Support NeoGAF

[HylianTom]

The hysterical thing for the candidates who are more mainstream: if there's the impression that a candidate is suddenly getting more support from The Establishment, a large portion of the base is going to hold that against him.

So if we get stories of Jeb or Walker's donors jumping into Rubio's camp, for example, this news might mean that his PAC allies get more money, but it also might mean that a large swath of voters will see this as evidence of his corrupted/impure/etc nature.

 

[ivysaur12]

Ifwhen Maggie Hassan decides to run for the Senate, Jeanne Shaheen's daughter Stefany is mulling a bid for governor.

 

[brainchild]

That's not a revolution, that's the way politics works.

A political revolution doesn't change the definition of politics; it changes the direction of politics at the macroscopic level.

It's a revolution because many of Bernie's ideologies could actually be put into action, all by TAKING ADVANTAGE of how politics work.

The reason Bernie's plan seems like common sense is because his plan is actually pragmatic, not purely ideological, like many people assumed it would be.

 

[User 406]

Bernie's got a much higher chance of winning the primary and election with landslide numbers than he does of getting the youth vote to consistently show up in midterms and vote downballot. It's nice to want things.

And I'm fuckin' done with the "WHY BEN CARSON POPLAR" shit. People wanna jump through a billion mental hoops rather than accept that yes, there is a strong component of racism in his support. Fine. Keep fucking that colorblind chicken.

 

[brainchild]

Bernie's got a much higher chance of winning the primary and election with landslide numbers than he does of getting the youth vote to consistently show up in midterms and vote downballot. It's nice to want things.

And I'm fuckin' done with the "WHY BEN CARSON POPLAR" shit. People wanna jump through a billion mental hoops rather than accept that yes, there is a strong component of racism in his support. Fine. Keep fucking that colorblind chicken.

I won't rule out racial motivation, but there is no evidence to support that it is a foregone conclusion.

You're spouting conjecture at this point.

 

[Metaphoreus]

And I'm fuckin' done with the "WHY BEN CARSON POPLAR" shit. People wanna jump through a billion mental hoops rather than accept that yes, there is a strong component of racism in his support. Fine. Keep fucking that colorblind chicken.

wat

Now Republicans are racist because they support a black candidate for president?

 

[brainchild]

wat

Now Republicans are racist because they support a black candidate for president?

I think he's referring to positive racism, to which he still has no evidence to support those claims.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I think he's referring to positive racism, to which he still has no evidence to support those claims.

That's a thing? I've honestly only ever heard of racism as a negative.

Kids these days.

 

[And_Gignac]

This is exactly what I was referring to when people questioned how could Bernie start a political revolution, and why he'd be the best person for the job. His plan is basically a post-election coalition.

Unfortunately, that would require him to actually become POTUS in the first place, which does not seem likely, thus rendering this plan a hailmary more than anything else.

I find it funny how the Bernie supporters in here have to always post a "disclaimer" (as in "sadly bernie wont win" yada yada) everytime we envision a Bernie presidency. This is what the bullying of the Clinton-squad has done to us. ;___;

That's a thing? I've honestly only ever heard of racism as a negative.

Kids these days.

Child, that has been a thing since before you were born. Fellows using people of color or any other minority to pretend they are totally not bigoted.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Who won the debate:


Basically the same as a Survey Monkey poll, but I don't want to wait for better polls.

A poll that gives each answer a different margin of error. Could be marginally better than online straw polls but not by much.

Looking at the methodology, it doesn't appear as though google uses a random sample.

 

[brainchild]

I find it funny how the Bernie supporters in here have to always post a "disclaimer" (as in "sadly bernie wont win" yada yada) everytime we envision a Bernie presidency. This is what the bullying of the Clinton-squad has done to us. ;___;

It's true, but it's a necessary point of concession if we want our views to be taken seriously.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Child, thats a thing since before you were born. People using People of Color to pretend they are totally not racist.

Hold on. Are we talking about affirmative action?

We're definitely not talking about a black-friend defense. I mean, your argument would have to be that Republicans hate being called racists so much that they'd willingly support a black candidate for the highest office in the world even though they secretly hate black people.

 

[And_Gignac]

Hold on. Are we talking about affirmative action?

We're definitely not talking about a black-friend defense. I mean, your argument would have to be that Republicans hate being called racists so much that they'd willingly support a black candidate for the highest office in the world even though they secretly hate black people.

A black person that plays towards their racist narrative. Internalized racism is sadly a real thing, and Carson has tons of it.

 

[RDreamer]

Hold on. Are we talking about affirmative action?

We're definitely not talking about a black-friend defense. I mean, your argument would have to be that Republicans hate being called racists so much that they'd willingly support a black candidate for the highest office in the world even though they secretly hate black people.

Well, they could be under that assumption that the black voting block would support Carson just because he's black. That would be racist support of Carson.

I don't think that's a ton of his support, but yeah could be a few people I suppose.

There's also the supporters who could be more like "He's one of the good ones!" and support him a bit more than they otherwise would mostly as a "Look at him. This is what you all should be like" sort of thing.

Again, I don't think that's a ton of his support, but yeah there could be a bit of a racist element in there somewhere.

Most of his support is probably that he's one of the few non-loudmouths on stage.

 

[Metaphoreus]

A black person that plays towards their racist narrative. Internalized racism is sadly a real thing, and Carson has tons of it.

The racist narrative that black people can be just as qualified as white people to be president?

 

[teiresias]

http://time.com/4038080/the-gospel-of-bernie/

Then he paints one of his word pictures. Imagine President Sanders facing a vote in Congress on free college tuition paid for by a tax hike on the wealthy. He’d have to persuade Speaker of the House John Boehner to help him pass the bill. That’s where his army of activists comes in. “How do I convince John? Is my personality that much better than Barack Obama’s?” Sanders says. “The answer is to say, ‘Hey, John, take a look out your window. Because there are a million young people there that are in support of the legislation. They are voting. They know what’s going on. If you refuse to make college affordable, they’re going to vote your people out of office.’ That’s the offer you can’t refuse.”

This is complete delusion. John Boehner can't get his caucus to not screw around with must-pass legislation addressing the debt ceiling that threatens global economic stability. If Sanders thinks he can say to this man (or quite possibly someone even more radically-right than Boehner at that point in time) that some hypothetical mass of young people are going to show up in droves during a mid-term election to vote them out when the chances of that happening are about as good as Vulcans landing on the White House lawn, then he's letting his rhetorical language override anything he knows about actually governing in this modern era of polarization.

This is particularly true when said voters will likely be disillusioned with Sanders the first time he actually has to compromise on a bill while in office because, you know, the real world and stuff.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

This is complete delusion. John Boehner can't get his caucus to not screw around with must-pass legislation addressing the debt ceiling that threatens global economic stability. If Sanders thinks he can say to this man (or quite possibly someone even more radically-right than Boehner at that point in time) that some hypothetical mass of young people are going to show up in droves during a mid-term election to vote them out when the chances of that happening are about as good as Vulcans landing on the White House lawn, then he's letting his rhetorical language override anything he knows about actually governing in this modern era of polarization.

This is particularly true when said voters will likely be disillusioned with Sanders the first time he actually has to compromise on a bill while in office because, you know, the real world and stuff.

How a man of his age and who has spent decades in politics can think that is alarming to me.

There's probably not enough young people in most of these gerrymandered districts to make up the difference even if 100% of them voted.

 

[And_Gignac]

The racist narrative that black people can be just as qualified as white people to be president?

This is not 1800s brand of racism. We are talking about a more subtle, condescending racism with a lot of complicated mental gymnastics. A very educational example is the message Black Lives Matters is trying to get across and the conservative narrative that opposes such message. Carson, and possibly a portion of his supporters, has bought into that narrative.

 

[Poodlestrike]

This is exactly what I was referring to when people questioned how could Bernie start a political revolution, and why he'd be the best person for the job. His plan is basically a post-election coalition.

Unfortunately, that would require him to actually become POTUS in the first place, which does not seem likely, thus rendering this plan a hailmary more than anything else.

What he's describing here is the bully pulpit, ancient and venerable tool of presidents. It hasn't done that for Obama, I'm dubious about whether it'd work for Bernie.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Well, they could be under that assumption that the black voting block would support Carson just because he's black. That would be racist support of Carson.

I don't think that's a ton of his support, but yeah could be a few people I suppose.

There's also the supporters who could be more like "He's one of the good ones!" and support him a bit more than they otherwise would mostly as a "Look at him. This is what you all should be like" sort of thing.

Again, I don't think that's a ton of his support, but yeah there could be a bit of a racist element in there somewhere.

Most of his support is probably that he's one of the few non-loudmouths on stage.

I guess the lesson is we shouldn't try to psychoanalyze a group of people about whom we only know that they are Republicans who support a black candidate.

We are talking about a more subtle, condescending racism with a lot of complicated mental gymnastics

I'm starting to get that sense.

A very educational example is the message Black Lives Matters is trying to get across and the conservative narrative that opposes such message.

I think this is a problem with the conservative position, but I'm not sure I'd pin it on racism. When many conservatives hear the phrase "Black Lives Matter," they have a problem with it because it singles out only black lives. To them, it sounds like, "Only Black Lives Matter" or "Black Lives Matter More." What they don't understand--for whatever reason--is that it's really more like, "Black Lives Matter, Too."

At the same time, I'm not sure BLM supporters (and I tentatively count myself among them, though I disagree on some policy points that have been raised) understand the retort, "All Lives Matter." I think they often view it as a contradiction with "Black Lives Matter," as in, "All Lives Matter Except Black Lives." But it really means, "All Lives Matter Including Black Lives." I think people get hung up on the us-vs.-them mentality and so refuse to interact with the other side. The proper response to a person saying ALM is not to say that that's the wrong phrase or associated with the wrong side, but that that's absolutely right! And then the respondent should explain the ways in which black people are mistreated in American society.

 

[Poodlestrike]

This is not 1800s brand of racism. We are talking about a more subtle, condescending racism with a lot of complicated mental gymnastics. A very educational example is the message Black Lives Matters is trying to get across and the conservative narrative that opposes such message. Carson, and possibly a portion of his supporters, has bought into that narrative.

I keep telling people, calling it racism doesn't work. People already use that word for something. Institutional racism, yeah, maybe that gets the point across, but if you just call it "racism" you're mostly met with confusion and/or hostility.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I keep telling people, calling it racism doesn't work. People already use that word for something. Institutional racism, yeah, maybe that gets the point across, but if you just call it "racism" you're mostly met with confusion and/or hostility.

That doesn't solve the problem here. How is supporting a black candidate to be president of the United States an aspect of institutional racism?

 

[Ecotic]

The Fed is not raising interest rates, good news for Democrats' 2016 chances.

 

[Poodlestrike]

That doesn't solve the problem here. How is supporting a black candidate to be president of the United States an aspect of institutional racism?

You're familiar with the expression "it's coverup, not the crime?"

Essentially: institutional racists (ugh, bad phrase is bad) don't hate black people, because after many long, long years, the message has gotten through that that's wrong. They just hate... everything around them, I guess. Institutional racism has no problem with accepting and celebrating certain, specific minorities so long as they fit the right set of criteria.

 

[HylianTom]

The Fed is not raising interest rates, good news for Democrats' 2016 chances.

Yup yup! I'm nodding along, cheering internally.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

There will likely be a raise in 2016 but it will be symbolic in terms of basis points. By the time they do raise them in a tangible way, it will be 2017 at the earliest.

 

[Jack Remington]

God damn presidential elections. The republican candidates are so terrible. Each are shit in their own way, all of them would set us back as far as green energy is concerned. Most would set us back on marijuana. Not the mention the Supreme Court. It's too close for comfort, knowing one of these idiots has roughly a 50/50 shot at the presidency...

Nowhere near 50/50.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Nowhere near 50/50.

60/40?

 

[brainchild]

This is complete delusion. John Boehner can't get his caucus to not screw around with must-pass legislation addressing the debt ceiling that threatens global economic stability. If Sanders thinks he can say to this man (or quite possibly someone even more radically-right than Boehner at that point in time) that some hypothetical mass of young people are going to show up in droves during a mid-term election to vote them out when the chances of that happening are about as good as Vulcans landing on the White House lawn, then he's letting his rhetorical language override anything he knows about actually governing in this modern era of polarization.

This is particularly true when said voters will likely be disillusioned with Sanders the first time he actually has to compromise on a bill while in office because, you know, the real world and stuff.

How a man of his age and who has spent decades in politics can think that is alarming to me.

There's probably not enough young people in most of these gerrymandered districts to make up the difference even if 100% of them voted.

What he's describing here is the bully pulpit, ancient and venerable tool of presidents. It hasn't done that for Obama, I'm dubious about whether it'd work for Bernie.

First, I readily admit that this plan is not infallible. There are many hurdles to be crossed, and in the end, it could be all for naught.

However, Bernie has been pretty prudent about informing his supporters of this problem, by emphasizing that if they're voting for him just because they support his ideas, they're wasting their vote.

So while I said that the plan is post-election, the preparation for the plan is very much about garnering enough support in the first place to carry out such a plan.

If you consider the massive support he'd need to win the election in the first place, it isn't inconceivable that most of them who voted for him because of his pragmatic and prudent ideas about systematically changing the congressional landscape would be there in enough numbers to demonstrate their support post-election.

It really is a long shot, but it's also an actual concrete plan, not just a bunch of hot air.

 

[thezerofire]

That doesn't solve the problem here. How is supporting a black candidate to be president of the United States an aspect of institutional racism?

I think it's supporting a black candiate in the belief that if the candidate is black, black people will vote for him regardless of his views

 

[brainchild]

I think it's supporting a black candiate in the belief that if the candidate is black, black people will vote for him regardless of his views

This is also a possibility, though yet again, unsubstantiated by any actual evidence.

 

[Black Mamba]

I don't understand people claiming Carson had a poor debate showing. I think it was ok to good. Sure, he was boring, but conservatives probably want a black man to be boring.

He's one of the only ones to actually put forth policy. His immigration policy was more concrete than Trumps. He was a complete war-monger. He criticized W going into Iraq. He was pro minimum wage, but cautionary about it. These are all very strong conservative positions outside of war-mongering (but he has a constituency within the party for that).

I think some of you are looking at this through a liberal prism. If I were a conservative, I would easily put Carson in the top 5 last night.



edit: And FTR, regarding this "support carson is racism" view, I think the argument is that many Republicans see him as an Uncle Tom. I'm not saying he's an Uncle Tom. I'm saying people do and racists like Uncle Toms.

 

[dramatis]

First, I readily admit that this plan is not infallible. There are many hurdles to be crossed, and in the end, it could be all for naught.

However, Bernie has been pretty prudent about informing his supporters of this problem, by emphasizing that if they're voting for him just because they support his ideas, they're wasting their vote.

So while I said that the plan is post-election, the preparation for the plan is very much about garnering enough support in the first place to carry out such a plan.

If you consider the massive support he'd need to win the election in the first place, it isn't inconceivable that most of them who voted for him because of his pragmatic and prudent ideas about systematically changing the congressional landscape would be there in enough numbers to demonstrate their support post-election.

It really is a long shot, but it's also an actual concrete plan, not just a bunch of hot air.

It's a bunch of hot air.

For instance, what is the roughly estimated number of young 'voters' that are currently engaged? How much time are they willing to put in to do extensive grassroots campaigning and work every two years? (Or even every year?) How much money will you need to fund such an operation? What is the infrastructure in place for that purported "political revolution"? How will you sustain it over four years? Over eight years? Over twelve? Are the supposed millions of principled young voters all willing to vote for candidates that may not agree entirely with their views but offer the best chance of winning in moderately conservative districts? Are those millions of young voters willing to devote their time and effort to supporting local candidates all around the nation?

There are no specifics. It is not a concrete plan. It's an idealized vision with very little substance to support it.

 

[Grexeno]

http://time.com/4038080/the-gospel-of-bernie/

Young people? Voting?

 

[Jack Remington]

60/40?

That's probably closer. Assuming no external shock between now and November 2016, Hillary still has to be at least a 60/40 favorite on demographics alone.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Young people? Voting?

Yeah seriously. You know what would happen Berns? Boehner would laugh in your face, obstruct all of your proposals and then the Democrats would have their asses handed to them in the midterm election because dissatisfied liberals - who don't understand how Congress works and wonder why you didn't just wave your magic wand and give us free healthcare and education - decided to sit out.

Look I'm voting for him but if he genuinely believes that - as a sitting member of Congress - then that is incredibly naive.

 

[Metaphoreus]

You're familiar with the expression "it's coverup, not the crime?"

Yeah, but we're talking about Carson, not Clinton.

Essentially: institutional racists (ugh, bad phrase is bad) don't hate black people, because after many long, long years, the message has gotten through that that's wrong. They just hate... everything around them, I guess. Institutional racism has no problem with accepting and celebrating certain, specific minorities so long as they fit the right set of criteria.

I don't think "institutional racists" is a legitimate concept. "Institutional racism" refers to social institutions that (unintentionally) result in racially disparate outcomes to the detriment of minority groups. But because those results are unintentional, a person can support the institutions for reasons other than hatred of blacks or "everything around them." For instance, a person might support legacy preferences at universities because he or she feels a strong connection with his or her alma mater and wants his or her children to attend it, too. A person might support enactment of "broken windows" type penal laws because of a belief that "disorderly conditions and behaviors left untended in a community are signs that nobody cares and lead to fear of crime, more serious crime, and urban decay." Labeling such people as "racist" seems like a nakedly political attempt to leverage popular opposition to (actual) racism against those with whom one disagrees on policy issues.

In the end, the "Carson supporters are racist" arguments are just rehashes of the "Barack the Magic Negro" narrative from 2008.

I think it's supporting a black candiate in the belief that if the candidate is black, black people will vote for him regardless of his views

Like brainchild said, there's no evidence that any of Carson's supporters support him for that reason.

 

[pigeon]

First, I readily admit that this plan is not infallible. There are many hurdles to be crossed, and in the end, it could be all for naught.

However, Bernie has been pretty prudent about informing his supporters of this problem, by emphasizing that if they're voting for him just because they support his ideas, they're wasting their vote.

So while I said that the plan is post-election, the preparation for the plan is very much about garnering enough support in the first place to carry out such a plan.

If you consider the massive support he'd need to win the election in the first place, it isn't inconceivable that most of them who voted for him because of his pragmatic and prudent ideas about systematically changing the congressional landscape would be there in enough numbers to demonstrate their support post-election.

It really is a long shot, but it's also an actual concrete plan, not just a bunch of hot air.

But the massive support he'd need to win the election in the first place isn't that massive.

In terms of winning the primary, Bernie needs a lot of support among Democrats, yes. But to win the general he needs exactly the same support Hillary would need, and exactly the same support Obama needed in 2012.

That support wasn't enough to get control of Congress in 2012. So first, why would it be enough in 2016, and secondly, why would Bernie do BETTER in a general election than Hillary would? Because that's the argument -- if Bernie is better equipped than Hillary to threaten politicians with his support network, he must, definitionally, have more supporters.

I feel like this mandate stuff is the Democratic equivalent of Republican dynamic scoring. Politicians aren't responsive to threats about elections, they're responsive to elections. If we win the White House in 2016 and don't win Congress, why exactly would any Congressperson be worried about losing their seat when we just tried to take their seat and failed?

 

[brainchild]

It's a bunch of hot air.

For instance, what is the roughly estimated number of young 'voters' that are currently engaged? How much time are they willing to put in to do extensive grassroots campaigning and work every two years? (Or even every year?) How much money will you need to fund such an operation? What is the infrastructure in place for that purported "political revolution"? How will you sustain it over four years? Over eight years? Over twelve? Are the supposed millions of principled young voters all willing to vote for candidates that may not agree entirely with their views but offer the best chance of winning in moderately conservative districts? Are those millions of young voters willing to devote their time and effort to supporting local candidates all around the nation?

There are no specifics. It is not a concrete plan. It's an idealized vision with very little substance to support it.

I think you need to review the definitions of both the idiomatic expression " full of hot air " and the term "concrete plan", neither of which mean what you think they mean:

Full of hot air

(idiomatic) Talking a lot, especially without saying anything of value or meaning.

I think we can both say that Bernie's plan is not without value or meaning. It is very clear, even if you disagree with his ideas, that they carry implications of significance. The significance being the successful result of such a plan would allow for the implementation of many of his ideologies. Denying this fact would be completely disingenuous and not even worth arguing with at that point.


Concrete Plan

of a particular or exact sort <while there was a lot of hand-wringing, no one offered a practical, concrete plan for the energy shortage>

The plan to change the congressional landscape is both particular and exact. You know EXACTLY how he plans to do this, there can be no doubt about that. You simply disagree that it would be effective.

So I suppose your actual argument is that his plan is both implausible and naive. That may actually be true, but equating his words to statements of where there isn't really any substance, like say, "I will change this great nation" or "this would be a lot different if I were president" is incredibly disingenuous.

It is unfortunate to me that posters such as yourself allow your preconceptions about Bernie Sanders to influence the poorly constructed arguments that you levy against him. The funny thing is that there ARE legitimate arguments as to why Bernie Sanders plan and ideologies wouldn't work, but they're based in informed rationality, not predispositions and assumptions.

 

[Retromelon]

Full of hot air

.

People are dumb and ignorant, especially young people, and I know this pretty well from experience.

Wow, a double redundancy! Keep going for the high score!

Spoiler

said a semi young person

 

[User1608]

Yeah seriously. You know what would happen Berns? Boehner would laugh in your face, obstruct all of your proposals and then the Democrats would have their asses handed to them in the midterm election because dissatisfied liberals - who don't understand how Congress works and wonder why you didn't just wave your magic wand and give us free healthcare and education - decided to sit out.

Look I'm voting for him but if he genuinely believes that - as a sitting member of Congress - then that is incredibly naive.

Yup. So frustrating. People are dumb and ignorant, especially young people, and I know this pretty well from experience. *edit* Mr. Melon, I resent that! Admittedly I'm not the most substantive member here, hah hah.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

It's a bunch of hot air.

For instance, what is the roughly estimated number of young 'voters' that are currently engaged? How much time are they willing to put in to do extensive grassroots campaigning and work every two years? (Or even every year?) How much money will you need to fund such an operation? What is the infrastructure in place for that purported "political revolution"? How will you sustain it over four years? Over eight years? Over twelve? Are the supposed millions of principled young voters all willing to vote for candidates that may not agree entirely with their views but offer the best chance of winning in moderately conservative districts? Are those millions of young voters willing to devote their time and effort to supporting local candidates all around the nation?

There are no specifics. It is not a concrete plan. It's an idealized vision with very little substance to support it.

Well said.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Young people? Voting?

Young people vote though. Not in a great turnout number but they do vote. How many you need for a political "revolution" I don't know.

Young people are a major subset of the electorate and their voices matter:
46 million young people ages 18-29 years old are eligible to vote, while 39 million seniors are eligible to vote
Young people (18-29) make up 21% of the voting eligible population in the U.S.

In 2008, using the CPS turnout estimates and the National Exit Polls&#8217; results to determine how young
people voted, we estimate that approximately 14.8 million under-30s voted for Barack Obama. The same
method would suggest that about 12.3 million voted for Obama in 2012, a drop of almost 2.5 million
votes. Obama received about 3.7 million fewer total votes in 2012 than in 2008.4

 

[dramatis]

I think you need to review the definitions of both the idiomatic expression " full of hot air " and the term "concrete plan", neither of which mean what you think they mean:

Full of hot air

(idiomatic) Talking a lot, especially without saying anything of value or meaning.

I think we can both say that Bernie's plan is not without value or meaning. It is very clear, even if you disagree with his ideas, that they carry implications of significance. The significance being the successful result of such a plan would allow for the implementation of many of his ideologies. Denying this fact would be completely disingenuous and not even worth arguing with at that point.


Concrete Plan

of a particular or exact sort <while there was a lot of hand-wringing, no one offered a practical, concrete plan for the energy shortage>

The plan to change the congressional landscape is both particular and exact. You know EXACTLY how he plans to do this, there can be no doubt about that. You simply disagree that it would be effective.

So I suppose your actual argument is that his plan is both implausible and naive. That may actually be true, but equating his words to statements of where there isn't really any substance, like say, "I will change this great nation" or "this would be a lot different if I were president" is incredibly disingenuous.

It is unfortunate to me that posters such as yourself allow your preconceptions about Bernie Sanders to influence the poorly constructed arguments that you levy against him. The funny thing is that there ARE legitimate arguments as to why Bernie Sanders plan and ideologies wouldn't work, but they're based in informed rationality, not predispositions and assumptions.

Arguing on semantics does not bolster your argument. In fact, you haven't offered anything to answer the questions I asked. Hot air is not 'talking a lot without meaning'. It's an idiom used to indicate the lack of substance in something. So what is the substance of Bernie's plan? Hot air.

A 'concrete plan' is not "of a particular or exact sort". It's a plan that has detail, is realistic, and is specific. Did Bernie answer anything about what needs to be done to get the volume of voters you need to effect so-called political revolution? No. Did he offer details on how to do it? No. There's nothing specific. It's vague. Even under your own definitions, what he proposes is not specific, it has no details on how it's sustainable for the future (no enthusiasm lasts so long in so many), how effective it would be (it's not), how it will actually be a political revolution (it's not). There is nothing particular or exact about, "We'll just get a bunch of young voters to vote".

Did I say his plan was implausible and naive? I said nothing of that sort. I asked you a bunch of reasonable questions that would be the basis for a grassroots movement to change American government and cultural view. Where are Bernie's answers? What is the concrete plan? You can literally just try to answer me in this format:

Concrete plan to enact policies over four/eight/twelve years:

1. The numbers we have now, and the numbers we can expand to
2. How resources (manpower) will be distributed across the nation to gain and maintain majority in House/Senate
3. How to maintain long-term engagement in politics amongst young voters
4. How much funding will be needed for such an effort
5. How will you get those voters to enthusiastically vote for candidates that they may have to hold their nose for
6. And so on

You couldn't give me even vague details on any of those, you just walked around feeling insulted.

I haven't made any preconceptions about Bernie Sanders, and nothing in my post indicates any such preconceptions. None of those questions are based in "predispositions and assumptions", they're based on informed rationality of what actually makes a grassroots movement. I am asking you, how will this political revolution be done? Answer the question with specifics. Saying "YOU KNOW how exactly" is trying to shift the burden of knowledge on the person who wants to know but doesn't. Where's Bernie's concrete plan?

You replied to a poster earlier, "You're spouting conjecture at this point." Are you not doing the same?

 

[Retromelon]

Yup. So frustrating. People are dumb and ignorant, especially young people, and I know this pretty well from experience. *edit* Mr. Melon, I resent that! Admittedly I'm not the most substantive member here, hah hah.

I didn't mean you aren't a good poster breh. You said people are dumb and stupid, redundancy number 1. And then you said young people are too, which was a joke on my part to claim as a redundancy because we all know young people are always stupid.
Off topic, i liked your old avatar better, not a fan of the disney look.

 

[Abinash117]

I think you need to review the definitions of both the idiomatic expression " full of hot air " and the term "concrete plan", neither of which mean what you think they mean:

Full of hot air

(idiomatic) Talking a lot, especially without saying anything of value or meaning.

I think we can both say that Bernie's plan is not without value or meaning. It is very clear, even if you disagree with his ideas, that they carry implications of significance. The significance being the successful result of such a plan would allow for the implementation of many of his ideologies. Denying this fact would be completely disingenuous and not even worth arguing with at that point.


Concrete Plan

of a particular or exact sort <while there was a lot of hand-wringing, no one offered a practical, concrete plan for the energy shortage>

The plan to change the congressional landscape is both particular and exact. You know EXACTLY how he plans to do this, there can be no doubt about that. You simply disagree that it would be effective.

So I suppose your actual argument is that his plan is both implausible and naive. That may actually be true, but equating his words to statements of where there isn't really any substance, like say, "I will change this great nation" or "this would be a lot different if I were president" is incredibly disingenuous.

It is unfortunate to me that posters such as yourself allow your preconceptions about Bernie Sanders to influence the poorly constructed arguments that you levy against him. The funny thing is that there ARE legitimate arguments as to why Bernie Sanders plan and ideologies wouldn't work, but they're based in informed rationality, not predispositions and assumptions.

There are no assumptions. They are augments with evidence that state why his plan doesn't work in this thread and augments that asked how would he do it. If you can't explain your plan on how exactly will you go about it then it is right to criticize it. Sander's plan is basically briganding Boenhar to do what he wants. How exactly that won't go wrong and addition to how he is going to get that much support, including maintaining that support.

Saying he is going to do what he said is similar to saying "I will change this great nation" with slight more detail or more like " I will send ground troops in Syria and Iraq" .

Young people vote though. Not in a great turnout number but they do vote. How many you need for a political "revolution" I don't know.

We all know they do. The issue is turnout in midterms, president elections, and get and remain engaged in politics among other things. I don't think young people as a whole are reliable constituents.

 

[User1608]

I didn't mean you aren't a good poster breh. You said people are dumb and stupid, redundancy number 1. And then you said young people are too, which was a joke on my part to claim as a redundancy because we all know young people are always stupid.
Off topic, i liked your old avatar better, not a fan of the disney look.

I'm a good example of being an airhead, heh. Don't worry, I take no offense and understand you. Anyway, can't win 'em all I guess with my avatar.

So I'm watching a decent interview by Blitzer with Hillary on CNN, she's doing very well. No way she'll fold in the debates, I'm very confident she'll be fine in the end. Can't help but like her despite her perceived image.

 

[pigeon]

Young people vote though. Not in a great turnout number but they do vote. How many you need for a political "revolution" I don't know.

We do know!

Democrats need to win the national House vote by approximately 7% to win the House. That's how many votes you need for a political revolution.

Again, there's already an existing method for convincing politicians to enact your policies by demonstrating your popular support. That method is called an election. It's not like the GOP will enact Democratic policies in exchange for Democrats not trying to get them out of office. We're always trying to get them out of office! That's literally all we do! So either we remove them from office, or they know that we don't have the power to remove them from office. In which case, why would they change their behavior?

 

[NeoXChaos]

We do know!

Democrats need to win the national House vote by approximately 7% to win the House. That's how many votes you need for a political revolution.

Again, there's already an existing method for convincing politicians to enact your policies by demonstrating your popular support. That method is called an election. It's not like the GOP will enact Democratic policies in exchange for Democrats not trying to get them out of office. We're always trying to get them out of office! That's literally all we do! So either we remove them from office, or they know that we don't have the power to remove them from office. In which case, why would they change their behavior?

I forgot about that. That works.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm a good example of being an airhead, heh. Don't worry, I take no offense and understand you. Anyway, can't win 'em all I guess with my avatar.

So I'm watching a decent interview by Blitzer with Hillary on CNN, she's doing very well. No way she'll fold in the debates, I'm very confident she'll be fine in the end. Can't help but like her despite her perceived image.

Just so you know as a huge Disney aficionado I support your avatar choice

We do know!

Democrats need to win the national House vote by approximately 7% to win the House. That's how many votes you need for a political revolution.

Again, there's already an existing method for convincing politicians to enact your policies by demonstrating your popular support. That method is called an election. It's not like the GOP will enact Democratic policies in exchange for Democrats not trying to get them out of office. We're always trying to get them out of office! That's literally all we do! So either we remove them from office, or they know that we don't have the power to remove them from office. In which case, why would they change their behavior?

I'm reminded of when O'Reilly (or some fuck) was getting mad at Obama for saying after the 2012 election that he hoped the 2014 elections would give him a Democratic Congress, because it meant he wasn't giving Boehner and the Republicans a chance. It's silly and childish.

The only elected Democrat on the country who would openly prefer a GOP legislature seems to be Andrew Cuomo.