-
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
Coriolanus
Banned
A cousin of mine asked Bernie a question in the Nevada town hall. Was happy to see he's a supporter of Queen Clinton.
There are no good Hillary Clinton wallpapers.
I really really hope you mean like actual wallpaper for a house.
User 463088
Banned
OF course. I mean, I was going to wallpaper my Shrine Room with $100 bills, but I thought a pattern of her beautiful, queenly face would be a better fit. But...ya.
BlackClouds
Member
I have seen a lot of Tea Party envy from the professional left and that side of things. So yeah I would imagine Sanders wants that. I am definitely against such a thing.
Do you not see how petty this is? We get it, you hate Bernie. When you come rushing to the defense of any little thing he critiques, you're being just as pathetic as the republicans that react like that to Obama.
User 463088
Banned
I'm not being petty. I'm leveraging a legitimate criticism of him. I do not think that he is the best person to make the case that the media doesn't focus on the minutia of policy. He has shown quite a few times that he, himself, doesn't have a great grasp of the policy that he is espousing. He didn't know how he was going to break up the banks. He has a weak grasp of foreign policy as evidenced in the debates. What he has come out with, is easy to immediately take apart because the math doesn't work. (See his health care proposals).
If his policies were held to an ounce of scrutiny by this left wing media he is claiming to want, he'd be ripped to shreds.
I don't hate Bernie. I dislike what he's doing, but even more than that, I hate shitty, poorly thought out policy.
There are no good Hillary Clinton wallpapers.
You're right. I spent a good 15 minutes searching for "Hillary Clinton Baphomet", "Hillary Clinton 666", etc. and couldn't find anything good at all!
User 463088
Banned
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
No, but we do get to look at the totality of the situation, filtered through our own values and perceptions, and decide which claims of offense we are going to assign weight to, and which not.
Coriolanus
Banned
All the more reason to support his argument on that specific topic, then?
Hasn't it been shown that he largely knew what he was talking about regarding breaking up the banks?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/u...s-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sanders-has-a-plan-to-break-up-the-big-banks/
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/
Dominican Power
Member
How is classical liberalism any different from conservatism?
excelsiorlef
Member
A left wing Fox news would probably spend half the time quoting Breitbart and Fox News attacks on Democrats because a left wing Fox News is The Young Turks and they dedicate as much if not more attacking the Democratic party with bullshit conspiracy and paranoid accusations.
A left wing Fox News would basically just be as anti-Democratic Party as Fox News is
I don't think liberals watch tv enough to support a left wing news channel. No one watches MSNBC as it is. Isn't that all a part of how young people depend on tv less and less for news? I can't stand MSNBC because tv news formats are super boring and I don't need a bunch of people telling me stuff I already know/believe.
Some of the networks and newspapers did start looking into this policies, they get accused of being Hillary News organizations.
We had Bernie supporters on GAF itself try to spin the NYDN transcripts as a hit piece when literally the full transcript has been released along with video of the entire interview?
You know what talking about his plans and delegate reality gets you? Maddow signing off with an email for people to direct their hate mail.
Bernie has cultivated a base that doesn't want to listen to facts unless provided by people that agree.
User 463088
Banned
In politics, you don't get points for always being right if the perception is you're wrong. It may be a shitty situation, but that's the way it is. A lot of people, myself included, had issue with some of the rhetoric Bernie's campaign has used to explain away areas of the country in which he didn't do well. If you are claiming you don't do well in "conservative, Southern states" but championing how well you did in Kansas, Utah, Alaska and Nebraska....it's only logical for people to ask what's the difference between these two. And the difference is obvious. Again, though, I don't think Bernie is racist or hostile towards AA, Latino, gay or women who don't support him. I think he's often tone deaf because he gets to hid behind white, male privilege. (Which is why his main issue is income inequality because, as a white straight male it's the easiest for him to grasp.)
My issue is, and will always be, his team's inability (or unwillingness) to set and manage expectations, to understand how to run a national campaign, and how to take a freaking loss once in a while. Because, again, it's always a failing on behalf of the people, never the campaign, Bernie or his team.
To them, he didn't do well in the South because it was conservative. Instead of being introspective and saying "Hey, if my message isn't appealing to this block, where can I find common ground or build support for my position?" they just blame the people.
In states that aren't conservative that Bernie lost (i.e .Massachusetts and New York) the answer was disenfranchisement and voter fraud.
In states where there wasn't a convienient excuse for Bernie losing (ie Iowa, Nevada and Missouri), then it wasn't a loss it was really a tie!
His team has done everything in their power to push the blame on everyone else. It's always fraud, DWS, the DNC, uninformed voters, etc.
He says the media spends too much time covering gossip and it'd better if the American public had an elevated level of political discussion and you use it as an opportunity to bash him when it shouldn't have even been a controversial statement.
We weren't talking about whether or not he's the best person to make the case. You'd be in opposition to everything he says following this childish reasoning. He could say the sky's blue and you'd take issue with it because he has bad posture and can't look up all the way.
Actually, there are quite a few really sad/scary ones out there. No good ones.
None of them are good wallpaper sizes though!
A question for PoliGAF in general. It seems to me like a lot of people on PoliGAF are not so much opposed to further left policies as they are to Bernie Sanders himself due to his individual issues and failures. In other words, they like social democracy but dislike him. Had a better candidate run - let's say it was a younger person, someone who could connect with minority voters better, and who was more of a policy wonk than strictly a big ideas person - would you have supported that person over Clinton? Because there are certainly some people here who are Clinton diehards because they love Hillary herself and others who support Hillary more because they are anti-Bernie than because they are big fans of her.
So basically if there as a candidate who supported single payer, publically funded college, stricter bank regulatons, etc. but was less irascible than Bernie vs. Hillary.
Knuckle Sandwich
Member
This is my wallpaper.
User 463088
Banned
No. I mean, people can make whatever they want. But, if you're only getting your news from people who think exactly like you do, how would you consider yourself informed? (I mean the universal "you," not you specifically.
) As a liberal, I do not need to be surrounded by people who cater to my every bias (positive and negative) the way Fox News does to the right. Reality itself has a liberal bias, and I can be quite satisfied with that.
It's not just the banks, although the fact that he was so woefully unprepared for that question is worrying to me. A lot of his policies just don't add up. His healthcare plan, for instance, the math doesn't work. There have been quite a few economists who have gone through it and illustrated that. His college plan is based on a funding mechanism that other countries have tried and it failed miserably. Again, I have issues with policies that are poorly thought out or impossible to implement. If there was some vast left wing media group who actually looked at his proposals, they'd be thrown under the bus with the rest of us.
Well, that depends on how you define conservative. Classical liberalism was in contrast to conservatism if we're using the older terminology. I meant more in the sense that it's an organization that is part of a corporation which runs according to capitalist methods (advertising, etc.), which itself is the economic system of liberalism. Liberalism is in favor of property rights, a free press, free speech, etc. These are things that networks like MSNBC, CNN, etc. have at their core because liberalism is the philosophical foundation of the economic system which they function within. Whether or not it is on purpose, they tend to take the side of liberal nations and organizations and downplay negative things about them.
IthasaMarxistbias*coughcough*
Knuckle Sandwich
Member
I'd support someone with Bernie's views if that person didn't have his history of dumb socialist/communist stuff that would bury him in the election. I want to win and Hillary Clinton is our best shot.
User 463088
Banned
This is not the argument you think we're having, and I'm not even trying to argue. I do not think Bernie would benefit from a media outlet who actually pressed him on policy issues. I respect that you're happy with his explanation and grasp on policy. That's cool. I totally respect that. I'm not. I never have been. His grasp on issues that affect my community have never, ever been gone into in any type of detail. When talking about certain issues that are out of his wheel house, he immediately pivots back to what he's comfortable with. That's not good enough *for me,*
Well, no. I can vote for someone I don't personally like if I think they're right on the issues. I do not necessarily agree that single payer is our best option at this time. I prefer Hillary's plan when it comes to college. While I am definitely pro-Hillary, and it is, in part, because I like her, I also agree with her policy proposals.
If I thought Bernie was the better candidate, though, I'd have been open to supporting him. I do not, though.
This is basically how people who watch Fox understand Fox, yes. His general explanation isn't terribly useful because everyone wants news that talks about what's important and not about what's not important. Of course, a lot of Fox viewers are really happy that Trump forced a conversation about immigration, as Trump says. The "liberal media" tries to ignore what's really important like voter fraud and illegal immigrants committing crimes and the war on Christmas. Sanders' specific examples don't really show that he's looking for something other than a mirror image of Fox - what he wants is lots of focus on issues that liberals are concerned about with Sanders' preferred framing. As Maddow pointed out, Sanders doesn't actually have trouble getting his message out there, so what actually-different thing does he want people watching that the corporate media we actually have, which includes things like Rachel Maddow's show, isn't providing?
I mean, why did he say he wanted a left-wing Fox? Surely he doesn't think that Fox is a model for fairly discussing the important issues facing the country.
Edit: Like I said earlier, I don't feel like I actually have a good sense of what it is that Sanders wants to actually create, movement-wise. It's very easy to take what he's saying and doing a bunch of different ways.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Re: what one does and does not get to do in politics - Well, I frequent this thread mostly for the news, as I actually mostly despise politics precisely because it pretty much always devolves to "optics", a.k.a. the lowest common denominator of intelligence and emotion. That's one reason I pretty much always enjoy Benji's schtick - focusing on politics fifty years later gives a much clearer sense of what really happened than all the "on-the-ground", day-to-day stuff.
I think your critique of Bernie's campaign is pretty fair, and him sucking at crafting policy and building coalitions is why he's losing despite being basically right in the big picture of what's wrong with America right now, but I also don't really care because A) I don't and probably never will volunteer for presidential campaigns, so procedural faux pas don't really register with me as a big deal, B) I don't think wacky Bernie running a wacky campaign will really have any effect on anything or even register in the majority of history books, unless the "movement" outlives him somehow, and C) if we somehow get a President Trump, the failure is going to run a hell of a lot deeper than anything Bernie Sanders is doing.
It would be interesting to see once the polls settle down and once the democrats start their general election campaign if trump's numbers decline into the high 30's.Trump is one of the few general election candidates in the modern era i could potentially see not getting 40% of the vote.
Dominican Power
Member
Yea they're all liberal from an economic perspective. I think the profit motive should be eliminated from the news.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
So I just spent the weekend at the New York State Young Dems Convention.
Politics, even inter-party stuff is a shitshow (not in a bernie v hillary way)
Politics, even inter-party stuff is a shitshow (not in a bernie v hillary way)
Hmm, I guess its easier to criticize the funding for Bernies college plan because he actual offers a a way to fund it. Clinton's plan make the generic "close some tax loopholes" claim to fund her plan with no specifics
User 463088
Banned
I don't disagree with you that the focus on optics does often suck. But, again, it's the game we have to play, I guess? Perception is always going to be important when we're dealing with people and earning their support. I can get how that can be annoying to some people. Me? I love it...which is probably why I like politics so much.
My frustration with Bernie's campaign comes because of how much opportunity I Feel he's squandered. I mean, in a sense, I'm glad his campaign didn't do well because it means my candidate won! But, when I saw him getting all these young people engaged, focusing on a grassroots campaign? I was excited. I've poked fun at the more...invested people on Reddit, but I've also been insanely impressed by the work they put in. Watching those people turn to conspiracy and anger because the actions of his campaign has upset me. I feel like he had a chance to leverage his support to really help bring about progressive change, win lose or draw. I'm not saying that door is closed, but he's making it a lot harder every single day. That's a waste, IMHO.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Classical liberalism would probably reject Putin like pseudo-dictatorships that raid their own people. I would say Putin is the most conservative politician today.
Knuckle Sandwich
Member
Could you go into more detail when you have time? I'd like to read about your experience.
Frankly, if a person just like Bernie had run who was younger, a person of color, and who had some kind of reason to trust them on foreign policy, I would probably have supported them.
But yeah, overall, what I wanted from the Democrats this year was a candidate who was clearly dovish, policy-smart enough to understand how to move the country further leftwards, and not about to abandon the intersectional politics that govern America today. If they were explicitly a social democrat, that would be a bonus, but not really a requirement.
There was probably never going to be a candidate as prepared as Hillary but there's no denying she has weaknesses, particularly in foreign policy.
Honestly I probably should've paid more attention to Martin O'Malley, but unfortunately by the time I noticed he was running he had dropped out.
Yes, he's the prime example of a pseudo-fascist within a compromised liberal framework. He's not ideologically fascist since his economic program isn't based on class compromise and syndicalist stuff or whatever but he's definitely a nationalist very much against "Western liberalism".
He takes what's beneficial from liberalism for his rule and leaves the rest behind.
User 463088
Banned
Bernie's college plan requires states to cover a fairly large portion of the funding and implementation. We've seen that Republican governors will screw that up just for spite. I also disagree that college needs to be free in the sense Bernie is claiming it should be.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'll try to draft a more substantive post later tonight but I'll have to fudge a few things for political reasons.
A lot of it I'd have to get to specific that would require a lot of background. But It's basically this song mixed with the fact that certain people love to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
I mean I was disillusioned about certain aspects of the "future of the party" but excited about others.
Growing up in the south and seeing now New York (and its combination of upstate and downstate) its kind of further confirmed my fundamental understanding of politics.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Counterpoint: every single attempt to implement it has turned into a Stalinist/Maoist fuckup.
That's sort of the definition of reality not interacting well with the theory.
I don't see how this would even happen given the increasing diversification of the electorate, particularly within the context of a Democratic primary. That's part of why Bernie is getting beaten, because there's an impression (somewhat his own fault but I don't think he purposefully meant for it to be that way) that he ignores non-economic aspects.
What bothers me however is that it seems like sometimes people want to include everything in intersectionality other than anti-capitalism, but I suppose that's because it's very easy for leftists and liberals to agree on "racism is bad, patriarchy is bad, homophobia is bad" etc. but then we have a distinct ideological split over economics.
Doesn't stop the basic framework he promulgated from being true even if it doesn't all hold up (like the labor theory of value being somewhat too simplistic), and there's no way it all could; the man can't predict what capitalism two centuries later would exactly look like. I think automation is going to make the contradictions within capitalism even more explicit however.
Also I think part of the problem there is treating "Marxism" as a dogmatic program that needs to be implemented rather than "Marxism" as an analytical tool for understanding the world through a historical materialist viewpoint. Marx never intended the former. He wasn't a political leader. That was more Lenin's doing, which is really more Marxism-Leninism than "Marxism".
And funded by a behavior tax, he wants to curb 'bad' trading and yet wants to use it to fund a program that would only grow in size and cost.
So either his tax fails to curb the behavior or it fails to make the revenue, and a similar tax already failed terribly on Sweden.
Isn't it weird, though, to immediately assume he wants to spread bullshit and lies? Somehow I don't think that's what he had in mind -- certainly wasn't what his examples talked about when he describes this thing he wants. You can have a left leaning publication that doesn't play loose with the facts. I assume he chose Fox because it's the only right leaning TV network that could be used as an example, not specifically because of how much bullshit comes out of it.
Yeah, I think this is accurate -- almost like Jacobin but on TV. Yet the responses here were literally accusing him of wanting a state sponsored "propaganda network" that "spreads bias bullshit and lies." Too many people here immediately assume the worst out of Sanders -- just like the Bernie nuts that reject anything Clinton says because "the corruption."
Well, right, but that's my point. Part of the reason I don't support Bernie is that I have that impression.
That's funny, because I have exactly the opposite perspective. It's easy for progressives to agree that we need to change the political and economic structures. It's hard for them to agree that that should include intersectionality. People have made the argument to me ad nauseam on this board that if we can just implement social programs we won't have to worry about, e.g., racial justice any more because it will just sort itself out. That's the specific thing I'm warding against, because that is literally the attitude we had to fight against to get people to understand intersectionality in the first place.
I have almost come to the regrettable conclusion, etc., etc., the white moderate, etc., etc.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I think that to some extent those issues are incompatible with a pragmatic candidate, at least if they're promising they're going to "make it happen" as opposed to "lay the foundation for". But yes, a large part of why I am now opposed to Bernie is because I actively think he would be bad both as a leader of real political change and frankly at the duties that come with the role of President
User 463088
Banned
Plus, it does almost nothing to get colleges to actually reduce the costs of tuition. It would have destroyed HBCs until he changed his platform due to backlash on that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked