Support NeoGAF

[Teggy]

Daniel Craig apparently donated some 40k dollars to Bernie Sanders' campaign.

Isn't that illegal?

 

[More_Badass]

Glad I found this thread. I hadn't really been into politics till a few years ago, actually mainly due to discussions on GAF and the live streams of the Ferguson protests and seeing how different sides were reporting on that

My dad is a pretty hardcore conservative, and it took a while for my eyes to open and see how ridiculous so many of things he was saying. Nowadays I'd say I'm pretty middle-of-the-road, left on some things, right on others, but lean more left than right

But I feel bad for my brother. He's 13, and my
dad loves telling him all conservative ideals and "news". Just today, he told my brother, in sum and substance, that "Obama is helping Iran, a terrorist country, make nuclear weapons so they can launch nukes at America"

 

[BertramCooper]

Yes, but you thought along the same lines on obamacare. They fucked up writing the law, so fuckem. And yet here we are.

5bux via paypal?

You'd think the GOP would have learned from KvB that this is a dumb strategy.

 

[FiggyCal]

Assuming a court were to address the merits (and I think there are serious technical issues that could prevent it), I think that's the least likely outcome. There is no "good enough" excuse for failing to comply with the law--that's especially so where the entire problem is of the president's own making. He signed the law. His administration negotiated the deal with full knowledge of what the law required.



Is Craig a U.S. citizen? (Technically it was to a SuperPAC, not Sanders' campaign. I just think it would be hilarious for Sanders to be the poster boy for the evils of foreign-funded corporate speech liberals have been worried about since Citizens United.)

I saw it reported by Time magazine. I was wondering if it was even legal.

http://time.com/4030921/daniel-craig-bernie-sanders/

 

[Coriolanus]

No, i mean. I understand where meta is coming from. Heck, if i had the stomach to read that horrendous method americans employ when crafting legislation, it's quite possible that i'd even agree with his line of reasoning. I just find it fascinating how he doesn't get the system, maaaaan. Apparently.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Yes, but you thought along the same lines on obamacare. They fucked up writing the law, so fuckem. And yet here we are.

5bux via paypal?

The problem with the Obamacare case was that the Court-determined "purpose" of the statute conflicted with what the statute actually said. That problem doesn't exist here. The purpose was to permit Congress to review the Iran agreement in full. What the law says is consistent with that, and the "good enough" "reading" is not.

Think about it. Your argument (and BertramCooper's) is essentially that Congress, in enacting a law to ensure they got to review the Iran agreement, built in a method for the president to shift important terms to confidential side-agreements so they could never review them. Talk about "absurd"!

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

The problem with the Obamacare case was that the Court-determined "purpose" of the statute conflicted with what the statute actually said. That problem doesn't exist here. The purpose was to permit Congress to review the Iran agreement in full. What the law says is consistent with that, and the "good enough" "reading" is not.

Think about it. Your argument (and BertramCooper's) is essentially that Congress, in enacting a law to ensure they got to review the Iran agreement, built in a method for the president to shift important terms to confidential side-agreements so they could never review them. Talk about "absurd"!

I don't see a world where Roberts unravels a multi-country international agreement. The purpose of the law was never to review the Iran deal in full, it was intended as a way to scuttle the deal, regardless of what it was.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I don't see a world where Roberts unravels a multi-country international agreement. The purpose of the law was never to review the Iran deal in full, it was intended as a way to scuttle the deal, regardless of what it was.

If the president enacted the law to scuttle the deal, then why is he now opposing Republican efforts to do so?

And Roberts, if he wanted the president to win, would rule on standing or justiciability (i.e., the Court would hold that the House can't sue the president on this issue or that it's a political question that the Court won't resolve). There's no plausible reading of the statute that excludes the side agreements. But, if he voted for the president to lose, it wouldn't be the "unraveling" of a multi-country international agreement. He'd simply acknowledge that the law requires the president to transmit the IAEA side agreements to Congress before their period for review commences. It would, at most, push back U.S. sanctions relief for Iran by the period of the president's intransigence plus 30 days.

 

[Daniel B·]

Our decades long experiment with unbridled greed, ushered in by the Reagan administration, has to end, if we want the whole of Humanity and the wonderful flora and fauna of our astonishing planet to flourish, not just for the next hundred years, but for all time.

We sure as shit aren't going to move in this direction, with political establishment players like Hillary Clinton, who would do fuck all, to curtail the excesses of Wall Street, no, we need the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who are only concerned with doing what is right for all Americans.

On the other hand, we don't need policies that punish high fliers, who didn't achieve their "American Dream" at the expense of others, or our planet, as it is only natural to desire a quality lifestyle and clobbering those that have "made it", is a sure fire vote loser. Instead, we should address the agregious tax avoidance, by the huge corporations, by negotiating a tax level that everyone can grudgingly live with, which won't be 35%, but will at the very least, have two digits!

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

If the president enacted the law to scuttle the deal, then why is he now opposing Republican efforts to do so?

And Roberts, if he wanted the president to win, would rule on standing or justiciability. There's no plausible reading of the statute that excludes the side agreements. But, if he voted for the president to lose, it wouldn't be the "unraveling" of a multi-country international agreement. He'd simply acknowledge that the law requires the president to transmit the IAEA side agreements to Congress before their period for review commences. It would, at most, push back U.S. sanctions relief for Iran by the period of the president's intransigence plus 30 days.

This whole resolution only came about because Congress was bitching and moaning that they wouldn't get a say in the deal and by a say they wanted a way to scuttle or weaken it. Republicans were never going to go along with it even if it was everything they wanted.

Again, your second point relies on the President even having access to the IAEA side agreements, which he doesn't. Asking for impossible things is great. I'm going to need you to work 27 hours tomorrow or you fired.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Again, your second point relies on the President even having access to the IAEA side agreements, which he doesn't. Asking for impossible things is great. I'm going to need you to work 27 hours tomorrow or you fired.

Which, again, is a problem of his own making. He had power over the requirements of the law and over whether his administration was negotiating a deal that could satisfy those requirements. He can't now demand an exception because he screwed up on one or both points.

Your analogy fails because of this, and because it isn't actually--physically or logically--impossible for the president to comply. If Iran wants its $100 billion; if the IAEA wants the information promised to it by Iran; if the EU, UN, and US want this deal to succeed--they'll get those documents to Congress. But only if they have to. Given how so many are so willing to excuse noncompliance with the law, I'm not sure they'll have to. (But the Republican reading is still right.)

 

[Retromelon]

Glad I found this thread. I hadn't really been into politics till a few years ago, actually mainly due to discussions on GAF and the live streams of the Ferguson protests and seeing how different sides were reporting on that

My dad is a pretty hardcore conservative, and it took a while for my eyes to open and see how ridiculous so many of things he was saying. Nowadays I'd say I'm pretty middle-of-the-road, left on some things, right on others, but lean more left than right

But I feel bad for my brother. He's 13, and my
dad loves telling him all conservative ideals and "news". Just today, he told my brother, in sum and substance, that "Obama is helping Iran, a terrorist country, make nuclear weapons so they can launch nukes at America"

Just what we needed here, another lowdown liberal.

Spoiler

welcome, i hope you like polls

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Assuming a court were to address the merits (and I think there are serious technical issues that could prevent it), I think that's the least likely outcome. There is no "good enough" excuse for failing to comply with the law--that's especially so where the entire problem is of the president's own making. He signed the law. His administration negotiated the deal with full knowledge of what the law required.

The law can now compel people to do impossible things?

The law is clearly about the deals that the US was privy to negotiated in Swizerland not side deals that aren't even related to current bomb productions! They about if maybe in the past Iran did something.

Which, again, is a problem of his own making. He had power over the requirements of the law and over whether his administration was negotiating a deal that could satisfy those requirements. He can't now demand an exception because he screwed up on one or both points.

Your analogy fails because of this, and because it isn't actually--physically or logically--impossible for the president to comply. If Iran wants its $100 billion; if the IAEA wants the information promised to it by Iran; if the EU, UN, and US want this deal to succeed--they'll get those documents to Congress. But only if they have to. Given how so many are so willing to excuse noncompliance with the law, I'm not sure they'll have to. (But the Republican reading is still right.)

This is literally another king argument about OMG THE LETTER OF THE LAW lets ignore the actual purpose of the law, realities and consequences.

Congresses intent wasn't to compel impossible things.

This is stupid. And will be my last post. I spend far to much time on the other obamacare argument stupid arguments

 

[BertramCooper]

This get posted yet?

Trump retweets 'Dad' photo — that's actually of U.K.'s new left-wing leader

And the tweet is still up.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The law is clearly about the deals that the US was privy to negotiated in Swizerland not side deals that aren't even related to current bomb productions! They about if maybe in the past Iran did something.

What part of "between Iran and any other parties," and "any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements" gives you that idea? I mean, would you be OK with a JCPOA that said no more than: "Once the IAEA says it's content with what Iran has done in its secret agreement that cannot possibly be disclosed to anybody under any circumstances whatsoever no matter what, the US must lift the following sanctions: A, B, C, D," with the actual details buried in the top secret agreement? Do you think the law was designed to permit such an idiotic arrangement?

This is literally another king argument about OMG THE LETTER OF THE LAW lets ignore the actual purpose of the law, realities and consequences.

I've already addressed this:

The problem with the Obamacare case was that the Court-determined "purpose" of the statute conflicted with what the statute actually said. That problem doesn't exist here. The purpose was to permit Congress to review the Iran agreement in full. What the law says is consistent with that, and the "good enough" "reading" is not.

This[, my last post,] is stupid.

No argument there.

 

[NeoXChaos]

This get posted yet?

Trump retweets 'Dad' photo — that's actually of U.K.'s new left-wing leader

And the tweet is still up.

Gov. Bobby Jindal ‏@BobbyJindal 5h5 hours ago
.@realdonaldtrump Wow. Is there a world leader you DO recognize? Is this guy going to vote for you too?

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

Piyush Jindall taking some shots against the Trumpster.

Can't believe that Tweet is still up. The nice thing for Trump is: it doesn't matter to his supporters. Nothing really matters.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

There should be a coordinated stump the trump campaign of people just inundating him with pics of people that are going to vote for him. See how he does.

 

[Retromelon]

Piyush Jindall taking some shots against the Trumpster.

Can't believe that Tweet is still up. The nice thing for Trump is: it doesn't matter to his supporters. Nothing really matters.

Yeah that dirty sellout indian changing his name like that. How dare he make the personal choice to assimilate to some degree to the land of his birth.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

Yeah that dirty sellout indian changing his name like that. How dare he make the personal choice to assimilate to some degree to the land of his birth.

That's not why I call him that. It's because he's the son of immigrants who wants to make shit hard for other immigrants. The way he talks about immigration you'd think his ancestors came here on the Mayflower. He should be reminded of his birth name and maybe it'll help his views on the topic evolve.

 

[Retromelon]

I don't want you to think I'm picking on you or anything, and you may or may not have a point about what he says about immigration. My issue is that it's disrespectful and i like to keep a degree of bipartisan dignity and respect around here

 

[Coriolanus]

Think about it. Your argument (and BertramCooper's) is essentially that Congress, in enacting a law to ensure they got to review the Iran agreement, built in a method for the president to shift important terms to confidential side-agreements so they could never review them. Talk about "absurd"!

Again you fail to get it. It's not about what congress did, mate. I have limited myself to guessing what the courts will decide, should it come up to that.

Anyway, 5bux?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Again you fail to get it. It's not about what congress did, mate. I have limited myself to guessing what the courts will decide, should it come up to that.

Anyway, 5bux?

No thanks. I don't need your money and I'd hate to deprive you of it.

Anyhow, I'm explaining why your guess is probably wrong.

 

[FiggyCal]

When people call Bobby Jindal by his Indian name, it reminds me of how conservatives sometimes called Jon Stewart by his original name. But it's only racist when they do it.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I missed this since you didn't actually quote me, so the quotation wasn't highlighted. I'm not merely stating with whom I agree. I'm providing arguments for the conclusions I think are correct. If you think they're incorrect, provide your arguments. Otherwise, why even comment?

There's nothing I could say that apkmetsfan and the others haven't already said, I'm just pointing out that the conclusions you think are correct seem to always conveniently line up with the inane bullshit the GOP is peddling. You come to that conclusion first (Obamacare is bad! The Iran deal is bad!) and then scrape the barrel for any technicalities or loopholes that might possibly work out in your favor. It's backwards reasoning, always.

 

[brainchild]

No, your problem is that your words are at odds with each other.

The top post here is an attempt to lead to your argument using initial agreement and then a series of judgements about Bernie Sanders from your rosy perspective. I've watched several videos of Bernie speaking and arguing; he's not charismatic. There are charismatic politicians out there, but Bernie is not one of them. I can grant that he's transparent, but "quick-witted" has yet to be tested—you can say he actually failed in this regard, given the manner in which he reacted to unplanned events like Netroots and Seattle. I heard quite a clamor about Bernie's vocal opposition to mass incarceration, the legislation on which he voted Aye for—is that integrity? Respect for colleagues is common amongst all congressmembers, this sort of trait is not distinctive. Publicly we hear them shitting all over each other, but just as Ginsberg can be good friends with Scalia, the members of Congress are not nearly as rude to each other as you imagine.

I don't think any of the attributes you've listed are on display when Bernie is debating, interviewing, or arguing. You're building a myth of a person.

Which is why it's essentially an ideology. You feel like you're not crazy, but the amount of admiration you're showing for a career politician is leaning close to idolatry. Calling Bernie on a different level from Hillary, and then sideswiping at her character. The need to demean the opponent to raise your choice higher. You've fallen exactly into the pitfalls of the 'crazy' Bernie supporters.

The fact that you think he can spearhead a political revolution is unrealistic in itself. It is utopian idealism. You're overreaching with a dream that doesn't factor in half the country's opposition to your ideas. It doesn't work with a Republican Congress. It places an immense burden on Bernie to live up to a dream, not a reality.

Also, consider the irony of your position. The accusation that "Hillary is a dull mouthpiece who knows how to appease her supporters and says what's 'right', not what she feels." is also applicable to Bernie; in this respect he's actually been much more populist than she has. The substitution of "Bernie" into "Hillary" in the above sentence is what an opponent can throw straight back at you. It is because you think Bernie is 'right' that you don't consider what he's saying to be pandering, but from another standpoint, what he's doing is not that different from what Trump is doing: saying things that sound appealing to a particular crowd. Do you think the people who follow Trump don't also think the same way you do, which is that the "majority of the country" agrees with them?

So basically you disagree with my assertions regarding Bernie Sanders' character, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary... OK? You're certainly free to express your own opinion, but there's nothing more to be said here. If you've taken a look at the evidence that shows that he's been charismatic, quick-witted, and honorable, and simply dismissed it by saying, "I'm not seeing this", the argument is then effectively reduced to the 'nuh uh, uh huh' children's banter, which is a waste of time. Due to the subjective nature of qualitative judgments like these, we're at an impasse. Which is fine.

However, you can try to pigeon-hole me as much you want as a Bernie extremist, but it won't magically make your prejudiced statements about me leap beyond the realm of fiction.

-I don't think it's very likely that Bernie will win the election, regardless of what we do
-If he doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting for Hillary
-I think he needs a stronger stance on gun laws
-He has been unnecessarily hesitant about the legalization of marijuana, even though he admits that there isn't any evidence to suggest it's harmful
-He is principled to a fault. There is no such thing as absolute truths and morality, so even when he truly believes that he's right, there are times where he needs to be willing to compromise when necessary in order to make progress overall.

Considering that I openly hold these views, it doesn't matter what you believe. Bernie extremists do not rationally criticize him, yet this is exactly what I've done. I am not an extremist. I do not worship him. You may find it difficult to reconcile the fact that a non-extremist has a lot of respect and praise for Bernie, but that doesn't mean that admiration is rooted in blind fanaticism.

Also, I have disliked Hillary before I even knew who Bernie was. My disdain for her has nothing to do with Bernie. Any correlation you see between the two is mere coincidence. I don't need to discredit Hillary in order to make Bernie look good; he already looks good. The point of the comparison was to show why Bernie would destroy her in the debates, not to make him look good.

Now let me blown your mind real quick...

Speaking of Trump, I would ALSO say that he's charismatic, quick-witted, and is more transparent than Hillary. He ABSOLUTELY KILLED at the GOP debates. What say you? Am I recent convert? Am I a devout worshipper of the Great Toupée?!!

I think we need to be very careful when we start making sweeping generalizations and labeling people simply because their views don't align with our own. That kind of behavior serves as the precursor to bigotry.

EDIT:

As for the political revolution bit. You misunderstand.

The revolution is not just about the addressing the wealth inequality in this country, or dismantling the oligarchy. It's more pragmatic and comprehensive than that. It's about a movement that will encourage the voters to elect the right people into office (including the congress). Bernie cannot do this alone; THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE REVOLUTION. The key here, is that Bernie is the ONLY candidate running that's even talking about such a revolution. That should tell you everything you need to know about which of the current candidates should be spear-heading this movement.

If you've been paying attention, these are things that Bernie has already discussed in depth. He has openly admitted that it will require a cohesive effort and that he can't achieve this by himself. I happen to agree with him, which is why I support him. While it's unlikely that he'll be elected, IF he is elected, this revolution is VERY LIKELY to be set in motion. He would have the platform he would need in order to raise awareness and inspire people to join him. Of course, this could only happen if he were president, and so that's why I want to give him the chance to be president. If it doesn't pan out, and he doesn't get the nomination, it would be unfortunate, but I'd be willing to move forward and vote for Hillary, so as not to allow the GOP the chance to take over more than they already have.

 

[Retromelon]

I'm just pointing out that the conclusions you think are correct seem to always conveniently line up with the inane bullshit the GOP is peddling.

I giggled

 

[Abinash117]

Bernie being charismatic could be a perception. He is gaining big crowds, but only a certain demo and from areas that mostly consist of that demo. He may not be as great for a more diverse crowd of people both racially and politically.


The issue will be how the viewers will react to Hillary, Bernie , Martian, Lincoln and others during the dabates. The audience will most likely be welcoming to everyone there though.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Bernie being charismatic could be a perception. He is gaining big crowds, but only a certain demo and from areas that mostly consist of that demo. He may not be as great for a more diverse crowd of people both racially and politically.


The issue will be how the viewers will react to Hillary, Bernie , Martian, Lincoln and others. The audience will most likely be welcoming to everyone there.

I don't see his appeal. Seems to yell a lot and has a very manic energy.

Biden is infinitely more charismatic without looking like a ranting madman. He's got the Diamond Joe smile.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I don't see his appeal. Seems to yell a lot and has a very manic energy.

Biden is infinitely more charismatic without looking like a ranting madman. He's got the Diamond Joe smile.

 

[Oblivion]

I'm getting really annoyed at how nobody's responding to Huckabee's stupid question about "pointing to the statute" where it says gay marriage is legal. Just say that the fucking Supreme Court ruled on it! Nobody says this for some reason.

No thanks. I don't need your money and I'd hate to deprive you of it.

Closet liberal confirmed.

 

[brainchild]

Bernie being charismatic could be a perception. He is gaining big crowds, but only a certain demo and from areas that mostly consist of that demo. He may not be as great for a more diverse crowd of people both racially and politically.


The issue will be how the viewers will react to Hillary, Bernie , Martian, Lincoln and others. The audience will most likely be welcoming to everyone there.

It's a perception issue alright, but not because of the big crowds. I'm an actual supporter, not a passive onlooker who just happens to hear about him on the news occasionally. I've been inspired by some of his speeches. He is indubitably charismatic.

The disagreement with this is natural, and stems from the fact that qualitative judgments about someone's character are rooted in human subjectivity. Not everyone agrees on what it means to be cool, or epic, or charming, or mean, or bad, or good. There is nothing wrong with having different perceptions about charisma, which is why I acknowledged the disagreement and moved on.

Right now, I feel there is a real issue with the perception that anyone who supports and praises Bernie (and especially if they put down Hillary) is an extremist. It is completely false and fallacious and this needs to be addressed. That is my main issue right now, when discussing politics, and it's not unique to this forum, but others as well.

 

[Coriolanus]

No thanks. I don't need your money and I'd hate to deprive you of it.

Anyhow, I'm explaining why your guess is probably wrong.

Of course you don't need 5bux, which is why it is the value i suggested. Can always switch to an avatar bet if you gon b all pecunia mos def olet.

Anyhow, like i mentioned, i get your reasoning. I truly do. I don't deny that it makes sense. Heck, i'd readily admit that it does. And yet here i am, willing to bet against it.

 

[Retromelon]

I hope cheebo wasnt perma'd
Im a mobile proletarian and don't know how to find out

 

[Coriolanus]

I hope cheebo wasnt perma'd
Im a mobile proletarian and don't know how to find out

As with all things pertaining to bans, pm a mod to find out all you want.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I hope not. I liked cheebo. He felt the Bern too long and it got the best of him.

 

[Daniel B·]

Daniel Craig apparently donated some 47k dollars to Bernie Sanders' campaign.

Isn't that illegal?

With easily the best Bond since Sean Connery, supporting our cause, how can we lose? .

He's a naturalized U.S. citizen, so no issues donating, but donating to a SuperPac is a cockup on his part and possibly a questionable one at that (he can't be following the campaign too closely, probably because he's rather busy promoting Spectre). If I were the SuperPac's operator though, I would at the very least ensure Bond's contribution was spent wisely!

 

[thepotatoman]

Isn't that illegal?

He donated to a PAC that supports Sanders.

I don't know if Sanders has ever been asked about the PACs that support him, but I'm guessing he'd say he does not want the help of any PACs whatsoever.

I would hope at some point he gets asked about this donation in particular, and he answers by saying that he appreciates the sentiment, but will never accept that type of help.

 

[BertramCooper]

With easily the best Bond since Sean Connery, supporting our cause, how can we lose? .

He's a naturalized U.S. citizen, so no issues donating, but donating to a SuperPac is a cockup on his part and possibly a questionable one at that (he can't be following the campaign too closely, probably because he's rather busy shooting Spectre). If I were the SuperPac's operator though, I would at the very least ensure Bond's contribution was spent wisely!

Movies generally aren't still shooting two months before they're released.

 

[Daniel B·]

Movies generally aren't still shooting two months before they're released.

Fixed (see OP) .

 

[Abinash117]

It's a perception issue alright, but not because of the big crowds. I'm an actual supporter, not a passive onlooker who just happens to hear about him on the news occasionally. I've been inspired by some of his speeches. He is indubitably charismatic.

The disagreement with this is natural, and stems from the fact that qualitative judgments about someone's character are rooted in human subjectivity. Not everyone agrees on what it means to be cool, or epic, or charming, or mean, or bad, or good. There is nothing wrong with having different perceptions about charisma, which is why I acknowledged the disagreement and moved on.

Right now, I feel there is a real issue with the perception that anyone who supports and praises Bernie (and especially if they put down Hillary) is an extremist. It is completely false and fallacious and this needs to be addressed. That is my main issue right now, when discussing politics, and it's not unique to this forum, but others as well.

Is it because he is saying things because people agree with him or is it how he is saying? He might be talking about subjects that other candidates really aren't. Kind of like what Ron Paul did. Many people are gravitating towards him because of the subject of his policies. But his policies are only attracting certain demographics. He also has done many rallies and has large support on the net, and in many cases has been on the headlines. Although, he has not been able to get much support from other demographics. That's why I am saying it might be a perception thing. You seem to agree though.

 

[Teggy]

With easily the best Bond since Sean Connery, supporting our cause, how can we lose? .

He's a naturalized U.S. citizen, so no issues donating

This is what I was unaware of.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Is it because he is saying things because people agree with him or is it how he is saying? He might be talking about subjects that other candidates really aren't. Kind of like what Ron Paul did. Many people are gravitating towards him because of the subject of his policies. But his policies are only attracting certain demographics. He also has done many rallies and has large support on the net, and in many cases has been on the headlines. Although, he has not been able to get much support from other demographics. That's why I am saying it might be a perception thing. You seem to agree though.

He's like an energetic Ralph Nader.

 

[dramatis]

Now let me blown your mind real quick...

Speaking of Trump, I would ALSO say that he's charismatic, quick-witted, and is more transparent than Hillary. He ABSOLUTELY KILLED at the GOP debates. What say you? Am I recent convert? Am I a devout worshipper of the Great Toupée?!!

I think we need to be very careful when we start making sweeping generalizations and labeling people simply because their views don't align with our own. That kind of behavior serves as the precursor to bigotry.

You haven't provided any overwhelming evidence to the contrary that Bernie has the attributes that you claim he has. On the other hand I offered you evidence of how he is not the things you say he is. We're both stating our opinions, but yours is the one that lacks evidence. You call it 'qualitative judgements' right after claiming you provided evidence. Is this not proof of your inherent problem with your words conflicting with yourself?

Did I talk about your dislike of Hillary at all? No. My focus was primarily on your abnormal painting of and unrealistic expectations of Bernie Sanders. You betray your own persistent worry about Hillary with your frequent mentions of her and need to attack her character in every post you make. You claim you aren't an extremist, and then you make a great display and specifically emphasize how you think Trump was amazing. It's really more a demonstration of how preoccupied you are with people not seeing you as a 'crazy Bernie supporter'. You feel insulted by the suggestion that you are.

You're right, you're not a crazy Bernie supporter. You're worse. One who's much more concerned with how he presents and how he should be taken seriously, rather than just engaging earnestly on evidence-oriented debate. If Melkr, Erasure, and soleil have no shame about what they are, why should you? "Look at this list of my views! I am logical and rational! I don't need to discredit Hillary to make Bernie look good, but I keep doing it anyway! You're the one who is practically a bigot for making assumptions about me!" You think that if you cover all the checkboxes, you can pretend you're a reasonable realist. But the near deifying of Bernie is not in any way realistic. "Bernie will destroy her in the debates", "Hillary is a dull mouthpiece", "Bernie is quick-witted, charismatc, etc."--I wasn't the first to think your praise of him was outrageous. If that wasn't your intent, then communicate better.

I've been playing a lot of Ace Attorney lately, and the refrain of the villains is, "In court, evidence is everything." Before you make insinuations of prejudice and bigotry, you should present evidence of it first. Playing victim is unsightly.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Ralph Nader?

 

[brainchild]

Is it because he is saying things because people agree with him or is it how he is saying? He might be talking about subjects that other candidates really aren't. Kind of like what Ron Paul did. Many people are gravitating towards him because of the subject of his policies. But his policies are only attracting certain demographics. He also has done many rallies and has large support on the net, and in many cases has been on the headlines. Although, he has not been able to get much support from other demographics. That's why I am saying it might be a perception thing. You seem to agree though.

I think people are drawn to him because of what he stands for, not because of his charisma, as opposed to someone like Trump, where I think Trumps's charisma is what draws people in first.

But here's the thing, the addition of Bernie's charisma and tangible conviction solidifies people's perception of him. It's what takes people from simply agreeing with him, to be being truly inspired by his speeches, and motivated to support him. It takes more than agreeable policies to garner passionate supporters, and he has the appeal to sustain that passionate support, largely due his ideologies and charisma.

The problem is that people get hung up on certain connotations with words, and in the case of charisma, people tend to picture an overly-zealous person whose a borderline preacher or motivational speaker, when that's really only one type of charisma.

Technically, charisma is defined as 'compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others'. Going with that definition, can it really be argued that Bernie doesn't have a compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others? It's actually the first time I've even encountered an argument against the notion that Bernie isn't charismatic. But it's not a big deal, if people don't see it, they don't see it.

 

[FiggyCal]

Bernie has charisma?

He seems really mechanical at times. I would say that there are fewer people inspired by Bernie than there are inspired by the idea of Bernie Sander's campaign as a movement.

Trump. Now that's a guy with charisma.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Trump. Now that's a guy with charisma.

He's charismatic, he's classy, he's luxurious... what's not to like?

 

[thepotatoman]

The problem with the Obamacare case was that the Court-determined "purpose" of the statute conflicted with what the statute actually said. That problem doesn't exist here. The purpose was to permit Congress to review the Iran agreement in full. What the law says is consistent with that, and the "good enough" "reading" is not.

Think about it. Your argument (and BertramCooper's) is essentially that Congress, in enacting a law to ensure they got to review the Iran agreement, built in a method for the president to shift important terms to confidential side-agreements so they could never review them. Talk about "absurd"!

You're right that the purpose of the legislation is to permit congress to review the Iran agreement, but I'm pretty sure democrats voted for it and obama signed it assuming that "all relevant material" doesn't include something that's literally impossible for them to provide.

It's pretty apparent the purpose of the lawsuit isn't to force Obama into doing something that's literally impossible for him to do. This lawsuit is solely meant to kill the entire deal through the courts, because they can't do it through legislation.

 

[brainchild]

You haven't provided any overwhelming evidence to the contrary that Bernie has the attributes that you claim he has. On the other hand I offered you evidence of how he is not the things you say he is. We're both stating our opinions, but yours is the one that lacks evidence. You call it 'qualitative judgements' right after claiming you provided evidence. Is this not proof of your inherent problem with your words conflicting with yourself?

Did I talk about your dislike of Hillary at all? No. My focus was primarily on your abnormal painting of and unrealistic expectations of Bernie Sanders. You betray your own persistent worry about Hillary with your frequent mentions of her and need to attack her character in every post you make. You claim you aren't an extremist, and then you make a great display and specifically emphasize how you think Trump was amazing. It's really more a demonstration of how preoccupied you are with people not seeing you as a 'crazy Bernie supporter'. You feel insulted by the suggestion that you are.

You're right, you're not a crazy Bernie supporter. You're worse. One who's much more concerned with how he presents and how he should be taken seriously, rather than just engaging earnestly on evidence-oriented debate. If Melkr, Erasure, and soleil have no shame about what they are, why should you? "Look at this list of my views! I am logical and rational! I don't need to discredit Hillary to make Bernie look good, but I keep doing it anyway! You're the one who is practically a bigot for making assumptions about me!" You think that if you cover all the checkboxes, you can pretend you're a reasonable realist. But the near deifying of Bernie is not in any way realistic. "Bernie will destroy her in the debates", "Hillary is a dull mouthpiece", "Bernie is quick-witted, charismatc, etc."--I wasn't the first to think your praise of him was outrageous. If that wasn't your intent, then communicate better.

I've been playing a lot of Ace Attorney lately, and the refrain of the villains is, "In court, evidence is everything." Before you make insinuations of prejudice and bigotry, you should present evidence of it first. Playing victim is unsightly.

Actually, I never once said that I provided this evidence. I took you at your word when you said that you've seen him speak publicly on many occasion, in various contexts. The evidence would be how he conducts himself when speaking publicly, and assuming you've seen him do this, you've looked at the evidence. You've provided it for yourself.

Evidence is not the same as proof; it's merely the basis by which you could form a theory or hypothesis that could lead to the truth. Proof is the conclusions drawn from the evidence that demonstrate why it's true. I never claimed to have provided either one. And in reality, there can be no proof for the attributes that I claimed that Bernie possesses. These qualities are too subjective to definitively prove true about anyone. But there is evidence, and you have already claimed to have it at your disposal by virtue of you admitting that you've seen him speak. If you disagree with the evidence, that's perfectly fine. Life will go on. However, your disagreement with the evidence no more invalidates my opinion about Bernie possessing these attributes than a hypothetical disagreement with me about the color blue being better than every other color.

Anyway, I will not indulge your prejudices about me. If I've explained in no uncertain terms why I'm not an extremist, but you dismiss that by saying that I'm just checking boxes (where's this checklist, BTW? It would come in handy when I have to elucidate why I'm a rational supporter), then you're really not interested in engaging in an open-minded discussion about this. That's fine, but I will have no part in it. I believe wholeheartedly in everything that I said I believe in, and you're saying it's all for appearance sake (despite the fact that you've provided no proof of this).

We can continue to argue about whether there is good reason to support Bernie, and if he's an ideal candidate, but I'm done explaining myself to you. If you want to label me as an extremist, go ahead. I'll continue to contribute to this thread in the meantime, and hopefully over time you will come to your senses.

Good day, sir.