Why are large numbers better than small numbers? That's what Wall Street wants you to think, that the most important thing is to have the biggest number. I am campaigning for an America where all numbers have equal value, where there is no difference between 200 and 2000 delegates. Don't believe the lies the mainstream media tell, they're all in the pockets of Big Arithmetic.
-
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 |OT3| You know what they say about big Michigans - big Florida
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Why are large numbers better than small numbers? That's what Wall Street wants you to think, that the most important thing is to have the biggest number. I am campaigning for an America where all numbers have equal value, where there is no difference between 200 and 2000 delegates. Don't believe the lies the mainstream media tell, they're all in the pockets of Big Arithmetic.
That's just change under your couch though.
And_Gignac
Member
It's a "principles" issue that Bernie would probably push, probably not in an elegant way like Clinton did in 08 (she won the popular vote and pledged count, like you recall). But since Sanders campaign is based on putting into question the morality of the "establishment", not giving him the nomination even if he wins the democratic process is a powerful demagogue weapon. I don't know what the solution out of such dilemma would be (supers wouldnt move an inch, probably), unless Sanders has a plan for his movement after all this is over.
Such scenario is not going to happen, anyway, since Clinton will solidly win the three fronts (pledged, unpledged, popular vote).
oh okay. You are right. I forgot you did earlier math and posted it.
Seems like their argument boils down to"superdelegates should be winner take all based on who win their state" like some states are in terms of pledged delegates on the R side.
Lol
Honestly, that George Clooney shit is thread worthy, but I feel nobody wants to make the thread because we all know how it would play out.
It's when Bernie says shit like this that I wish he would just drop out, because he's actively playing on the ignorance of a significant portion of his supporters. He's not actually educating his voters; he's playing to their fears and demonizing anyone who can give in amounts greater than $27.
It's when Bernie says shit like this that I wish he would just drop out, because he's actively playing on the ignorance of a significant portion of his supporters. He's not actually educating his voters; he's playing to their fears and demonizing anyone who can give in amounts greater than $27.
Macho Madness
Member
How did it feel?
And_Gignac
Member
Don't insult the memory of my fallen comrade. I could only wish to reach his greatness.
When is Crab coming back anyway?
lol!
about a week ago, the topic of the fuckery of this election came up between me and my lab partner while we were trying to figure out why we had a large percent error in our rotational moment of inertia results
today, i realized that i could have made a "retroactive angular momentum" joke to explain the discrepancy
i'm sure wherever tesseract is, he's dissapointed in me
today, i realized that i could have made a "retroactive angular momentum" joke to explain the discrepancy
i'm sure wherever tesseract is, he's dissapointed in me
Well that's terrifying.
I mean it's pretty typical, but to see that much dogpiling focused on one person on such a small page is pretty
. Yuck.People who can afford to give large sums of money shouldn't be demonized, but as a class they ought to be tracked and identified.
It's fundamentally wrong that wealthier people have more influence in our political system.
How did I miss this. Damn, they're insane.Well that's terrifying.
I mean it's pretty typical, but to see that much dogpiling focused on one person on such a small page is pretty
"Tracked and identified" . . . if you said that in a vacuum I'd think that was said by a Trump supporter rather than a Bernie one.
It's just a continuation of the same thing we saw earlier with PP. as the Sanders Campagin pivots to their new establishment targets, so follows the attacks.
PP's social media are still getting hit by sanders supporters.
It's disgusting, and the campaign encourages it with their rhetoric.
I was surprised when Bernie said recently that people coming into this country need to be monitored to prevent terrorism. Now, I can imagine him saying "we need a database to prevent economic terrorism."
Ogrekiller
Member
Congratulations for winning the lottery. In addition to your winnings, please accept this GPS tracker and submit for monitoring upon joining the 1%.
Nobody is disagreeing with that. Large sums of money with implicit stipulations and tied to self-interests should not be allowed.
But if a wealthy person wants to hold a dinner to raise money off of their equally wealthy friends, with the only stipulation being that that money go towards funding down-ticket democrats running for office and who need the funding, they should not be attacked and called disgraceful. And they should NOT be equated corporate donors with explicit self-interests. And Bernie just did exactly that. His view on wealth is THAT black and white, and nobody that fucking bullheaded, so willing to cut off their nose to spite their face, has any business running a country.
What happened?
Mods got sick of his schtick from the look of it.
Four_Chamber
Member
He was already on my ignore list but thankfully he's banned. His posts were literally diarrhea. Strong work mods
I don't even know how many levels of irony he was operating on
Don't know exactly if it was a particular post or just too much ironic/unironic shitposting
But it crossed a line at somepoint and here we are in a post-Tesseract world. Have no idea if it is perma or not.
Danger of operating as a meme character, you forget where you stop and the meme begins
What a great strategy to win over superdelegates: have your supporters threaten and insult them online. Yep, that'll definitely work.
Bernie's younger supporters are not new or surprising. I don't think it's unfair to say that a large portion of his young supporters are just coming into political consciousness, see anything institutional as bad, often form their sense of what is right and wrong on the basis that so much that is currently the norm or status quo is wrong, and are often uninformed about the actual rules or processes of politics or American democracy. I used to see it everyday with undergrads at my uni and see it on facebook all the time.
Yellowtail
Member
Unfortunately not everyone can clapback like Donna. Congressman Rick Larsen is getting DRAGGED:
https://www.facebook.com/RepRickLarsen/posts/998399606862578
https://www.facebook.com/RepRickLarsen/posts/998399606862578
Macho Madness
Member
The worst part about insulting Donna is she's not even committed.
This is genuinely disgusting and unacceptable.
Honestly, I don't even want the people who are commenting on that page to be part of the Democratic party. The last thing I want is to watch the Democratic party start cowtowing to the far left of the party and slowly start becoming the left incarnation of the current GOP. Like it or not, politics in the US is won in the center and subsequently, good governance comes from the center. Where that center falls on the political spectrum is based on the times and the overall political makeup of the country, but we have seen first hand the outcome of even one party becoming beholden to their partisan flank. Tea Party of the left indeed.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Seriously, politics is about compromise. Republicans forgot that and are about to lose big due to it.
To go back a couple of pages...
Yeah, I can agree with both 1 and 2 here. I would not suggest that employees will always capture all the benefit of regulatory changes. I just want to push back against the idea that employers will always capture all the benefit.
Obviously there's no easy way to judge 2 without understanding what people pay for healthcare and what they would get in a public system, which is a much larger question.
Yeah, I can agree with both 1 and 2 here. I would not suggest that employees will always capture all the benefit of regulatory changes. I just want to push back against the idea that employers will always capture all the benefit.
Obviously there's no easy way to judge 2 without understanding what people pay for healthcare and what they would get in a public system, which is a much larger question.
This might deserve a thread?
I'd say so. I'd make one but I'm on mobile.
Big Baybee
Member
You know how it'd go.
We should get rid of the entire payroll tax system. It's literally designed to be as shitty and opaque as possible. Just roll those taxes right into federal income tax. Also close the carried interest loophole. We can call that part the Y2Kev rule.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
I'm not sure how the GOP effectively ejects evangelicals. They opened up that Pandora's Box back in the 1970s with Nixon, and Goldwater proved to be right for exactly once in his life when he noted that they would eventually take over the party.
The William F. Buckley True Believers still don't get that no one liked their economic ideas when they came out of Goldwater's mouth, and no one likes them now. They simply prolonged their ability to promulgate those ideas at the federal level by latching on to Evangelicals and racists. It was never meant to last forever, and now that the coalition is dying, so their ideas will die too, consigned to the dustbin of humanity.
On the other hand, we'll in the near future be an economic disaster away from electing a nutty white nationalist to the Oval Office, so I still don't feel safe.
The new GOP "coalition" will be white nationalists with an evangelical bent because they simply outnumber everyone else within the party. We're not headed for a re-alignment; we're headed for a one-party state a la South Africa, at least for the bulk of my remaining lifetime. That's my guess.
The William F. Buckley True Believers still don't get that no one liked their economic ideas when they came out of Goldwater's mouth, and no one likes them now. They simply prolonged their ability to promulgate those ideas at the federal level by latching on to Evangelicals and racists. It was never meant to last forever, and now that the coalition is dying, so their ideas will die too, consigned to the dustbin of humanity.
On the other hand, we'll in the near future be an economic disaster away from electing a nutty white nationalist to the Oval Office, so I still don't feel safe.
The new GOP "coalition" will be white nationalists with an evangelical bent because they simply outnumber everyone else within the party. We're not headed for a re-alignment; we're headed for a one-party state a la South Africa, at least for the bulk of my remaining lifetime. That's my guess.
he's not the only one. Yikes
https://www.facebook.com/SenBrianSchatz/
https://www.facebook.com/WaStateGov/
https://www.facebook.com/CongressmanDennyHeck
https://www.facebook.com/SenBrianSchatz/
https://www.facebook.com/WaStateGov/
https://www.facebook.com/CongressmanDennyHeck
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked