• 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.
Por que no los dos.jpeg?

I think lots of bernie's reforms will help all citizens, IF significant effort is taken to guarantee it is actually applied fairly to all. You also need criminal justice reform big time.

Because capitalism doesn't affect people equally. An equality based solution ignores fundamental problems of equity. Higher wages doesn't help if the people hiring are just as racist as before for example. Poor blacks face structural problems that go far beyond being poor.
 
If you look at his campaign in its original context, where it was an obvious attempt to shift the conversation leftward, his insistence of focus on one critical economic issue is actually a good thing, because it forces it into the mainstream discussion.

It's just that now that he has some unexpected voter enthusiasm behind him, he's having trouble switching gears into being a fully rounded out candidate.

The thing is, he got a 100% for HRC for a reason and its not because he only votes on economic bills and has been involved in drug war reform, VA reform, and other good stuff like that. It's confusing why he doesn't harp on those as well. Maybe he thinks that a lot of people are already for those things so its better to focus on economic changes that other people weren't for. Idk
 
y3b7TLa.jpg


Poor Nate.
A pretty solid Bernie impression.
 

Iolo

Member
Commenters are saying Carville wrote it, which would make sense at least.

It's classic Carville. Anybody on her email list can verify it, it was sent yesterday at 7:20 pm. Authorship was notably left off the screenshot.

edit: Beaten like Bernie on Monday
 

User 406

Banned
While I still think Clinton v Trump results in a Clinton victory, I'm no longer confident that it will be by crushing margins. Trump's been too canny in this campaign for me to think he doesn't have *some* plan to walk his shit back. Whether or not it would succeed is a different question, but he's too obsessed with polls to not recognize his deficit.

Nah, Trump won't walk shit back. What you see is what you get with him. Whenever he gets bad polls, he criticizes the poll, or the people being polled. The very limit of his diplomatic ability is to say shit he thinks is placating, like, “I think she has a very beautiful face, and she’s a beautiful woman.” when called out on his sexism against Fiorina in a debate where she's right there on stage. He's utterly incapable of anything but ineffective handwaving when called on the carpet.


I think lots of bernie's reforms will help all citizens, IF significant effort is taken to guarantee it is actually applied fairly to all. You also need criminal justice reform big time.

There's the rub. So far every time we've had broad reforms, it always ends up being applied in an unfair fashion. We need to start approaching things directly from a social justice perspective for once.


The thing is, he got a 100% for HRC for a reason and its not because he only votes on economic bills and has been involved in drug war reform, VA reform, and other good stuff like that. It's confusing why he doesn't harp on those as well. Maybe he thinks that a lot of people are already for those things so its better to focus on economic changes that other people weren't for. Idk

Oh he's absolutely deeper than that, but if you decide to start a campaign for President in the hopes not of winning, but of moving the policy of the party, the most effective strategy is to pick your biggest issue and hammer it in. Force the party to commit to making it part of the strategy.
 

rjinaz

Member
That NYT thread got locked.

When you don't have much of a conservative presence anymore there is going to be fighting among the left. Most of our conservative GAF is crying over the possibility of Trump being their nominee.

I feel bad, I think it was my fault.

I wonder how many conservatives browse GAF just for the "letthemfight.gif" while we war with each other?

Probably a lot lol.
 
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41634/rand-paul-new-hampshire-offices-robbed/
MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE—The amazing thing is not so much that Rand Paul's headquarters here was broken into and robbed. The amazing thing is that the thief found the damn place at all.

Just hours before the campaign's phone-a-thon-cum-debate-watch-party, the front door to the office building housing his headquarters is locked up tight as a drum.In a race where visibility is everything, no sign indicates the campaign is actually located here. A backdoor is unlocked, but the campaign is not listed on the building directory. Only the soft steady hum of voices on a phone bank—not dissimilar to the sound of the building's HVAC system—draws one down a long basement corridor to the campaign offices.
According to Matt Chisholm, Paul's affable if exhausted New Hampshire communications director, the thief got away with four iPads, two laptop computers, two cell phones, other small electronic devices, such as cameras and headphones, and twenty four bags of snack-sized potato chips. The thief could have taken a bit more—a couple of laptops were left behind, and he stripped the iPads of their Rand sleeves and dumped them, along with his cigarette butt, on the floor—but presumably he didn't want to risk crushing the potato chips by crowding them in the stolen backpacks.
neu08oe.gif


gWETLaG.jpg
There is no need to be upset.
gWETLaG.jpg
 
Nah, Trump won't walk shit back. What you see is what you get with him. Whenever he gets bad polls, he criticizes the poll, or the people being polled. The very limit of his diplomatic ability is to say shit he thinks is placating, like, “I think she has a very beautiful face, and she’s a beautiful woman.” when called out on his sexism against Fiorina in a debate where she's right there on stage. He's utterly incapable of anything but ineffective handwaving when called on the carpet.




There's the rub. So far every time we've had broad reforms, it always ends up being applied in an unfair fashion. We need to start approaching things directly from a social justice perspective for once.




Oh he's absolutely deeper than that, but if you decide to start a campaign for President in the hopes not of winning, but of moving the policy of the party, the most effective strategy is to pick your biggest issue and hammer it in. Force the party to commit to making it part of the strategy.

I agree on pretty much every point you made. Clinton's favorability numbers aren't too hot but trumps are much worse I think.
 
2008 flashback to the last DMR polls

In the Democratic race, according to the DMR survey, Obama is polling at 32 percent, Clinton at 25, and Edwards at 24. (None of the remaining candidates received more than 6 percent.) Interestingly, Obama's lead is due to support from three groups that don't traditionally turn out in huge numbers: first-time caucus-goers, independents, and young voters.

According to the poll, Obama is receiving 72 percent of his support from first-time caucus-goers, compared to just more than 58 and 55 percent for Clinton and Edwards respectively. Nearly 40 percent of independents caucusing in the Democratic race intend to do so for Obama, compared to less than 25 for Clinton and Edwards. And 56 percent of caucus-goers under 35 are supporting Obama, compared to around 15 percent each for Clinton and Edwards.

Iowa polls traditionally discount the three groups composing much of Obama's support because of their unreliability on election day, but the DMR poll is predicting they will turn out in droves. In the newspaper's Democratic sample, 60 percent of likely caucus-goers were first-timers and 40 percent were independents.

Obama's lead may have to do with the fact that Democratic voters are prioritizing change over experience. Thirty percent of respondents said a candidate's ability to affect change was most important, while 27 percent considered a candidate's ability to unify the country as the top priority. Only 18 percent of likely caucus-goers said that having the experience and competence to lead is the most important presidential quality.

Naturally, both the Edwards and Clinton camps have attacked the results of the DMR poll. Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, criticized the survey for "depicting an unprecedented departure from historically established turnout patterns in the caucus." Obama's rivals also point to other polls that don't find the Illinois senator pulling ahead. A Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll taken over the same period as the DMR survey, for instance, has Clinton at 30 percent, Obama at 26, and Edwards at 25. And a CNN poll puts Clinton at 33 percent, Obama at 31, and Edwards at 22.

GOP
For the Republican candidates, the numbers break down like this: Mike Huckabee is holding strong at 32 percent, Mitt Romney is at 26, John McCain is mildly resurgent at 13, and Ron Paul ties Fred Thompson with 9. Rudy Giuliani, nose-diving from a November showing of 13 percent, is currently polling at just 5 percent.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/01/parsing-final-iowa-poll

Final results:

Sen. Barack Obama: 38%
Sen. John Edwards: 30%
Sen. Hillary Clinton: 29%

Gov. Mike Huckabee: 34%
Gov. Mitt Romney: 25%
Fred Thompson: 13%
 

dabig2

Member
The thing is, he got a 100% for HRC for a reason and its not because he only votes on economic bills and has been involved in drug war reform, VA reform, and other good stuff like that. It's confusing why he doesn't harp on those as well. Maybe he thinks that a lot of people are already for those things so its better to focus on economic changes that other people weren't for. Idk

I think a guy like Bernie is trying to shift anger back onto the rich oligarchs that control the country. A lot of poor and working class whites often blame their shitty positions in life on minorities. This racism was cultivated by the Lee Atwaters, Nixons, and Goldwaters of the world. They started crafting this message of limited government being in the best interests of the white man as that would mean less money and capital going "to the other".

Bernie probably feels it's easier to focus on the class aspect since it overwhelmingly affects 99% of the country - or, in other words, populism.
 
I think a guy like Bernie is trying to shift anger back onto the rich oligarchs that control the country. A lot of poor and working class whites often blame their shitty positions in life on minorities. This racism was cultivated by the Lee Atwaters, Nixons, and Goldwaters of the world. They started crafting this message of limited government being in the best interests of the white man as that would mean less money and capital going "to the other".

Bernie probably feels it's easier to focus on the class aspect since it overwhelmingly affects 99% of the country - or, in other words, populism.
Yea makes sense. A lot of problems are due to the incredibly monolothically WASPy congress which doesn't represent the people. Campaign reform and banking/finance reform is key to that.

In a perfect world I wish he would emphasize no one is evil and worth getting angry over but it is a result of society/how we are designed and how we just need to change incentives but that would require people trying to overcome emotions which I don't think is possible yet/now but maybe we could be purprised.
 
The problem is that they're also usually a bit racist as a voting block and want those things, but only if everyone else doesn't get them. You see it play out with things like medicare and social security; they like these things and want to keep them, but don't want to expand them to everyone.



Honestly I don't think it did. It's a troll.

lack of education breeds ignorance breeds racism and hate.

if the playing field would be fairer for all across class lines in terms of access to healthcare, full time job and affordable education; then progress would settle in slowly by slowly

The Far-Right fuels itself by keeping people in the gutter and manipulating the uneducated working class into hating everyone else.

This time it is backfiring on the Republicans because these young hopeless uneducated whites are flocking to Donald Trump instead of the GOP chosen ones.
 
I'm not sure how much I agree with the bolded. It's kind of reductively unhelpful to note that historical colonialism and slavery were the worst. Nobody is going to dispute that, but it's not super relevant to an analysis of our modern economic world and whether X drives Y or vice versa. In any event, I think that capitalism's continued operation is intrinsically dependent on the modern equivalents of those systems, i.e., you won't find success fixing capitalism unless you attack the supporting structures of racism/colonialism/sexism first, as they exist today.
It can't happen. Capitalism requires losers. Tokenism won't work, we get Thomases, Carsons, and Fiorinas. And we get poisoned water in Flint, the continued erosion of our schools, and college costs that cripple everyone, but minorities the most.

Capitalism has to cost someone, and Capitalism can't be reformed so that it doesn't.
 
It can't happen. Capitalism requires losers. Tokenism won't work, we get Thomases, Carsons, and Fiorinas. And we get poisoned water in Flint, the continued erosion of our schools, and college costs that cripple everyone, but minorities the most.

Capitalism has to cost someone, and Capitalism can't be reformed so that it doesn't.

Sorry bad word choice messed up my intended point, replace fixed with replace. I'm saying you won't find success in removing capitalism without addressing the pillars keeping it afloat.
 
The problem with this is that in order to attract those voters, you need to abandon minorities. This is why we've been having calls to get rid of identity politics, because it reframes everything in terms of what is good for white men, which would attract more of them.
That's not actually true, as long as you are not only fighting for identity politics at the expense of issues that affect them as well, which is what the Democratic Party is doing - especially the Clinton wing.

The question is, do we want to be Democrats, or Dixiecrats?

Personally, I'm standing with women and minorities. They need a party to represent them too, and we're all they've got.
Wow. Patronizing! Its the White Man's Burden, after all. What would women and minorities do without you?
 
Sorry bad word choice messed up my intended point, replace fixed with replace. I'm saying you won't find success in removing capitalism without addressing the pillars keeping it afloat.
True, but erasing those pillars doesn't destroy capitalism either. They'll just find other losers. Tokenism helps no one.
 
If Marxism worked there would be good examples of it by now.
You could have said that about Capitalism for hundreds of years too. Same for Democracy. Maybe we give Socialism just a little more time before pronouncing it unworkable.

"I've noticed you haven't succeeded after all this time, never mind that we've been doing everything we can to work against you. Obviously, you're just defective."
 
True, but erasing those pillars doesn't destroy capitalism either. They'll just find other losers. Tokenism helps no one.

I disagree entirely, those pillars are not 'replaceable'. The pillars are fundamental to human existence and interaction in a way that capitalism or socialism will never be; the pillars have have always been with us. If you want to reform humanity you have to address our root evils, not the product of those evils.

That misguided approach is exactly why so many 'revolutionary' movements end up being just associations of white men who can't understand why everyone else isn't lining up behind them. Because they're not fixing or addressing the inherent problems, just the ones that impacts them most directly.

People will self-segregate regardless of whether housing is free or not. Sexual violence doesn't care whether there's social ownership of capital. Etc, etc.
 
Well no ones really tried it so...

Sure they have. Tons of small communities have adopted the ideas therein, with varying levels of success.

The problem seems to be one of scale. Marxism, when applied as the law of the land, seems to inevitably turn into Stalinism and Maoism, or else revert to capitalism.
 
I disagree entirely, those pillars are not 'replaceable'. The pillars are fundamental to human existence and interaction in a way that capitalism or socialism will never be; the pillars have have always been with us. If you want to reform humanity you have to address our root evils, not the product of those evils.

That misguided approach is exactly why so many 'revolutionary' movements end up being just associations of white men who can't understand why everyone else isn't lining up behind them. Because they're not fixing or addressing the inherent problems, just the one that impacts them most directly.

The true pillar is tribalism + the way our brain responds to incentives/punishments. Most of the prejudice is born out of our insider/outsider view of the world and takes a lot of empathy and education on how to compensate for it.

Sure they have. Tons of small communities have adopted the ideas therein, with varying levels of success.

The problem seems to be one of scale. Marxism, when applied as the law of the land, seems to inevitably turn into Stalinism and Maoism, or else revert to capitalism.

When has marxism ever been the law of the land, and can you link to small communities experimenting with marxism, I am interested.
 
Y'know, i've a problem dealing with maoism because... on one hand, it was the thing that allowed the China of yesterday to become the China of today. On the other hand, grotesque human cost. Like, china is undeniably in a far better position than india, the only country with a comparable population, so... gah. Then you gotta factor that not going the maoist route doesn't mean that there will be net - suffering, as the millions of miserable people in india will attest. Gods. Like. Fuck.

Bernie Sanders Prevails Over Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Wins More Debates
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-wins-more-debates/

Such spin, very wow

Called it.
 

tmarg

Member
Obama to visit Baltimore County mosque

President Barack Obama will visit a mosque in Baltimore County next week amid growing concern about hostility directed toward Muslim Americans. It will be Obama's first visit to an American mosque as president.

Obama will deliver remarks on Wednesday at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, located in Catonsville, and will meet with community members there to discuss religious freedom, White House officials said Saturday.

The visit is a symbolic gesture for Obama, who toured the Istiqlal Mosque in Jakarta in 2010, but who has not entered an American mosque during his seven years as president.

Administration officials hope the visit will send a message at a time when Muslim leaders are increasingly anxious about reactions following the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. Several crimes directed at Muslims have received national attention after the attacks.

I was surprised to learn that he never visited a US mosque before as president, but then, I guess it's not really that surprising. But it should have happened sooner.
 
I disagree entirely, those pillars are not 'replaceable'. The pillars are fundamental to human existence and interaction in a way that capitalism or socialism will never be; the pillars have have always been with us. If you want to reform humanity you have to address our root evils, not the product of those evils.

That misguided approach is exactly why so many 'revolutionary' movements end up being just associations of white men who can't understand why everyone else isn't lining up behind them. Because they're not fixing or addressing the inherent problems, just the ones that impacts them most directly.

People will self-segregate regardless of whether housing is free or not. Sexual violence doesn't care whether there's social ownership of capital. Etc, etc.

People self-segregate based on resource scarcity fears, primarily. They see the success of others as threatening.

I honestly don't think that either socialist revolution or the eradication of racial/sexual orientation/ethnic fears can happen the one without the other. That is, in order to work together, we must see that we are all just people. Conversely, one of the best ways to see that we're all just people is to work together. Class-based resource allotment prevents that, and it always has.

There's a sociological element to racism that can only be eradicated by close proximity and working together. Progress has always been the steadily advancing popular idea of who 'us' is.

Providing dignity to everyone is impossible under the limitations of a system designed primarily to either rob large amounts of people of dignity or to distract them from noticing that they are being robbed of dignity.
 

rjinaz

Member
I don't think it's as much spin as people here make it out to be. There were calls for more debates all the way back in the summer (though more by o'Malley than Bernie) and they were resisted. Then when Iowa and NH are closer than expected, the DNC wants more debates.

I mean I don't know. I DO think that the DNC were more open to them because of it being closer. But I also think that Bernie has wanted more debates all along and I also think that Clinton would have said yes to this debate regardless. But it's impossible to know for sure.
 
I was just pointing fun at how no one trusted the sanders reddit. I like hillary, I just like bernie more. I think getting mad at her wanting to win is dumb or her campaign people sending slightly corny/cringey emails is pretty dumb.
No one trusted it because it was presented like, "This is what Hillary is emailing people! Can you believe this campaign?", but once it was shown that it was from Carville, we shrug our shoulders and say, "Sounds about right."
 
Sure they have. Tons of small communities have adopted the ideas therein, with varying levels of success.

The problem seems to be one of scale. Marxism, when applied as the law of the land, seems to inevitably turn into Stalinism and Maoism, or else revert to capitalism.

I think that we need to figure out how to link small-scale socialisms to a greater system. Central command and control is problematic, as then anyone who captures the state then completely dominates the system. Strong states have been resorted to in larger-scale attempts at socialism primarily to fend off threats from outside.

I think that worker ownership is the foothold that allows economic democracy to flourish. It allows it, but it doesn't guarantee it. We can open the cage, but that doesn't mean everyone will step outside.

An alternative economic model can wedge open the gate, slowly at first, with worker ownership as the foundation of government. It builds on private property rights to subvert individual ownership and the distortions therein, it doesn't use the state to, in one strike, attempt to bash down the gates and build yet another prison because people have not learned how to work together for the benefit of all.
 

daedalius

Member
I don't think it's as much spin as people here make it out to be. There were calls for more debates all the way back in the summer (though more by o'Malley than Bernie) and they were resisted. Then when Iowa and NH are closer than expected, the DNC wants more debates.

Regardless of that fact, the story is pure spin of berns "triumphing" over the DNC, because obviously this was his plan all along!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom