Support NeoGAF

[PHOENIXZERO]

Umm... Yeah... How are answers in the "other" category tallied? Because I answered several questions where the yes/no answers weren't good enough. I hate boiling down complex issues to such simplicity.

The problem with the change this country needs is it matters less who the president is and more the people in the Legislative and Judicial branches, the latter though is quite important to who the president is. That's on top of the change that is needed in several states to get rid of the corrupt slugs that run amok on that end. There needs to be a movie that's more than just buzzwords and voters who get caught in hype and don't actually examine the candidate they're supporting. I wish abolishing political parties were possible, perhaps then it'd require more voters to actually pay attention to the people they're voting for and not the D/R/Whatever letter that's next to their names.

 

[Nuu]

Expanding the number of people in your voter pool is common sense; if the Democrats don't effectively do this, it's because they're *bad* at it, not because they don't see it as valuable.

However, this doesn't change the fact that not voting isn't sending that message to the Democratic Party. It's not a directed message. People don't vote for a wide variety of reasons...they aren't excited by a Democrat, they aren't excited by a Republican, they think both parties are effectively the same, they were sick that day, they forgot, whatever. It's unclear. If you're really interested in sending a message, you can call or write your local/state level Democrats, become engaged in the political process, volunteer for your candidate of choice, donate to said candidate, whatever. These are all positive, constructive things that send a message far better than a "no vote" ever could, and they don't have the potential downside of wrecking the country as a result.

Sorry, but the Democrats aren't "bad" at expanding the number of people in their voter pool, they seem to live in some fanatic bubble that Republicans do. Similar to how many Republicans believe they can't win minorities because they are a bunch of welfare queens, Democrats seem to have in their mind that much of the poor and working class voting populace, particularly white, are rednecks who you couldn't pry their racist ideology out of their cold dead hands.

I mean just read this GAF thread. While there are some people who have a grasp of reality, many posters don't and claim the same tired arguments. Sure you could argue that just because a some Democratic voters on a video game forum believe this doesn't mean the Democratic party does, but judging that last election period they didn't run on their policy and rather either ran on being Republican-lite or just demonizing their opponents for being scary middle-class killers it lends support to the assumption.

It isn't hard to figure out what people want. This is why research firms exist. An overwhelming majority of people support a raise for minimum wage, an overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to cut anti-poverty programs, an overwhelming majority of Americans support further taxing the rich. Now this doesn't mean of course that the overwhelming majority of Americans are bleeding heart liberals. However, it does show that a large sum of them support liberal values which leaves an opening toward pushing a much more left wing agenda.

Gay marriage was originally disliked by most Americans fifteen years ago, just two years ago support for police reform and the general outlook of integration of blacks in this country has changed substantially since Black Lives Matter, and as much as people like to joke about them Occupy Wallstreet single handily stopped "class warfare" from being a dog whistle term for wanting Communism to being a prime topic in the Republican debates. If Democrats want the country where they want them on issues they will need to court them. This is probably a huge reason why some people vote Sanders over Hillary. Sanders talks about courting people and it has shown some results, Hillary meanwhile is doing a similar ground game to other politicians. Which is a shame because Obama seemed to start the fire but she doesn't seem to be following up with it as much. Possibly due to her being so comfortable with winning the election.

 

[Aaronology]

Yep. It is the politicians job have to have voters come to them, not voters to come to the politician.



To be fair, it isn't like Clinton fans are being the most reasonable either as they overplay the amount of racism and conspiracy theories in Bernie's camp, and significantly overestimate the amount of difference having Hillary over Sanders in the White House, and severely downplay the electability of Sanders over people like Donald Trump.

I am not sure it's fair to say GAF has "overplayed" the racism that sprang forth from Sanders' camp. It was there, it was toxic and it is understandably not going to be forgotten. I was often a critic of BLM's tactics but at the very least they managed to shed a light on how racism is clearly not limited to Conservatives in America. I largely agree with your other points, though I am considerably more cautious about underestimating Trump regardless of what demographic data has to say.

In any case I will be happily voting for whoever gets the (D) nomination as all three current candidates are almost perfectly aligned with my politics.

 

[Nuu]

I will like to also point out that while Hillary and Sanders seem similar in the issues from a general standpoint, from a precise stand point they are a bit different. Sanders tends to favor a more strong hand of government, nationalizations, and services being available to all Americans in general. In contrast, Clinton tends to favor government offering an incentive to business, regulations, and services being available to the needy. She is still by far the nearest neighbor to Sanders who is running for president, but the difference is there. "isidewith.com" doesn't go too far into diving within that context, hence why people get such similar scores with Sanders and Hillary.

I am not sure it's fair to say GAF has "overplayed" the racism that sprang forth from Sanders' camp. It was there, it was toxic and it is understandably not going to be forgotten.

The racism extending not much more than a few looneys from Reddit. It is the equivalence of saying the Democrats have a 9/11 conspiracy problem when it is really just a few looneys in the group who even ponder that. It isn't certainly as strong as something as say the amount of Republicans who say have an anti-Muslim agenda or believe that Obama isn't from this nation.

I largely agree with your other points, though I am considerably more cautious about underestimating Trump regardless of what demographic data has to say.

The only way Trump can possibly win if another terrorist attack happened in the country. And again that is just an opening. I mean I read an article that France is already falling out of love with the right wing weeks after the terrorist attacks in Paris. Regardless there still is a chance however unlikely, even against Hillary under such a situation.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

Sorry, but the Democrats aren't "bad" at expanding the number of people in their voter pool, they seem to live in some fanatic bubble that Republicans do. Similar to how many Republicans believe they can't win minorities because they are a bunch of welfare queens, Democrats seem to have in their mind that much of the poor and working class voting populace, particularly white, are rednecks who you couldn't pry their racist ideology out of their cold dead hands.

I mean just read this GAF thread. While there are some people who have a grasp of reality, many posters don't and claim the same tired arguments. Sure you could argue that just because a some Democratic voters on a video game forum believe this doesn't mean the Democratic party does, but judging that last election period they didn't run on their policy and rather either ran on being Republican-lite or just demonizing their opponents for being scary middle-class killers it lends support to the assumption.

It isn't hard to figure out what people want. This is why research firms exist. An overwhelming majority of people support a raise for minimum wage, an overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to cut anti-poverty programs, an overwhelming majority of Americans support further taxing the rich. Now this doesn't mean of course that the overwhelming majority of Americans are bleeding heart liberals. However, it does show that a large sum of them support liberal values which leaves an opening toward pushing a much more left wing agenda.

Gay marriage was originally disliked by most Americans fifteen years ago, just two years ago support for police reform and the general outlook of integration of blacks in this country has changed substantially since Black Lives Matter, and as much as people like to joke about them Occupy Wallstreet single handily stopped "class warfare" from being a dog whistle term for wanting Communism to being a prime topic in the Republican debates. If Democrats want the country where they want them on issues they will need to court them. This is probably a huge reason why some people vote Sanders over Hillary. Sanders talks about courting people and it has shown some results, Hillary meanwhile is doing a similar ground game to other politicians. Which is a shame because Obama seemed to start the fire but she doesn't seem to be following up with it as much. Possibly due to her being so comfortable with winning the election.

So what do you do about the divide that is what Americans want and what Americans vote for? It doesn't matter if someone wants Medicare expanded if that same person will go and vote against Medicare expansion becaue they don't want YOU to expand it.

I think that is the part that Sanders supporters are not accounting for.

 

[Nuu]

So what do you do about the divide that is what Americans want and what Americans vote for? It doesn't matter if someone wants Medicare expanded if that same person will go and vote against Medicare expansion becaue they don't want YOU to expand it.

I think that is the part that Sanders supporters are not accounting for.

That's total horse shit. It is true that most people in red states want to expand medicaid, but they don't vote for Republicans in the context of "well I agree with everything the Democrat candidate says, but they stands for the people I don't like so I won't vote for them", but because they in general align with the message the Republican candidate says. Yes this is incorrect, but it is up for the Democratic candidate to relay a more appealing message.

Regardless, I wasn't referring to the poor and working class Republican whites, but the poor and working class Democratic leaning white. Who represent the majority of poor and working whites and who mostly do not vote. Hence why Democrats should motivate them, as well as poor and working class Latinos and so on. The fact that people find the idea of pushing their message to court the general populace of their parties views as some how alien, really speaks volumes of how disillusioned the Democratic party has become.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

That's total horse shit. It is true that most people in red states want to expand medicaid, but they don't vote for Republicans in the context of "well I agree with everything the Democrat candidate says, but they stands for the people I don't like so I won't vote for them", but because they in general align with the message the Republican candidate says. Yes this is incorrect, but it is up for the Democratic candidate to relay a more appealing message.

Regardless, I wasn't referring to the poor and working class Republican whites, but the poor and working class Democratic leaning white. Who represent the majority of poor and working whites and who mostly do not vote. Hence why Democrats should motivate them, as well as poor and working class Latinos and so on. The fact that people find the idea of pushing their message to court the general populace of their parties views as some how alien, really speaks volumes of how disillusioned the Democratic party has become.

How can you say that they are voting republican because in general they align with the message they tout but when asked about specific policies they actually align with the democrats? Its clearly not the message if when asked about the message they disagree with it.

Often in life its not the message that matters but who delivers it!

 

[Nuu]

How can you say that they are voting republican because in general they align with the message they tout but when asked about specific policies they actually align with the democrats? Its clearly not the message if when asked about the message they disagree with it.

Often in life its not the message that matters but who delivers it!

First off, most people will vote Democrat. I will reiterate that, most poor working class, even whites, lean Democrat. It isn't the matter that they don't like person saying the things, but that they aren't motivated to vote for them due to them not believing they are sincere. So it doesn't matter if those voting Republican stay Republican because Democrats can win the legislator without turning to many of their heads. Second off, if there are Republicans out there who do what to be more economically left wing then it is up to the Democrats to properly communicate their message to them. It isn't enough to merely put your message out there, you have to campaign and install grassroots movements. Even then you won't move most people, but it could possibly be enough to change the political trajectory significantly. This isn't really anything new. But again the reason why some poor, working class, and middle class people vote Republican is because they hear the Republicans message and the Democratic one and they like the Republican message more. It is up to the Democrats to convince them to align with their message.

 

[Agent_Carnage]

Only way for evil to succed is for good men to do nothing.

If you refuse to vote due to not liking Clinton then you must want the next Hitler in Trump elected. How will you feel when he starts deporting minority's? Starts building that stupid wall? Allowing more guns on the streets? Repealing Obamacare? How will you feel then knowing you could of stopped it.

He will add Justices to the supreme Court to overturn Gay marriage, over turn Roe v Wade. Do you want that? I don't.

 

[Nipo]

Only way for evil to succed is for good men to do nothing.

If you refuse to vote due to not liking Clinton then you must want the next Hitler in Trump elected. How will you feel when he starts deporting minority's? Starts building that stupid wall? Allowing more guns on the streets? Repealing Obamacare? How will you feel then knowing you could of stopped it.

People calling the other party "evil" is what part of what is wrong with our system and prevents reasonable discussion. The US president is a fairly weak executive leader without full legislative support. Clinton and the Republicans are all firmly pro business candidates and the difference wouldn't be that great.

 

[Agent_Carnage]

People calling the other party "evil" is what part of what is wrong with our system and prevents reasonable discussion. The US president is a fairly weak executive leader without full legislative support. Clinton and the Republicans are all firmly pro business candidates and the difference wouldn't be that great.

Let me put it this way. Do you want Gay marriage? To be able to get an abortion? To have a minimum wage? Do you want Trump to deport people? And make America an isolationist state? To have access to affordable healthcare? With Trump you get non of those things. We will go backwards not towards in progressive laws.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Yeah, i said that, and i double down on it.

I don't think Hillary deserves to be President. I will vote for Bernie in the primary round, and if he does not go further, i will not vote for Hillary.

And i do feel that those people who will vote for Hillary in the primaries, even knowing of many things about her record aren't taking a principled stance on the issues.

As i said before, a lot of people do not see this fight as a fight between a conservative dem and a liberal, but a fight between corporate interests versus fair governance. And in that position, there's nothing else i can do but abstain over supporting a flawed system by definition just so that the house of cards stays up for a little while longer.

There will be plenty of people, including Bernie who would do such a thing, many of us are not as reasonable as he is.

I understand that people see this kind of view as 'selfish', but many people see the opposite view as cowardly and self defeatist on the level of Tea partiers hating bailouts by voting for GOP members who collude with Wall Street fraudsters



Ok, we've gotten to the point where Killer Mike is an "uncle tom" because he supports Bernie Sanders and not Hillary, who along with her husband has been more detrimental in the past 30 years to black lives by supporting the private prison complex and harsher penalty sentencing for lower tier or non violent offenses and financial deregulation combined than any other administration. Wow.

That is what i mean when i say people have to get some goddamn sense of perspective instead kneejerk attacking.



What is liberal in your mind? Because our definitions must be pretty different to say something like that, just based on Hillary Clinton's statements and records.

For me, a liberal s not having a handful of policy positions that happen to not be conservative.

Yeah it's going to be great when our next Republican President sits there and tells America that the next unarmed 12 yr old boy who got shot "probably deserved to die"

It's going to be great when the next Republican President stacks 3-4 seats on the Supreme Court with new Republicans who will continue to stand in the way of campaign finance reform, environmental regulation, civil rights issues, etc.
Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed by Bill Clinton.
Scalia was appointed by Reagan. Who would you rather have?

And sure, we can say that Hillary is a shill for Wall Street. But then again, she actually supports Dodd Frank and no other Republican does. It's by no means a perfect bill, but she would be much better against Wall Street than anyone else in the opposing party.

 

[Averon]

T
Assuming he is in fact black, I would classify him as someone who is as black as Clarence Thomas. Any poor minority aka not part of the 1%, that cannot see why a republican winning is a bad idea is extremely naive or privileged.

Has discussion dropped so low that calling minorities that doesn't vote your way a 'Clarence Thomas' is acceptable?

 

[Nipo]

Let me put it this way. Do you want Gay marriage? To be able to get an abortion? To have a minimum wage? Do you want Trump to deport people? And make America an isolationist state? To have access to affordable healthcare? With Trump you get non of those things. We will go backwards not towards in progressive laws.

A scotus nomination to replace RBG that does not support same sex marriage would never pass Congress. I have no problem deporting illegal immigrants which is all the president can do. Neither Clinton nor any Republican support single payer Healthcare like Sanders. Yes I want America less involved in foreign affairs. And the president can't just get rid of the minimum wage.

Clinton Rubio Trump it doesn't matter. If Obama couldn't pass real change with a super majority none of them can.

 

[Mesousa]

Has discussion dropped so low that calling minorities that doesn't vote your way a 'Clarence Thomas' is acceptable?

Its always been this way.

 

[captainnapalm]

What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

I don't know but it's an interesting phenomenon. I would have expected support for Sanders to be at least as prevalent amongst minorities and women, if not more so. I know Bill Clinton was popular with black people and that's probably extending to Hillary, but I would have thought they would have mostly seen through the whole Clinton thing by now. And I know Hillary is a woman, but so what when she's so clearly an establishment figure.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

A scotus nomination to replace RBG that does not support same sex marriage would never pass Congress. I have no problem deporting illegal immigrants which is all the president can do. Neither Clinton nor any Republican support single payer Healthcare like Sanders. Yes I want America less involved in foreign affairs. And the president can't just get rid of the minimum wage.

Clinton Rubio Trump it doesn't matter. If Obama couldn't pass real change with a super majority none of them can.

No idea why you think this would be the case. Supreme Court nominee rejections are rare to begin with, to say nothing of one nominated by a Republican President reviewed by a Republican Senate.

 

[silvermember]

Has discussion dropped so low that calling minorities that doesn't vote your way a 'Clarence Thomas' is acceptable?

Also this isn't low. There is nothing wrong with being a Clarence Thomas per say.

Isn't Clarence Thomas the epitome of that? A minority that constantly votes against issues that would have affected him if it wasn't for the fact he was extremely privileged more so than very few in the world.

You cannot claim to be progressive then get mad that your candidate did not win, then willing to set the rights of the unprivileged aka anybody who isn't a rich white guy. That isn't progressive thinking. That is just someone throwing a tantrum.

There is nothing wrong with being blunt sometimes.

 

[pigeon]

What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

Well, I think this post pretty much speaks for itself.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Where did she say that????

I think people responding to this confuse "staying out of the election" = "voting Republican"

Same thing in the end

 

[silvermember]

I'm a black male who lives in a pretty low income area with crime all around me.

Bernie is the best shot to enact actual change for people i see struggling every day. Hillary won't change a thing, and isn't interested in doing so, and that's what i know.

Bernie is not the best shot for anything.

The reality is that we live in a system of checks and balances. The president cannot do a fraction of the things Bernie claims he can do. Congress is controlled by conservatives that will never allow any of this to pass.

Bernie Sanders represent the extreme left that can never win. If we had a multiparty system, he would be great. Unfortunately we don't.

His ideas are fantasy because it takes 537 members of Congress to pass and about 280 of them will never accept it.

Your post assumes he cares more about the poor than Obama and Obama did nothing because for the lols.

Ultimately, in this country I vote Democrat to avoid making things shitty for each passing day. Checks and balances, president is not a dictator.

The nature of the house prevents any of Sander unrealistic expectations to become real. Google hastert rule. As long as conservatives hold the house nothing gets by them. By the way this won't change for a long time.

 

[Tesseract]

bernie is destroying hillary, it's lovely

 

[silvermember]

bernie is destroying hillary, it's lovely

Except he isn't? Do you even bother to read anything?

 

[Dude Abides]

What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

Straight white men understand that it's about ethics in political campaigning.

 

[HylianTom]

No idea why you think this would be the case. Supreme Court nominee rejections are rare to begin with, to say nothing of one nominated by a Republican President reviewed by a Republican Senate.

Yup.

And for reference:
The Dems have a pretty good chance of retaking the Senate this November (the map is insanely friendly to them and they've been quite successful at recruiting candidates), but the map for them in the midterms in 2018 is pretty rough. So Dems could hold back or bat-down a GOP President's judicial nominees until 2019, but after that, the GOP would have free rein over the advise & consent portion of the process until 2021.

The only thing that'll keep the GOP from having control over the legislative process and restocking the judiciary over the next four years is a Democratic White House. Which is why I really struggle to respect the "I'm really a progressive, but I won't line-up in the general unless MY candidate is the nominee" crowd. Politics is not just about offense; there's a really good opposing team out there that could throw us into reverse, and some people apparently have trouble recognizing how serious this is.

 

[Knoxcore]

A person can do what ever it is they like with their vote, and if she or he wants to sit it out because Bernie doesn't get the nom that is perfectly their prerogative. But they shouldn't dare call themselves a Progressive if they're willing to throw the cause back decades for petty, selfish reasons. And don't expect me to believe you actually give a shit about minorities/LGBT/women either. Just as Clinton's base voted for Obama most people who support Sanders would vote for Clinton in the general. The minority who wouldn't have absolutely no credibility in my eyes. These people were never allies; they were self indulgent posers.

I completely and wholeheartedly agree.

You can't argue with these people. The diehards. All they see is pro-business Clinton. They don't see that she is infinitely better than Trump, Cruz or Rubio on immigration, health care, environment, education, women, LGBT etc.

 

[Funky Papa]

What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest?

.

 

[Hilbert]

What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

I don't know but it's an interesting phenomenon. I would have expected support for Sanders to be at least as prevalent amongst minorities and women, if not more so. I know Bill Clinton was popular with black people and that's probably extending to Hillary, but I would have thought they would have mostly seen through the whole Clinton thing by now. And I know Hillary is a woman, but so what when she's so clearly an establishment figure.

This is a pretty disgusting comment.

What Sanders and Sanders supporters should be doing is understanding why women and minorities aren't gelling with his message and try to address that, instead of assuming the problem is with the ignorance of minorities.

 

[Kite]

lol This thread reminds me of all the Republicans who were convinced Ronmey was winning up until the end. All the polls were lying! Personal anecdotes are that where ever he goes, people who drink the koolaid are ever where and crazy motivated!

 

[excelsiorlef]

There is no way in hell that any GOP nominee will win the general election.

They will if enough Bernie fans sit out if Hillary gets the nomination

People calling the other party "evil" is what part of what is wrong with our system and prevents reasonable discussion. The US president is a fairly weak executive leader without full legislative support. Clinton and the Republicans are all firmly pro business candidates and the difference wouldn't be that great.

That's complete bullshit

A scotus nomination to replace RBG that does not support same sex marriage would never pass Congress. I have no problem deporting illegal immigrants which is all the president can do. Neither Clinton nor any Republican support single payer Healthcare like Sanders. Yes I want America less involved in foreign affairs. And the president can't just get rid of the minimum wage.

Clinton Rubio Trump it doesn't matter. If Obama couldn't pass real change with a super majority none of them can.

The Republican congress? Uhhhhh yes it would.

Good lord.

What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

I don't know but it's an interesting phenomenon. I would have expected support for Sanders to be at least as prevalent amongst minorities and women, if not more so. I know Bill Clinton was popular with black people and that's probably extending to Hillary, but I would have thought they would have mostly seen through the whole Clinton thing by now. And I know Hillary is a woman, but so what when she's so clearly an establishment figure.

Ahh yes it must be your superior white male intellect. Did you think for even a second how racist and sexist what you're saying is?

 

[indigo lily]

What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

 

[Jinkies]

While America needs a female president already, I feel strongly that Hillary isn't the right person for the job. But she's always been the frontrunner, across both parties.

I'm going to cry the first time I see a front page Reddit thread about wealth inequality, about 3 days into Hillary's administration.

ed: Or a /r/funny post about student loans, within 6 months of November

 

[captainnapalm]

This is a pretty disgusting comment.

What Sanders and Sanders supporters should be doing is understanding why women and minorities aren't gelling with his message and try to address that, instead of assuming the problem is with the ignorance of minorities.

But all the information is out there. There's no excuse for being uninformed.

I just wonder what the reason for this discrepancy could be, and I think back to some of the political discussions I've had with some people, where they seem more interested in seeing issues in racial or feminist terms - and the accompanying social narratives that creates - than in purely political or economic terms - where the heart of the problem actually lies.

If you agree that's where the problem lies, I can't see how there is any other person to vote for. Sanders might turn out to be an establishment figure himself, and probably the job will own him, like it did Obama and all other presidents, but there's at least a chance he could push for actual reform where it is really needed. There's no chance of that with Clinton.

 

[bangbang i'm a timpani]

While America needs a female president already, I feel strongly that Hillary isn't the right person for the job. But she's always been the frontrunner, across both parties.

I'm going to cry the first time I see a front page Reddit thread about wealth inequality, about 3 days into Hillary's administration.

from what i've seen, hillary has tried many of these messages before that bernie is putting out. the big difference is that she is about as inspiring as a wooden table.

 

[BlastProcessing]

What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

I don't know but it's an interesting phenomenon. I would have expected support for Sanders to be at least as prevalent amongst minorities and women, if not more so. I know Bill Clinton was popular with black people and that's probably extending to Hillary, but I would have thought they would have mostly seen through the whole Clinton thing by now. And I know Hillary is a woman, but so what when she's so clearly an establishment figure.

This is satire right? Dear god, somebody tell me this is satire.

But all the information is out there. There's no excuse for being uninformed.

I just wonder what the reason for this discrepancy could be, and I think back to some of the political discussions I've had with some people, where they seem more interested in seeing issues in racial or feminist terms - and the accompanying social narratives that creates - than in purely political or economic terms - where the heart of the problem actually lies.

If you agree that's where the problem lies, I can't see how there is any other person to vote for. Sanders might turn out to be an establishment figure himself, and probably the job will own him, like it did Obama and all other presidents, but there's at least a chance he could push for actual reform where it is really needed. There's no chance of that with Clinton.

Oh no, it wasn't...

 

[Inuhanyou]

I'm guilty of trying to shame people who don't want to listen to viewpoints i find important on the subject into submission because they seemingly won't understand, but that's not a real solution, i get that.

Its just a very desperate time for everyone, and we do things that...would not really fly if the situation weren't as dire as we find it in the political spectrum and the stakes not as high.

I'm sure its the same for the HIllary people too.

With that being said, enough with the character attacks already. I get it.

 

[AlphaDump]

from what i've seen, hillary has tried many of these messages before that bernie is putting out. the big difference is that she is about as inspiring as a wooden table.

that is funny because they've both been around. Bernie hasn't been a common name since this selection. Hillary created Hilarycare in the 90s.


why repeal the ACA? Why repeal Dodd-Frank?

You know how hard it was to get these passed?

http://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-on-dodd-frank-5-years-later-2015-7

here is elizabeth warren on it

 

[RustyNails]

Affordable Care Act is Obama's legacy. If you go about saying you will uproot it to make an even better system in place, you're taking away his hard fought law. It simply will not fly with Obama's core constituency and the people that supported him.

 

[captainnapalm]

Ahh yes it must be your superior white male intellect. Did you think for even a second how racist and sexist what you're saying is?

It's not about superior intellect. Maybe you're just less likely to get sidetracked by other narratives.

 

[AlphaDump]

Affordable Care Act is Obama's legacy. If you go about saying you will uproot it to make an even better system in place, you're taking away his hard fought law. It simply will not fly with Obama's core constituency and the people that supported him.

and the fact that republicans are currently trying to repeal it, and removed the public option to get it passed. Obama just recently veto'ed it (again). scrapping it rather than modifying it just isn't smart politics.

 

[pigeon]

It's not about superior intellect. Maybe you're just less likely to get sidetracked by other narratives.

"Everybody is getting sidetracked by incomplete narratives except me. My narrative is complete!"

 

[Inuhanyou]

Affordable Care Act is Obama's legacy. If you go about saying you will uproot it to make an even better system in place, you're taking away his hard fought law. It simply will not fly with Obama's core constituency and the people that supported him.

That is flawed. Because having the private insurance monopolies in the room to begin with during the crafting of said bill makes it meaningless.

And the same goes for Dodd Frank, which basically just a piece of paper at this point in time.

I hope nobody says TPP is Obama's legacy so it should not be renegotiated.

Just because Obama wanted to pass something as his legacy doesn't make it something that can't be criticized or replaced with something that actually solves the problem the ACA was designed to fix but does not.

 

[gutter_trash]

While America needs a female president already, I feel strongly that Hillary isn't the right person for the job. But she's always been the frontrunner, across both parties.

I'm going to cry the first time I see a front page Reddit thread about wealth inequality, about 3 days into Hillary's administration.

ed: Or a /r/funny post about student loans, within 6 months of November

Too late. Nobody else stepped up.
These are the 3 candidates left.
Pick one for now. Support the winner in November.

It's not Hillary's fault if nobody else stepped up

 

[excelsiorlef]

It's not about superior intellect. Maybe you're just less likely to get sidetracked by other narratives.

Please stop.

 

[BlastProcessing]

It's not about superior intellect. Maybe you're just less likely to get sidetracked by other narratives.

Have any hot theories as to why other people are so easily sidetracked?

 

[pigeon]

That is flawed. Because having the private insurance monopolies in the room to begin with during the crafting of said bill makes it meaningless.

And the same goes for Dodd Frank, which basically just a piece of paper at this point in time.

This is kind of an astonishing statement. If Hillary passed single-payer healthcare, but the private insurance companies were involved in the drafting of the bill, would you say it was meaningless?

You need to look at what the bill actually does, not just assume that it's bad because of who was talking about it.

 

[noshten]

This is a pretty disgusting comment.

What Sanders and Sanders supporters should be doing is understanding why women and minorities aren't gelling with his message and try to address that, instead of assuming the problem is with the ignorance of minorities.

Sanders leads among women below 35 years of age

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

Minorities know what's up to be honest, HIlary definitely has their best interest over some corporate slave like Bernie. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[cameron]

What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

I don't know but it's an interesting phenomenon. I would have expected support for Sanders to be at least as prevalent amongst minorities and women, if not more so. I know Bill Clinton was popular with black people and that's probably extending to Hillary, but I would have thought they would have mostly seen through the whole Clinton thing by now. And I know Hillary is a woman, but so what when she's so clearly an establishment figure.

 

[captainnapalm]

Have any hot theories as to why other people are so easily sidetracked?

Well, obviously if you're a woman or a minority, you're going to be more susceptible to a narrative that speaks directly to you. But that might mean you don't focus as much on other narratives that attack the problem in other ways, like from a purely political or economic perspective. Which is what Sanders mostly does. And what I believe he should do.