cartoon_soldier
Member
Did you make a mess too?
-
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
Did you make a mess too?
Macho Madness
Member
Macho Madness
Member
FloydtheFathead
Member
Amazing
teruterubozu
Member
Never trust Vegas and a deck of cards.
User 463088
Banned
I had a dream last night in which Hillary, Bill and myself were hiding in a hospital basement after a rally. And I was helping her select who she should appoint to different Cabinet positions. We were floating Trump for State.
I think I had the bad kind of too much alcohol.
I think I had the bad kind of too much alcohol.
Jeb needs to stay. Although I do enjoy the crumbling of the Bushes, he can't quit yet. Has to stay until FLOLrida.
Macho Madness
Member
Blame Reid. It used to be a Primary tucked later in the calendar. Reid lobbied for a more diverse state (Nevada's electorate is barely 50% white, and the Democratic electorate is less so) to be up in the calendar. Why the change to a caucus? No idea.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
I was just thinking about somedude just now. When do you think America will break up?
Politico really likes to push the Clinton and Jeb demise, they also have another article out yesterday about the Too-Big-to-Fail Haunting Hillary.
I do think her losing Nevada would be a pretty substantial blow and you will see her campaign shift gears. Her Super Pacs have been doing push polls in anticipation and I expect them to hit hard if she ends up losing the caucus. This was always on the cards, the only way Bernie wins the nomination is his biggest obstacle to the presidency. So I'm personally looking forward the "vetting" as some would put it - last week I've seen you guys starting that process but this is just the begining. If Bernie wins Nevada, his vetting process will go into overdrive and if is able to maintain his standing he would become a better candidate in a GE.
What is weird is unlike other caucuses and primaries - Nevada dem caucus is structured in such a way that it's adventitious for Republicans to end up caucusing in dem caucus. This is all down to the DNC in Nevada, who obviously haven't really made the caucus in such a way that Republicans would lose the right to vote in their caucus if they caucus with the dems.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Everyone knows the card manufacturers are part of the establishment.
Macho Madness
Member
That would be highly unconstitutional and treasonous.
And yes, Politico, Morning Joe etc love to push a "Clinton is failing" theme. I guess it's more exciting to do that then show viewers the electoral math and Bernie's steep hill even if he wins Nevada.
Because it requires people to spend more time organizing. It's basically because Reid is an attention whore and he uses the registration increases to support himself.
Tarkus
Member
Yeah...I guess so
Trump on invading Iraq (2002)
Trump on invading Iraq (2002)
Elaugaufein
Member
Call me when you're floating Bernie for Commerce., I'll send you off to Rehab.
Macho Madness
Member
That's my Donald.
brainchild
Banned
This is a ridiculous false equivalency, but I'm not surprised, considering that it's coming from you.
My problem with their posts wasn't solely about their negative perception of Bernie; it's that one of them said (and the other agreed) that Bernie was gonna sit on his ass and do nothing if he didn't get the nomination, and he/she based that reasoning on the assumption that Bernie was self-serving. You know, I know, and most of the people in this thread know that that isn't true. Not because Bernie is some kind of Saint, but because we've seen enough of Bernie's ACTIONS to know the kind of politician that he is, AND he's already said that he'd support Hillary if he didn't get the nomination. A simple Google search and they could've proven themselves wrong.
Similarly, the same can be said for Hillary. Regardless of my personal opinion of her PERSONALITY, I've seen enough of her ACTIONS to know that she's not just gonna sit on her ass and do nothing if she doesn't get the nomination; she would support Bernie. And you better believe that if they said the same thing about Hillary, I'd respond as I did before.
It was an ignorant and erroneous statement and I responded to it. Next time you want join the discussion and criticize my statements, make sure you actually know what you're criticizing in the first place.
cartoon_soldier
Member
http://www.buzzfeed.com/meganapper/...on-in-2007-video-this-is-a-bad-bi#.skg5vgol67
Sanders in 2007: Immigration Reform was bad for American Workers
Sanders in 2016: Immigration Reform was bad for immigrants
Sanders in 2007: Immigration Reform was bad for American Workers
Sanders in 2016: Immigration Reform was bad for immigrants
Macho Madness
Member
Tad Devine went on the Chris Hayes show and said the "attacks on this are unfounded"
Also Tad Devine seems clueless about gender playing a factor in the election. Basically saying he doesn't understand why someone could possibly want to vote for Clinton because of her gender. I don't know how you could be that bone headed when you're running against the potential first female president of the United States.
I'm starting to see why Killer Mike said what he said. They're not malicious, they're just ignorant.
You would like to neatly push everything I say into a false equivalency, but there is no false equivalency here.
You object and ask for receipts when people say they think Bernie is an asshole. Yet you had said Hillary is a cold and calculating person, but where are your receipts? It's that simple.
And of course, your answer is predictably the "MY opinion is OBJECTIVE, yours is not" ("I've seen enough of her ACTIONS to know") but in reality, none of us know shit about the candidates personally. My criticism of your statement has nothing to do with whether or not Hillary or Bernie will fail to support each other at the end of the primary. My criticism is that you are always playing favorites, but pretending you have an objective, logical, reasoned view. You do not.
Don't ask for receipts when you can't pull out your own.
Sorry for the late reply.
The problem with how this problem is typically presented is the implicit assumption that social justice and economic justice are independent axes. But the fact is, they're very much linked. Not a 1:1 linkage like Sanders seems to assume, but because systemic bigotry makes things harder for the groups affected, conservative economic policies that favor the rich over the poor compound that difficulty. So you really can't have a social justice platform without an economic justice platform. However, you can have an economic justice platform without a social justice platform. That's the classic Dixiecrat approach.
What we're seeing now is being badly misinterpreted in a lot of ways. Marginalized groups are reaching the limits of what they're willing to put up with, so they're getting louder. In response to this, there's an incorrect assumption by some privileged progressives that this is somehow an exclusionary focus, that paying attention to intersectional social concerns that are not purely economic requires that we diminish or abandon economic progressivism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that social justice has been deemphasized in favor of colorblind economic policy, and now that imbalance is starting to be corrected. The backlash to this correction is based in privilege and the fact that a lot of progressives are not used to anything other than a laser-like focus on their and only the concerns they see as valid.
Which is why this question really isn't about the rich black guy, it's about the poor white guy. And that's when we start straying into territory where the votes from marginalized groups that the party has indeed taken for granted might genuinely be at risk. The Republican party has demonstrated quite clearly the weaknesses in the strategy of doubling down on the straight white male vote, and we always mock them for being blind to demographic changes. But if we get this squishy over stronger voices from those demographics to the point where we follow the same path, then we fail in the same way.
Ultimately, if the goal of progressivism is to make everyones' lives better by helping them where they need help, then the social justice should drive the economics, not the other way around. So to answer the original question, I'm not interested in trying to undercut progressive economics to get the rich black guy on board, and I'm not interested in trying to undercut social justice to get the poor white guy on board. My main concern is catering the coalition we already have by doing a better job at social justice and by necessity economic justice. If the two guys in the question realize that a tax cut ain't worth being harassed by police or that keeping gay people from getting married ain't worth a medical bankruptcy, then so much the better. But we damn sure shouldn't be attempting to gain their votes by trying to appeal to the worst sides of their natures. That's what Trump is for.
These. People are investing too much emotional effort into creating really dumb overly melodramatic narratives based on shitty armchair psychoanalysis and their own desires. Calm. The. Fuck. Down.
holes all the way through the room with really long drill bits. I completely agree.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Why is there so much hostility to those who question the feasibility of Bernie's current plans if his supports largely don't actually expect implementation? If voting for Bernie is a symbolic gesture why does it matter if the economics don't add up?
I think you are underestimating just how many Sanders supporters actually believe he can be the force for change he is platforming as.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Is Bernie going to sit on his ass if Hillary gets the nomination? Of course not
But speaking to that naiveté I mentioned earlier I worry he doesn't think through his strategy thoroughly when he frames his attacks on Clinton in terms of her not being "progressive enough", it ties into and reinforces already existing currents of thought among some of his supporters and my biggest fear is that if she gets the nomination enough of a fraction of his people (15% would be enough) stay home because "she's not a real progressive, she's barely better than the alternative and we wanted a revolution"
But speaking to that naiveté I mentioned earlier I worry he doesn't think through his strategy thoroughly when he frames his attacks on Clinton in terms of her not being "progressive enough", it ties into and reinforces already existing currents of thought among some of his supporters and my biggest fear is that if she gets the nomination enough of a fraction of his people (15% would be enough) stay home because "she's not a real progressive, she's barely better than the alternative and we wanted a revolution"
Plenty of people have been saying Hillary is a war hawk, not progressive etc before Bernie started running. She's also really unlikable already; that's all her.
I think two things:
1) This is clearly the fault of Politico and others. The younger, disaffected, disconnected voters of the past never had an outlet like Politico that is basically set up to establish every narrative as, "This time, things are different."
2) While I don't expect Sanders to win even if he wins Nevada, I am a little concerned of two things:
a) Depleting Hillary's resources for the general when we know a big reason Obama did so well last cycle was having money to start attacking Romney early; and
b) The Republican race wrapping up basically in March or April and then that candidate having resources and time to paint Hillary/Bernie for months basically unopposed.
So I don't think this stuff is new, but the fact that these races are so expensive and we're time limited is a somewhat compounding factor. Ideally, Hillary/Bernie runs away with it by March 15, the other person concedes, and we start going HAM on Marco Rubio.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
It shouldn't be fueled from inside the party and especially not from another candidate who views the other as a decent second choice. That sort of stuff characterizes the current GOP and look how much of a mess they are. Thus far Hillary has, to my knowledge, avoided explicitly calling out Sanders continued lack of foreign policy experience.
brainchild
Banned
You want receipts?! Here are your receipts.
Washington Post said:
SOURCE
There. I think we know SOMETHING about how these candidates operate within the political system, and if history is any indication, should Bernie lose, he will endorse Hillary to ensure that the Republicans don't win.
And you don't get to tell me what my argument is. I'M TELLING YOU, my point was that, had they looked at the 'receipts' I just provided (by using Google), they would have realized that their arguments in regards to Bernie not supporting Hillary if he loses are completely baseless.
Trying to equate this situation to the very subjective context of criticizing someone's personality is just another one of your attempts to try and personally attack me, but as with your previous [failed] attempts, it doesn't hold any weight.
Anyway, I'm done arguing about this. I've shown my receipts and now I'd like to not continue shitting up this thread with this worthless conversation.
She's also said that he wants to takeaway your health insurance though, which people probably care more about.
does it matter in the end? so few democrats and independents participate in this thing it will blow over by November.
Macho Madness
Member
I definitely care about that. I don't buy that Bernie would dismantle the ACA before putting his plan in place. That's always been a weird attack from Hillary to me. Can someone explain that?
QuiteWhittle
Member
Expecting a Sanders win and Rubio upset tonight.
No, it was awful and they dropped it in two days. They even PIMPED OUT Chelsea for no reason at all.
If Rubio wins, the thing is over on the Republican side.
If Rubio wins, the thing is over on the Republican side.
Roland_Gunner
Member
The line about taking away someone's healthcare is NOT about ObamaCare. Its directed at people who currently have really good health plans and are worried about losing them. Obama said the same thing when the ACA was being negotiated and lots of plans were ended because of the new regulations on "Cadillac" plans they contained. Fox news, et al beat him for months about that.
VendettaRed07
Member
He would dismantle it to put in place his own plan. And with SCOTUS challenges and congress ripping the legislation apart, we really have no idea what it will be like when all is said and done.
The SCOTUS gave states the right to deny the Medicare poverty gap expansion, it isn't out of the realm of possibility Bernies plan, even if he has things in place to cover everyone, that parts of it will be ruled unconstitutional and people who are currently covered may not be under a new plan in a republican governed state
Macho Madness
Member
No. She specifically says he wants to undo the "progress of the ACA" to implement his plans. That's what I'm referring to.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Accuracy aside its an easier comment to walk back later than a character attack
Macho Madness
Member
I hadn't thought about the challenges with states rights and SCOTUS. This makes way more sense. I think that she could expand on this more if she's going to use it to attack Bernie's "promises he can't keep."
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I've said this multiple times. Even liberal justices have opposed lots of what bernie proposes. Its on shakey legal group
Roland_Gunner
Member
Ah, well the Clinton campaign is making several different arguments about the move to single payer, sorry for not getting the one you were referring to. Krugman has made a similar point when explaining why he doesn't support a move to single payer at this time. The ACA sets up a framework for getting people without insurance into the system that can easily be expanded upon through things like the public option. Sanders' plan would scrap all that and implement a whole new set of programs. Which basically means all the time that was spent implementing ObamaCare would go to waste.
How big does Hillary have to win by for Politico not to call it a virtual tie? 35%?
I wonder if there's like an RV Bill is driving around to the casinos trying to get maids into the back seat to go caucus. I just imagine him driving around winking at old Latinas.
I wonder if there's like an RV Bill is driving around to the casinos trying to get maids into the back seat to go caucus. I just imagine him driving around winking at old Latinas.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked