The media doesn't operate in retrospect. They will spew their narrative hoping it catches traction. Always been this way......
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
The media doesn't operate in retrospect. They will spew their narrative hoping it catches traction. Always been this way......
Retromelon
Member
Donald Trump 64
https://vine.co/v/eUg9teiBPa5
https://vine.co/v/eUg9teiBPa5
Here's a tip broseph: not every post has to be an essay
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
The real news is the HOLY SHIT CHILD PREDATOR EYES the guy that runs that account has:
"I fucked your mother and then I took her to Wendy's."
brainchild
Banned
You're right, not every post has to be an essay. But if your only retort to an argument is to toss back an edited soundbite (or should I say, quotebite?) that would imply that I'm 'saying a bunch of nothing', then you have effectively contributed nothing of value.
I do not say this as a personal attack. I'm sure if you wanted, you could postulate reasons why you think I'm just talking with nothing of substance, but I'd rather address that than a few of my words thrown back at me and a period.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
do you need help with your avatar?
brainchild
Banned
What do you mean?
Retromelon
Member
Its stretchy.
brainchild
Banned
Really? I usually only post from my phone, so I haven't noticed. Yes, please!
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Agreed. That's complete and utter confidence.
brainchild
Banned
I need to watch this.
So what dimensions should the picture be changed to? It doesn't appear to stretch on my phone (or at least, I can't tell), so I have no idea how it looks to other people.
EDIT:
Here's the source photo if that helps
http://www.successfulbookclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/neil-degrasse-tyson_crop.jpg
Leaving aside the first part of your argument (which appears to be "Bernie will be more effective because, unlike Hillary or Obama, he will have fewer options, so he'll have to be"), I'm not suggesting that they're stopping at empty threats. On the contrary.
Bernie's saying that he'll tell his supporters to vote against the GOP Congressional candidates if they don't support his policies.
Anybody who supports Bernie Sanders is already voting against the GOP Congressional candidates.
So Bernie's support base gives him no leverage whatsoever over Republicans. He's trying to threaten them with something he's going to do anyway, and in fact, something he presumably already did during the election without actually succeeding (because if he succeeded, the Republican he's trying to control would already be out of office).
How could that possibly matter?
It's entirely scripted -- obviously -- but that persona was exactly what she needs to exude.
More of that.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
fallon is disarming but he also says nothing critical.
Not necessarily during midterms. They probably wouldn't vote at all.
It would be a big threat if he could actually get the entire democratic voting coalition out during midterms. That could make some politicians support things they wouldn't normally.
Sanders ain't gonna make that happen, though.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
CNN did have an agenda last night. Before the debate it was all about Fiorina, after the debate it's all about Fiorina. I've never seen anything like it and they refuse to even acknowledge her flawed track record.
He's a late night talk show host. I meant in terms of the persona to exude in public. Coming across as a bit warmer, less like Selina Meyer. It was a good mix of that and reminded me of Hillary in New Hampshire last year.
Retromelon
Member
Politico is all about the Trump downfall.... I mean it's not like this is surprising. They were waiting for the opportunity to present itself to run their talking points without being laughed at because they're meaningless when it comes to the GOP race w/ Trump at the helm. Powerlessness......they like the taste of being in charge of the narrative....even if the dosage is small. On the business end.....it's all about them ratings and they got them plenty.
Which is the problem in the first place.
Honestly his plan feels like something a college student with no real knowledge of how Congress works would think up. Do people think Obama never tried something like that? Were they not paying attention when he did try it publicly during the last gun debate after Sandy Hook? Like 75% of the country was behind background checks and he pointed that out a few times and nothing happened. He probably tried it the first day behind closed doors. Part of me thinks that being an independent from a state with very little political power may have shielded Bernie from some of the darker truths about how Congress works.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Its a ratings game, its not news its a reality show for CNN.
Why would they be critical?
BTW this is hanging in Time Square
It's really one of the bigger problems we have in this country, honestly. If the same voting block came out for midterms and presidential elections we'd see some big changes, and probably a little less gridlock.
brainchild
Banned
You can't just toss out an essential part of the argument and then ask me how does it matter.
This has nothing to do with Bernie having fewer options, and everything to do with the motivation for post-election support that Bernie is able to impart into his supporters vs the motivation for post-election support that Obama has been able to, or Hillary may be able to impart into their respective supporters.
The idea is simply that Bernie could be more compelling with his supporters because he's made it the primary agenda of his campaign, and if he should become president, he will use his public platform to aggressively drill into the minds of his supporters that it is imperative that they use their voting power to influence the congress. Obama certainly stressed the importance of post-election support, but didn't make the stakes clear to his supporters like Bernie is doing, and he also didn't villainize the congress and oligarchy like Bernie is doing. The same can be said about Hillary.
I'm not sure how you can conclude that all of the people who supported him in the presidential election would do so throughout the entirety of his term, but it's not a foregone conclusion and it's something that requires a serious ongoing effort.
Last I checked, the presidential election (2016) and the general midterms election (2018) do not occur at the same time. He's going to have his work cut out for him to maintain the support that he needs up until that time, but that's his plan nonetheless.
And again, so that there can be no room for doubt, I'M NOT SAYING THIS PLAN WILL BE SUCCESSFUL. I'm saying that this is the approach that Bernie is taking. How will he succeed? Who the fuck knows, but now you know what he intends to do, and how he's going to attempt it.
You're probably right. Bernie needs to give details if he hopes to convince people that it will actually work.
Yeah, this is getting a little ridiculous. Their agenda is quite obvious at this point.
Done with picsart app
Thank you!!
You could be right, but I appreciate Bernie's candor on this matter. He's puts the focus on the voters instead of himself. Every time. Highly commendable.
And_Gignac
Member
Oh wow, this surely will resurrect Hillary's campaign in NH. Because you know, endorsements are so important.
It is commendable, but at the same time it feels pretty dishonest. He has to know that's not how it would go down and yet he's saying it anyway. That doesn't feel straight up.
Bernie was always going to do well in New Hampshire, Vermont is right next door. If he couldn't challenge Clinton there he would need to pack it up and go home.
I am not concluding that, I'm just, you know, thinking about how elections work. If all of the people supporting Bernie vote in the presidential election, then if there are any Republicans that can be defeated, they will be defeated.
That means that all the Republicans that are left have nothing to worry about. As you're suggesting, Bernie is likely to have LESS support in the midterms, and Democrats generally do worse in midterms. So any claim that Bernie will be able to defeat a sitting Republican will be ignored, because if it were possible for Bernie to do it, he would have done it during the presidential election.
Uh, yes, presidential elections and midterms don't happen at the same time, but that doesn't strengthen Bernie's position. Democrats do BETTER in presidential elections.
If Bernie can't get his supporters to vote out a Republican during a presidential year, that Republican has no reason to be concerned about being voted out during a midterm. So, again, there's no leverage.
I feel like this is a pretty simple idea, really, so I want to turn it around here. Why would a Republican who held their seat during a presidential election that swept in an avowed socialist be concerned about losing their seat during a midterm election of that same socialist? They just won in basically the worst possible situation they're likely to see! What could possibly make them think the midterm would be worse?
brainchild
Banned
I believe his intentions are 'straight up', purely based on his long-standing voting record and how bullish he is every single time the Senate floor yields to one of his speeches. It has practically been his life's work to do this, and I have no doubt that he'd at least TRY.
I can appreciate the effort, even if it turns out to be misguided, because it isn't guaranteed to NOT work, assuming he's elected president.
This is where I get caught too. The plan sounds fine if you don't think too hard, or realize Obama's tried it half a dozen or more times with almost nothing to show for it, but once you start really looking at it through the lens of where Congress is right now it completely falls apart.
I can agree his intentions are good, but lying is lying. He has to know it wouldn't go like that and yet that's how he's telling everyone it would go. Even if he somehow managed to get a million man march going in favor of a $15/hr minimum wage, it still wouldn't go down the way he's saying it would. The leverage he thinks he'd have would be non-existent unless he could get the people in the districts that went republican on his side. Saying otherwise is dishonest.
RustyNails
Member
You know what's worse than Trump's "i have no idea what you just said, but ok"? McCain's response to that old lady from 2008.
Old lady: Obama is an Arab...
McCain: No ma'am....Obama is a nice, decent man.
brainchild
Banned
I disagree, solely based on the notion that the democrats could be influenced to do better during the midterm elections than they normally would, and Bernie's supporters could even increase by that time.
Remember that this works both ways. Voter turn out in general is poor during the midterms for both sides, even if the Republicans have generally performed better. In order for there to be any meaningful impact on the congress, he'll need the supporters from the presidential election back for the midterms. It is POSSIBLE (even if implausible) that if they showed up in high enough numbers, they could defeat the republicans due to the lower turn out on the Republican side.
The democrats would certainly have every incentive to take advantage of overall lower voter turn out and swing it in their favor.
Of course, this plan is batshit crazy, but it's an actual plan (even if it's not likely to work). At the very least, if Bernie magically convinced almost all of his supporters to do this, you'd readily admit it would be a political revolution, would you not?!
As you can see, the term "political revolution" is not just hyperbole. It's exactly what it would take in order for Bernie to achieve his vision. Bless his poor little heart, lol.
That's a whole lot easier to say than it is to do. Unless he's got a foolproof plan to pull it off he shouldn't even mention it. Not only that, but he'd need to do it in GOP controlled districts, which if he could he'd have done during the general anyway.
brainchild
Banned
You're absolutely right, no disagreements from me there.
Wrong. Bernie has openly said that it's very possible his plan will not work. Plenty of times. He has squarely placed the responsibility on his supporters. I've watched enough rallies to know this nearly by heart.
I don't know about you, but admitting you could very likely fail is pretty honest to me.
It's dishonest because he's pretending that Congress actually works that way. If he knows his plan is impossible and says it anyway that's bullshit. Doesn't matter if he says it could fail, it definitely will, all he's doing is telling people what they want to hear. People want to hear that Congress works that way so he's saying it. I agree with him 100% on domestic economic policy, but this is pure bullshit on his part and I'd say that regardless of who put out this plan. It's just pandering. Even pretending this is possible feels dishonest.
EDIT: I've seen too much of how Congress actually works to even pretend this idea could work or that it's anything more than pandering.
brainchild
Banned
Saying that it's impossible is intellectually dishonest. Impractical? Yes. Implausible? Yes. Infeasible? Yes. Impossible? Absolutely not, and I have made the case for how it could happen.
Even if the odds are 1 in 10 billion, it's still a possibility. There is no need for hyperbole when there are words that perfectly express what you're trying to say.
If you're argument for it being possible is the same one from that Dumb and Dumber gif, so you're saying there's a chance, that's a problem. OK, so I'll go back and say it is statistically impossible if it makes you feel better. It doesn't make it not pandering.
If this was even possible, Bernie wouldn't even have to be dealing with Boehner because the Dems would have taken back Congress during the presidential, thus solving his problem for him.
brainchild
Banned
Again, you will get no objection from me on the likelihood of him succeeding. I'm just pointing out what the damn plan is, because I'm not sure if you noticed, but most people (from what I can tell) who don't follow him closely aren't even aware of his intentions. They know about his ideologies, but they have no idea how he intends to implement them as president (which is to renovate congress and jettison the oligarchy).
I thought it would be useful to provide this information. But I can't give you information that he hasn't yet provided (like a detailed and comprehensive plan of action).
Anyway, now that the point has been clarified, there really isn't a need for me to elaborate. I think we all agree on the likelihood of him successfully causing a political revolution that would change the congress.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Jimmy Carter and his wife on the Braves kiss cam last night.
Honestly, I get all that. I'm just saying that, to me, it feels dishonest and pander-y. Which feels odd coming from him, I'm not used to feeling that when I see him talk--and I pay pretty good attention to everyone running.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Jimmy Carter and his wife on the Braves kiss cam last night.
How he had time to peel himself away from the movie playing on his ipad to kiss her is beyond me.
brainchild
Banned
That's fine. If that's how he comes across to you, it is what it is.
I personally don't get that impression, but everyone has their own perceptions shaped by their subjective experiences in life, and that's ok with me.
Lord_Byron28
Member
I think the poster was trying to point out was that unlike Obama, Sanders has made it a major part of his platform that the people must be involved in politics post-election. Following the highly unlikely event that he gets elected the people would've supported and followed someone who made it a major part of their campaign for the people to be involved post-election.
Obama tried a couple of times but not to the level that Bernie Sanders discusses the topic which is at pretty much every political rally and interview.
I feel like someone who has served 8 years as a mayor, 16 years in the House of Representatives(8 terms), 9 years so far as Senator and chairman of the Veteran Affairs Committee isn't shielded to the darker truths about how Congress works. He's passed and created bills by himself and working along other people such as Obama to expand federally qualified community health centers in the ACA, worked with John McCain on writing a bill for $16 billion dollars towards hiring more doctors and health professionals to treat veterans, wrote an amendment with Ron Paul to federally audit the Federal Reserve's nearly zero interest $16 trillion dollar loan to big banks and businesses, etc. I think he's worked and accomplished a fair amount of things in his time in Senate to have been exposed to how Congress really works.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Looks like the next Obamacare case in the Supreme Court might be a Hobby Lobby redux:
EDIT: Oh, and how could I forget! Check out the National Constitution Center's "Interactive Constitution:"
Here's how Eugene Volokh, who contributed to the discussion of the First Amendment's Free Speech and Free Press Clauses, describes the project:
EDIT: Oh, and how could I forget! Check out the National Constitution Center's "Interactive Constitution:"
Here's how Eugene Volokh, who contributed to the discussion of the First Amendment's Free Speech and Free Press Clauses, describes the project:
brainchild
Banned
Correct. I believe the dynamic COULD (though unlikely) be different with Bernie's supporters simply BECAUSE he's made them cognizant of this issue, and people who can understand this problem and are willing to support the cause are the kind of people that Bernie is targeting with his message.
Ideally, people who support him know that they'll all need to vote in the midterms. I don't believe Obama's supporters were motivated enough on this issue, simply because Obama didn't centralize his campaign around this message to the degree which Bernie has done. Hillary has not shown even a fleeting interest this election season in compelling her supporters to do the same. This is something you prime BEFORE you become president, not after.
And I agree with your commentary regarding Bernie's experience in politics, but it's not even a point worth arguing, IMO. It's nearly unfalsifiable (that he's shielded from the cold, dark realities of the machinations of congress), and wouldn't lead to anything conclusive. We know the work he's done, but the argument can always be made that he's been delusional the entire time. Of course, I disagree with that notion, but nothing meaningful can come from arguing about it.
fixed
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
How many people have I been accused of being now? Three? I remember Thomas, what's-his-face who argued for the plaintiffs in King, and now Volokh. Am I forgetting any?
brainchild
Banned
You're legion. Obviously.
Accuse is such a harsh word. Being Eugene Volokh would be a great honor!
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
He supported Fred fucking Thompson.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked