhere to see an electorate where Clinton would be a centrist with a slight right leaning and Sanders seen as only a moderately left wing candidate.
Click to expand...

Quotes for truth, sanity 2016.
 
CrazyDude said:
Someone should tell her it's not about winning, it's about by how much you win.
Click to expand...

I am torn. I like having Bernie still in so as to pull Hilary more left (as shes been slowly doing in response to Bernie). However, I am not a fan of Bernie doing the negative ad campaign as hes just giving the republican nominee fodder. Bernie seems too far behind to mount a comeback win. Affect the party, dont try sabotaging it I guess.
 
theignoramus said:
We have an entire essay in the Atlantic.

-Clinton wanted to attack Syria because she is a Kissinger acolyte who believes that mantaining US credibility is more important than avoiding a worst case scenario.

-Clinton and Samantha Power were behind the Libya intervention, against the objection of Joe Biden and Robert Gates

-Joe Biden thinks Hillary wants to be Golda Meir.( a sobering comparison. Golda Meir almost started a nuclear war between the US and Russia)
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks I'll look for that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DanDaDan Season 2 Releases July 3
5
436
taizuke replied
Squid Game Season 3
3
361
saintjules replied
Foundation: Season 3 teaser
6
294
Insane Metal replied
Cruise Missile working on developing Top Gun 3 and Days of Thunder 2; Iñárritu film hitting 2026
28
437
dorkimoe replied
Reacher Season 3 trailer
2
69
3K
Warspite replied
Top Bottom