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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Russ T said:
I have not been talking about delegates. I'm just talking about the way people treat each other. I've gone on record, multiple times, as hating it no matter who does it: Bernie fans or Hillary fans.

I'm not being passive aggressive! I genuinely can't understand why you think it's fine to be rude, just because internet anonymity makes it possible. I admit to doing stuff like that many times in the past, but I stopped because, I dunno, I realized it was immature!
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be oversensitive about some random no one pointing out how you/anyone was wrong about something you were adamant you were right about, doubly so when the person who invoked "I told you so" tried very hard (and very patiently) to explain why you were going to be wrong with...wait for it...math and logic. If someone saying "I told you so" is a trigger and you/anyone considers it rude then I highly suggest logging off the internet because on the scale of "things that are mean" it barely blips the needle off of "0".
 
DrForester said:
Given the Democrats bullshit with sueprdelegates I don't see a problem with Bernie pursuing this options.
Click to expand...

It's not like there's anything legally wrong or anything with Bernie looking to rely on superdelegates, but it's not a good look for him given how much of a big deal he made about Hillary relying on superdelegates at the beginning of the race. It'd be like if he suddenly started funding his campaign with super PACs: it's a totally viable option for him to use, but not exactly in line with his message.
 
Trouble said:
Bernie gonna win by redistributing delegates like they were wealth.



Yes he is. He joined the party in order to run.
Click to expand...

giga said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think Bernie would be the first to admit (once this is all over...) that he's no friend of the DNC. He even attacks the party quite frequently in debates, albeit not always directly. He's been an independent up to this point, as far as I know? He joined the party to run, but that's just using the party. It doesn't make him One of Them. IMO, anyway.

Although who knows, maybe he'll stick around? /shrug

Angelus Errare said:
You shouldn't be oversensitive about some random no one pointing out how you/anyone was wrong about something you were adamant you were right about, doubly so when the person who invoked "I told you so" tried very hard (and very patiently) to explain why you were going to be wrong with...wait for it...math and logic. If someone saying "I told you so" is a trigger and you/anyone considers it rude then I highly suggest logging off the internet because on the scale of "things that are mean" it barely blips the needle off of "0".
Click to expand...

I honestly feel like you just keep repeating the same thing over and over without actually responding or listening to what I'm saying. It seems like this is going nowhere. ): C'est la vie. Have a nice day, friend.
 
Russ T said:
Yeah I think Bernie would be the first to admit (once this is all over...) that he's no friend of the DNC. He even attacks the party quite frequently in debates, albeit not always directly. He's been an independent up to this point, as far as I know? He joined the party to run, but that's just using the party. It doesn't make him One of Them. IMO, anyway.

Although who knows, maybe he'll stick around? /shrug



I honestly feel like you just keep repeating the same thing over and over without actually responding or listening to what I'm saying. It seems like this is going nowhere. ): C'est la vie. Have a nice day, friend.
Click to expand...

He has always caucaused with the Democrats, so whether he remains an official member is fairly immaterial. I think he'll stay in the party, though.
 
Trouble said:
He has always caucaused with the Democrats, so whether he remains an official member is fairly immaterial. I think he'll stay in the party, though.
Click to expand...

Do you think he'd do that if the Green Party were actually relevant? I'm mostly just curious. My guess is he would move to the Green Party? I dunno.
 
HylianTom said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very nicely put, thank you for framing that. This still very much hinges on people wanting those ideals enacted and protected. I can't say with certainty but I'd guess that most people vote based more on their emotional state than out of preservation for ideals. Here's to hoping tho.
 
Russ T said:
Yeah I think Bernie would be the first to admit (once this is all over...) that he's no friend of the DNC. He even attacks the party quite frequently in debates, albeit not always directly. He's been an independent up to this point, as far as I know? He joined the party to run, but that's just using the party. It doesn't make him One of Them. IMO, anyway.

Although who knows, maybe he'll stick around? /shrug
Click to expand...

My expectation would be that part of the deal with letting Bernie just join up and run was the understanding that he'd be there at the DNC to endorse the winner. Like, there are a lot of things the Democrats could have done to make it really difficult for Bernie to run as a Democrat, and they didn't do those things because they wanted him to go ahead and run. So I would hope that Bernie would do his part and give Hillary support in the general election. But I guess we can never be sure!
 
pigeon said:
Well, I mean, if you think he's saying that you're being rude to him, then, I mean, maybe you should be less rude to him?

Just a thought!

I'm not sure that this concept of "deserving" a reality check is meaningful. Sanders supporters mostly all just got a reality check. They're probably all topped up right now.
Click to expand...

Nobody has been rude to him, or those who are saying "I told you so" literally the only real rudeness I've seen from either Bernie or Hillary's camp is Bernie fans saying people in the south have a low IQ insinuating certain stuffs.

But yeah, I still don't think some of them have their feet on the ground, and their arrogance along with completely defying logic means IMO they do deserve it.
 
Angelus Errare said:
ok.
Click to expand...

:D

pigeon said:
My expectation would be that part of the deal with letting Bernie just join up and run was the understanding that he'd be there at the DNC to endorse the winner. Like, there are a lot of things the Democrats could have done to make it really difficult for Bernie to run as a Democrat, and they didn't do those things because they wanted him to go ahead and run. So I would hope that Bernie would do his part and give Hillary support in the general election. But I guess we can never be sure!
Click to expand...

That's an interesting theory, but did the DNC really expect him to actually become as big as he did? As I understand it, he kind of came out of nowhere, and nobody really thought he'd make it this far.

Miles X said:
Nobody has been rude to him, or those who are saying "I told you so" literally the only real rudeness I've seen from either Bernie or Hillary's camp is Bernie fans saying people in the south have a low IQ insinuating certain stuffs.

But yeah, I still don't think some of them have their feet on the ground, and their arrogance along with completely defying logic means IMO they do deserve it.
Click to expand...

You very specifically have been rude to me multiple times, with legitimate personal attacks. I've ignored them up until now, but since you're explicitly lying here...

And this is over. Have a nice day.
 
Russ T said:
That's an interesting theory, but did the DNC really expect him to actually become as big as he did? As I understand it, he kind of came out of nowhere, and nobody really thought he'd make it this far.
Click to expand...

No, they obviously didn't. I suspect if they knew what was going to happen they would've been more difficult at the start.

But that doesn't really change the deal! The Democratic Party has been relatively supportive to Sanders's campaign. Sanders has said that Hillary would be way, way better than any Republican, especially Trump. I think it's just sensible for him to endorse her and at least speak at the DNC. I would hope he'd stump for her, honestly, but I guess he's difficult about that stuff.
 
HylianTom said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for posting this.
 
pigeon said:
No, they obviously didn't. I suspect if they knew what was going to happen they would've been more difficult at the start.

But that doesn't really change the deal! The Democratic Party has been relatively supportive to Sanders's campaign. Sanders has said that Hillary would be way, way better than any Republican, especially Drumpf. I think it's just sensible for him to endorse her and at least speak at the DNC. I would hope he'd stump for her, honestly, but I guess he's difficult about that stuff.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, I absolutely don't believe for a second Bernie won't support Hillary in the GE! I believe he also went on record saying he wouldn't run as an independent because he wouldn't want to split the Democratic vote, giving the GOP the presidency. Which is smart, and correct.

I just wonder, though, if they didn't suspect him to be big, why would they let him run just for the purpose of later endorsing Hillary? If he had fizzled early on, would those words even mean anything significant? If he'd won, would they have been satisfied with him as the candidate? It all seems a little weird. But I guess that's why I'm not a politician, thankfully.
 
pigeon said:
No, they obviously didn't. I suspect if they knew what was going to happen they would've been more difficult at the start.

But that doesn't really change the deal! The Democratic Party has been relatively supportive to Sanders's campaign. Sanders has said that Hillary would be way, way better than any Republican, especially Trump. I think it's just sensible for him to endorse her and at least speak at the DNC. I would hope he'd stump for her, honestly, but I guess he's difficult about that stuff.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure he'll stump for Clinton but I expect he'll help out in senate and house races.
 
Russ T said:
Oh, yeah, I absolutely don't believe for a second Bernie won't support Hillary in the GE! I believe he also went on record saying he wouldn't run as an independent because he wouldn't want to split the Democratic vote, giving the GOP the presidency. Which is smart, and correct.

I just wonder, though, if they didn't suspect him to be big, why would they let him run just for the purpose of later endorsing Hillary? If he had fizzled early on, would those words even mean anything significant? If he'd won, would they have been satisfied with him as the candidate? It all seems a little weird. But I guess that's why I'm not a politician, thankfully.
Click to expand...

I suspect the theory was that it's good for Hillary to have a very liberal opponent because it helps anchor her as more of a moderate in the eyes of the general election voters. Pre-Trump, this was a relatively concerning election, since the Democrats have had two terms already. This might help explain how Hillary positioned herself in response to Bernie.

Obviously that works best if your very liberal opponent loses easily because they're too liberal. It is probably accurate to say that the Dem establishment underestimated the impact that Sanders's candidacy would have. And I agree, as others have suggested, that it's a good sign going forward for progressive causes, as long as we can integrate the economic intensity with intersectional progressiveness and push for some real socialist policies.
 
Russ T said:
I just wonder, though, if they didn't suspect him to be big, why would they let him run just for the purpose of later endorsing Hillary? If he had fizzled early on, would those words even mean anything significant? If he'd won, would they have been satisfied with him as the candidate? It all seems a little weird. But I guess that's why I'm not a politician, thankfully.
Click to expand...

Because, at the end of the day, the party's goal in the primary is to discern and act on the will of its voters. The individuals that make up the core of that party might have connections and preferences and favorites, but, if someone wants to run, the party as a whole won't stop them.

I don't think there's any grand conspiracy or ulterior motive. Bernie wanted to run and the Democratic Party wasn't vehemently opposed to him, so he ran.
 
pigeon said:
I suspect the theory was that it's good for Hillary to have a very liberal opponent because it helps anchor her as more of a moderate in the eyes of the general election voters. Pre-Drumpf, this was a relatively concerning election, since the Democrats have had two terms already. This might help explain how Hillary positioned herself in response to Bernie.

Obviously that works best if your very liberal opponent loses easily because they're too liberal. It is probably accurate to say that the Dem establishment underestimated the impact that Sanders's candidacy would have. And I agree, as others have suggested, that it's a good sign going forward for progressive causes, as long as we can integrate the economic intensity with intersectional progressiveness and push for some real socialist policies.
Click to expand...

That actually makes a lot of sense! Thanks for helping me understand something that had confused me since the beginning of this whole thing! I am somewhat of an idiot, but it helps to talk it out. :D

And yeah Bernie's success makes me hopeful for the future.

I just hope people vote for change during the midterms (and for the other stuff happening this year, of course!) so we can actually have momentum, rather than another huge stalemate.

Adaren said:
Because, at the end of the day, the party's goal in the primary is to discern and act on the will of its voters. The individuals that make up the core of that party might have connections and preferences and favorites, but, if someone wants to run, the party as a whole won't stop them.

I don't think there's any grand conspiracy or ulterior motive. Bernie wanted to run and the Democratic Party wasn't vehemently opposed to him, so he ran.
Click to expand...

Well, in contrast to the first half of my post: this also feels possible.

But, given how political politics are (heh), it seems strange to me that the DNC would be so free-wheeling with letting a long-time independent join up and run, otherwise? I don't feel like it was a conspiracy by any means (that's such a loaded, weird word, haha), but I find it hard to believe there's not any other motive beyond "hey yeah whatever".
 
Russ T said:
Do you think he'd do that if the Green Party were actually relevant? I'm mostly just curious. My guess is he would move to the Green Party? I dunno.
Click to expand...

If the Green Party was relevant. They'd be Democrats. Only irrelevant political outsiders form their own parties because they can't figure out how to win over anything but a micro minority of constituents.
 
Russ T said:
Well they were losing from the beginning, to be fair, haha.



If you say so. If Bernie had won, I guarantee people wouldn't like it if Bernie people said "I told you so". I don't know about you, but I prefer not to gloat about anything. Bragging don't make for a pretty personality. More than anything else, it's just rude!

Also I hope this "you" isn't directed at me.
Click to expand...

I don't know how tell people what reality is is now being construed as rude.

Bernie didn't have any chance last summer, last fall, all winter and he also currently doesn't have a chance. That is just the truth. Telling you that I don't have a chance to win isn't rude either, it's reality. It's not our fault that people decided to ignore reality and convince themselves of something that was always impossible.
 
Alex_Mexico said:
Is it official already? Is MO a winner-takes-most state or was it proportional where Cruz took like 1 delegate less than Drumpf?
Click to expand...

The SoS has said both Trump and Hillary are the winners with 100% precincts reporting. Both Cruz and Sanders have a week to demand a recount, but it's likely neither will. There are some absentee ballots, but probably not enough to make up the difference if 100% of those ballots went to Cruz and Sanders.
 
Y7SUw6K.png
Click to expand...

Beat all the polls? And isn't AZ going to go Clinton because of the hispanic vote?
 
TyrantII said:
If the Green Party was relevant. They'd be Democrats. Only irrelevant political outsiders form their own parties because they can't figure out how to win over anything but a micro minority of constituents.
Click to expand...

I'd say there's some pretty fundamental differences between the two parties. And not just in difference of ability to win supporters.
 
giga said:
Beat all the polls? And isn't AZ going to go Clinton because of the hispanic vote?
Click to expand...

He missed ALL 5 of the PPP polls last night ....

Also, I have reason to believe her delegate lead will get bigger than it is now, when the rest of the east coast states vote next month.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DanDaDan Season 2 Releases July 3
5
436
taizuke replied
Squid Game Season 3
3
362
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