• 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.
For tomorrow, I read that delegate counts, especially for the GOP side, are going to be reported very slowly since NY has a streak of slow results reporting.
 
I literally just had someone who self identifies as a social justice warrior try to tell me that Hilary Clinton claiming she likes to keep hot sauce with her in a bag was pandering to black people. i can't wait for tomorrow
 

kess

Member
I'm guessing Clinton's probably going to pull 56% of the vote or so. Anything closer than 8% is going to be spun as positive momentum for Sanders.
 
What makes something a liberal issue, is it just that more people on the left support that issue? Mostly thinking about guns, there's been pretty leftist groups that seem to support them, national and internationally.
I think in this case, at least in the way left v right is framed in the US, is that gun control is government intervention that denies people the "liberty" of owning a gun, which is a bigger problem to conservatives than the number of people who die to gun violence. Left issues seem more concerned with government action to reduce common problems whereas right issues are supposed to be about allowing people to make their own decisions.

Obviously things are way more complex than that and there's a lot of hypocrisy, like the opposition to gay marriage, but I think that's how the issues are framed as left or right.
 
A lot of issues don't fall well on the typical left right spectrum. The Democratic party is really just an assortment of interest groups with varying degrees of value assigned to different issues.
 
What makes something a liberal issue, is it just that more people on the left support that issue? Mostly thinking about guns, there's been pretty leftist groups that seem to support them, national and internationally.

The GOP absorbing white nationalism in 1964 and hardcore religious shit in 1980 caused them to absorb a LOT of toxic masculinity, and there's nothing more toxically masculine than murder weapons that people fantasize about using on thieves, animals, and government officials.
 

Mael

Member
Reading the medium link you all posted.
Still reading in fact.
One thing I have to comment on before finishing digesting the whole thing :
His active role in pushing to get VT’s radioactive waste dumped in a poor Latino community in TX (Sierra Blanca) (while his wife sits on the commission in VT!) is ignored by his supporters and omitted by his campaign.

Ok, wtf is that?
 
I'm guessing Clinton's probably going to pull 56% of the vote or so. Anything closer than 8% is going to be spun as positive momentum for Sanders.

Does the momentum argument even matter now? The numbers don't lie, and as Scott Steiner would say, they spell disaster for Sanders.
 

royalan

Member
Bernie leaving town tonight tells me that his internals are telling him there's a good chance that this won't be close. All the work he's put into the state, I feel like if it were a close loss he'd stay and give a concession speech to save face.
 

johnsmith

remember me
Sanders campaign leaving NY tonight.


6yIYX2H.gif


Bye Bernie
 
Bernie leaving town tonight tells me that his internals are telling him there's a good chance that this won't be close. All the work he's put into the state, I feel like if it were a close loss he'd stay and give a concession speech to save face.

Has he given a concession speech yet?
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Reading the medium link you all posted.
Still reading in fact.
One thing I have to comment on before finishing digesting the whole thing :


Ok, wtf is that?

Found this: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/2/17/when-brown-lives-did-not-matter-to-bernie

“Before the rally Sanders invited the three West Texans to meet with him privately, and the Texans eagerly agreed. The meeting was no longer than Sanders’ attention span - when it comes to Sierra Blanca. “He didn’t listen,” Curry said. “He had his mind made up.” Afterward, Bernie was giving his pro forma campaign speech, never mentioning nuclear power or nuclear waste. Sierra Blanca activist Bill Addington, who’d arrived just that morning to join the march, along with his neighbor María Méndez, had had enough, and he yelled from the crowd, “What about my home, Bernie? What about Sierra Blanca?”

Several others joined in. “What about Sierra Blanca, Bernie?”

Sanders left the stage, which surprised no one in the small Texas delegation. Earlier, he had told them, “My position is unchanged, and you’re not gonna like it.” When they asked if he would visit the site in Sierra Blanca, he said, “Absolutely not. I’m gonna be running for re-election in the state of Vermont.””

Direct source: http://archives.texasobserver.org/issue/1998/09/11#page=11
 

pigeon

Banned
My issue is curated feeds. How do ideas penetrate that?

That and more and more of what we see is chosen by namless Facebook engineers (they already flirted with censoring Donald Trump posts).

I'm optimistic I just don't know how it happens lol

I mean, curated feeds are only a problem because people deliberately select for information sources that don't challenge them. I feel like there is a strategy involving training people to seek out information sources that do challenge them. Then curated feeds are actually good.

That may be my privilege as somebody who consumes a lot of information rapidly, I guess. Maybe it's easy for me to tell people to seek out challenging sources but hard for people to actually do.

Also I had a theory that the Internet would rapidly train people to be way better at information filtering because they would have to be to get useful information. I'm not sure how well that worked, curated feeds may have actually trained people to have worse information filtering the way that Google Maps is training them to be bad at 3D modeling a space.
 

kess

Member
Does the momentum argument even matter now? The numbers don't lie, and as Scott Steiner would say, they spell disaster for Sanders.

I'd argue it does, even though Sanders isn't running anything close to the juggernaut Obama did in '08. I don't think his campaign can sustain a double digit loss in a state as vital as New York. The last thing the party needs at this point is dead-enders perpetuating a fraud conspiracy and sucking all the oxygen out of the room.
 

Mael

Member
This was the first article I ran across on it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...-nuclear-waste-dump-per-their-2014-tax-return

Having looked over it now, it includes the original story in the link. It's fairly comprehensive.

Nuclear Waste needs to be stored somewhere, but it has to be done the right way.

I'm actually an advocate for nuclear energy (heh I'm French after all).
But this is Montgomery Burns level of cartoon villainy.
posted the links you and Jimmy King provided to my fb feed (because I don't have access to twitter recently) for info to my mostly French fb feed.
I have no words.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Guys Bernie left Wisconsin for Wyoming. He still won.

Y'all don't get it. Bernie has to keep going and going even if he actually wims tomorrow. Hes out of time!!! Like shawn ashmore's forehead.
 

teiresias

Member
Bernie leaving town tonight tells me that his internals are telling him there's a good chance that this won't be close. All the work he's put into the state, I feel like if it were a close loss he'd stay and give a concession speech to save face.

When has he ever given a concession speech or thanked anyone that's worked for him in states he didn't win?
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Guys Bernie left Wisconsin for Wyoming. He still won.

Y'all don't get it. Bernie has to keep going and going even if he actually wims tomorrow. Hes out of time!!! Like shawn ashmore's forehead.

Shots fired directly at Adam. Brace for impact.


When has he ever given a concession speech or thanked anyone that's worked for him in states he didn't win?

He does sometimes.
 
I mean, curated feeds are only a problem because people deliberately select for information sources that don't challenge them. I feel like there is a strategy involving training people to seek out information sources that do challenge them. Then curated feeds are actually good.

That may be my privilege as somebody who consumes a lot of information rapidly, I guess. Maybe it's easy for me to tell people to seek out challenging sources but hard for people to actually do.

Also I had a theory that the Internet would rapidly train people to be way better at information filtering because they would have to be to get useful information. I'm not sure how well that worked, curated feeds may have actually trained people to have worse information filtering the way that Google Maps is training them to be bad at 3D modeling a space.

I think what I'm seeing is in a lot of cases it's just the same as pre internet. People using Facebook badly are likely those that watched the nightly news and just read the paper. People who follow people they disagree with on Twitter probably sought out information they diagreed with pretty Twitter. And people shit at maps and directions still are bad at things with Google maps.

I guess the internet is better at reinforcing than radically changing human and political behavior.
 
I mean, curated feeds are only a problem because people deliberately select for information sources that don't challenge them. I feel like there is a strategy involving training people to seek out information sources that do challenge them. Then curated feeds are actually good.

That may be my privilege as somebody who consumes a lot of information rapidly, I guess. Maybe it's easy for me to tell people to seek out challenging sources but hard for people to actually do.

Also I had a theory that the Internet would rapidly train people to be way better at information filtering because they would have to be to get useful information. I'm not sure how well that worked, curated feeds may have actually trained people to have worse information filtering the way that Google Maps is training them to be bad at 3D modeling a space.

I think what I'm seeing is in a lot of cases it's just the same as pre internet. People using Facebook badly are likely those that watched the nightly news and just read the paper. People who follow people they disagree with on Twitter probably sought out information they diagreed with pre Twitter. And people shit at maps and directions still are bad at things with Google maps.

I guess the internet is better at reinforcing than radically changing human and political behavior.

I mean I guess the internet is helping spread science and tech info faster but the people doing that were doing it pre internet at universities, in maganizines, with letters etc.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I think what I'm seeing is in a lot of cases it's just the same as pre internet. People using Facebook badly are likely those that watched the nightly news and just read the paper. People who follow people they disagree with on Twitter probably sought out information they diagreed with pretty Twitter. And people shit at maps and directions still are bad at things with Google maps.

I guess the internet is better at reinforcing than radically changing human and political behavior.

The social science of it all is still in it's infancy. It really needs more funding for research as it's actually really important.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Do you have all of these gifs in a folder or something?
 
This marks the first time in my life I've ever wanted to say "Amen" without a hint of sarcasm. Alperstein breaks down, piece by piece, every misgiving I've grown to have about Bernie Sanders the man and his campaign. It's such a meaty article, too. The woman is as thorough and detailed as I'd imagine a lawyer would be.

Some choice bits:

The tax plan is not intellectually honest. Using economic assumptions that have no basis in historical reality (i.e., making up numbers) so that you can make promises that are literally impossible to keep — even if you are elected and manage to sweep Congress — is not intellectually honest.

Pretending that these plans could be enacted, without acknowledging the reality of how the legislative body works, is not intellectually honest.

Rejection of compromise is not intellectually honest. Nor is it a workable strategy. It is intellectually dishonest because in the absence of a supermajority, legislation cannot be passed without compromise. As a Congressman, Sanders knows this, and, actually, compromise is not a bad thing. Should 51% of the people impose a radical new agenda on 49% who don’t want it? It makes sense to require compromise and the need for it is baked into the democratic process and our Constitution.

In rejecting compromise as a mark of lack of integrity, or worse, corruption, Sanders accomplishes two deeply disingenuous goals: (i) he sets himself apart from his colleagues in Congress as the only one who is allegedly “true” to his “values,” thereby creating the myth that he is morally superior and incorruptible; and (ii) he turns the necessity of compromise — without which literally nothing can get done in Congress — into a negative, very similar to the Tea Party and hardliners on the far right in Congress, thereby allowing him to transform his failure to compromise and thus his failure to have achieved any workable progressive legislation in 25 years into a “virtue” — a testament to his supposed integrity.

Attacking Hillary Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that her husband signed when she was First Lady is intellectually dishonest. This is so on several grounds. First, his attacks omit that he himself voted for that bill; Clinton supporters have had to bring that up. Second, Sanders keeps demanding that Hillary apologize for having used the term “superpredator” on one occasion, when she has already apologized for it, said she would not use it today, and has put it in context (which I think makes clear it was not intended as code for race or to apply broadly), and yet he never admits that he used the term “sociopath” in the same way when supporting that same bill, nor has he ever apologized for doing so. Instead, he rips out all context and background for that bill, pins the entirety of its consequences on Hillary (who did not vote for it), and omits his own role in voting for it and the reasons why so many people supported it at the time, including him and the Congressional Black Caucus, despite its warts. So he blames Hillary for the draconian sentencing rules that the GOP insisted on in order to pass the bill, contributing to a false narrative he has constructed that Hillary is not actually a liberal.

And when confronted about his dishonest and hypocritical approach to discussing the crime bill and his own support for it, he lied. He claimed that he supported it because it included an assault weapons ban. This is false. He voted in favor of an earlier version of the bill, which did not include that assault weapons ban. Other Democrats — not Sanders (who never pushes for gun safety legislation) — then insisted on that assault weapons ban and he voted for the new version of bill after that language was added. It’s dishonest for him to take other people to task for the consequences of a bill he himself voted for, which was the product of having to compromise with the GOP to get anything done, while blaming Hillary for the GOP’s actions, lying about his reasons for voting for it, and refusing to acknowledge or take any responsibility for his own role. It would be so much more productive to have a national dialogue about what we learned as a nation from these mistakes, the role of systemic racism in mass incarceration, and a proposed set of recommendations and legislation to correct it now, instead of disingenuously attacking, blaming, and lying by omission about Hillary, and further erasing the historical reality in which that bill was passed.

Sanders is out there attacking Obama and Hillary for the Affordable Health Care Act as if the Democrats sold out the progressive agenda in 2009–10 when they fought tooth and nail against lockstep GOP opposition for what they could get and managed the greatest legislative achievement (even though it is far from perfect) in generations, so that 20 million Americans who did not now have health insurance, and Sanders attacks them and suggests they are corporate shills in thrall to the insurance companies? This is outrageous. It is disingenuous. It is wrong. And it is lazy, binary thinking that omits history and political reality. But this is of a piece with Sanders’ entire approach — he’s a professional protester, and little more.

Except. Except, apparently, when it comes to guns, and environmental racism, and pork from the military-industrial complex for Vermont. His opposition to the Brady bill and support for gun manufacturer immunity are well-known and, in my view, are indefensible positions. The argument that he opposed modest regulations regarding guns because of hunters or small gun shop owners in VT can’t pass the laugh/smell test. His active role in pushing to get VT’s radioactive waste dumped in a poor Latino community in TX (Sierra Blanca) (while his wife sits on the commission in VT!) is ignored by his supporters and omitted by his campaign.
And he worked hard to bring home the bacon for VT in the form a $1.35 billion war machine known as the F-35, which is the walking definition of waste in defense contracting.

And it just goes on and on. Rather lengthy but undoubtedly a great read. Thanks for the link, Jaekeem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom