-
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 |OT6| Delete your accounts
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Have I ever told you I like you? That is both the alcohol and me talking.
No implication needed. He is and has been for at least a month.
HUELEN10
Member
Truthfully, I was thinking about it at work a bit, listening to the political watercolor discussion (which I would never participate in at work of course!)...
If I am to be honest, Sander's last 2 days and the way it's being seen by the media and the public have put a rock on an already narrow path. Though I still see a path to victory, it's getting narrower than it needs to be, and that's a damned shame.
At the very least, I am glad I didn't put any money on this election!
If I am to be honest, Sander's last 2 days and the way it's being seen by the media and the public have put a rock on an already narrow path. Though I still see a path to victory, it's getting narrower than it needs to be, and that's a damned shame.
At the very least, I am glad I didn't put any money on this election!
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm curious whether any of this gets picked up by media. Or whether they're just not interested any more and really a Sanders notch on your belt just isn't worth much.
There was nary a peep about Warren Gunnels libellous attacks on Peter Staley outside of Mediaite afaik.
There was nary a peep about Warren Gunnels libellous attacks on Peter Staley outside of Mediaite afaik.
His path to victory is making Clinton non-viable in California, a state in which a narrow win would be exceeding expectations significantly.
There is no path. It was, to borrow a phrase, foreclosed on after New York. If Sanders had been operating from a point of good faith rather than from a place of self-interest, he would have conceded there, or at least toned it down at that point. He didn't, and now his chickens are finally coming home to roost as he's being exposed as the vindictive, purity-obsessed asshole he's been for 30 years.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Weaver and Killer Mike in this please.
excelsiorlef
Member
ayy lmao
BlastProcessing
Member
The bolded is my new favorite typo.
I just googled "presidentual watercolor" [sic] because of this and found these
NSFW
http://beautifuldecay.com/2012/11/06/presidents-with-boob-faces/
NSFW
Knuckle Sandwich
Member
I went looking for Obama's "looking forward to you advising me" burn on Hillary from 08 and found this 3 part series of all his best comebacks. I know what i'm doing for the next 30 minutes. The one I wanted is right at the beginning. I think this and "Noun, verb, 9/11" were the best zingers of 08.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oGMV7H7z4I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oGMV7H7z4I
Not that I recall, but thanks! Thank alcohol for me too.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Weekend at Bernie's is a classic that every one should watch at least once in their lifetimes.
HUELEN10
Member
I haven't watched it in full, only when it showed on tv.
Now should one watch 1 and 2 back to back?
jack_package_200
Banned
No one should watch 2. Ever.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Benji's people are weird.
Who boos the Civil Rights Act and needing Driver's Licenses?
Who boos the Civil Rights Act and needing Driver's Licenses?
excelsiorlef
Member
The same people who think Tort Reform and not the EPA is what should stop companies that are poisoning the land and sea.
I've seriously read people argue that suing the company after the fact is how you'll stop pollution. :|
User 463088
Banned
Orange Gatorade and whipped vodka was as successful as Bernies campaign this week. Sad.
I mean technically it won't stop them from polluting. But they will go out of business, eventually, so problem solved right?!
User 463088
Banned
Gross or a mixology trailblazer????
Poodlestrike
Banned
Trump's campaign is out of money, and he's already making excuses for when he loses. Sad!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-camp-concedes-its-low-on-money/article/2592501
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-camp-concedes-its-low-on-money/article/2592501
Libertarianism has always fascinated me because it's such a uniquely American philosophy. As far as I can tell it's never gained support anywhere else in the world barring a few kookie individuals.
It shows that despite a similar language, there are some very fundamental differences between our two countries in terms of political thinking.
Officerrob
Banned
The guy who brags about being worth more than 10 billion dollars can't loan his campaign more money?
i_am_ben
running_here_and_there
RastaMentality
Banned
Is she trying to invoke how close her name sounds to Google with that logo? Lol.
Lmao
i_am_ben
running_here_and_there
Again?
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I wanted to share my thoughts on the last week of Sanders meltdown threads, but it's a bit all over the place, so PoliGAF would probably be a better one than to pick a specific one of the threads.
Occupydemocrats has a theory about some of the vitirol between Sanders and Hillary supporters;
The problem with a more radical group of people as opposed to a established one is that you get more individuals out on the fringes.
Sanders big problem is that a portion of his base is not in it for Social Democracy, but to stick it to Hillary. I've always maintained (optimism!) that the majority of people who support Sanders are good people who just want more equality and opportunity.
But there comes a rift when the media which doesn't want to report on what happens authentically. There are plenty of outlets and media voices who favor Sanders, and few have reported on the negativity in light of last weeks actions, which benefits Sanders base, but also just speaks to the fact that Sanders and all other independents like him are being ignored by the media unless they start trashcan fires that are juicy to report on.
They don't ignore him because they are mean, but because they are not a interesting news story. And so, Sanders base is able to be in this vacuum, where on reddit, 5000+ people are online on his reddit and there are nobody who talks about this.
I think the Aids activist debacle is dammning. Even if Sanders doesn't have anything to do with it, the adviser in question should face scrutiny for a PR disaster. For the Aids group it just speaks to how little individual voices matter, and for Sanders groups it speaks to that they have become infallable.
Up until this week I've always felt that Bernies strategy is to show muscle for leverage. They talk a big game to maximize leverage so the democratic party has to negotiate and let Sanders influence. That is what there was supposed to happen. Politicians becoming powerful, diplomacy and power plays within a party. And they rabble rouse, and they poke and they make silly demands, and ultimately come to a compromise where Sanders endorses the establishment under a "new democratic party", and a big part of unregistered voters go to Clinton. That's is what that was supposed to happen. Sanders get to become ahead of a committee that fights for a cause or two of his key issues, like citizen united, restoration of union and worker rights, or something else. Diplomacy at work, and a good testbed for Hillary to show that she can control and lead the party and that the democrats can juggle both the blue dogs and socialistic ones.
But every poll shows Sanders overwhelmingly beating Trump much better than Clinton. I'm beginning to become afraid that Sanders is not bluffing. That the echo chamber he is in, and the leadership he surrounds himself are willing to gamble.
While the polling doesn't matter this much this early, you have to conclude that many polls show similar stops, and some even have Sanders beating Trump in the double digits. This is what the Sanders Reddit is riding on, and there are so many threads saying it, that I am beginning to think he might actually do it.
I don't believe Sanders is selfish nor that he is out to burn the party or the establishment. I just think he has tunnel vision, fatigue and has lost sight and perhaps perspective of being in a bubble in almost a year. When you surround yourself with enablers you can begin to develop misconstructed realities. If Sanders already has a reputation for being uncompromising, then this might have been amplified.
If I was Clinton, even if it would be a pain, I would get a VP who the Sanders supporters respect as someone who speaks Sanders values.
I think that Hillary or the party is not in a position to dictate the terms. The calamities surrounding Hillary is unfortunate for her.
If I was Clinton I would offer the VP to either Sanders or Warren. As "no no no no" as it may be; It's been said by many. The VP is not that important. It's a symbolic position, but one that still has power.
Warren, Sanders supporters respect, and those who hate Hillary would take Hillary because of Warren. Warren having been one of the few (and only female) senators to not endorse anyone, but also the one who has been feuding with Trump, shows that she might as well be the one. She is essentially the Female Sanders, but without a year of campaign toxicity.
Besides her stance on drugs, I cannot see a bad thing about Warren, besides her senator seat and the good she will do, will go to a republican. At this juncture I think this is a worthy trade off.
Or Sanders himself. It's obvious. Millennials and white liberals will circumvent back. He agrees with 93% of Hillary, and whatever else may be healthy discussions. Nothing will be up to him, but that will just have to be what it is.
The problem is that there are almost no way this is going to happen. There is probably a bigger chance of Sanders winning California (doesn't seem like that will happen now. He might actually lose the state given all this the past week).
I think being a leader you have to show you can lead people, and not blame others for not falling in line. If they are unhappy they are not gonna come around. If you feel they are unreasonable it does little to shame them.
Remember - Even if Clinton destroys Sanders, the apathy / disappointment / anger from this group of voters might be counter productive, particularly when it is hard to make them come out to vote, or even damage her as she becomes to the face of their crushing dreams.
The demanded resignation of Barney Frank and O'Malley was a bad look. And it was petty. Even if there was dirt on them, this is not the correct procedure or forum to do it in.
Just as people are about to defend his Univision interview trying to explain people that South American style socialism has fuck all to do with the social democratic socialism he has branded, this move actually is something more out of Manduros book. Something like this would never have been allowed in Sweden or Norway. So either Sanders doesn't have control over his campaign, or he doesn't understand social democracy as good as I thought he did, and I should know as I've lived in such a country most of my life.
It has made me concerned about Sanders a bit. Despite what people say, he can handle negativity, as those pedophile ads that has been run against him shows, and he can bipartisan considering his nickname the "Amendment king".
The thing is; If Sanders is champion of ending two-party politics; and anyone who lives in a country that coalition politics, knows that bipartisan work is important, because you're in coalition with other parties who have their other views.
There is a lot of shit that emerges in the heat of a campaign. Respect to Obama for not putting his foot down before the convention. He has deflected comments on supporting either of them, and kept asking a baiting media to let the process play itself out. That is important, as his endorsement out of the gate would have disparaging psychological effects on whoever he would not support. And such is the problem with Endorsement as a institutional element, that turns elections into popularity contests.
One of my big concerns is that the election in 2020 is poised to cost up towards 3 billion dollars. The idea of a grassroots campaign being able to keep up with the rise in cost of elections is getting more and more unlikely. Sanders didn't have enough money to win, and it's something Hillary supporters have slammed him for since beginning.
For his campaign, the DNC only scheduling 6 debates, at those poor time slots was probably a serious nail in the coffin. He needed more exposure as a relatively unknown, versus his opponent who was very well known. A sentiment which was also shared by O'malley I believe?
The reason why he gave up on the South is likely due to not having the funds. It then becomes a tactical strategy to try and win other states with the funds he did have. His base would make the argument that they would have to worker harder in the south fighting against his socialist perspective and trying to educate the people about various forms of socialism.
To me, what really hurts Bernies base, is the desire to flip superdelegates. SuperDelegates is a unfair system that psychologically stacks the favor until a upset can happen. Sanders is not wrong in his critique of that. But he is wrong in then desiring to use those superdelegates to flip. That strikes me as insane. Two wrongs don't make a right, and it concerns me that his campaign is going down this path. It feels that somewhere around February or march they left a policy based critique of Clinton to go on the offensive on her as a person. But that is not productive.
I disagree with a fuckload of people here that purity is something that should be shamed or ridiculed. It's a good thing to have ethical people working together with compromises, and trying to get a good mix of both worlds. It's not one or the other, it's not right or wrong. The lesser-of-two-evils and doing-a-little-bad-for-the-greater-good are philosophies. They are tools to be used in conjunction with one another, Sanders and Hillary are apart sometimes on these, but this is not a good thing. In a good administration you'd want to air out different options and both extremes would be good to have.
Occupydemocrats has a theory about some of the vitirol between Sanders and Hillary supporters;
The problem with a more radical group of people as opposed to a established one is that you get more individuals out on the fringes.
Sanders big problem is that a portion of his base is not in it for Social Democracy, but to stick it to Hillary. I've always maintained (optimism!) that the majority of people who support Sanders are good people who just want more equality and opportunity.
But there comes a rift when the media which doesn't want to report on what happens authentically. There are plenty of outlets and media voices who favor Sanders, and few have reported on the negativity in light of last weeks actions, which benefits Sanders base, but also just speaks to the fact that Sanders and all other independents like him are being ignored by the media unless they start trashcan fires that are juicy to report on.
They don't ignore him because they are mean, but because they are not a interesting news story. And so, Sanders base is able to be in this vacuum, where on reddit, 5000+ people are online on his reddit and there are nobody who talks about this.
I think the Aids activist debacle is dammning. Even if Sanders doesn't have anything to do with it, the adviser in question should face scrutiny for a PR disaster. For the Aids group it just speaks to how little individual voices matter, and for Sanders groups it speaks to that they have become infallable.
Up until this week I've always felt that Bernies strategy is to show muscle for leverage. They talk a big game to maximize leverage so the democratic party has to negotiate and let Sanders influence. That is what there was supposed to happen. Politicians becoming powerful, diplomacy and power plays within a party. And they rabble rouse, and they poke and they make silly demands, and ultimately come to a compromise where Sanders endorses the establishment under a "new democratic party", and a big part of unregistered voters go to Clinton. That's is what that was supposed to happen. Sanders get to become ahead of a committee that fights for a cause or two of his key issues, like citizen united, restoration of union and worker rights, or something else. Diplomacy at work, and a good testbed for Hillary to show that she can control and lead the party and that the democrats can juggle both the blue dogs and socialistic ones.
But every poll shows Sanders overwhelmingly beating Trump much better than Clinton. I'm beginning to become afraid that Sanders is not bluffing. That the echo chamber he is in, and the leadership he surrounds himself are willing to gamble.
While the polling doesn't matter this much this early, you have to conclude that many polls show similar stops, and some even have Sanders beating Trump in the double digits. This is what the Sanders Reddit is riding on, and there are so many threads saying it, that I am beginning to think he might actually do it.
I don't believe Sanders is selfish nor that he is out to burn the party or the establishment. I just think he has tunnel vision, fatigue and has lost sight and perhaps perspective of being in a bubble in almost a year. When you surround yourself with enablers you can begin to develop misconstructed realities. If Sanders already has a reputation for being uncompromising, then this might have been amplified.
If I was Clinton, even if it would be a pain, I would get a VP who the Sanders supporters respect as someone who speaks Sanders values.
I think that Hillary or the party is not in a position to dictate the terms. The calamities surrounding Hillary is unfortunate for her.
If I was Clinton I would offer the VP to either Sanders or Warren. As "no no no no" as it may be; It's been said by many. The VP is not that important. It's a symbolic position, but one that still has power.
Warren, Sanders supporters respect, and those who hate Hillary would take Hillary because of Warren. Warren having been one of the few (and only female) senators to not endorse anyone, but also the one who has been feuding with Trump, shows that she might as well be the one. She is essentially the Female Sanders, but without a year of campaign toxicity.
Besides her stance on drugs, I cannot see a bad thing about Warren, besides her senator seat and the good she will do, will go to a republican. At this juncture I think this is a worthy trade off.
Or Sanders himself. It's obvious. Millennials and white liberals will circumvent back. He agrees with 93% of Hillary, and whatever else may be healthy discussions. Nothing will be up to him, but that will just have to be what it is.
The problem is that there are almost no way this is going to happen. There is probably a bigger chance of Sanders winning California (doesn't seem like that will happen now. He might actually lose the state given all this the past week).
I think being a leader you have to show you can lead people, and not blame others for not falling in line. If they are unhappy they are not gonna come around. If you feel they are unreasonable it does little to shame them.
Remember - Even if Clinton destroys Sanders, the apathy / disappointment / anger from this group of voters might be counter productive, particularly when it is hard to make them come out to vote, or even damage her as she becomes to the face of their crushing dreams.
The demanded resignation of Barney Frank and O'Malley was a bad look. And it was petty. Even if there was dirt on them, this is not the correct procedure or forum to do it in.
Just as people are about to defend his Univision interview trying to explain people that South American style socialism has fuck all to do with the social democratic socialism he has branded, this move actually is something more out of Manduros book. Something like this would never have been allowed in Sweden or Norway. So either Sanders doesn't have control over his campaign, or he doesn't understand social democracy as good as I thought he did, and I should know as I've lived in such a country most of my life.
It has made me concerned about Sanders a bit. Despite what people say, he can handle negativity, as those pedophile ads that has been run against him shows, and he can bipartisan considering his nickname the "Amendment king".
The thing is; If Sanders is champion of ending two-party politics; and anyone who lives in a country that coalition politics, knows that bipartisan work is important, because you're in coalition with other parties who have their other views.
There is a lot of shit that emerges in the heat of a campaign. Respect to Obama for not putting his foot down before the convention. He has deflected comments on supporting either of them, and kept asking a baiting media to let the process play itself out. That is important, as his endorsement out of the gate would have disparaging psychological effects on whoever he would not support. And such is the problem with Endorsement as a institutional element, that turns elections into popularity contests.
One of my big concerns is that the election in 2020 is poised to cost up towards 3 billion dollars. The idea of a grassroots campaign being able to keep up with the rise in cost of elections is getting more and more unlikely. Sanders didn't have enough money to win, and it's something Hillary supporters have slammed him for since beginning.
For his campaign, the DNC only scheduling 6 debates, at those poor time slots was probably a serious nail in the coffin. He needed more exposure as a relatively unknown, versus his opponent who was very well known. A sentiment which was also shared by O'malley I believe?
The reason why he gave up on the South is likely due to not having the funds. It then becomes a tactical strategy to try and win other states with the funds he did have. His base would make the argument that they would have to worker harder in the south fighting against his socialist perspective and trying to educate the people about various forms of socialism.
To me, what really hurts Bernies base, is the desire to flip superdelegates. SuperDelegates is a unfair system that psychologically stacks the favor until a upset can happen. Sanders is not wrong in his critique of that. But he is wrong in then desiring to use those superdelegates to flip. That strikes me as insane. Two wrongs don't make a right, and it concerns me that his campaign is going down this path. It feels that somewhere around February or march they left a policy based critique of Clinton to go on the offensive on her as a person. But that is not productive.
I disagree with a fuckload of people here that purity is something that should be shamed or ridiculed. It's a good thing to have ethical people working together with compromises, and trying to get a good mix of both worlds. It's not one or the other, it's not right or wrong. The lesser-of-two-evils and doing-a-little-bad-for-the-greater-good are philosophies. They are tools to be used in conjunction with one another, Sanders and Hillary are apart sometimes on these, but this is not a good thing. In a good administration you'd want to air out different options and both extremes would be good to have.
benicillin
Banned
It would 100% not surprise me if some of the most awful things we see posted online (and bring up regularly in these threads) were just trolls looking to start a fight. I've said it before, but if you can get just 50 or 100 people to start posting awful shit on social media, because of the way social media works, it can make it seem like the group is so much bigger and more intimidating/pervasive than that.
Giving Sanders the VP slot or any sort of meaningful position within the party or Hillary's administration would just be rewarding his behavior at this point. Attacking the DNC with lies and misinformation. Attacking long-standing Democrats and demanding their jobs for disagreeing with you. Purity tests. Tacit encouragement of doxxing by your supporters. Slandering AIDS activists and Planned Parenthood as corporate shills when they don't stump for you. list goes on. You don't reward behavior like that. You create the tea party when you reward behavior like that.
I'm not fully on the Drek train of "I'd rather Trump won than the DNC further capitulate to this man" yet (even though he's more right than wrong and his posts have been flawless). But I don't think the situation with Madman Bernie has gotten so out of hand that Hillary/DNC can't right the ship without giving into Bernie's shit.
I'm not fully on the Drek train of "I'd rather Trump won than the DNC further capitulate to this man" yet (even though he's more right than wrong and his posts have been flawless). But I don't think the situation with Madman Bernie has gotten so out of hand that Hillary/DNC can't right the ship without giving into Bernie's shit.
This post confused the shit out of me because I thought it was just about the Bernie double chin and everything from Farmboy on was the actual thread.Uh.................
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I doubt Sanders would even want VP. It's a pretty big waste of a position.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think he has? I'm not very well informed on this but I thought there was some sort of big rift going on in the Libertarians right now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked