• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.

Futurematic

Member
We didn't move a little to the left. We moved way to the left. Way, way, way to the left. Obama is the most liberal president in 40 (forty!) years - by far.

True. The last three Presidents as left wing as Obama were Jimmy Carter (right wing D), Gerald Ford (moderate to conservative R), and Richard Nixon (moderate R).

Further left of that grouping were LBJ (moderate D), JFK (right wing D), and Eisenhower (moderate R).

Further left again were Truman and FDR.

Obama in case you were wondering is well to the right of Ford/Nixon in fiscal policy.
 
True. The last three Presidents as left wing as Obama were Jimmy Carter (right wing D), Gerald Ford (moderate to conservative R), and Richard Nixon (moderate R).

Further left of that grouping were LBJ (moderate D), JFK (right wing D), and Eisenhower (moderate R).

Further left again were Truman and FDR.

Obama in case you were wondering is well to the right of Ford/Nixon in fiscal policy.

And then there's Reagan...
 
Jimmy Carter was anti-abortion and Harry Truman hated Martin Luther King Jr.

Truman once was a member of the Klan...

Uhh, I think Obama might be a bit further to the left than those guys...

I just hope we don't get to "Is Obama as left-wing as Woodrow Wilson?!?"
 
Jimmy Carter was anti-abortion and Harry Truman hated Martin Luther King Jr.

Uhh, I think Obama might be a bit further to the left than those guys...

Nixon advocated originally for UHC (then moved down to HMO's), Eisenhower invested massive amounts in infrastructure, FDR imprisoned Asian Americans, and Reagan was a strong advocate of the separation of Church and State. Unless we're talking about purely social issues, every President has some weird stances here and there, it comes with the job.
 

Futurematic

Member
Jimmy Carter was anti-abortion and Harry Truman hated Martin Luther King Jr.

Truman once was a member of the Klan...

Uhh, I think Obama might be a bit further to the left than those guys...

I just hope we don't get to "Is Obama as left-wing as Woodrow Wilson?!?"

Fiscal policies darling, as I stated though sure I should have moved that to the top 😃. Social policy has moved to the left inside the Democratic Party I agree.

Edit: quoted too fast, lol. I agree I should have moved it to the top of the post lol
 
Nixon advocated originally for UHC (then moved down to HMO's), Eisenhower invested massive amounts in infrastructure, FDR imprisoned Asian Americans, and Reagan was a strong advocate of the separation of Church and State. Unless we're talking about purely social issues, every President has some weird stances here and there, it comes with the job.

I'm pretty sure abortion and "do you hate black people" are kind of defining left-wing stances though... Harry Truman is the only person to ever use nuclear weapons in war also.

Fiscal policies darling, as I clearly stated. Social policy has moved to the left inside the Democratic Party I agree.

That was not at all clearly stated.
 
What relevance does this have to how left wing someone is?

Liberals tend to be against massive displays of force in a war, or for that matter against war entirely. Truman took out what, 200,000 people with 2 bombs? That's not the most liberal of things to do. It was an inevitability, and a tough decision, but it was probably the correct one.
 
Liberals tend to be against massive displays of force in a war, or for that matter against war entirely. Truman took out what, 200,000 people?

It's not appreciably different from what FDR did. The idea that left wing is synonymous with pacifism is not one I'd call particularly well founded (and if we're talking WW2 era, you need look no further than Stalin).
 
Hmm, Stalin is difficult to define as "left vs. right". Economically, obviously further left than anyone ever, but he was pretty okay with The Red Army raping their way across East Germany (something I would call fairly anti-feminist) and other horrible social issues. "Economically left" vs. "Socially left" can make things weird at times in defining whether or not someone is a "leftie"
 
The idea that left wing is synonymous with pacifism is not one I'd call particularly well founded.

How many countries has Obama put boots on the ground for? Bush invaded Afghanistan (though somewhat justifies) and Iraq (completely unjustified) after all. Republicans have been hitting Obama (and Democrats in general) as weak for years now because they don't want full scale invasions of every middle eastern country not named Israel.
 
Jimmy Carter was anti-abortion and Harry Truman hated Martin Luther King Jr.

Truman once was a member of the Klan...

Uhh, I think Obama might be a bit further to the left than those guys...

I just hope we don't get to "Is Obama as left-wing as Woodrow Wilson?!?"
Economics. Race relations and identity politics have changed both in importance and intensity in post-60s politics, whereas economic philosophies generally have remained stable as far as right vs. left.
 
Liberals tend to be against massive displays of force in a war, or for that matter against war entirely. Truman took out what, 200,000 people with 2 bombs? That's not the most liberal of things to do. It was an inevitability, and a tough decision, but it was probably the correct one.
LOL, what? FDR? JFK?

These boundaries have moved considerably over even the last 75 years. Judging previous liberals based on the racial, sexual, and immigration attitudes of today is silly.
 

Nuu

Banned
Black people and Latinos, uhh, haven't been drawn to the Republican party over the last 8 months:

"Has the primary made you more or less favorable to the Republican party?"



"Has the primary made you more or less favorable to the Democratic party?"



Basically, America's parties are simplifying to the white party vs. the non-white party in many cases...

Also, I don't understand white women sometimes...

CZF7LNqVIAQKZMJ.png


Donald "Nice tits, no brains" Trump is leading the GOP vs. Hillary for the Dems and you dislike each party more equally? Weird.
The American culture war has evolved from hippies vs hardhats to traditional Americans vs "new age" Americans.

Traditional Americans refer to those who focus on starting a family and moving to a nice house in the country/suburbs. New Age Americans refer to those focus on their education and/or goals of more personal matters and prefer living in the city.

Hillary just tweeted -

I haven't seen this weak of a "burn" since Romney vs Gingrich.

Nixon advocated originally for UHC (then moved down to HMO's), Eisenhower invested massive amounts in infrastructure, FDR imprisoned Asian Americans, and Reagan was a strong advocate of the separation of Church and State. Unless we're talking about purely social issues, every President has some weird stances here and there, it comes with the job.
Times change. What was once "left" and what was once "right" often becomes bipartisan or even crosses to the other side.

Hmm, Stalin is difficult to define as "left vs. right". Economically, obviously further left than anyone ever, but he was pretty okay with The Red Army raping their way across East Germany (something I would call fairly anti-feminist) and other horrible social issues. "Economically left" vs. "Socially left" can make things weird at times in defining whether or not someone is a "leftie"

"Left wing" vs "Right wing" is often something that can get very confusing. Trump is considered the most right wing person in the party despite being less for free trade and is more secular than most other candidates.
 
Hmm, Stalin is difficult to define as "left vs. right". Economically, obviously further left than anyone ever, but he was pretty okay with The Red Army raping their way across East Germany (something I would call fairly anti-feminist) and other horrible social issues. "Economically left" vs. "Socially left" can make things weird at times in defining whether or not someone is a "leftie"
Stalin was the furthest right among the Bolsheviks and as soon as he took power he began the purges (Trotsky is probably the most famous and most radically opposed to Stalin) and declared that the transitory bureaucratism that grew up out of necessity was the full realization of socialism. Without a doubt, Stalin represents the greatest risk that comes with the capture of state power and the harmful effect of a national revolution isolated from friendly neighbors. There are several other important lessons, but whether he was left or right really depends on whether you think Stalinism represents true leftism or whether he and it were a 'counter-revolution from within', in which case he was decidedly a right-ist leader.
 

Kathian

Banned
Stalin was not right or left wing he just supported what got him into power and then what retained his power. The Soviets called him out after his death and disowned him. He was just a terrible evil man who cared very little for anyone.
 

pa22word

Member
Hmm, Stalin is difficult to define as "left vs. right". Economically, obviously further left than anyone ever, but he was pretty okay with The Red Army raping their way across East Germany (something I would call fairly anti-feminist) and other horrible social issues. "Economically left" vs. "Socially left" can make things weird at times in defining whether or not someone is a "leftie"

This is a tiring as hell problem with people, honestly.

Trying to wedge historical figures into modern day social political lines is just silly as hell. Moral quagmires aside, Stalinism is a leftist government and economic system. It's a key example of why it's a pretty good thing in the US to have a political right to stand there and throw a fit any time the left wants to do so much as raise a single percentage point on taxes. It's the balance that keeps one side from exerting too much control and wrecking havoc on everything, because extremes to either lean results in disaster, regardless of whether or not it's Pinochet or Stalin doing the wrecking.

Also, the notion that in the US the party lines have changed all that much, or even "flip flopped" since FDR is a little misleading. I mean shit, google any writings by New York Machine politicians from the late 19th early 20th century and the policy agenda of modern establishment republicans and the two platforms are remarkably similar.

The main debate, and it's still the same these days as much as ever, between left and right in the US has always come down to what role the government should play in politics. The only thing that's really changed is the modern issues wedged into these lines and how the two blur the issues in order to suit their own agenda, plus modern capitalism thrown into the mix to shake things up a bit. For instance, Federalists wanted a bigger government and Democratic-Republicans wanted smaller government in the 18th century, but each for different reasons than the modern GOP and DNC do.
 
This is a tiring as hell problem with people, honestly.

Trying to wedge historical figures into modern day social political lines is just silly as hell. Moral quagmires aside, Stalinism is a leftist government and economic system. It's a key example of why it's a pretty good thing in the US to have a political right to stand there and throw a fit any time the left wants to do so much as raise a single percentage point on taxes. It's the balance that keeps one side from exerting too much control and wrecking havoc on everything, because extremes to either lean results in disaster, regardless of whether or not it's Pinochet or Stalin doing the wrecking.

Also, the notion that in the US the party lines have changed all that much, or even "flip flopped" since FDR is a little misleading. I mean shit, google any writings by New York Machine politicians from the late 19th early 20th century and the policy agenda of modern establishment republicans and the two platforms are remarkably similar.

The main debate, and it's still the same these days as much as ever, between left and right in the US has always come down to what role the government should play in politics. The only thing that's really changed is the modern issues wedged into these lines and how the two blur the issues in order to suit their own agenda, plus modern capitalism thrown into the mix to shake things up a bit. For instance, Federalists wanted a bigger government and Democratic-Republicans wanted smaller government in the 18th century, but each for different reasons than the modern GOP and DNC do.
Sort of. Both right and left can be avenues of elite power and occasionally that elite group gets pretty small. Historically, authoritarian governments squelch political participation to the greatest degree possible - and it's that squelching of political participation that is the tell. This is why enforced revolutions rarely turn out well. Capitalism achieves this by limiting the scope of the debate instead of overt limitation. Who needs to squelch political participation when you can make participation so unpleasant and futile that many choose not to participate?

Worker ownership and the growing consent and participation of the working class in and over government are avenues toward change, IMO. It would be an empowerment of labor via already existing private property rights that could begin to change the way labor relates to itself, manages itself, and interacts with its community. A revolutionary change could arise out of that.
 
Or there are more than one issue that leads to a loss of seats and that a potentially damaging person at the top of the ticket could wipe out good candidates.

Why do you think we all want Trump?

Hence "it should also". There's a plurality of factors in play. Anyone's guess how a Sand x Gold match would trickle down.

And don't we all want Trump in the GE so he gets 49% of the popular vote, thus allowing Real America to finally drop the act?
-
Hrm, to elaborate: there is no way to accomodate their views. The alternative would be if he had run solo, thus not ever risking being in a position to impact the lower tickets, but almost ensuring Disaster. The better bargain is, evidently, what one already has, for if push comes to shove, one would he very hard pressed to quantify what is the acceptable trade of local seats for the presidency. To complain about the scenario is to ignore the reality of the alternative.

This is factoring that, if the old man has to go against republicans, this sure as hell is the best year to do it, evidently. What risk Sanders represents would only be heightened were he faced with sane opponents.
 

User 406

Banned
I ignored it because the article itself doesn't even support what you said. Coates describes the Germans as basically begrudgingly agreeing to pay up.

No shit. It was begrudging because Israel had to demand the reparations by making the case that the harm done had yet to be repaired. Sound familiar? Nevertheless, it was the right thing to do, and they did it. We have not.

I'm not even advocating against reparations, I'm saying they shouldn't be supported by ill-informed articles, and provided an argument that the reparations didn't lead to the results the writer hoped for, and by extension can't be expected to solve anything by themselves, which is far more important than accepting guilt or other feel good activism.

Just because you want to keep on handwaving away not just the positive effects of the monetary reparations, but the non-monetary reparations in the form of the changes the Germans made in their society doesn't make them any less real. Did you even read Coates' article? The reparations he describes are not solely monetary, he's talking about a legal and policy engagement directed towards helping the black community to start repairing the harm that was done. This is exactly what activists are demanding right now. It isn't just a "feel good" thing, it's a demand to fix the problem, and even acknowledging the problem is a vital first step, since we've been living in a colorblind delusion since the 60's. Dismissing the demands being made as some kind of white liberal guilt is frankly an attempt to erase the efforts of BLM and the rest of the movement and remain in that delusion.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Florida Atlantic University just released a poll showing Trump leading the Florida GOP primary:

Trump: 48%
Cruz: 16%
Rubio: 11%
Jeb!: 10%

I'm not buying it. But it is hysterical.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
To ensure that college students were represented among Clinton’s AARP faithful, the organizers offered last-minute tickets to three classes in the school—including a batch to Sarah Vance’s ballroom dancing class. When the instructor announced the opportunity, one kid booed and shouted “I don’t like Hillary!” and all but 10 of 30 students wandered off.
“It was rude and stupid,” the 22-year-old senior from Davenport said. “I mean why would anyone skip the chance to see someone who might be the first woman president of the United States?”
But would she caucus for Clinton? “I’m definitely thinking about it!” she said.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/hillary-vs-iowa-213544#ixzz3xnJg8S3D
 

Makai

Member
Kasich: Trump Is "The Prince Of Darkness," I Am "The Prince Of Light And Hope"

Still angling for a spot on the Trump ticket.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
His criticism is mostly towards people that are brown.

That's what gets emphasized by liberal outrage clickfarms, but the main thrust of his message is outrage at elites who have failed his supporters and are too weak/selfish to help them with their problems. That is a completely mainstream position, which also helps to explain Sen. Sanders's unexpected success against Hillary Clinton.
 

Cheebo

Banned
The American culture war has evolved from hippies vs hardhats to traditional Americans vs "new age" Americans.

Traditional Americans refer to those who focus on starting a family and moving to a nice house in the country/suburbs. New Age Americans refer to those focus on their education and/or goals of more personal matters and prefer living in the city.
I am not so sure it is that clear cut. Many in this thread are likely married homeowners in the suburbs yet have "new age" values.
 
So i post about Bernie really not caring about other left leaning causes and just half- heartedly endorsing social causes and really only caring about economics uber alles.

Well

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/politics/clinton-sanders-establishment-endorsements/index.html

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders traded jabs Tuesday over the decision by progressive groups like Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign to endorse Clinton.

In an interview on MSNBC on Tuesday night, Sanders responded to a question about Clinton's endorsements with a broad criticism of the "establishment," explaining, "What we are doing in this campaign -- and it just blows my mind every day, because I see it clearly, we're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment."

"And so I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund, in Planned Parenthood," Sanders continued. "But you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very, very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment."

Yeah attacking Planned Parenthood, and Human Rights Campaign is a great strategy. Is the NAACP next?
 

Cheebo

Banned
Planned Parenthood and HRC being tossed into his establishment he is running against is fucking insane. Those organizations are better than either Hillary or Bernie could ever dream of being. Bernie really seems to proclaim any liberal cause that doesn't support him is part of the dreaded "establishment".


I would love to see a Bernie fan try to defend this absurdity.
 
That's what gets emphasized by liberal outrage clickfarms, but the main thrust of his message is outrage at elites who have failed his supporters and are too weak/selfish to help them with their problems. That is a completely mainstream position, which also helps to explain Sen. Sanders's unexpected success against Hillary Clinton.

Trump supporters think Japanese internment was a good idea and that Islam should be banned, you can stop trying to pretend this is anything else.
 
Planned Parenthood and HRC being tossed into his establishment he is running against is fucking insane. Those organizations are better than either Hillary or Bernie could ever dream of being. Bernie really seems to proclaim any liberal cause that doesn't support him is part of the dreaded "establishment".


I would love to see a Bernie fan try to defend this absurdity.

We don't even have to, articles are coming out (and tweets) acknowledging that they're pretty established DC operators. Which means, in the eyes of non-establishment voters, yes, they are the establishment.
 

Cheebo

Banned
We don't even have to, articles are coming out (and tweets) acknowledging that they're pretty established DC operators. Which means, in the eyes of non-establishment voters, yes, they are the establishment.
Name one thing that either organization does that is worthy of the scorn that Bernie throws at the establishment which as a group he claims he is running against and lumps these two into?


Being establishment is not inhereitnyly a bad thing. And running against them is bizarre since they are better at liberal causes than Bernie (or Hillary for that matter) could ever dream of being. He says he is running against the establishment and claims Planned Parenthood and HRC are part of this establishment. Running against them is running against two of the best liberal organizations in the entire country.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Damn, some in my own party are downright freeperish about "The Establishment."

If Bernie has specific complaints about these orgs, lay 'em out. There may be merit to some some specific complaints. But this vague pullstring catchphrase schlock? It comes off as lazy.

...

Meanwhile, grab another handful of popcorn..

Clinton Library set to release Donald Trump records
President Bill Clinton's presidential library is set to make public nearly 500 pages of records pertaining to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to an official notice from the National Archives.

The records will detail the Clinton White House's interactions with Trump and his Trump Organization, as well as how Clinton aides prepared to field questions about Trump's entry into the 2000 presidential race, where he sought the nomination of the Reform Party for a few months before dropping out.
 
Did you expect him to say that he was broken up about Clinton getting endorsements?

No but the usual answer is something along the lines of "we disagree but I greatly respect"

This shows a he really doesn't care about those two orgs as organizing institutions. How does he expect to win elections when two groups with great foot soliders helping elect liberals and dems are derided
 
Did you expect him to say that he was broken up about Clinton getting endorsements?

"I would point out that those organizations also have said kind words about me that I appreciate and I would say that Secretary Clinton and I will both do a good job for the LGBT community and for women if we are elected president." Then transition back to the stump speech about billionaires.
 
So is the expectation that Bernie wins Iowa/NH and then Clinton takes command the rest of the way? I want to know when to abandon social media when nonstop bernieposting takes over my Facebook and Twitter feeds.

I feel like I'd be a Bernie supporter if I hadn't followed politics over the last 4+ years and become such a cynic/realist. I'm even in the perfect demographic!
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
So is the expectation that Bernie wins Iowa/NH and then Clinton takes command the rest of the way? I want to know when to abandon social media when nonstop bernieposting takes over my Facebook and Twitter feeds.

I feel like I'd be a Bernie supporter if I hadn't followed politics over the last 4+ years and become such a cynic/realist. I'm even in the perfect demographic!

Iowa could go either way, but people have been expecting a Bernie win in NH for months now as the state always tends to swing local given the chance.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
So is the expectation that Bernie wins Iowa/NH and then Clinton takes command the rest of the way? I want to know when to abandon social media when nonstop bernieposting takes over my Facebook and Twitter feeds.

I feel like I'd be a Bernie supporter if I hadn't followed politics over the last 4+ years and become such a cynic/realist. I'm even in the perfect demographic!

start on February 1st and end a few weeks after Hillary gets the nod.

-this way you can skip all the anger, vitriol, disgust, c-word, b-word throwing over the course of the primaries.
 

Makai

Member
So is the expectation that Bernie wins Iowa/NH and then Clinton takes command the rest of the way? I want to know when to abandon social media when nonstop bernieposting takes over my Facebook and Twitter feeds.

I feel like I'd be a Bernie supporter if I hadn't followed politics over the last 4+ years and become such a cynic/realist. I'm even in the perfect demographic!
Hillary expected to win Iowa.
 

ctothej

Member
Well, I guess this isn't surprising...

Politico: The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter

If I asked you what most defines Donald Trump supporters, what would you say? They’re white? They’re poor? They’re uneducated?

You’d be wrong.

In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.
That’s right, Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it’s very possible that Trump’s fan base will continue to grow.

My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.

Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened. From pledging to “make America great again” by building a wall on the border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations.

Not all authoritarians are Republicans by any means; in national surveys since 1992, many authoritarians have also self-identified as independents and Democrats. And in the 2008 Democratic primary, the political scientist Marc Hetherington found that authoritarianism mattered more than income, ideology, gender, age and education in predicting whether voters preferred Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. But Hetherington has also found, based on 14 years of polling, that authoritarians have steadily moved from the Democratic to the Republican Party over time. He hypothesizes that the trend began decades ago, as Democrats embraced civil rights, gay rights, employment protections and other political positions valuing freedom and equality. In my poll results, authoritarianism was not a statistically significant factor in the Democratic primary race, at least not so far, but it does appear to be playing an important role on the Republican side. Indeed, 49 percent of likely Republican primary voters I surveyed score in the top quarter of the authoritarian scale—more than twice as many as Democratic voters.

Political pollsters have missed this key component of Trump’s support because they simply don’t include questions about authoritarianism in their polls. In addition to the typical battery of demographic, horse race, thermometer-scale and policy questions, my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.

Based on these questions, Trump was the only candidate—Republican or Democrat—whose support among authoritarians was statistically significant.
So what does this mean for the election? It doesn’t just help us understand what motivates Trump’s backers—it suggests that his support isn’t capped. In a statistical analysis of the polling results, I found that Trump has already captured 43 percent of Republican primary voters who are strong authoritarians, and 37 percent of Republican authoritarians overall. A majority of Republican authoritarians in my poll also strongly supported Trump’s proposals to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, prohibit Muslims from entering the United States, shutter mosques and establish a nationwide database that track Muslims.

And in a general election, Trump’s strongman rhetoric will surely appeal to some of the 39 percent of independents in my poll who identify as authoritarians and the 17 percent of self-identified Democrats who are strong authoritarians.

What’s more, the number of Americans worried about the threat of terrorism is growing. In 2011, Hetherington published research finding that non-authoritarians respond to the perception of threat by behaving more like authoritarians. More fear and more threats—of the kind we’ve seen recently in the San Bernardino and Paris terrorist attacks—mean more voters are susceptible to Trump’s message about protecting Americans. In my survey, 52 percent of those voters expressing the most fear that another terrorist attack will occur in the United States in the next 12 months were non-authoritarians—ripe targets for Trump’s message.

Take activated authoritarians from across the partisan spectrum and the growing cadre of threatened non-authoritarians, then add them to the base of Republican general election voters, and the potential electoral path to a Trump presidency becomes clearer.
 

Cheebo

Banned
Exactly there is a huge difference between saying he diagrams with the endorsement yet supports their cause and instead saying they are part of the establishment which he is running against.

Saying he is running against HRC/Planned Parenthood is just an awful thing to do. Attacking good liberal causes is beyond idiotic and damaging to the liberal cause overall.
 
Name one thing that either organization does that is worthy of the scorn that Bernie throws at the establishment which as a group he claims he is running against and lumps these two into?


Being establishment is not inhereitnyly a bad thing. And running against them is bizarre since they are better at liberal causes than Bernie (or Hillary for that matter) could ever dream of being. He says he is running against the establishment and claims Planned Parenthood and HRC are part of this establishment. Running against them is running against two of the best liberal organizations in the entire country.
You're talking to a Marxist. Please try to remember that. I'm not on your team. Your team has sucked for 40 years.

It's like the unions that have leaders who are really part of management now. Now I doubt that Bernie will take a stance against unions, but he might be critical of the unions that have sided against him. Similarly, he will be critical of liberal organizations that line up against him.
 
He didnt lie. HRC and PP are ideologically a part of the democratic poliitical apparatus. They answer too to particular, organized interests beyond their social reasons.

That was a really bad answer, though.

But abuelita is so relatable and quirky, how can this be
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom