• 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.
O

Ogrekiller

Member
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12113788/Jeremy-Corbyn-warned-that-Labour-faces-triple-whammy-of-election-blows-in-May.html And now labor is set to get annihilated.
Angry Fork said:
Sure, nobody denies this. However the reason people picked Jeremy Corbyn over the other candidates in the UK are the same reason people are backing Sanders. A. He advocates the things the young/disenfranchised/working class people want and need in their lives. and B. They have a hope that he will inspire the base (and non-political people who like left wing ideas) to get more involved with politics and vote for people in congress who will support Sanders vision. Sanders can't pass any laws on his own, but if more dems (particularly lefty ones) are voted in, this could change. Hilary isn't likely to inspire anyone to vote in mid-terms, especially not young people. Her campaign is blackmail; shut up and accept me because Sanders is scary. People are done listening to this kinda shit.

As for becoming the establishment, this has basically happened with every leftist politician except communists, it's not surprising and we expect it because you're still working within a system that intrinsically benefits/encourages bourgeois ideas. The game is always stacked against the left regardless of our leaders/politicians. Hilary is already that person, Bernie at least has a chance of remaining an FDR-type while in office.

It's almost guaranteed Bernie won't get half of what he wants done, but Hilary won't either (unless what you want done is aggressive jingoistic foreign policy, surveillance, corporate-friendly laws etc. that stuff will pass congress easy). Bernie can use the power of the pulpit to edge the country in a more progressive direction and motivate young people/the disenfranchised, unemployed, etc. to become interested and hopeful in politics again (what people wanted Obama to be). Hilary will be another Obama. If that's what you guys want it's fine but a lot of people don't. I still think Hilary is likely to win despite the recent good news but it is what it is, the left is used to losing all the time so I don't bother getting too upset about it.
Click to expand...
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
The word "establishment" really feels as empty as any this election, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Its a good reminder a lot on the left aren't too too different in their understanding of politics as those we make fun of on the right (these aren't all bernie supporters but many of them)
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
East Lake said:
Not really. Hillary is using it fairly dishonestly in the last tweet. If you don't think so, apply it to other situations where this race isn't involved.
Click to expand...

In this race, it's come to mean absolutely nothing besides what the person in question wishes it to mean.

So, yes really.

Ogrekiller said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12113788/Jeremy-Corbyn-warned-that-Labour-faces-triple-whammy-of-election-blows-in-May.html And now labor is set to get annihilated.
Click to expand...

They just need to go more to the left!

(Corbyn was never given a chance, but I also don't really think he has much of an ability to actually govern a working coalition)
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
I assumed what was being referred to was that you can basically label anything establishment if you want to.

The NAACP is establishment. HRC is establishment. IAMA is establishment. The Congressional Black Caucus is establishment. The Progressive Caucus is establishment. Hollywood is the establishment. Silicon Valley is the establishment. Planned Parenthood is the establishment. Fox news is the establishment. The MSM is the establishment.

If Sanders wins the nomination he will be the establishment, leading one of the establishment parties.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
shinra-bansho said:
I assumed what was being referred to was that you can basically label anything establishment if you want to.

The NAACP is establishment. HRC is establishment. IAMA is establishment. The Congressional Black Caucus is establishment. The Progressive Caucus is establishment. Hollywood is the establishment. Silicon Valley is the establishment. Planned Parenthood is the establishment. Fox news is the establishment. The MSM is the establishment.

If Sanders wins the nomination he will be the establishment, leading one of the establishment parties.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
E

East Lake

Member
ivysaur12 said:
In this race, it's come to mean absolutely nothing besides what the person in question wishes it to mean.

So, yes really.
Click to expand...
You should probably start with the tweet and whether it's honest. When people refer to the establishment, do they generally mean a person has been in office x years?
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
shinra-bansho said:
I assumed what was being referred to was that you can basically label anything establishment if you want to.

The NAACP is establishment. HRC is establishment. IAMA is establishment. The Congressional Black Caucus is establishment. The Progressive Caucus is establishment. Hollywood is the establishment. Silicon Valley is the establishment. Planned Parenthood is the establishment. Fox news is the establishment. The MSM is the establishment.

If Sanders wins the nomination he will be the establishment, leading one of the establishment parties.
Click to expand...

yes
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
East Lake said:
You should probably start with the tweet and whether it's honest. When people refer to the establishment, do they generally mean a person has been in office x years?
Click to expand...

I am not referring to Hillary Clinton's tweet. I am not talking about Hillary Clinton's tweet.

I am talking about how "establishment" has become this amorphous term that really has lost any meaning because it's only come to mean "against me" with certain politicians.
 
E

East Lake

Member
Well it certainly means something, otherwise people in here wouldn't be concern trolling over Bernie taking on "the establishment." If he's also the establishment, then he isn't taking anyone on.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
East Lake said:
Well it certainly means something, otherwise people in here wouldn't be concern trolling over Bernie taking on "the establishment." If he's also the establishment, then he isn't taking anyone on.
Click to expand...

He's taking on many specific things, but I don't think saying "establishment" is very helpful, because now it just means this umbrella of things that either he's taking on or he's not for that might not be traditionally described as part of the "establishment".

It's just a stupid buzzword that has rhetorical consequences that you're now seeing in the OT with idiots who are "anti-establishment" as their No. 1 priority without any actual policy beliefs behind what the "establishment" is. Because the word has come to mean nothing.
 
A

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
ErasureAcer said:
Frustrating. When you're having a conversation with someone and they act as if they're not listening or change the conversation to something else out of the blue...pretty disrespectful. I feel ya.
Click to expand...
It was especially bad when another volunteer who was having people sign up actually engaged with what I was saying. I asked to speak to her boss because she shouldn't be acting like that to volunteers. I'll probably see him tomorrow at the get out the vote training. I think he's in charge of northern New Hampshire.
 
D

Daniel B·

Banned
20160122012830028.png


And, you only see the full picture, of the polls still favoring Hillary, when you include the movement:

Code: 
POLLSTER					DATES		POP.		HILLARY	BERNIE	MARTIN	UNDECIDED
------------						--------		------		-----------	--------	---------	--------------
CNN							1/15 - 1/20	280 LV	 43 (-9)	 51 (+15)	 4		1 (-2)

Monmouth College/KBUR/Douglas
Fulmer & Associates				1/18 - 1/19	570 LV	 48 (-7)	 39 (+2)	7 (+5)	6

Gravis Marketing/One America News	1/11 - 1/12	461 LV	 57	 	 36 (+11)	7 (+4)	- (-15)

PPP (D)						1/8 - 1/10		580 LV	 46 (-6)	 40 (+6)	8 (+1)	5 (-1)
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
Establishment = friendly towards status quo, not interested in radical changes. That's about it. Hilary is that on almost everything. Sanders isn't radical on some things but others he is (relative to mainstream US politics).

It's not confusing and the only people confused are those who don't want Hilary to be called it because it's a bad look (that she has earned).


Ogrekiller said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12113788/Jeremy-Corbyn-warned-that-Labour-faces-triple-whammy-of-election-blows-in-May.html And now labor is set to get annihilated.
Click to expand...

This is kinda meaningless in a world where Corbyn had close to no chance when he started and everyone said he would lose, then ended up winning outright by a large margin. People predicting elections months before they happen are silly, we'll see what happens when they happen. The majority of people in the Labour party support and like Corbyn. Not much else to say on that.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Angry Fork said:
Establishment = friendly towards status quo, not interested in radical changes. That's about it. Hilary is that on almost everything. Sanders isn't radical on some things but others he is (relative to mainstream US politics).

It's not confusing and the only people confused are those who don't want Hilary to be called it because it's a bad look (that she has earned).
Click to expand...

Shucks, you got me.

I just don't think it's a very useful rallying cry, since its meaning has been so warped after this whole PP and HRC mess to the point where you should rally against individual issues versus something as amorphous as "the establishment", which comes across as empty and sophomoric.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
East Lake said:
You should probably start with the tweet and whether it's honest. When people refer to the establishment, do they generally mean a person has been in office x years?
Click to expand...

So the former mayor of berlington, former representative and 2 term senator? Who's held elected office about 3x as long as clinton?
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
ivysaur12 said:
Shucks, you got me.

I just don't think it's a very useful rallying cry, since its meaning has been so warped after this whole PP and HRC mess to the point where you should rally against individual issues versus something as amorphous as "the establishment", which comes across as empty and sophomoric.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that against you personally I was just responding to the posts in general sorry if it seemed that way. I don't like the term either and think it's dumb, same as people who use corporations as a derogatory term. It might be true but it just sounds bad/cliche because it's been used so much.

I get why people use it though in order to just condense multiple ideas into one thing. If Hilary is in favor of x,y,z which are considered establishment positions, it's easier to say she's establishment than going down the list of specific policies which takes longer. I prefer the latter but lots of people are impatient and want to hear buzz words so idk.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Angry Fork said:
I didn't mean that against you personally I was just responding to the posts in general sorry if it seemed that way. I don't like the term either and think it's dumb, same as people who use corporations as a derogatory term. It might be true but it just sounds bad/cliche because it's been used so much.

I get why people use it though in order to just condense multiple ideas into one thing. If Hilary is in favor of x,y,z which are considered establishment positions, it's easier to say she's establishment than going down the list of specific policies which takes longer. I prefer the latter but lots of people are impatient and want to hear buzz words so idk.
Click to expand...

I am not in favour of posting a wall of text most people will glance over at best to correctly define something when term X will convey the meaning sought appropriately except that some people will dislike the negative connotations associated with a label despite them being accurate. "I am in favor of this instance of X therefore it cannot be X because I don't support X" is silly, sometimes things you don't generally like will be the best available choice, in which case that's fine but trying to ignore the negatives by eliminating descriptive words is silly.
 
A

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
NYCmetsfan said:
Whose nomination is he running for?

And even with those you get about the same amount of time as bernie.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I said he's not been a part of any political party, just now. This isn't simply a numbers game; all that makes her much closer to the Democratic party and Washington than him.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Angry Fork said:
I didn't mean that against you personally I was just responding to the posts in general sorry if it seemed that way. I don't like the term either and think it's dumb, same as people who use corporations as a derogatory term. It might be true but it just sounds bad/cliche because it's been used so much.

I get why people use it though in order to just condense multiple ideas into one thing. If Hilary is in favor of x,y,z which are considered establishment positions, it's easier to say she's establishment than going down the list of specific policies which takes longer. I prefer the latter but lots of people are impatient and want to hear buzz words so idk.
Click to expand...

No problem. Yeah, I agree with that, but I just don't find it useful anymore.
 
M

Makai

Member
Trump: Sad sack @JebBush has just done another ad on me, with special interest money, saying I won't beat Hillary - I WILL. But he can't beat me.

Damn, man.
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
Elaugaufein said:
I am not in favour of posting a wall of text most people will glance over at best to correctly define something when term X will convey the meaning sought appropriately except that some people will dislike the negative connotations associated with a label despite them being accurate. "I am in favor of this instance of X therefore it cannot be X because I don't support X" is silly, sometimes things you don't generally like will be the best available choice, in which case that's fine but trying to ignore the negatives by eliminating descriptive words is silly.
Click to expand...

I agree, especially on forums or political circles where people already know certain things or if you're not interested in debating. It makes more sense to use a term like establishment than spend 10 minutes writing up a thing that people won't really care to read anyway or won't sway the other person.
 
E

East Lake

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
So the former mayor of berlington, former representative and 2 term senator? Who's held elected office about 3x as long as clinton?
Click to expand...
Just to be clear I'm saying that simply being in office a long time doesn't seem to me to indicate much of anything by itself, and people referring to "establishment politicians" probably don't mean that either. If it does mean something I'd be interested in hearing the argument for it.

I wouldn't agree with Fork's definition either although it probably applies to a lot of the establishment. I think probably a more accurate definition is whoever has the support of the wealthy constituents of the party.
 
A

Arkeband

Banned
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Conservative writers who only bring up Trump's deportation plan and try to use terrible economics to argue it are cowards and should be cut out of all society. Trump's main idea at this point is banning Muslim immigration and writers who refuse to even acknowledge that are both white supremacists and cowards who deserve to die alone.
 
Q

QuiteWhittle

Member
Arkeband said:
Tiny blip of a story, but Burlington Free Press just wrote an article about how they keep being approached by Hillary's SuperPAC to write hit pieces on Bernie, but only if they can keep it 'off the record'. If Hillary is such a far-gone conclusion, why even bother with this?

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/690325060100476928
https://twitter.com/bfp_news/status/690304138547040256
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...per-pac-offers-off-record-news-tips/79131372/
Click to expand...

Why would they even bother a Vermonter newspaper in the first place?
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
East Lake said:
Just to be clear I'm saying that simply being in office a long time doesn't seem to me to indicate much of anything by itself, and people referring to "establishment politicians" probably don't mean that either. If it does mean something I'd be interested in hearing the argument for it.

I wouldn't agree with Fork's definition either although it probably applies to a lot of the establishment. I think probably a more accurate definition is whoever has the support of the wealthy constituents of the party.
Click to expand...

I don't think that captures the essence of it exactly either. It's about having the "weight" of the dominant part of a well established force behind you and implicitly supporting their power in turn (and the compromises that necessarily arise from that). So essentially the status quo of the party supports you and you support it.

Ted Cruz is pretty much a living avatar of part of the Republican Base (and the part that's largely its animus at this point in time) and he's not without wealthy backers but he's not establishment because the people who run the machinery of the party can't stand him.

I couldn't really say the wealthy constituents part is wrong though because that often plays a very large part in who the dominant power is. Campaigning costs so much money these days that it takes billionaires to really wield influence in that area and that gives them a lot of clout.
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
Yet again, Hillary is going negative despite a bad record of that working for her. What is painting Sanders as establishment going to do? Is she considering who this might persuade, in which direction it would persuade them, and why? No Bernie fan is unaware that he has been a mayor, house representative and senator. They don't care about that. They care about his stances on issues. What this line of attack serves to do, if anything, is alleviate fears among more cautious voters that Bernie doesn't understand the slow grind of politics. Hillary keeps trying to set up these attacks that would require his entire public image to flip in order to work. Not to mention this line of attack is deflected, from a messaging stand point at least, by pointing out that he has served as one of the only independents in congress for the entirety of that time.
 
A

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Conservative writers who only bring up Trump's deportation plan and try to use terrible economics to argue it are cowards and should be cut out of all society. Trump's main idea at this point is banning Muslim immigration and writers who refuse to even acknowledge that are both white supremacists and cowards who deserve to die alone.
Click to expand...
Let the hate flow through you!
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
A Human Becoming said:
Let the hate flow through you!
Click to expand...

The "Trump is actually about economics!" bullshit I've seen spewed has pissed me off so much. Muslim Americans commit fewer crimes than most Americans, are more educated, and make far more money than these knuckledragging Dixiecrats, but mice who pretend to be actual humans keep trying to pretend that a rich fuckface who has a tax plan that kills the poor is really about populism. White supremacy dominates psychology.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
The "Trump is actually about economics!" bullshit I've seen spewed has pissed me off so much. Muslim Americans commit fewer crimes than most Americans, are more educated, and make far more money than these knuckledragging Dixiecrats, but mice who pretend to be actual humans keep trying to pretend that a rich fuckface who has a tax plan that kills the poor is really about populism. White supremacy dominates psychology.
Click to expand...

Populism isn't inherently nice though. Populist movements work even if they only appeal to a plurality and do that by coddling their worst instincts. So its no wrong to call Trump a populist even if he's a representative of it's worst face.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
OrangeGrayBlue said:
Trump thinks a lot of things.


Edit- I still can't get over the fact that in a couple months we'll be going through half a year of a general election battle with Donald Trump. I will be glad to see less bickering in poligaf though.
Click to expand...

Diablos is going to provide all the entertainment once we get to the general. It sucks that PD won't be with us this time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom