-
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
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Veritigo_X
Member
Never saw the follow up to the Bloomberg story. That's what I get for listening to those liars at the Vatican.
*looks at Emerson poll* shaking.
And_Gignac
Member
Why is he not? The most important economist on the issue, Thomas Piketty, supports Sanders, so why wouldnt he be?
TheLaughingStock
Member
Apparently, he formally appointed a former Senior Deputy Chief Counsel of the old Office of Thrift Supervision to his team. So, it's late but he should be much MUCH better on Wall St. depending on how long he sticks around in the D primary. Sad for Bernie and his supporters that it took him this long to get someone competent in there.
Veritigo_X
Member
Someone blocking a turnstile for some shitty Vine would piss me off 1000% more than someone having trouble swiping their card (something that happens often because those card readers suck).
lastflowers
Banned
Atomic Playboy
Member
Piketty is not even close to being the most important economist on the issue.
Nick Bloom, Raj Chetty, Alan Krueger, and Emmanuel Saez, for example, are much better.
Saez has worked with Piketty in the past and should get the attention Piketty does.
This is besides the point, however: Sanders has shown that he is not willing to listen to technocrats that disagree with him and point out the empirical problems with his current beliefs. And I believe that's the path to improving income inequality instead of risking bombing the economy for everyone. Careful, empirically backed policy that often does not agree with his ex-ante positions.
Piketty's success is crucial to keeping the conversation going on the What, and I do not want to diminish that in any way. His book has a permanent place in my library.
Like Sanders, however, he cannot answer the How.
BotoxAgent
Member
I think you mean undecided voters
I'm 26 and I've voted D in two presidential elections, and one midterm and I don't see myself voting for another party unless things change really significantly in the future. Although even if a far left party developed they'd likely be a fringe party and not worth throwing away a vote on
So that leaves me as a Democrat. Dunno if I'm proud, it's just the right thing to do
JesseEwiak
Member
The President of the United State is always going to have some blood on his hands. That's the price of global hegemony, because if we do nothing, the blood is on our hands and the world falls to the leadership of kleptocrats and authoritarians (because the EU sure ain't as hell stepping in) and if we do something, the blood is on our hands. If you want a nation where there won't be any blood on your hands, move to Denmark or something where nothing ever happens.
In the long run, and I say this understanding my own privilege as somebody in America, I'd rather kill a few hundred people every four years with drone strikes than tens of thousands of people every few years in ground wars like we get with Republican's.
Is it perfect? No. But, we're an Empire, whether we like it or not, so part of my decision as a voter has to be who will best run the Empire with the least damage to the world (and yes, inaction can cause damage) and it's fairly obvious right now that answer is Hillary.
vainglorious
Member
Holy shit has anyone seen this Krugman article? Went back several pages and didn't see anything. Also didn't want to make a new thread about it in OT because it'd do nothing but stoke some sore feelings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html
There's more at the link but damn.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html
There's more at the link but damn.
I would if you had asked nicely.
It does when you're completely distorting the truth. To be fair on her, just like Sanders reacted to the WP headline, she engaged on the NYDN headline. But the core of the matter is that unlike Hillary evading an issue, Sanders was up front and what he said is nothing like what was reported and later used by Clinton and shaming Sanders for not supporting the Sandy Hook families which to me crosses the line on dirty politics and steps into just unethical. He was asked if he thought the sue on the gun manufacturers was justified, and he responded on a hypothetical on if a gun or a car was sold legally to someone with the proper checks and uses it to kill someone then the fault would lie on the individual, however he also stated that gun manufacturers aren't above being found liable in these type of situations especially if they don't go through all the proper channels. And that of course feels sympathy for the parents of the sandy hook massacre. It's a reasonable answer that can be critiqued in terms of the practical use of guns which is shooting and is dangerous so suing should be fine and I would agree, but saying he doesn't care about the kids who died in Sandy Hook on live tv is just beyond sleazy.
I also feel that way when she had, not sure if it was Trayvon Martin or some other mother about a kid who got killed by police to come out and scold Bernie for not caring for them. It goes beyond using the actual issue revolving the situation and taking advantage of the affected for your own personal gains. And I just can't respect that at all.
JesseEwiak
Member
Right, it's only OK to use emotional arguments when it comes to the evil bankers. The families of murdered children can't dare use emotional appeals toward a politician who has obviously taken a stand on guns because of the state he's elected from.
The Lamonster
Member
This is so hateful. Didn't Hillary just get a bad scanner or something? Happens all the time with mag strip swipers.
And_Gignac
Member
Poor Krugman!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...nders-joined-the-bernie-or-bust-movement-nah/
I think Sanders is a willing person. This caricature of him being an extremist ideologue is not based in reality. Just because he rejects economical interpretations that are mere justifications for the permanence of the status quo doesnt mean he is not willing to listen.
I've had Heady Topper - it's way too bitter for me but my sister-in-law and her husband swear by it and have waited in line for it.
And that Michelle Bachman video is the pettiest shit ever.
Fenderputty
Banned
What's the difference?
RastaMentality
Banned
Michelle Bachman needs a fuckin hobby.
I thought about this for a while before deciding not to make a thread.
A short piece from FiveThirtyEight.
Imagine having to think about whether or not something should be a thread not because the topic may not be threadworthy, but because it'll go to shit.
A short piece from FiveThirtyEight.
It offers a bit of perspective for how 'qualified' is a bit of a coded word against women, and the kinds of extra hoops women have to jump through to get to elected office.
Imagine having to think about whether or not something should be a thread not because the topic may not be threadworthy, but because it'll go to shit.
It's not really Krugman's fault that Bernie keeps sending mixed messages!
I do want to be clear that I love Heady Topper, but yeah. It's a Double IPA, the bitterness is part of the point. So if you aren't in to super hoppy, bitter beers then it won't really grab you. I love it and have friends who drive up to Vermont for it, but I'm aware of it's reputation outside of it's fanbase
The party of ideas, ladies and gentlemen. What's next? How to spot a witch with Christine O'Donnell?
if you're gonna be dense about it I'm not gonna bother.
I wouldn't expect you to see it differently -- even the way you put economical interpretations you haven't read and schools that have not been what you perceive for two decades says as much.
Note what you've just done: you've ex-ante disqualified any and all evidence that might go against you as "mere justifications for the permanence of the status quo", with absolutely zero information on what it actually is!
Before you work yourself up into going past the righteousness event horizon, the blood of innocents is on all of our hands, including yours. As a country, as a system, that we ourselves enable and perpetuate just by participating in normal social and economic commerce, we are always, always hurting people. There has never been a President that didn't have the blood of innocent people on their hands, save maybe William Henry Harrison, since he died so fast. If you've ever voted for a winning candidate, that's on you too. We like video games and we're on computing devices on the internet, so we have a hand in perpetuating slave labor manufacturing. Our fruit comes from countries that systematically persecute their people for the benefit of our grocery aisles. Our clothes come from sweatshops that use child labor. We are simultaneously both culpable and helpless against this. The way the world works is too damn big to radically change in a hurry.
So the response is not to distract ourselves by freaking the fuck out over one pet issue or another, but to try to think clearly about what we know about how things work, try to learn about the parts we don't know about, and try to make choices that are most beneficial and least harmful from the slate of choices we actually have a chance to make.
Take a step back and breathe.
Mercury Fred
Banned
What's dense about his statement? There's clearly a double standard going on.
vainglorious
Member
There's nothing dense about double standards.
FloydtheFathead
Member
Clearly tied for second as best thing in Ohio with Adam..
Only behind the greatness that is Greg Ciao
You're lost if you really think that Yuengling is Budweiser-tier. It's not a great beer, but (here in Maryland) it's priced the same as Bud or Miller Light, while being far more drinkable.
Kasich sucks but Yuengling is an acceptable beer. I drink Yuengling black&tans when money is tight and I can't afford something better like Flying Dog, which is local and offers some awesome stuff.
I find a difference between using an institutionalized problem to address the electorate because they identify with it personally so you can resonate with them. Especially when it's the issue he identifies that which is hurting millions of people. Compared to using the suffering of one person in order to communicate an personal attack against an opponent and to boost you forward. Again, one is about issues and the other is about personal image.
I realize I can be critiqued for taking away all agency from the mother, but I actually do think that's what happens when you're using a camara and use the part of the message that disqualifies the opponent first and foremost.
It'd be like Bernie going to a family that lost their house and airing a video in which they blame Hillary for supporting Wall Street bail out and it's her fault their in ruins now. You don't do that.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
I'll bet Hillary's swipegaffe gets NFC readers installed in a year. Bless her.
Guns are an institutionalized problem that literally, physically, hurt millions of people. Do millions of people not die to gun violence? You're acting like she's the only person who has lost a loved one to guns
First, I don't believe in God, heaven or any of it. Not that that's here nor there.
Second, I'm going to say two things on the drone program and they're going to entangle at odd angles, but it's how I see the situation. On one hand, I think the drone program is absolutely unacceptable in its current form and easily the most reprehensible thing to happen under Obama's administration. We can and should put parameters on drone kills that more completely result in a hard positive of a target before they are killed and take greater precautions to ensure collateral is minimized if not completely eliminated.
That said, I also recognize that POTUS is a job that will involve whomever happens to be sitting in the big chair at some point effectively signing some death warrants, whether they believe that to be the case at the time they Ok whatever military action or not. So long as America remains the watchdog of the west, every president will have the blood of hundreds on their hands. It will happen in bombing runs or it will happen in ground troop action or it will happen with drones. You would probably have to go back over a century to find a president that didn't. Now, we can certainly discuss if we should remain in such a position, but that is a deeply complicated and separate discussion from how I appraise Obama, given the climate of the world as it stands.
As for surveillance...a lot of what came out of 9/11 was panic driven paranoia. We all lost our minds after 9/11 and certain institutions benefited from that insanity considerably. I would prefer it if the things the Patriot Act did were repealed. I also recognize that the emergency powers Abraham Lincoln seized for the presidency have never been put back in their box either. I think Obama is mistaken in his position on surveillance. I've heard members of his administration describe him as nearly Vulcan-like in his rationality and I think perhaps his calculations in this case may simply be too cold. But thinking he's mistaken on this is very different from me thinking that Obama as a president is a mistake.
Especially when weighing down my Pro's and Con's list on the Pro's column is "literally everything else".
Ultimately, I don't think history bending toward justice means in all areas constantly. I think there will be missteps and failures. There have been in every administration since the country began. As long as human beings make up the system, there always will be. But Democrats care about (or at the very least, are forced to pay lip service to) strides toward our country becoming a more just and decent place. That progress is slow and it is painful, but it exists. I've seen it over the last eight years and maybe it is just a sad sign of how cynical I'd become but even the awkward baby steps we've taken since have renewed my vigor in my personal battle to become a better person and my faith in other people.
He is regurgitating the same attack lines he used against Obama in 2008, cult of personality etc. I'd think he would evolve a bit in the last 8 years but perhaps he is too lazy to come up with new approaches.
Veritigo_X
Member
To be fair, I'm already lost. I haven't had a beer in like 2 years, so I can only go by what my beer snob friends say. Started drinking tequila and bourbon and haven't looked back. Beer just tastes kinda bad to me now.
Back in college I remember when Yuengling expanded to Ohio and everyone was making a huge deal of it. Kegs were drained at a lot of the local bars. I remember the black and tan wasn't bad, but I wasn't a fan of the regular.
That would be amazing. I've been going back and forth from Chicago this past month and I love their NFC readers. So much better.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
So, my litteral Bernie Supporter Bro linked me this article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-banks-should-be-broken-up-20160408
I mentioned it kinda proved Krugman's point, in that Rating Agencies and Loan Originators were huge culprits in the situation, and not the size of the banks.
to him: "the big point is that Krugman completely ignores all the fines levied for fraud".
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-banks-should-be-broken-up-20160408
I mentioned it kinda proved Krugman's point, in that Rating Agencies and Loan Originators were huge culprits in the situation, and not the size of the banks.
to him: "the big point is that Krugman completely ignores all the fines levied for fraud".
JesseEwiak
Member
Yeah, it'd be horrible if Bernie implied Clinton's positions made people lose their homes and businesses in say, a dying industrial city.
https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/705442673788854272
I draw a distinction between how the gun issue is raised in debates for example, in which they talk how it affects people and that it has to be addressed and they each have different stances, in which I agree with Hillary's stance a lot more personally. That is different between saying Bernie doesn't support the Sandie Hook families.
Haha fair enough. I drink less of the hard stuff now because it causes me heartburn, and more beer, because it doesn't. The regular Yuengling is kind of piss-weak but it's easily drinkable. Black&tan, on the other hand, is pretty good, and costs the same as the regular. Can just never find cases, only 12 packs.
Many of the beers that beer snobs drink are strong to sit around drinking for a long time. For a nice chill drinking session, you can drink Yuengling for hours and not be too jacked up. Which is nice.
Not really a Bernie supporter's place to dismiss someone for not having argumentative variety.
vainglorious
Member
Sanders was asked by the Daily News directly about the lawsuit being levied by Sandy Hook families against gun manufacturers and his response to their litigation was, "No, I don't believe gun manufacturer's should be held responsible."
He literally said he doesn't support their court case.
gutter_trash
Banned
burnt!!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked