brainchild
Banned
You're so mean, lol.
I'm glad this has come to light though. It was ridiculous to call his activism into question even when all of it has been public record for decades.
-
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 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
You're so mean, lol.
I'm glad this has come to light though. It was ridiculous to call his activism into question even when all of it has been public record for decades.
Retromelon
Member
Livin life like a video when the sun is always shining and the musics always good and the pretty girls just happen to stop by in the hood
That song always gets dust in my eye
I want to be a better person and i hope i will make you all proud some day
That song always gets dust in my eye
I want to be a better person and i hope i will make you all proud some day
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Pro-Ted Cruz robocall blasting Trump and Gov. Haley on Confederate flag
Apparently the problem with Trump is he's not racist enough.
Apparently the problem with Trump is he's not racist enough.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Honestly surprised Trump hasn't gone with how Cruz's dad fought for Castro yet.
Yoda
Member
I know this place tilt's toward Hillary (Reddit is a circle jerk for Bernie so we can pretend it balances that out a bit) but seriously?
eBay Huckster
Member
Hey now, he's no John McCain.
Yeah, this is a really weird line of attack from Clinton supporters. Does anyone genuinely believe that young Bernie supporters are all massively stupid idiots who are supporting him because they think the president is an emperor who can do whatever he/she wants, rather than supporting him because they want to push the dialogue further left or trust him to appoint more progressive cabinet apointees? Millennials are the most educated generation in forever and are far more interested in politics than Gen X was at the same age. There's no reason to believe that Millennial voters taking the time to pay attention to the primaries don't understand how checks and balances work and think that Bernie is just going to somehow override the GOP in the House. I honestly don't think most of his supporters expect that he can do what he wants to do, and that's part of the reason why it doesn't exactly matter if his plans are economically feasible or not - because they can't get passed anyway, so why not shoot for the moon and try to force the overton window to move left? Now that may just be a supposition on my part. But so is the (stupid) idea that Bernie supporters are political illiterates being bamboozled by a snake oil salesman. And yet the latter gets treated as a fact of life by some people.
This whole narrative boils down to blaming young voters for being morons as a deflection away from flaws in Hillary that young voters perceive and it reeks of generational chauvinism ("Am I out of touch? No, it is the children who are wrong!") rather than trying to understand what economic and social circumstances may cause Millennials to prefer one candidate over another. What a shock that young people might find it annoying to constantly be belittled as fools and be turned off to the Clinton campaign by its supporters (much in the same way that a lot of people are turned off to Bernie by his rabid following...)
It's just as bad as Bernie fans who just can't fathom why a lot of black voters prefer Clinton. "But my candidate is the better, why can't they just understand, if only they understood the reality of the situation~!"
Not sure about whatever bill he voted for that indirectly or directly supported the militia men bill.
But there were legitimate reasons to vote against that immigrants bill though I can see room for disagreement on both sides of it.
He's also voted against reporting immigrants who go to hospitals, to continue federal funding for people in sanctuaries, supported the DREAM act, and opposed the english only bills on grounds of them encouraging xenophobia.
I am a millennial, on the older end of it, but still considered one, and part of the reason this narrative is even part of the discussion is how absolutely terrible those young voters are at showing up in a reliable fashion, especially in off years. I supported Obama, voted every year I could but that doesn't mean I can't shy away see how completely misguided and naive most of the people in my age group were to the true struggles and the reality of compromise, they abandoned him in the next mid term by not showing up and let Republicans take the house and the governorship by not at least trying to support the people they voted into office when they didn't get everything they wanted from it. I am seeing an even more forceful youth group who seem to shame compromise and are more idealistic then even I remember of myself in 2008. I don't think its wrong to be idealistic, surely people should hold ideals or there would be no resolve to make things happen. But unlike Obama I feel Bernie has not stated enough just how hard it will be to get the things he wants, and the people he supports wants, done. I am stating it, Hilary supporters are stating it because we have seen what his hopeful spring does to people who don't get exactly what they want or are one issue voting block when it comes time to get the actual work done. Will those same voters support Sanders if he must compromise to get even a fraction of what he wants, will those supporters stand in line vote in the mid terms even if the people they are voting in only vote 75% of the time for the position they care for knowing full well the alternative is nearly none of the positions they want? To me Bernie and his message represents a disconnect in the way things are done, you have to walk the walk, in order to make the change and I haven't seen enough plans and showcase in how he is going to get toward what he wants to do. I am not saying this to Bernie supporters, I am saying this as someone who is open to him but feels he has not done enough to sway my vote toward him and his 'plan'.
Looks like this is the law the amendment was slapped on to, the DHS Appropriations Act.
The amendment itself was Amendment 971.
Really can't figure out a logic for this one since it goes against pretty much all of his other immigration related votes.
shinra-bansho
Member
Sanders is in all likelihood a genuinely nice person who genuinely wants to help people and thinks his Presidency would do so. (And I'd probably say the same of the Butcher of Benghazi.)
I'm not sure I'd ascribe the same to some of those around him.
I will note though, it is mildly disconcerting to see people on the left so ready to dismiss notable economic experts, or grassroots organisations, or civil rights leaders, in the event they offer critique.
In this regard, this desire for polarization, value for ideology over analysis, there is a mirroring of the way in which right-wing parties like the GOP act.
It doesn't matter that an FTT won't raise anywhere near $70B dollars. It doesn't matter that basic calculation would indicate that isn't going to be enough to pay for free college. It doesn't matter how implausible the employment and growth numbers projected by the Friedman paper cited by the campaign are. It doesn't matter that Glass-Steagall type separation would not have prevented the financial crisis and Great Recession. That tax rates proposed may exceed revenue maximization. That the healthcare costings may be overly optimistic (even if one also notes that the Thorpe analysis may be pessimistic.)
I don't think this is an approach that the left should be mirroring from the right.
Clinton has done this to a degree to, and should be similar criticized for it.
I think I'm technically a millenial, but when numbers no longer matter I can't relate to that, and really have no interest in doing so.
When the big, fat mistake says he's going to have 4% growth by trickle-down tax cutting. Or Dr Drowsy says that his flat tax will raise X % directly from GDP it's rightly roundly criticized. The same should apply for left-wing policy.
I'm not sure I'd ascribe the same to some of those around him.
I will note though, it is mildly disconcerting to see people on the left so ready to dismiss notable economic experts, or grassroots organisations, or civil rights leaders, in the event they offer critique.
In this regard, this desire for polarization, value for ideology over analysis, there is a mirroring of the way in which right-wing parties like the GOP act.
It doesn't matter that an FTT won't raise anywhere near $70B dollars. It doesn't matter that basic calculation would indicate that isn't going to be enough to pay for free college. It doesn't matter how implausible the employment and growth numbers projected by the Friedman paper cited by the campaign are. It doesn't matter that Glass-Steagall type separation would not have prevented the financial crisis and Great Recession. That tax rates proposed may exceed revenue maximization. That the healthcare costings may be overly optimistic (even if one also notes that the Thorpe analysis may be pessimistic.)
I don't think this is an approach that the left should be mirroring from the right.
Clinton has done this to a degree to, and should be similar criticized for it.
I think I'm technically a millenial, but when numbers no longer matter I can't relate to that, and really have no interest in doing so.
When the big, fat mistake says he's going to have 4% growth by trickle-down tax cutting. Or Dr Drowsy says that his flat tax will raise X % directly from GDP it's rightly roundly criticized. The same should apply for left-wing policy.
This is not unique to Millennials, it happens with every generational cycle. As people get older they vote more often. That's always the case.
This is a narrative that has no particular proof. I could just as well say, and do say, that many Democrats did not vote in the midterms because they were disappointed in how milquetoast the Democrats were being and did not feel motivated to show up. This means the Democrats ought to embrace progressivism more since that is what drives their base to be motivated to come out and vote. Obama should not have started out compromising - he should have shot way further to the left than could have been accomplished and whittled his way down from there, which could have secured in the end more progressive legislation. But then again, he's quite moderate (which is a failing).
This is a good thing. There can be no compromise with the modern day GOP, and we need to constantly push liberals to be more progressive before we compromise with them. Compromise is a two-way street, not progressives giving in to centrists because "it's realistic".
I understand that, but what I'm saying is I don't see any particular reason to believe that anyone actually believes in the first place that Bernie can or will get anything done. I think a great deal of people are supporting Bernie more because he's willing to push for these causes whether or not they can be done. I think it's a fallacy to claim that young voters don't understand this and I don't see any evidence to believe that is the case.
For my part, I am also a Millennial, and I support him specifically for the reason I outlined before, which is that I want to see the overton window pushed. I want the re-emergence of class struggle as a bare minimum. I don't think Bernie goes far enough, personally, but I'm quite an outlier. But if we're basing things on what we feel about young voters without hard data, since we don't have any, my own personal experiences with other voters in our generation who are interested in politics this early in the game is that those who support Bernie do so for largely the same reason - they want to push things further and don't expect anything to actually be fulfilled, but don't see that as a good enough reason not to vote for him. You can't win if you don't push for it. Voting for Hillary is seen as defeatist since the GOP in the House will just block whatever she proposes as well.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I know this is from a Kasich rally and he's not a great choice for president and all that, but this was a pretty touching moment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njaejrp-up0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njaejrp-up0
Is there any actual criticism of the Freidman paper? I know there's economists who came out against it but I mean an actual breakdown of the paper, not condemnation for its alleged lack of reality.
Did not disagree that wasn't the case, the youth is historically going to vote less, especially in mid terms. Its partly why I think tempering expectations but willing people to want to fight knowing full well it will be a hard struggle is still key. And I am personally put off as voter from the lack of acknowledging issue both from firm supporters and especially the Bernie campaign itself.
I went through this phase too, I still voted but make no mistake I did share my own disappointment. "Why didn't they share a backbone on their own policy", "Why keep caving to a hostage minority who had no will or care to help you." "Why do I fight when you won't hard for the very ideals you claimed to support in the primary and GE." These feelings were stemmed from my own inability to see as someone young the reality of politics. Well guess what, when I saw what the opposition did when my age group didn't show back up, and the Republicans took the governship and the house, I saw progress sent to die, I saw what progress actually did happen and saw what might have been if people actually cared to support those that still voted in their interest a majority of time. I will never again accept a politician who speaks of true progress who doesn't acknowledge and plan for the difficulties, who prepares people for the small but deliberate steps that would be taken because the youth in historical capacity will not be there come mid terms to help those people who will be dissuaded by their leaders for not being 'pure' enough to the message.
This is the route of the tea party, this type of things is EXACTLY what I do NOT want the left to take. I want to vote for people who are adults, I want to vote for people I feel are competent and sure who will fight for legislation in the name of making progress a majority of the time. I do not want to be babied, I want hard and reasonable showcase of plans, either from the politician or his/her advisers. The tea party stood for purity and cast out any who didn't agree with them even when they were told it was a bad idea. We had the Todd Akins of the world, the Christine O'Donnells who showed up who kicked people out who had more then a small chance for the seat and they completely trashed the republicans when they could have gotten a senate majority even back then. Purity is done in moderation knowing the realities that some people just aren't going to agree with you. You need independents, you need people who are to the right of you or you won't have enough friends to vote anyone in to higher office other then safe districts.
I haven't seen anything to the contrary, I am seeing people talk of primarying McCaskill because she was confrontational of Bernie's plan. You are not going to have a single Democrat other then her hold that seat, she votes 75% of the time for what Dems want and even if she doesn't support some of the farthest left plans, she still gives us a vote or abstain that won't be there for a fillibuster, won't be there to tip the tide of leadership to an even less progressive leader. If this is the type of 'purity' or idealism then I want no part of it. Also I do believe a decent amount of them don't understand it, my age group sure as hell didn't (And might I say in some people, not you, still dont).
I agree a push is needed, and the primary is a good place for it, I like having Bernie in the race as another voice of difference. It is a positive thing to have him in the race, but I also would at least like people to at least publically acknowledge the struggles he can and will have going forward, and I would also like to see from those same supporters an understanding the perfect can be the enemy of progress. And if they acknowledge that then I would like to hear their plans of where to go knowing what progress would they accept should the inevitable happen.
shinra-bansho
Member
If you're asking whether anyone has created some sort of counter-analysis, no.
Friedman's paper isn't in a peer-reviewed article. It's just a draft that's been circulated.
I don't think any non-partisan centres have analysed candidate plans.
A sustained 5% annual GDP growth rate is frankly just nonsensical.
It's pretty universally thought that labor-force participation will fall due to the aging population, in stark contrast to the paper's 8% increase. Part of this increase is predicated on pay equity legislation - something both candidates propose - getting women into the workforce, rather than any Sanders specific policy.
This isn't even an argument against the policies per se. It's argument against selling said policies with fantasies.
To the degree that I have a criticism of Bernie's overall campaign strategy, it's that his plan is predicated on a "political revolution" which, so far, there is no evidence of coming to pass.
It's clear now that Bernie can win primaries by commanding the Democratic base without actually doing anything to produce the increased turnout that would theoretically be the symptom of his revolution. Given this, it's not just possible but likely that, if Bernie won the nomination, he would do so without actually convincing the silent majority he believes exists out there to turn out and vote. If he then wins the Presidency he does so without the Democratic House and Senate his political revolution would sweep in.
Then what happens?
Bernie has a campaign plan -- to create a bunch of new leftist voters. If his campaign plan works, then he won't need a post-campaign plan. But it's perfectly possible for him to win the nomination without his plan actually working out, and frankly, more plausible than his plan actually working out. It's not clear to me his campaign has given much thought to how to handle that circumstance.
It's clear now that Bernie can win primaries by commanding the Democratic base without actually doing anything to produce the increased turnout that would theoretically be the symptom of his revolution. Given this, it's not just possible but likely that, if Bernie won the nomination, he would do so without actually convincing the silent majority he believes exists out there to turn out and vote. If he then wins the Presidency he does so without the Democratic House and Senate his political revolution would sweep in.
Then what happens?
Bernie has a campaign plan -- to create a bunch of new leftist voters. If his campaign plan works, then he won't need a post-campaign plan. But it's perfectly possible for him to win the nomination without his plan actually working out, and frankly, more plausible than his plan actually working out. It's not clear to me his campaign has given much thought to how to handle that circumstance.
It's not frankly nonsensical though. It might be nonsensical but that generally requires an argument beyond big numbers can't happen. Right now it seems most of the blowback is coming from people who probably haven't read his paper.
http://fortune.com/2016/02/18/bernie-sanders-economic-growth/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-fight_us_56c74dade4b0ec6725e25f49
http://fortune.com/2016/02/18/bernie-sanders-economic-growth/
Krugman generally cites galbraith favorably in his columns.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-fight_us_56c74dade4b0ec6725e25f49
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I was taken aback when they cut to the audience. Is this normal? It's Bernie addressing congress in '91, btw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZo97nFS9GU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZo97nFS9GU
brainchild
Banned
I don't believe this. Have you seen his projected path to the nomination? Bernie's got a long, tough road ahead of him considering that he has Hillary Clinton as his opponent, and she's the one who'd actually command the dem base without needing a huge turnout. He's not gonna win without increasing turnout.
Looking at the primary data from New Hampshire, Bernie amassed more votes for himself than any other candidate IN THE HISTORY OF NH PRIMARIES. So while he didn't increase turnout for the whole party, he increased turnout for a single candidate--himself, and according to exit poll data, many of them were first time voters, as well as young voters.
If he continues to win primaries, I believe he will continue the trend of increasing turnout for a single candidate (and not the whole party), and if he's be able to consistently do that, I'd say that he's definitely striking a chord with more than just the democratic base.
Anyway, Bernie has already made it clear that he intends for the political revolution to carry over into his presidency, as he plans to compel Americans to vote during the midterms, so he must have some idea what he intends to do with the revolution post-campaign.
Black Republican
Member
So another bunch of emails dropped and still nothing?
where is the scandal? im disappointed
where is the scandal? im disappointed
hoping for some Huma/Clinton lesbian emails :O
Honestly it's ridiculous how many white republicans who were scared of Obama who are coming around to support Bernie when he embodies so many more of the republican attacks than Obama ever did and is far more to the left than he ever was.
I mean i'm not necessarily complaining because I want the white republican vote as much as any other demographic so Bernie can win.
But the level of racial bias that leads to them being more welcoming of him absolutely astounds me, and that's blatantly what it is.
Saw another post on Sandersforpresident with this message again today from someone who voted for Romney and Bush.
I mean i'm not necessarily complaining because I want the white republican vote as much as any other demographic so Bernie can win.
But the level of racial bias that leads to them being more welcoming of him absolutely astounds me, and that's blatantly what it is.
Saw another post on Sandersforpresident with this message again today from someone who voted for Romney and Bush.
I hate this country. A lot.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/georgia-religious-freedom-bill/
Someone needs to gather up all of the Republican lawmakers into a small, tiny room and constantly drill what the world "discrimination" means and just because you say something isn't discrimination doesn't make it true.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/georgia-religious-freedom-bill/
Someone needs to gather up all of the Republican lawmakers into a small, tiny room and constantly drill what the world "discrimination" means and just because you say something isn't discrimination doesn't make it true.
shinra-bansho
Member
The top-line numbers are unprecedented, even if based on whatever assumptions Friedman considers standard he's able to generate them through his modelling. The Tax Foundation can show through their models that the Big Fat Mistake's tax cuts will create almost 3M jobs and 10% long-run expansion of GDP, while paying for itself through this growth.
Jared Bernstein, (who as at the 15th Feb had apparently read the paper) noted on his blog.
While still largely supportive of what Sanders wants to achieve in terms of policy.
I'm not an economist and don't claim to be, although there are posters on here who make such claim and have read the paper's outcomes to be implausible.
Nor am I privy to whether Paul Krugman has read what he's publicly criticizing as implausible.
Matt Yglesias has seemingly read it and also points out at least one heterodox assumption.
This assumption flows through in other calculations such as unemployment reduction, poverty rate reductions. In same article, Sanders-friendly economist Dean Baker similarly finds the top-line outcomes unlikely.
I guess we'll see when either he or Clinton becomes President, whether implementing pay equity leads to large increases in labor-force participation sufficient to exceed the height of the 90s, despite an aging population.
aspiegamer
Member
The whole "silent majority" thing is really big this year on the right, and this sort of legislation plays straight into people's fears and thus gets a good reception. A lot of these people (think they) feel legitimately repressed/discriminated against, mistaking it for a dislike of a wave of new liberal social policies nationwide.
It's funny, because Trump plays the "silent majority" thing a lot (it's on his posters!), yet he spends almost zero time talking about a stuff like gay marriage and minimal time on abortion/guns/dog whistle stuff, etc. Magically he's gotten a pass on the stuff by the very people who should be pressing the matter most. The GOP had months upon months to hit him on all of this but didn't. Only in the past few weeks have Cruz and Rubio started to use it.
cartoon_soldier
Member
When will we get OTG reports of record breaking turnout in SC?
Why are SC primaries for Dems and Repubs on different dates?
Why are SC primaries for Dems and Repubs on different dates?
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
I don't understand. Why do they need a bill saying that pastors don't have to marry gay couples, isn't that already the case?
brainchild
Banned
Honestly, if that'll shut 'em up, I say we do it. Of course, that won't shut 'em up, but it's worth a try.
To be clear, I'm not talking about the aforementioned two bills being rolled into one, but a bill that makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that their church doesn't have to marry gay couples, which is what the Pastor Protection Act seems to be.
brainchild
Banned
This is pretty rich considering you call Hillary a cold, calculated politician. Have YOU taken even 5 minutes to research her? You probably did, so obviously it's just your personal feelings on the characters of these people rather than any objective measurement. Don't get defensive about people questioning Bernie's character when you carry your own baseless views of other people that you don't know either.
In any case, I can't believe you guys got sucked into Diablos's negative spiral. He's not trolling, but you guys know better.
Lullabye..
And goodnight..
Stay asleep, little millenials..
We can take care..
Of the voting..
So that you can get some rest..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62ItVwV2mA0
(Good morning!)
And goodnight..
Stay asleep, little millenials..
We can take care..
Of the voting..
So that you can get some rest..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62ItVwV2mA0
(Good morning!)
Coriolanus
Banned
Neo wants Bern to disappear from existence confirmed.
Then Hillary assembles a trio and reconstitutes him after wanting to see him again.
Coriolanus
Banned
So you saying that hills wants to cheat on slick willy?
I'm trying to process who Bill would be in the FFX universe.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Various Bush stories in the last few days on Politico and other sites...is this the end of the road? Also I'm curious whether he has the balls to endorse Kasich over Rubio.
Tarkus
Member
Is that Killah Mike?
cartoon_soldier
Member
SC voting hours?
cartoon_soldier
Member
Prepare for the suck then.
All glory must go to The Flaxen Haired Boy, The Butcher of Benghazi, and our Lord and Savior Elon Musk.
We need to get that Rubio firewall up. At the moment it looks like Trump will take Nevada handily, but we need more Super Tuesday polling. I don't think Rubio will play in Texas but I don't know much about the rest of it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked