Support NeoGAF

[ugaboga232]

I think we can all agree the socialism angle is the easiest and most attackable part of bernie, the question is how will the people take it (probably poorly but who knows)? Polls say people hate socialism, but they also say trump isn't very favorable. Only time will tell (its probably gonna be cHillary anyway, I say as a bernie fan).

Also fiorina's lies about her step daughter and weed is really angering when she knows what she's doing and is politicizing the death of her own step daughter for a soundbite.

 

[neurosisxeno]

You know that like 40% of people on Social Security and Medicare believe that they don't take part in governmental programs, right?

The socialism thing is a problem. When people learn he wants to raise their taxes, that's a problem. I know we can pretend that it's not...but a better use of time would be to actually tackle the issue instead of pretending their isn't one.

"Keep your Government hands off my Medicare!!!" Yea I remember.

I think all it takes is a candidate that can explain these things to people. An increase in taxes isn't a bad thing if it corresponds to something like removing the insane amount of money people spend on Health Care. It's a PR issue. Most well informed people realize if you increase taxes by a bit on people but eliminate what they have to spend on Insurance it overall results in savings--the general public just has to figure it out.

 

[User 463088]

I think we can all agree the socialism angle is the easiest and most attackable part of bernie, the question is how will the people take it (probably poorly but who knows)? Polls say people hate socialism, but they also say trump isn't very favorable. Only time will tell (its probably gonna be cHillary anyway, I say as a bernie fan).

Also fiorina's lies about her step daughter and weed is really angering when she knows what she's doing and is politicizing the death of her own step daughter for a soundbite.

The thing about the Bernie thing is that a SuperPac won't even have to use anyone else's words. They can just roll the tape of him saying it. That's all they have to do. It doesn't require trusting the source material when it will literally be the candidate himself.

 

[Ogrekiller]

"Keep your Government hands off my Medicare!!!" Yea I remember.

I think all it takes is a candidate that can explain these things to people. An increase in taxes isn't a bad thing if it corresponds to something like removing the insane amount of money people spend on Health Care. It's a PR issue. Most well informed people realize if you increase taxes by a bit on people but eliminate what they have to spend on Insurance it overall results in savings--the general public just has to figure it out.

Like Obama did?

 

[Makai]

If Bernie can beat Uphillary, he can beat Trump.

 

[ugaboga232]

The thing about the Bernie thing is that a SuperPac won't even have to use anyone else's words. They can just roll the tape of him saying it. That's all they have to do. It doesn't require trusting the source material when it will literally be the candidate himself.

Oh totally, he's made it laughably easy to attack him as a socialist. I'm just saying that even though im sure it will hurt, who knows if it would actually destroy him (though the poll about socialist favorability is damning but not totally conclusive).
Tl;dr: can't tell the future (yet...)

 

[User 463088]

"Keep your Government hands off my Medicare!!!" Yea I remember.

I think all it takes is a candidate that can explain these things to people. An increase in taxes isn't a bad thing if it corresponds to something like removing the insane amount of money people spend on Health Care. It's a PR issue. Most well informed people realize if you increase taxes by a bit on people but eliminate what they have to spend on Insurance it overall results in savings--the general public just has to figure it out.

We fundamentally disagree. We've seen time and time again that the American voting public lacks a basic understanding of...anything. We saw it with the way they were able to make rational people foam at the mouth over the ACA.

I do not believe you will win an argument in a GE when it involves telling people "I'm going to raise your taxes....BUT" they'll tune out after the first part. It's a losing strategy.

I also disagree that Bernie is the best messenger. He's not. To those who don't feel the bern at all, like my mom, she constantly complains about how he yells, how he comes across, how everything is someone else's fault. There is an argument to be made for some socialistic policies...Bernie is not that messenger.

 

[disastermouse]

The thing about the Bernie thing is that a SuperPac won't even have to use anyone else's words. They can just roll the tape of him saying it. That's all they have to do. It doesn't require trusting the source material when it will literally be the candidate himself.

You don't get it. Socialism has been used SO much by the Republicans that I honestly believe most people will think, "Oh yeah, like Obama. That wasn't that bad." For reelz.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Like Obama did?

Obama barely tried. His explanations (and the Democrats higher up) were basically "Trust us, it will help you", and they deflected a bunch of the bullshit criticism.

If Bernie can beat Uphillary, he can beat Trump.

That's my thinking. Hillary is the strongest candidate in this election cycle--if Bernie can somehow pull off an upset against her, Trump has little to no chance.

 

[ugaboga232]

We fundamentally disagree. We've seen time and time again that the American voting public lacks a basic understanding of...anything. We saw it with the way they were able to make rational people foam at the mouth over the ACA.

I do not believe you will win an argument in a GE when it involves telling people "I'm going to raise your taxes....BUT" they'll tune out after the first part. It's a losing strategy.

I also disagree that Bernie is the best messenger. He's not. To those who don't feel the bern at all, like my mom, she constantly complains about how he yells, how he comes across, how everything is someone else's fault. There is an argument to be made for some socialistic policies...Bernie is not that messenger.

Yea, the public everywhere is generally not the best at understanding complex things. And bernie is no Obama in terms of public speaking (wish I had 10% of obama's charisma). Some people probably like his style though, its pretty raw and unpracticed (which your mom probably doesn't like). Who knows, hopefully no president trump.

 

[User 463088]

You don't get it. Socialism has been used SO much by the Republicans that I honestly believe most people will think, "Oh yeah, like Obama. That wasn't that bad." For reelz.

Except most Americans don't think Obama is a socialist. They really don't. They'll know Bernie is. When he's asked about it, he'll say yes.

 

[Suikoguy]

Hillary has so far not used the "Socialism" attack. Mostly because it's not really socialism, and I don't think it would be all that effective. How such an attack might work on independents and moderates... I don't know.

 

[User 463088]

Hillary has so far not used the "Socialism" attack. Mostly because it's not really socialism, and I don't think it would be all that effective. How such an attack might work on independents and moderates... I don't know.

Chris Matthews tried to get her to do it. She punted on it.

All we can go by is the polling we have. Socialism is not popular among independents.

 

[Makai]

This is going around

Bernie Salamanders still above water.

 

[campfireweekend]

I admire your passion even if I disagree with your decision. I wish everyone was this passionate about politics.

And without a doubt, this has been the most informed forum on politics I've ever seen in my life. It feels so good to come in here and learn things I'd never known, especially about economics. My ADHD brain is chewing on what Crab and other econ geeks are talking about.

That said, I think Sanders definitely needs Ha-Joon Chang on his economics team!

Spoiler

He, heh!

I take offense at the lack of a proper name drop!

Spoiler

Nah, we cool.

I have a question for you though, being a Marxist. How do you feel about some of the more unsavory elements of socialism that demonize immigrants who provide "cheap labor" or "suppress native wages?"

Even Bernie stated that Open-borders was a Koch brothers wet dream, when in reality, it would likely enrich the lives of those immigrants, and increase the output of the economy.

Here's a paper on the subject, showcasing that an influx of immigrants does not harm the wages of natives

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/mariel-impact.pdf

Spoiler

I just took a class with the author and he's pretty amazing.

 

[Holmes]

You don't get it. Socialism has been used SO much by the Republicans that I honestly believe most people will think, "Oh yeah, like Obama. That wasn't that bad." For reelz.

You're really grasping at straws here, though. "They heard it so much that they don't think it's true" is such a weak argument and I don't even believe it. Especially since, as some have said, Sanders is on tape saying it. Many times.

 

[Y2Kev]

I really think socialesm fighting force GAF is like two dogs. They fight every five minutes if you don't watch them.

 

[disastermouse]

Except most Americans don't think Obama is a socialist. They really don't. They'll know Bernie is. When he's asked about it, he'll say yes.

And I'm telling you - I don't think it matters anymore. I know that sounds crazy, but we've had 35 years of neoliberal economics and it's lead to nothing but shit-sandwiches for most people in this country.

I really don't think anyone will give a shit.

 

[Iolo]

This is going around

Bernie Salamanders still above water.

If Bernie loses Iowa somehow, I think I know whose refrain will be "Iowa doesn't matter."

Spoiler

or Iowa is part of the establishment

 

[disastermouse]

You're really grasping at straws here, though. "They heard it so much that they don't think it's true" is such a weak argument and I don't even believe it. Especially since, as some have said, Sanders is on tape saying it. Many times.

Really. Won't matter. I know, I know - it sounds crazy, but it really doesn't matter anymore.

 

[danm999]

I see the raising taxes thing being a bigger issue for Bernie.

 

[Makai]

If Bernie loses Iowa somehow, I think I know whose refrain will be "Iowa doesn't matter."

Spoiler

or Iowa is part of the establishment

I'm ready for demographics to be called establishment.

 

[Suikoguy]

I see the raising taxes thing being a bigger issue for Bernie.

Has anyone run the numbers to see if it might actually be enough to pay for his plans?
Or at least to keep the deficit at a similar %.

 

[Holmes]

Really. Won't matter. I know, I know - it sounds crazy, but it really doesn't matter anymore.

I want to live in the America you think is reality.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

It sure helped them beat Obama in 2012.

Obviously since Socialist policies like Medicare and Social Security are so unpopular, the idea of embracing such things is never going to happen.

The obvious difference is that Obama was an incumbent, a great politician, and has/had one of the most loyal (and broad) bases in recent memory.

Sanders has none of that.

 

[B-Dubs]

The obvious difference is that Obama was an incumbent, a great politician, and has/had one of the most loyal (and broad) bases in recent memory.

Sanders has none of that.

Also Obama never said he was a socialist. That's a big reason why it didn't work.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Polls consistently show that socialist and atheist are the two categories that Americans least support being the President. If America was going through "Socialist-Insult" fatigue, the polls would reflect that over the course of Obama's Presidency They don't.

 

[disastermouse]

I take offense at the lack of a proper name drop!

Spoiler

Nah, we cool.

I have a question for you though, being a Marxist. How do you feel about some of the more unsavory elements of socialism that demonize immigrants who provide "cheap labor" or "suppress native wages?"

Even Bernie stated that Open-borders was a Koch brothers wet dream, when in reality, it would likely enrich the lives of those immigrants, and increase the output of the economy.

Here's a paper on the subject, showcasing that an influx of immigrants does not harm the wages of natives

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/mariel-impact.pdf

Spoiler

I just took a class with the author and he's pretty amazing.

Most Socialists believe that it has to be a universal revolution and the right to free movement amongst states is a primary right of the working class. So there isn't much resistance to the idea amongst Marxists. Heterodox Economists are different, seeing immigration control as paramount to the natural control on the floor for wages.

The 4th International clearly sees Marxist revolution as an international endeavor.

Bernie's not a socialist, tho - he's a liberal reformist. He still thinks you can deal with the devil and win.

There are a LOT of problems that need to be addressed by modern Marxists, including the replacement for the incremental technological dynamism that Capitalism provides as well as a way to harness the drive for personal excellence that doesn't deprive the vast majority of people of their dignity.

If you want to know my ideas about this - well, they're going to sound crazypants, more than likely.

Gamification. I mean, we have people competing ferociously for gamer scores. Something like that which denotes status to high-achievers but isn't linked to resource allocation. There are infinite variations on this and they have distant parallels like noble family names and crests. You could have statuses and marks that only flow within families, for instance.

The drive for excellence is primarily for sexual dominance and social placement, honestly. Currently, our species uses control of resource allocation for this purpose, but it's reaching it's natural limits and starting to become dangerous to our survival. But a replacement must be invented - something that allows human beings to rank one another without having people woefully inadequate at resource allocation using that resource hoarding in a way that damns us all to environmental suicide and robs vast swaths of people of dignity.

It's achievable, as weird as I'm am absolutely sure that it sounds.

 

[Makai]

Polls consistently show that socialist and atheist are the two categories that Americans least support being the President. If America was going through "Socialist-Insult" fatigue, the polls would reflect that over the course of Obama's Presidency They don't.

Hey, somehow Trump is doing well.

 

[campfireweekend]

Also, disastermouse, I hope the Ha-Joon Chang mention is admittance of an interest in development and institutional economics, in which case if you want to read something outside of the Marxist paradigm, which attempts to address the same questions, you should check out the book Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu.

If you've never used audible, you could just sign up for a free trial and choose that as your free book. You won't be disappointed.

 

[RustyNails]

"Keep your Government hands off my Medicare!!!" Yea I remember.

I think all it takes is a candidate that can explain these things to people. An increase in taxes isn't a bad thing if it corresponds to something like removing the insane amount of money people spend on Health Care. It's a PR issue. Most well informed people realize if you increase taxes by a bit on people but eliminate what they have to spend on Insurance it overall results in savings--the general public just has to figure it out.

You think wrong. Pardon the meme but one simply does not explain things to people. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of modern American politics which runs on soundbites and 3 second clips. Gone are the days where Mother, Father, Billy, Sarah and pet dog Buster sit around the radio listening to news while Dad puffs his cigar. People will get the soundbite "Taxes will be raised for some middle-class families..." and tune out. Obama was smart to not mention middle class taxes during his election. He did slip up and mention "spread the wealth around" while talking to Joe the Plumber, and that soundbite almost derailed his campaign in the last weeks. It was the October Surprise McCain/Palin were waiting for. Stuff like that is what happens in American politics.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Really. Won't matter. I know, I know - it sounds crazy, but it really doesn't matter anymore.

That's my thinking. That the term Socialism has lost a lot of its negative connotations because Republicans have called every Democrat since the 80's a Socialist. Yea, Bernie embraces it, but I think once people have a face to put to the title, it will be a lot less scary. Bernie might shout a lot, but he's not scary.

The obvious difference is that Obama was an incumbent, a great politician, and has/had one of the most loyal (and broad) bases in recent memory.

Sanders has none of that.

He definitely has the loyal base, it might not be as diverse as Obama's, but not many candidates have had that. I think Sanders is a great politician as well, his focus on improving the lives of his constituents should not be overlooked, most VTers have a story or two about contacting Sanders office and getting positive results. The bigger thing that you're also overlooking is that the Republican field is weak as shit. Romney was a pretty good candidate, and Paul Ryan was the Republican wunderkin in 2012. McCain was also a great politician, granted he picked a terrible VP. Obama ran incredibly tough races, and Sanders\Clinton are at worst running against mid-tier young Republicans whose base doesn't even care for them.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Really. Won't matter. I know, I know - it sounds crazy, but it really doesn't matter anymore.

Who do you think the average voter is? It's not someone who's 20 or 30, or even 40. You have a lot more faith than me in a generation that didn't grow up in the information age.

 

[disastermouse]

I want to live in the America you think is reality.

I don't think you do. You're fear-based. Call it realism if you want, but 'something new' requires ambition and risk-taking that, quite frankly, I don't see your attitude ever being able to grasp.

(Modern) Democracy failed again and again. Until suddenly it didn't. I think you probably need at least 20% of people above the social 'center of gravity' for it to be achievable. I mean, think about how few people were actually involved in enlightenment thinking in 1774-1776, but the American Revolution (I still don't get that term, we didn't revolutionize Britain, we seceded) happened because a certain critical mass of thinkers and people in power were elevated above the social 'center of gravity'. It can happen faster now, what with the internet and everything. Everything's happening very fast now, actually.

 

[VendettaRed07]

In the world (reality) where, were Sanders to be the nominee, the words "socialist" and "promised to raise taxes on the middle class" will be uttered in every other sentence when Republicans talk about him for 6+ months.

I would agree with this if a Mitt Romney were the opposition.

Against Trump all normal rules go out the window.

 

[disastermouse]

Also, disastermouse, I hope the Ha-Joon Chang mention is admittance of an interest in development and institutional economics, in which case if you want to read something outside of the Marxist paradigm, which attempts to address the same questions, you should check out the book Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu.



If you've never used audible, you could just sign up for a free trial and choose that as your free book. You won't be disappointed.

Definitely. I'm an economics geek, I just don't have the technical education to understand texts that aren't aimed at my grasp of the concepts. I mean, I needed David Harvey's excellent video and audio series on Capital to make any sense of it.

 

[Iolo]

Can we just go back to arguing about polls please.

 

[campfireweekend]

Most Socialists believe that it has to be a universal revolution and the right to free movement amongst states is a primary right of the working class. So there isn't much resistance to the idea amongst Marxists. Heterodox Economists are different, seeing immigration control as paramount to the natural control on the floor for wages.

The 4th International clearly sees Marxist revolution as an international endeavor.

Bernie's not a socialist, tho - he's a liberal reformist. He still thinks you can deal with the devil and win.

There are a LOT of problems that need to be addressed by modern Marxists, including the replacement for the incremental technological dynamism that Capitalism provides as well as a way to harness the drive for personal excellence that doesn't deprive the vast majority of people of their dignity.

If you want to know my ideas about this - well, they're going to sound crazypants, more than likely.

Gamification. I mean, we have people competing ferociously for gamer scores. Something like that which denotes status to high-achievers but isn't linked to resource allocation. There are infinite variations on this and they have distant parallels like noble family names and crests. You could have statuses and marks that only flow within families, for instance.

The drive for excellence is primarily for sexual dominance and social placement, honestly. Currently, our species uses control of resource allocation for this purpose, but it's reaching it's natural limits and starting to become dangerous to our survival. But a replacement must be invented - something that allows human beings to rank one another without having people woefully inadequate at resource allocation using that resource hoarding in a way that damns us all to environmental suicide and robs vast swaths of people of dignity.

It's achievable, as weird as I'm am absolutely sure that it sounds.

That is an interesting idea. I don't currently see how it would alleviate the social aspects of capitalism that places some above others however. You're simply trading money as a status symbol for titles.

I do believe that we are approaching a post-scarcity society. I however disagree with your implications. I think that a means tested version of mincome, or a negative income tax, such as the EITC, or earned income tax credit, would be enough to alleviate the troubles brought on by such change.

Once people no longer have to worry about subsistence, and are free to chase whatever dream they have, everyone will be both happier and more productive.

So I guess I also think you can deal with the devil and win, as long as institutions are properly entrenched against all biases, which with Citizens United, they really aren't.

 

[disastermouse]

Who do you think the average voter is? It's not someone who's 20 or 30, or even 40. You have a lot more faith than me in a generation that didn't grow up in the information age.

I think that everyone realizes that neoliberal capitalism, even if they don't know what that is upon seeing the term, is a total and complete failure.

It's hard to call Marxism or Socialism a fairy tale after living through the last 35 years. I don't think the knee-jerk reaction will work because, quite frankly, Capitalism isn't bringing the goods it did post-WWII. Everyone knows the system is broken and/or rigged. It's funny to see people think that millennials will grow up and become rational capitalists after so many of them have been fucked so royally by the system. Yeah, a lot are trying to become 'multiple-stream-of-income' proto-entrepreneurs, but I think they sense that they're scrambling a fuck of a lot harder than their parents did at their age.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Can we just go back to arguing about polls please.

Sanders is leading in NH (and has been for weeks if not months) and is trading blows in Iowa. Sanders supporters think it's a good sign, most GAFers think they are sampling poorly and Hillary is still handily in the lead.

The horse is now beaten.

 

[disastermouse]

That is an interesting idea. I don't currently see how it would alleviate the social aspects of capitalism that places some above others however. You're simply trading money as a status symbol for titles.

I do believe that we are approaching a post-scarcity society. I however disagree with your implications. I think that a means tested version of mincome, or a negative income tax, such as the EITC, or earned income tax credit, would be enough to alleviate the troubles brought on by such change.

Once people no longer have to worry about subsistence, and are free to chase whatever dream they have, everyone will be both happier and more productive.

So I guess I also think you can deal with the devil and win, as long as institutions are properly entrenched against all biases, which with Citizens United, they really aren't.

I'm placing resource allocation as a trade for titles. The human animal needs the ranking. Needs it. The way capitalism works is that it gets that personal excellence by forcing others to starve and die of thirst or work in insane environments to feed it - and with increasing mechanization, none of that is necessary for ranking anymore.

I mean, after the first billion, it's not really about the money anymore, is it? It's just a score. But basing the score on resource allocation means vast numbers of people live unbelievably wretched lives - and those people, given the basics, can rise themselves to add their ingenuity to the shared and common human knowledge bank. The cure for cancer has probably already lived and died a few times in a Chicago ghetto, forced to sell drugs because that's all that's there for him or her.

It robs us all and it does it to keep score. We can find another way to keep score. I have no problem with the drive for personal excellence! I have a problem with it condemning the vast majority of human beings on this planet to lives of destitution and madness.

(Also, you have no idea how much you've restored my faith in humanity by NO ONE in this forum taking pot shots at the Marxist who admits to mental illness. You guys are really pretty awesome.)

 

[Makai]

Can we just go back to arguing about polls please.

That's boring. I'm here for Jeb vines

https://vine.co/v/ie0vLEeVUY3

 

[danm999]

I would agree with this if a Mitt Romney were the opposition.

Against Trump all normal rules go out the window.

I'm just curious to see if Trump's GOTV effort is any good and his supporters actually vote.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

He definitely has the loyal base, it might not be as diverse as Obama's, but not many candidates have had that. I think Sanders is a great politician as well, his focus on improving the lives of his constituents should not be overlooked, most VTers have a story or two about contacting Sanders office and getting positive results. The bigger thing that you're also overlooking is that the Republican field is weak as shit. Romney was a pretty good candidate, and Paul Ryan was the Republican wunderkin in 2012. McCain was also a great politician, granted he picked a terrible VP. Obama ran incredibly tough races, and Sanders\Clinton are at worst running against mid-tier young Republicans whose base doesn't even care for them.

His base is essentially a group of people who traditionally vote for the democrat nominee. It's a base that is almost exclusively white, much of which can be found college campuses. It's not the type of base that changes the electoral landscape, like Obama did. And that's why Sanders will lose to Clinton: Obama's base, or at least a solid portion of it, supports her. I think South Carolina's primary will make that very clear.

I'd also strongly disagree about him being a great politician. I think he's a bad politician. I hate to sound like a broken record but we've all seen the debates. We've seen his stump speeches. He's stunningly one note and unable to pivot to anything beyond his trademark riffs about big banks rigging the system. Foreign policy has changed the tone of this election, somewhat like the economic disaster shifted 2008's election. And so far he's been unable to deal with it. I can't trust someone that oblivious to win an election, even against a weak GOP field.

 

[Holmes]

I don't think you do. You're fear-based. Call it realism if you want, but 'something new' requires ambition and risk-taking that, quite frankly, I don't see your attitude ever being able to grasp.

(Modern) Democracy failed again and again. Until suddenly it didn't. I think you probably need at least 20% of people above the social 'center of gravity' for it to be achievable. I mean, think about how few people were actually involved in enlightenment thinking in 1774-1776, but the American Revolution (I still don't get that term, we didn't revolutionize Britain, we seceded) happened because a certain critical mass of thinkers and people in power were elevated above the social 'center of gravity'. It can happen faster now, what with the internet and everything. Everything's happening very fast now, actually.

I'm not fear-based. Nothing in this election scares me, aside from a Republican winning the general.

 

[disastermouse]

So I guess I also think you can deal with the devil and win, as long as institutions are properly entrenched against all biases, which with Citizens United, they really aren't.

Except you can't. The inherent contradictions of Capitalism and the way that Capital works means that, even with the vast adaptations and extensions that Capitalism has come up with to keep itself going, it cannot both allow capital to accrue ever upwards and still provide the consumer base necessary for its propagation. Capitalism will bow to reform when absolutely required to keep it alive, but then, when it regains its power, it rolls those reforms back. The two world wars were one way for Capitalism to propagate itself, leveling vast quantities of people and resources and allowing the naturally meritocratic (at least meritocratic along the lines and biases of capitalism) process to start again at ground zero. The problem is that, due to incremental technological dynamism, we've simply become too powerful to not destroy ourselves with war. We gave it everything we had in WWI and WWII, but if we give it all we've got again, we'll simply cease to exist as a species.

 

[disastermouse]

I'm not fear-based. Nothing in this election scares me, aside from a Republican winning the general.

Right. That's what I'm saying. You're afraid of the Republicans, so you can't think beyond the status quo - you can't think beyond 'your side' winning, even though the status quo has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be utterly unable to address the major issues facing us as a species. It cannot face environmental catastrophe. It cannot address the clash between bronze age religion and modern technological firepower. It cannot address the psychic wound of allowing so many human beings to die of starvation and thirst, or die due to preventable or treatable illness.

Imagine if the Founding Fathers had not been daring. They should have lost. They almost did several times.

But if they'd have lost, it would have happened somewhere else. It was an idea whose time had come.

 

[The Technomancer]

Right. That's what I'm saying. You're afraid of the Republicans, so you can't think beyond the status quo - you can't think beyond 'your side' winning, even though the status quo has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be utterly unable to address the major issues facing us as a species. It cannot face environmental catastrophe. It cannot address the clash between bronze age religion and modern technological firepower. It cannot address the psychic wound of allowing so many human beings to die of starvation and thirst, or die due to preventable or treatable illness.

Imagine if the Founding Fathers had not been daring. They should have lost. They almost did several times.

But if they'd have lost, it would have happened somewhere else. It was an idea whose time had come.

The problem is no-one running or even talking about engaging in the political system is revolutionary to the degree that we require. The changes we need go far beyond anything even Sanders is espousing

 

[NeoXChaos]

For anyone who persists in the Democratic caucuses seriously, three aspects of the process deserve particular scrutiny. First, it does not measure the actual level of support from living, breathing Democrats. If Martin O’Malley somehow managed to win the support of 14 percent of Iowa Democrats at every precinct caucus, he would still remain below the threshold and wind up with, literally, zero “state delegate equivalents.” Second, imagine a caucus that’s been allocated eight delegates. Under the rules, a candidate garnering 85 percent of that caucus’ participants would get all eight delegates. So if, say, 100 people show up and 86 of them back Clinton, she’d get all the delegates. But suppose she’s generating a wave of enthusiasm, and 500 people show up and most of them support her.
That’s a huge difference, but it wouldn’t change the results in the least: Unlike the GOP, there’s no individual head count. If you think this is merely hypothetical, take a look at last week’s POLITICO piece by Gabriel Debenedetti that lays out how Sanders’ huge support in college towns may do him less good than the numbers suggest, because their individual votes won’t be tabulated.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/how-iowa-hijacked-our-democracy-213557#ixzz3yDf6sAJQ

 

[sc0la]

But is there a tape of Bernie talking about whitey?

I'm ready for demographics to be called establishment.

Voting for your preferred candidate is like, totally establishment, man