• 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 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Orbis Tabula

Member
I mean, it's not that I think that BernieBro is that particularly offensive of a term. Like, it's not inherently mean. In a vacuum, it would be a coinflip trying to figure out whether fans or detractors invented the name. It's just a name.

But I still think it's something I may as well try to avoid using anyway. Because I can't really control how people react to what I say, all I can control is what I say. There are some reasonable, well meaning Bernie Sanders supporters who don't interpret it as "the crazy subset of Bernie fans" But rather "all Bernie fans, exemplified by these crazy ones." Given that asymmetry, it doesn't do me any good, if I'm trying to win hearts and minds, to use such a divisive name.

Basically, I think it comes down to both parties in a discussion to resist the temptation to say things that they know frustrate the other side, just because it feels good to say them. The reason I try to avoid saying BernieBro is the same reason I felt uncomfortable when people called Jindal "Piyush." When you call someone something, and they say they don't like that name, calling them what they want to be called is literally the least you can do and if it helps keep a conversation civil and productive, then all the better.

It's not like it's hard to avoid using the name, anyway. Even with the shitty keyboard I have on my phone, it's pretty easy to write out "irrational subset of Bernie Sanders supporters" or something similar. Hell, the keyboard predictions are already pretty well trained for it by now!
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Jack Remington said:
Okay, this is a good topic for discussion, actually.

Do you actually feel outrage about the fact that Cruz had a mistress? Like are you morally outraged because adultery makes you angry on principle? Or do you just get a kick out of the fact that this guy who presents himself as a pious goody-two-shoes might be exposed as a hypocrite?

If adultery is something that deeply offends you in and of itself, then that's valid. But I would expect you to have the same reaction no matter who the person under discussion was. If I found posts of yours supporting Bill Clinton for instance, a politician who is indisputably a serial adulterer, I would call you out on that. I would likely accuse you of pretending to care deeply about adultery for partisan reasons.

On the topic of the emails, to me it comes back to the concept of malum in se vs malum prohibitum. Is something wrong in and of itself, or is it wrong because it's technically illegal? Someone who writes an email discussing some diplomatic gossip at a state dinner technically disclosed information that was "born classified." But I have a hard time believing that most people would care deeply about this on moral grounds.

So when I see someone calling Hillary Clinton's use of a private server "treason", or arguing that Hillary should get 30,000 separate charges for "destroying government records" for each one of the personal emails she deleted, but that person clearly can't be bothered to care about the fact that the Bush administration maintained a private server and deleted millions of emails, yeah, I'm going to call bullshit. I know people tend to react angrily to having their motives questioned, but sometimes people really do need to take a step back and examine their motives. I've had to do this plenty of times. That's life.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't really care how a politician conducts themselves in their personal life, I just find it highly amusing when it's conservative Republicans who pride themselves on family values who get caught doing it. Especially if they happened to be in office during the Clinton scandal and took a hardline stance against him.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
How else are we suppose to distinguish between the non-crazy Sander's supporters like Adam's boytoy vs the overly zealous people who don't understand the way the US works like the redditors, Facebookers, and Gaffers?
 
O

Ophelion

Member
dramatis said:
I don't particularly care if the term Bernie Bro is used or not. What I am absolutely irritated by is how insulted people act over the term and half of this 'affronted behavior' couldn't be mustered for sexist words and deeds. I couldn't make a thread about Hillary Clinton and women without it being shat on from the first reply, and people want to spend more time and attention being pissy about the Bernie Bro term?

In terms of how 'insulting' a term is, 'Bernie Bro' doesn't even make the list.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think it's stupid name calling because I care if it's genuinely insulting or not. I think it's stupid because it leaves the subject an out to whine about supposed persecution rather than being forced to defend themselves. If we're going to duel over this stuff, I want a straight duel. Drawn fucking keyboards at dawn. I don't want to provide an excuse to beg off because their feelings are hurt.

Also, it's a really low energy insult. If we're going to be insulting we could at least be imaginative about it. Not that I'm encouraging that for the reason listed above.

Wilsongt said:
How else are we suppose to distinguish between the non-crazy Sander's supporters like Adam's boytoy vs the overly zealous people who don't understand the way the US works like the redditors, Facebookers, and Gaffers?
Click to expand...

Context?

ivysaur12 said:
I don't care that Cruz is an adulterer. I get a kick that he's a shit and a hypocrite. Shrug.
Click to expand...

Samesies.
 
T

Thequietone

Member
I talked to a Bernie supporter the other night and had to tell him Rubio dropped out. He asked me who the third Republican was and I told him Kasich. "Who the hell is Kasich!". He is still in the shadows even after the field has narrowed. Sad!

I can't convert him, sorry Adam. He is from Vermont visiting the great state of California. They love some Sanders over there. He did admit if it came down to Trump and Hillary he'd vote for her. So at least he isn't going to vote against her in the general.
 
O

Orbis Tabula

Member
Ophelion said:
Oh, I don't think it's stupid name calling because I care if it's genuinely insulting or not. I think it's stupid because it leaves the subject an out to whine about supposed persecution rather than being forced to defend themselves. If we're going to duel over this stuff, I want a straight duel. Drawn fucking keyboards at dawn. I don't want to provide an excuse to beg off because their feelings are hurt.

Also, it's a really low energy insult. If we're going to be insulting we could at least be imaginative about it. Not that I'm encouraging that for the reason listed above.
Click to expand...

Another reason I hate saying the term. Well said.
 
O

Orbis Tabula

Member
Jack Remington said:
Okay, this is a good topic for discussion, actually.

Do you actually feel outrage about the fact that Cruz had a mistress? Like are you morally outraged because adultery makes you angry on principle? Or do you just get a kick out of the fact that this guy who presents himself as a pious goody-two-shoes might be exposed as a hypocrite?

If adultery is something that deeply offends you in and of itself, then that's valid. But I would expect you to have the same reaction no matter who the person under discussion was. If I found posts of yours supporting Bill Clinton for instance, a politician who is indisputably a serial adulterer, I would call you out on that. I would likely accuse you of pretending to care deeply about adultery for partisan reasons.

On the topic of the emails, to me it comes back to the concept of malum in se vs malum prohibitum. Is something wrong in and of itself, or is it wrong because it's technically illegal? Someone who writes an email discussing some diplomatic gossip at a state dinner technically disclosed information that was "born classified." But I have a hard time believing that most people would care deeply about this on moral grounds.

So when I see someone calling Hillary Clinton's use of a private server "treason", or arguing that Hillary should get 30,000 separate charges for "destroying government records" for each one of the personal emails she deleted, but that person clearly can't be bothered to care about the fact that the Bush administration maintained a private server and deleted millions of emails, yeah, I'm going to call bullshit. I know people tend to react angrily to having their motives questioned, but sometimes people really do need to take a step back and examine their motives. I've had to do this plenty of times. That's life.
Click to expand...

I don't really give a shit about affairs. Whatever some number of consenting adults does in there spare time doesn't bother me. I do enjoy it because I want his career to be over, and there's a degree of "the ends justify the means" there. I couldn't give two shit about adultery otherwise.

As for your broader question about morality, I definitely fall on the side where illegal things aren't necessarily wrong. Like, I don't care if you've broken the law, provided you haven't done any demonstrable material harm because of it. So, the email thing doesn't bug me at all. Even if Clinton did something inarguably illegal, until there's any serious consequences, I'm not going to be that upset about it. It's one of those things where they should just run her through a "Best Cyber Security Practices" training seminar, have her sign a "I learned..." pledge, and then forget about it.

And yeah, it's frustrating when people have clearly motivated outrage against X breaking a rule when they don't care that Y did. I just never bother with that argument because I could write the responses myself. "We should hold our party to a higher standard!" Or "I wouldn't vote for them either" or "yeah, but they're not running for president now!" Or "two wrongs don't make a right!"

It's not really a productive line if argument in my experience.

Edit: shit, sorry about the double post. I honestly thought I took long enough to type this that someone else would have slipped in between the posts. I gave you guys seven whole minutes!
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
ivysaur12 said:
I don't care that Cruz is an adulterer. I get a kick that he's a shit and a hypocrite. Shrug.
Click to expand...

yeah, the fact that he has attacked and fought against gay marriage because of how he says it harms the sanctity of the institution of marriage, while sleeping with Ms. Bulletnecklace is pretty rich.
 
N

noshten

Member
dramatis said:
I don't particularly care if the term Bernie Bro is used or not. What I am absolutely irritated by is how insulted people act over the term and half of this 'affronted behavior' couldn't be mustered for sexist words and deeds. I couldn't make a thread about Hillary Clinton and women without it being shat on from the first reply, and people want to spend more time and attention being pissy about the Bernie Bro term?

In terms of how 'insulting' a term is, 'Bernie Bro' doesn't even make the list.
Click to expand...



neogaf25rugz.gif


It's the same with any Bernie related topic
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
lol Luntz

Leaked documents show strong business support for raising the minimum wage

The survey of 1,000 business executives across the country was conducted by LuntzGlobal, the firm run by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, and obtained by a liberal watchdog group called the Center for Media and Democracy. Among the most interesting findings: 80 percent of respondents said they supported raising their state's minimum wage, while only eight percent opposed it.
Click to expand...
 
U

User 406

Banned
I think the least you guys could do is refer to me using the term "Sea Manky, Lord of Lords, Slayer of Demons, Taker of Bases, Devourer of Fried Chicken, Who Alone Stands Between Y2Kev and his Tax Cut" instead of divisive petty stuff like, "Sea Manky" or "Manky". But I expect that I'll continue to be persecuted by the PoliGAF hivemind.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
A mess!

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...ads-slowdown-judicial-confirmations/82440284/

Even before the current controversy over consideration of a Supreme Court justice, action on federal court nominations has slowed markedly since U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley took control of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Since Republicans won a Senate majority in 2014, the number of President Barack Obama’s nominees winning confirmation to the bench has fallen compared with previous years and long-term averages, as have the number advancing out of Grassley’s Judiciary Committee, according to data from the Congressional Research Service and the federal judiciary.

“With Republicans taking over the Senate, the strategy has been to obstruct, delay and slow-walk these nominees at every stage of the process,” said Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science and expert on judicial confirmations at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Grassley disputes the assertion that the committee is handling nominations differently than when it was under Democratic leadership.

“We’re going to take the nominations up as they come up from the White House,” Grassley said Tuesday after an event in Orange City, adding that he would consider only nominees who had won support from both of their home-state senators.

“That’s been the practice under both Republicans and Democrats,” he said.

The Senate confirmed 11 judges in 2015 and has approved five so far this year. In the final two years of Republican President George W. Bush's term, by contrast, a Democratic Senate confirmed 40 judges the first year and 28 in the second.

Pending nominations, meanwhile, have increased, as have average wait times for nominees seeking committee hearings and vacant seats identified as judicial emergencies.

As chairman of the committee that oversees judicial confirmations, Grassley, R-Iowa, has been a focal point for criticism. That’s been especially true in recent weeks, as Republicans have refused to hold even a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, Obama’s pick to succeed deceased Justice Antonin Scalia.
Click to expand...

#PattyJudge2016
 
J

jtb

Banned
all this post-mortem "Bernie should have gone negative" stuff seems like imposing a (dumb) narrative after the fact. What gave Bernie grassroots support in the first place was his claim that he was "above" politics. Getting into the mud would have given Hillary tacit permission to go nuclear on him and also would have probably hurt his favorables -- I mean, people loved the fact that he didn't go after Hillary on the emails. it's one of the reasons why he seems authentic, why he seems "trustworthy." if he tried pulling a hard negative push in that first October debate, this would be a very different race with a very different perception of Bernie.

plus, he's been going plenty negative lately and what exactly has that gotten him? Michigan? I don't even buy that the "strategy" is even working in the first place.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Holmes said:
Can't believe we were talking about how Obama would be 100,000 votes ahead in the popular vote if Michigan and Florida were to count, and here in 2016 we're talking 2.5 million more votes, and it will only expand after New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland.
Click to expand...
The last point about Hillary winning 70% of the remaining contests' delegates and the superdelegates flocking to her is particularly hilarious when you consider... Well...
 
D

Diablos

Member
I can't believe Bernie used his wife as an excuse for having nothing to say about taxes. Lmao

Anyway is this 8-0 thing on one person one vote settled or does it still allow for voting pop if a state desires it?
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Diablos said:
I can't believe Bernie used his wife as an excuse for having nothing to say about taxes. Lmao

Anyway is this 8-0 thing on one person one vote settled or does it still allow for voting pop if a state desires it?
Click to expand...

RBG threw cold water on it and there were only two concurrences with Alito saying that they could do voting pop, so no.
 
Y

Yellowtail

Member
http://www.people.com/article/huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-first-meeting
Huma Abedin knew the moment she first met Hillary Clinton that they shared a special connection.

In a new interview Friday with the Call Your Girlfriend podcast, Clinton's longtime aide raves about the former secretary of state as she recounts their meeting: "You know these things that happen in your life that just stick? She walked by and she shook my hand and our eyes connected and I just remember having this moment where I thought, 'Wow, this is amazing.' "

"And it just inspired me. You know, I still remember the look on her face. And it's funny, and she would probably be so annoyed that I say this, but I remember thinking; 'Oh my God, she's so beautiful...."
Click to expand...
Every Queen needs a queen.
 
N

noshten

Member
ivysaur12 said:
So doing nothing. Cool!!

You're a terrible troll tbh
Click to expand...

It's all about laying down the foundations for a clean sweep so that small donor base rallying around Bernie has a party to give their money to, while DWS is DNC chair most people would be skeptical about the Dems. Tim Canova's fundraising follows the same path as Bernie and he has utilized DWS as a focal point of his campaign.

According to the digital firm Revolution Messaging, the average contribution to Canova is $20 and only six donors have made the maximum contribution of $2,700. That’s the same as with the Bernie Sanders campaign, where most contributors continue to do so.
Click to expand...
 
U

User 406

Banned
No matter how many times I click the "Follow the Experts" button, Trump never gets over the line. Cookie Clicker is so much better than this.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Las7 said:
It's all about laying down the foundations for a clean sweep so that small donor base rallying around Bernie has a party to give their money to, while DWS is DNC chair most people would be skeptical about the Dems. Tim Canova's fundraising follows the same path as Bernie and he has utilized DWS as a focal point of his campaign.
Click to expand...

So the difference between this and the tea party is?
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
Las7 said:
Tim Canova raises $557,000 in Q1 in Race against DWS



http://floridapolitics.com/archives...0-first-quarter-race-debbie-wasserman-schultz

Dat downballot support
Click to expand...

Taking over Democratic seats would be the best option atm. Thats the Podemos strategy, basically.

B-Dubs said:
So the difference between this and the tea party is?
Click to expand...


Homophobia, transphobia, racism, misogyny, laissez faire economic-ideology, science denial (except for GMOs, heh). The list is long!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom