Support NeoGAF

[noshten]

It's not "intellectually dishonest" to consider compromises 'compromises'. Either you gave up on your principles, however briefly, or you didn't. You just want to portray Bernie as a totally uncompromising candidate, when in fact he isn't.

After all, the greatest proof lies in the crime bill of 1994 that Inuhanyou likes toting about.

It's not wrong to be pragmatic. Reality simply works that way. It's also not better to be principled in every situation; see the Republicans. Sometimes the hardest and most difficult choices come from having to compromise yourself to fulfill something that you believe can do good; see Daniel Webster.

The difference with being pragmatic based on polls before every decision you make and actually having a stance that is unwavering despite public opinion is pretty big.

 

[PantherLotus]

Aside on convictions -- at the risk of getting a little bit too deep into political philosophizing, I think of candidates in these categories:

1. candidates who have deeply held convictions but are willing to fudge the details in order to get elected and enact change from within;

2. candidates who have deeply held convictions but are not willing to obfuscate, even if it costs them an election;

3. candidates who do not have deeply held convictions but are willing to say whatever it takes to get elected;

4. candidates who do not have deeply held convictions and are willing to admit it.


What's interesting to me is how people cast these candidates in their own minds when they can never really know what's in the heart of a candidate (why did I believe Obama was lying when he said he wasn't for marriage equality before he was elected President?)

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Hillary's response on TPP is nonsense and pandering. You could have some disagreements about IP laws in TPP, but "took er jerbs" has not been backed up in economic research.

 

[thepotatoman]

I can't wait for the Democratic debate to consist wholly of Hillary and Bernie smiling and complimenting each other, O'Malley shouting like a lunatic about e-mails and Benghazi, and Chafee and Webb just being surprised that they're actually here.

Chafee and Webb are hopefully there to hold Clinton's feet to the fire on things like surveillance and drones and interventionist policies. Sanders probably won't do that.

 

[noshten]

Hillary's response on TPP is nonsense and pandering. You could have some disagreements about IP laws in TPP, but "took er jerbs" has not been backed up in economic research.

Supporting it will disenfranchise Labor Unions which are already holding back their endorsements

 

[User 406]

The whole "will say whatever it takes to get elected" criticism is pointless because politicians actually do try to keep their campaign promises. So I could give a rat's ass if their hearts are made of angel kisses or not, as long as they're pimping the policy I want, I'm good.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Supporting it will disenfranchise Labor Unions which are already holding back their endorsements

Sure, but it annoys me.

It's not nearly as bad as Hillary saying she'd start a NFZ in Syria... As long as Russia helped out. Since that is like saying you'll balance the budget if you find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't get the venom that's getting thrown around against sanders from clinton supporters.

Most of you guys would like sanders better if he was electable. But you seem to want to create these justifications that hide the simple, more electable calculation behind the choice.

Just own it

The gun issue is LOL coming from most dems considering clintons championing of certain things in the 90s and 00s

Honestly, my problem has never really been with Sanders but with a lot of his supporters. A lot of them act like you are the enemy if you are 1000% behind him. There's some stuff I am with him on and some stuff I am not. Also, that they treat him like the second coming. You saw a lot of that with Obama supporters in 2008 and you'd think people would learn.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I don't get the venom that's getting thrown around against sanders from clinton supporters.

Most of you guys would like sanders better if he was electable. But you seem to want to create these justifications that hide the simple, more electable calculation behind the choice.

Just own it

The gun issue is LOL coming from most dems considering clintons championing of certain things in the 90s and 00s

There is not much of a American ConservativeGAF presence left so what can one expect of a U.S Presidential Primary political fight around here to be other than left and far left.

 

[Coriolanus]

Ralph Nader?

*looks him up*
aye.

That raises another point. You'd think that Bernie would be a lot more electable if he was just saying whatever it took to win an election, like the other candidates.

Nope. That would backfire immensely. Sanders' appeal is that he is to the left of Hills. By moving towards her or towards a legit center, what little distinction he holds evaporates. His base, which wants a True Believer, would just see him as Yet Another Politician and do whatever.

Might have a point in the general, tho.

There is not much of a ConservativeGAF left so what can one expect political fights around here to be other than left and far left.

There's not a single far left guy in the whole of poligaf. Think Fork and I are the most left, and neither of us advocates for stuff like the abolition of private property or other Far Left ideas.

 

[brainchild]

Aside on convictions -- at the risk of getting a little bit too deep into political philosophizing, I think of candidates in these categories:

1. candidates who have deeply held convictions but are willing to fudge the details in order to get elected and enact change from within;

2. candidates who have deeply held convictions but are not willing to obfuscate, even if it costs them an election;

3. candidates who do not have deeply held convictions but are willing to say whatever it takes to get elected;

4. candidates who do not have deeply held convictions and are willing to admit it.


What's interesting to me is how people cast these candidates in their own minds when they can never really know what's in the heart of a candidate (why did I believe Obama was lying when he said he wasn't for marriage equality before he was elected President?)

Well, my beliefs about Bernie's convictions are based on his actual long-standing and consistent voting record, his speeches in congressional meetings, and his involvement in civil rights, long before he became a politician. When you combine the data from the three, the kind of politician that Bernie is becomes obvious.

I'm not just some biased fan who believes that Bernie can do no wrong. I don't even agree with him on everything. However, in this case, the evidence supports my view, which is why I'm so adamant about it.

 

[thepotatoman]

Hillary's response on TPP is nonsense and pandering. You could have some disagreements about IP laws in TPP, but "took er jerbs" has not been backed up in economic research.

It fits perfectly well with economic research.

Second, we can’t look at this in a vacuum. Years of Republican obstruction at home have weakened U.S. competitiveness and made it harder for Americans who lose jobs and pay because of trade to get back on their feet. Republicans have blocked the investments that we need and that President Obama has proposed in infrastructure, education, clean energy, and innovation. They’ve refused to raise the minimum wage or defend workers’ rights or adequately fund job training.

The economic research you're talking about looks at trade in a vacuum, and says by itself more free trade = more GDP. This is true, and ideally you'd use that additional GDP toward programs that help the poor who are most affected by a deal like this, but that's never going to happen with Republicans still having the power they have.

The problem in american economics at this point in time isn't how we get more GDP, but how we distribute that GDP, and free trade changes the distribution of that GDP in a way that isn't acceptable.

 

[pigeon]

That raises another point. You'd think that Bernie would be a lot more electable if he was just saying whatever it took to win an election, like the other candidates.

I mean, yeah, that's true. That is a major point against him. Winning counts.

 

[brainchild]

*looks him up*
aye.



Nope. That would backfire immensely. Sanders' appeal is that he is to the left of Hills. By moving towards her or towards a legit center, what little distinction he holds evaporates. His base, which wants a True Believer, would just see him as Yet Another Politician and do whatever.

Might have a point in the general, tho.



There's not a single far left guy in the whole of poligaf. Think Fork and I are the most left, and neither of us advocates for stuff like the abolition of private property or other Far Left ideas.

I was talking more about his electability in the general, but I see your point.

 

[noshten]

Honestly, my problem has never really been with Sanders but with a lot of his supporters. A lot of them act like you are the enemy if you are 1000% behind him. There's some stuff I am with him on and some stuff I am not. Also, that they treat him like the second coming. You saw a lot of that with Obama supporters in 2008 and you'd think people would learn.

Anyone familiar with Obama could see that he was a deeply charismatic person, but I personally didn't see much difference between him and Clinton. The only difference I thought he would make is in terms of foreign policy - to me it has always been the War Hawk within Clinton that drove me off, you can't be a progressive leader while bombing anything in sight and not treating war as a last resort. Sadly Obama failed to stand up to the War machine and that's the major failure in my eyes in his administration. If he had the done the very same things domestically while trying diplomatic ways of resolving the Syria, Libyan and other conflicts around the World I'd be pretty happy with his presidency.

I feel a lot more strongly in my support for Sanders than I ever did for Obama, I was pretty skeptical on his record and it was mainly his foreign policy position that pushed him over Clinton. I cannot with clear conscience support anyone that feels that war is justified as a first option which Clinton has proven time and time again during her time in the spot light.

 

[brainchild]

Anyone familiar with Obama could see that he was a deeply charismatic person, but I personally didn't see much difference between him and Clinton. The only difference I thought he would make is in terms of foreign policy - to me it has always been the War Hawk within Clinton that drove me off, you can't be a progressive leader while bombing anything in sight and not treating war as a last resort. Sadly Obama failed to stand up to the War machine and that's the major failure in my eyes in his administration. If he had the done the very same things domestically while trying diplomatic ways of resolving the Syria, Libyan and other conflicts around the World I'd be pretty happy with his presidency.

I feel a lot more strongly in my support for Sanders than I ever did for Obama, I was pretty skeptical on his record and it was mainly his foreign policy position that pushed him over Clinton. I cannot with clear conscience support anyone that feels that war is justified as a first option which Clinton has proven time and time again during her time in the spot light.

People keep talking about Obama's charisma, but I was never, EVER smitten by it. He came off as pretentiously calculated, and his 'prose' was artificially manufactured. I'm pretty good at reading people and I never once bought the charm act.

Now I recognize that he does have this charisma with the public, but it's so fake to me that whenever people talk about him having charisma, I can't help but roll my eyes.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

People keep talking about Obama's charisma, but I was never, EVER smitten by it. He came off as pretentiously calculated, and his 'prose' was artificially manufactured. I'm pretty good at reading people and I never once bought the charm act.

Now I recognize that he does have this charisma with the public, but it's so fake to me that whenever people talk about him having charisma, I can't help but roll my eyes.

 

[brainchild]

Don't you dare compare the God of Astrophysics to Obama! Repent, heathen!

 

[NeoXChaos]

The only contest after 1980 in which the party didn't exactly choose appears to be the epic Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama contest in 2008. In that case, Clinton began with more party support (as Prokop notes, John Edwards had more endorsements before Iowa than Obama did). Obama was interesting to many party leaders, but they wanted a sign that he could do well nationally. After he demonstrated he could capture white votes by winning Iowa, he rapidly picked up support. That part is about voters providing evidence to party actors, not about voters choosing a nominee. After that, however, since both he and Clinton were acceptable to the party and fully committed to its agenda but party actors remained split over their preferences, they let the voters make the final call. That was a party win, not a party loss.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-07/party-elites-not-voters-will-choose-2016-nominees

 

[ivysaur12]

It'd say it's more The Party Vetoes than The Party Decides tbqh

 

[teiresias]

People keep talking about Obama's charisma, but I was never, EVER smitten by it. He came off as pretentiously calculated, and his 'prose' was artificially manufactured. I'm pretty good at reading people and I never once bought the charm act.

Now I recognize that he does have this charisma with the public, but it's so fake to me that whenever people talk about him having charisma, I can't help but roll my eyes.

Congratulations on seeing through the Obama act that everyone else was foolishly taken in by.

I think my favorite of your whole post is "his 'prose' was artifically manufactured." Congratulations on realizing that politicians read prepared speeches. Bravo.

 

[Snake]

People keep talking about Obama's charisma, but I was never, EVER smitten by it. He came off as pretentiously calculated, and his 'prose' was artificially manufactured. I'm pretty good at reading people and I never once bought the charm act.

Now I recognize that he does have this charisma with the public, but it's so fake to me that whenever people talk about him having charisma, I can't help but roll my eyes.

Rolling my eyes right back atcha.

 

[Retromelon]

https://amp.twimg.com/v/f964597f-4c18-44b5-a9c6-4baf44523bea
Ben carson at his most sinister. That bond villain laugh o.o

So there are like hundreds of old firing line episodes up on amazon prime.

Some good stuff.

There's one with chris hitchens and some guy named tyrrel that goes on for 40 minutes and i watched the whole thing. Good shit.

 

[brainchild]

Congratulations on seeing through the Obama act that everyone else was foolishly taken in by.

I think my favorite of your whole post is "his 'prose' was artifically manufactured." Congratulations on realizing that politicians read prepared speeches. Bravo.

I know I'm not the only one who sees it, but it doesn't make it any less cringeworthy. Also, by 'prose', I mean his attempt to go into 'casual talk mode'. It's just so fake.

My point is that his 'charisma' really doesn't resonate with me at all. I hesitate to give it validation by calling it that. I'd rather call it faux charisma, or something.

 

[dramatis]

Bernie is charismatic and appealing, while Obama is pretentious and calculating. Bernie is clever and potent, Hillary is weak and pandering. Bernie is this great thing, not that bad thing.

But yes, the guy who praises and defends his choice candidate and obsessively follows the candidate isn't a biased fan. He simply has much better character judgment than the rest of us.

 

[brainchild]

Rolling my eyes right back atcha.

Bernie is charismatic and appealing, while Obama is pretentious and calculating. Bernie is clever and potent, Hillary is weak and pandering. Bernie is this great thing, not that bad thing.

But yes, the guy who praises and defends his choice candidate and obsessively follows the candidate isn't a biased fan. He simply has much better character judgment than the rest of us.

There's a difference between public perception and personal perception and you're conflating the two. But go on...

 

[Coriolanus]

Also, by 'prose', I mean his attempt to go into 'casual talk mode'. It's just so fake.

This is unfair. Remember that the man is a black democrat in a position of high power. Everything he does will be scrutinized and he must leave no breach whatsoever in his conduct. He has no choice in the matter. It has to be very carefully constructed.

Which is why, when he casually mentioned that the cake/pie/whatever had crack in it, Michelle reacted so quick.

 

[brainchild]

This is unfair. Remember that the man is a black democrat in a position of high power. Everything he does will be scrutinized and he must leave no breach whatsoever in his conduct. He has no choice in the matter. It has to be very carefully constructed.

Which is why, when he casually mentioned that the cake/pie/whatever had crack in it, Michelle reacted so quick.

Thank you for showing me the errors of my ways. I shall recant my statements.

Spoiler

/s

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So there are like hundreds of old firing line episodes up on amazon prime.

Some good stuff.

 

[Wilsongt]

I wish a cow would sit on Brownback.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brownback-kansas-medicaid-expansion_56152b33e4b021e856d2f119

Some Republicans want their party to stop bashing poor people as lazy and undeserving of public assistance. Sam Brownback, the conservative governor of Kansas, doesn’t appear to be one of them.

Brownback and his allies are in the middle of a major fight over Medicaid, the government-run health insurance program for the poor and disabled. Historically, most states made Medicaid insurance available only to certain classes of people, such as children and pregnant women. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, states can now make the program available to all residents with incomes below or just above the poverty line -- with the federal government picking up most of the cost.

Brownback is having none of it. And while conservatives who oppose the expansion sometimes rely exclusively on arguments about Medicaid’s efficacy -- or perceived lack thereof -- Brownback has been putting his rhetorical emphasis elsewhere.

On Tuesday, the governor's deputy communications director, Melika Willoughby, distributed a letter laying out in detail the heart of Brownback’s argument -- namely, that expanding Medicaid would be “morally reprehensible” because it would help “able-bodied adults … who choose not to work" and would send money to “big city hospitals.”

 

[RustyNails]

poligaf has turned to shit

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

https://amp.twimg.com/v/f964597f-4c18-44b5-a9c6-4baf44523bea
Ben carson at his most sinister. That bond villain laugh o.o

Legit sociopath.

 

[brainchild]

poligaf has turned to shit

It would be a lot less messy if we didn't have these silly Hillary supporter vs Bernie supporter in-fighting bouts to contend with. I'd rather talk about the actual candidates instead of the people talking about the candidates, but that's just me.

 

[Retromelon]

It would be a lot less messy if we didn't have these silly Hillary supporter vs Bernie supporter in-fighting bouts to contend with. I'd rather talk about the actual candidates instead of the people talking about the candidates, but that's just me.

I live for the sanders-scandillary beef but yall got to step it up, like since erasure stopped posting here regularly melkr is one of the few remaining sources of drama left to support. No, boringly arguing about the meaning of words in the context of an argument nobody outside of the participants care about is not gonna cut it
I'm speaking generally here, wipe the sweat off your forehead brainchild

 

[RustyNails]

It would be a lot less messy if we didn't have these silly Hillary supporter vs Bernie supporter in-fighting bouts to contend with. I'd rather talk about the actual candidates instead of the people talking about the candidates, but that's just me.

It will get better if you stop being so flippant with your responses....

Edit: When I'm scrolling past bunch of back and forth passive-aggressive posts trying to look for a post from PD to lighten the day, it's time to press the reset button

 

[dramatis]

Apparently another policy plan is coming from the Hillary camp tomorrow, this time additional proposals for financial reform.

Tomorrow, Hillary Clinton will unveil her proposals on financial regulation and systemic risk in the American economy. One of those proposals, according to campaign officials, will be a plan to strengthen the existing version of the Volcker Rule along several dimensions in order to close what critics see as loopholes in a rule much loved by financial reformers but at times reluctantly implemented.

The idea of the original Volcker Rule is to prevent FDIC-insured financial institutions from engaging in speculative trading with their own money. The fear is that traders are able to make "heads, I win; tails, the government loses" bets where profitable trades lead to big bonuses but unprofitable trades lead to government bailouts.

Yglesias has a pretty pessimistic assessment of the overall plan though. So the thrust of the article focuses on what he thinks can realistically work out of her plan, which is the strengthening of the Volcker rule.

 

[brainchild]

I live for the sanders-scandillary beef but yall got to step it up, like since erasure stopped posting here regularly melkr is one of the few remaining sources of drama left to support. No, boringly arguing about the meaning of words in the context of an argument nobody outside of the participants care about is not gonna cut it
I'm speaking generally here, wipe the sweat off your forehead brainchild

LMAO

I can't help you. I'm not here for drama.

It will get better if you stop being so flippant with your responses....

Edit: When I'm scrolling past bunch of back and forth passive-aggressive posts trying to look for a post from PD to lighten the day, it's time to press the reset button

In all seriousness, this is a valid point. My apologies for whatever part I might have played in bringing down the quality of the thread. I'll be mindful of that going forward.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I live for the sanders-scandillary beef but yall got to step it up, like since erasure stopped posting here regularly melkr is one of the few remaining sources of drama left to support. No, boringly arguing about the meaning of words in the context of an argument nobody outside of the participants care about is not gonna cut it
I'm speaking generally here, wipe the sweat off your forehead brainchild

Don't worry about erasure. He will be back by February.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Plinko said the right was going to after Obama for the bombing of Doctors Without Borders, but the far right was very supportive.

The international outrage over the American bombing of the Kunduz hospital is indicative of the despicable, upside-down legal standards so often applied to the U.S. military in combat in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Critics are throwing around allegations of “war crimes” against U.S. forces, claiming that the U.S. failed in its affirmative obligation to safeguard the hospital as a protected site. The critics are correct that a war crime has been committed, but the Taliban are the perpetrators.

I want someone to punch David French in the dick.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425087/kunduz-hospital-bombing-war-crime-taliban-war-crime

David French also is circling the wagons to defend Ben Carson by saying "technically charging the shooter is the right strategy!" guess his deployment destroyed any brain cells he might have.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Most of you guys would like sanders better if he was electable.

There are some people stating this. And I've seen people post that this isn't the case for them.

In this most recent instance, Pandillary™ still supports opening trade across the Asia Pacific region, she's using the excuse justifying her disapproval as the deal not being good enough. Sanders is a protectionist.

And while on here it's probably not as often the norm, it may come as a surprise that the former may be preferable to the latter for some people.

Also, my royalty cheques for "Scandillary™" better be in the mail.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Don't worry about erasure. He will be back by February.

and then he'll disappear again after Super Tuesday

I wish a cow would sit on Brownback.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brownback-kansas-medicaid-expansion_56152b33e4b021e856d2f119

I wish a giant herd of cows would just selectively sit on every god damned moron who voted to re-elect him last year

 

[And_Gignac]

Clinton moving to the left with her evolved TPP position is amazing. Bernie has done his work.

 

[ivysaur12]

@rupertmurdoch: Ben and Candy Carson terrific. What about a real black President who can properly address the racial divide? And much else.

The takes are HOT HOT HOT!

 

[brainchild]

There are some people stating this. And I've seen people post that this isn't the case for them.

In this most recent instance, Pandillary™ still supports opening trade across the Asia Pacific region, she's using the excuse justifying her disapproval as the deal not being good enough. Sanders is a protectionist.

And while on here it's probably not as often the norm, it may come as a surprise that the former may be preferable to the latter for some people.

Also, my royalty cheques for "Scandillary™" better be in the mail.

Trademarks, indeed. I have something better than a royalty check.

I crown thee, shinra-bansho, King of Political Nomenclature

May you live forever!

 

[Coriolanus]

Plinko said the right was going to after Obama for the bombing of Doctors Without Borders, but the far right was very supportive.
I want someone to punch David French in the dick.

Well, he's got a point. If someone takes a hostage, what are the good guys supposed to do? Can't put yourself at risk, better to just shoot through the poor guy.

 

[dramatis]

Can't read another site without bumping into Hillary.

In our enlightened, lean-in age, the majority of Americans actually do accept that women are just as capable of being good political and business leaders as men. A Pew report from earlier in 2015 concluded that female leaders are perceived as indistinguishable from their male peers when it comes to qualities like intelligence and capacity for innovation—and actually outrank men in qualities like fairness, compassion, and willingness to compromise. But the discrepancy between what we acknowledge women can do and what we let them do—women are still only 19% of the House of Representatives and 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs—reveals a lingering problem: We know that they’re capable but, as the Pew report puts it, women still have to do more than men to prove themselves. They have to go above and beyond the standards to which men are held to demonstrate their competence; they have to try extra hard.

Hillary’s career is a case in point. She’s had a long and arduous climb to the top, not surprising for a woman in politics. And yet part of the reason she’s so disliked is precisely because she’s had to try so hard. While in someone else this might indicate persistence or strength (take Bernie Sanders, who’s served in Washington since 1990) critics dismiss Hillary as being overly ambitious, for “wanting it too badly.” (That last one is a particularly bizarre complaint: Whoever undertook the trials of a presidential campaign without really wanting it? Do Americans think Barack Obama was only casually seeking the highest office in the land?)

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Just because someone doesn't inspire you personally does not mean they are not charismatic. Reagan and Obama were both very charismatic men and they couldn't have won the Presidency if they weren't. Even their critics acknowledge it as one of their primary strengths. I don't have to agree with someone's politics to acknowledge their public speaking skills.

There is some degree of subjectivity involved in evaluating public speaking, but that's not necessary here because there's widespread public consensus about it. If you can't recognize something that the rest of the world does, I don't know what to tell you, that's on your end. There's not real charisma and fake charisma, there's just charisma. Intent is irrelevant, great salesmen are charismatic regardless of the fact that their goal is to sell me a product. We can call him fake all we want, but the guy selling 10x more units than us has something we don't.

This happens all the time in the employment context where smart and well-educated people with sub-par social skills get frustrated because they were passed over for a more charismatic and personable candidate. As if the rest of us are naive bumpkins who are being constantly conned at the expense of an intellectually superior class who are the only ones able to see through this social trickery. They constantly suspect everyone else of being social actors because that's their internal perception of themselves; if they never feel genuine then other people must not be genuine either.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I just want a candidate than can win and Bernie Sanders is not a winner.

 

[brainchild]

Can't read another site without bumping into Hillary.

I don't doubt the veracity of the alleged double standard. We're still a far cry from gender equality, especially in politics. Good on Hillary for making inroads in her space.

Just because someone doesn't inspire you personally does not mean they are not charismatic. Reagan and Obama were both very charismatic men and they couldn't have won the Presidency if they weren't. Even their critics acknowledge it as one of their primary strengths. I don't have to agree with someone's politics to acknowledge their public speaking skills.

There is some degree of subjectivity involved in evaluating public speaking, but that's not necessary here because there's widespread public consensus about it. If you can't recognize something that the rest of the world does, I don't know what to tell you, that's on your end. There's not real charisma and fake charisma, there's just charisma. Intent is irrelevant, great salesmen are charismatic regardless of the fact that their goal is to sell me a product. We can call him fake all we want, but the guy selling 10x more units than us has something we don't.

This happens all the time in the employment context where smart and well-educated people with sub-par social skills get frustrated because they were passed over for a more charismatic and personable candidate. As if the rest of us are naive bumpkins who are being constantly conned at the expense of an intellectually superior class who are the only ones able to see through this social trickery. They constantly suspect everyone else of being social actors because that's their internal perception of themselves; if they never feel genuine then other people must not be genuine either.

I hate to say that you wasted a post, but you're preaching to the choir. I never argued otherwise.

Obama's 'charisma' has no effect on me. So for me, PERSONALLY, I don't find him to be charismatic. However, I recognize that, objectively, he has an appeal/charm to other people, so in that sense, he's charismatic.

It's like arguing about the attractiveness of a person. I don't find Brad Pitt to be attractive (Colin Farrell on the other hand...) but I can recognize that many people find him to be attractive.

As stated before, personal perception vs public perception. It's really that simple.

 

[Retromelon]

Just a reminder: https://vine.co/v/erQH0K9JthD

Transparent attempt to be likeable to the younguns who weren't alive to know about whitewater