Spoiled Milk
Banned
My goal in life is to just keep posting funny things on poligaf until someone gets me a job writing for The Soup on E!.
-
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 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour
- Thread starter Retromelon
- Start date
- Status
He seems to be settling for an 'all or nothing' strategy though.
Not only that, but he lost. His platform lost. He doesn't get to say that's what the winner runs on. Is Obama going to have to smack him around again?
VendettaRed07
Member
If the end result is that Bernie and his progressive movement is considered part of the Democratic party rather than a fringe wing / independent Green party insurgents it will be worth it, and it's the correct thing to do.
I think Bernie should be more of an Adult here, but his inability to do so is one of the reasons why I didn't vote for him.
Is he really?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
There needs to be more transparency, as much as they can provide anyway, and a clear method to get removed from the list, with a max time limit.
shinra-bansho
Member
His plans for Wall St are largely pointless jibber jabber. Something something Glass Break Up the Farmers on the Audit Fed.
VendettaRed07
Member
What would she really be conceding to him though, other than trade, which she pretty much has already done? Most of the disagreements have been about the degrees of how far they can go rather than the ideas themselves
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
You are going to be waiting for a LONG time.
Like forever.
It was canceled
On a few issues. But overall, no.
VendettaRed07
Member
This for me is the biggest issue. For all the talk about wallstreet Bernie never once brought up why Hillary's plan isn't good enough. His only real argument was, well I don't trust your plan because you take money from Wallstreet.
It isn't like she doesn't have a plan for financial reform. Nobody has actually bothered to tell anyone why it won't work or what the problems with her plan actually are.
And that clearly isn't good enough for him.
Not just protecting and strengthening the ACA, has to be single payer.
Not just making college way more affordable, it has to be free for all.
Bernie is so fucking stubborn. Really wondering if he is taking advantage of the news cycle and trying to get a couple more weeks out of this.
And yes in this political climate in 2016 when DONALD TRUMP is the Republican nominee, Sanders is too far left and out of touch. Sorry, this isn't the year for a candidate like him.
gutter_trash
Banned
nothing is ever good enough when it comes to extremists.
even nominating Liz Warren as VEEP won't be enough for him
Aaron Strife
Banned
I would hope Heitkamp would come around if her vote was actually the deciding one.
Also if you posted this on OT people would probably try and blame Warner for not voting.
I can't stand that he thinks he can force this even though he lost. No. You don't get to have your way when you were on the losing side. There are reasons why she got more votes then him. They agree on over 90% of things. That should be enough. Where they differ there are actual reasons that have been explained. Those shouldn't just be ignore because he wants to try and stay relevant. I hope she doesn't give him anything other then the minimum wage point at the very least. Hell not even that is something he should really get. Even with that he's still going to go to the convention.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I do not expect him to endorse her or campaign for her. I do not expect him to stay registered as a member of the democratic party either when this is done. If he gets to speak at the convention it's going to be a bad scene I think because he either will attack the party itself or he will make it completely about himself.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I do not expect him to endorse her or campaign for her. I do not expect him to stay registered as a member of the democratic party either when this is done. If he gets to speak at the convention it's going to be a bad scene I think because he either will attack the party itself or he will make it completely about himself.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
I know. I'm actually Joel and trying to get the show back on air.
brianmcdoogle
Member
You were great in The Informant!
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Yeah, I watched it weekly too
Was quite shocked when they canceled it.
They never took themselves seriously, and it just worked that way.
Some of the Youtube reaction channels have filled the void, like H3H3.
VendettaRed07
Member
Right but when Bernie says " be vigorous in standing up for working families and the middle class, moving aggressively on climate change, healthcare for all, making public colleges and universities tuition-free,
Other than tuition free college, what does Hillary really as a platform disagree with? It won't take much for her to argue she does support all these things and will be working for it. Her current college plan makes community college free, she wants to nearly double the minimum wage, etc. so it isn't like she doesn't already have a super progress platform.
I don't think it's going to be a situation where she has specific details and policies forced upon her
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Thank you. It was satisfying having spent a decade writing witticisms only to be sidelined in a movie about corn that got panned by the critics.
I really liked that movie, actually.
brianmcdoogle
Member
Best performance by the underrated Matt Damon. He shines in that movie.
See I think it's actually the details he wants. If it was just about the overall elements this wouldn't be a problem. The difference between their stances on several issues came down to the details of how they wanted to go about them. This was the big thing about their debates from gun control, how to address fracking, wall street, minimum wage, education, etc. When he says his positions he's largely talking about how they're reached I believe. That New York debate is a good example of the differences and him trying and failing to back her into a corner to agree with his details on something related to social security I think.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Whoa, hold up there.
Sanders wants the details?
Have you been watching this primary at all?
Edit: If Sanders had details, I would not have been nearly as down on him at the beginning of the primary.
Isn't the general consensus that Donald Trump would be easier to defeat than a garden-variety Republican? If this is the case, then now is the time for actual progressive change.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
H3H3 seems pretty funny, thanks for the recommendation. Nothing will ever fill the soup shaped hole in my heart, though. I have watched the soup for over 90% of its running time. It's cancellation was worse to me than Jon Stewart leaving The Daily Show.Yeah, I watched it weekly too
Was quite shocked when they canceled it.
They never took themselves seriously, and it just worked that way.
Some of the Youtube reaction channels have filled the void, like H3H3.
Have you been asleep for the past decade? We've been getting actual progressive change. I'm sorry that we're not willing to go back to failed economic models and throw it all in the dumpster.
I thought the soup was canceled... I used to watch it a ton.
Oh on mobile and apparently blind to past posts.
The best way to create progressive change is not to elect a more progressive candidate, it's to elect more progressive candidates.
Because of the way that House seats work, getting huge coattails from the presidential candidate is critical. Once we control a House seat, inertia means that it will probably stay Democratic for a while.
So the best thing to do against a weak opponent is to run the strongest candidate you can so that you can get more control over the branches of government. For similar reasons, once we get control of the House and Senate, we can pass legislation that will be permanent because it's very difficult to overturn legislation once it's been passed.
Of course his aren't anywhere close to being actually detailed as hers but not sure what other word to use. Maybe path. Let's try that. She want to do something by going down path A with all the detail you'd expect and her reasons for going this way. He wants to do it by going down path C (details may vary or not be there, same with the reasoning to back it up). Now that he's loss, after both paths were presented to people, he likely wants her to adopt going down path C anyway as a method of adopting his positions to get his support and likely to back off.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Did you do an online search of media coverage? Have you tracked anyone down in person or online with relevant experience + JD/PhD?
disastermouse
Banned
Any possibility he's looking for an excuse to run third party or independent? He can walk away from Hillary and say, 'She hasn't taken our issues or policy plans seriously enough for me to support her. These issues must get a hearing in November."
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Still on that "I hope he fucks over the country" train huh?
I wouldn't be surprised if the Sanders' "hardball tactics" are actually attempts at getting as many of his supporters as possible to vote for Clinton in November. I could see him putting on a show like this to keep his "loyal" followers from jumping ship to Trump out of spite post-endorsement... if he had changed his tune immediately, a small but not insignificant portion of his supporters would turn on him, but if he makes it look like he got her to move to the left on all those issues she's actually already on the left about, nothing actually changes regarding Clinton's stances but Bernie's supporters can delude themselves into claiming a small victory.
Or he's doing all of this just to save face because his pride is hurt.
Or he's going to do something stupid and jeopardize Clinton's chances of adding most of his supporters to her coalition.
I guess we'll see on Tuesday night. I started this post with cautious optimism and now I'm just anxious. =/
Or he's doing all of this just to save face because his pride is hurt.
Or he's going to do something stupid and jeopardize Clinton's chances of adding most of his supporters to her coalition.
I guess we'll see on Tuesday night. I started this post with cautious optimism and now I'm just anxious. =/
nature boy
Member
He'll concede people, relax.
It seems like Bernie just can't win with PoliGAF. What Bernie is doing is the best possible thing he could do in his current situation (which, admittedly, is a hole he dug himself into). If he immediately conceded and endorsed Clinton his base would be devastated. At least like this if he pretends to be tough on Clinton, his eventual endorsement will appear hard-earned and legimate. Ya'll need to chill.
Of course if he doesn't give up eventually, then you guys can be mad.
Of course if he doesn't give up eventually, then you guys can be mad.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Yeah. If you're a politician and you fight for the people, and you are convinced that your agenda is right for the people, you'd fight to the last of your ability to make the country better.
Sanders is not "too far left". His role has always been to push the democrats left. And this is not Sanders fault. There has been a storm brewing between liberal democrats who have been outnumbered by moderate democrats for a long time. Back in 2014, TheAtlantic ran a piece on this that highlights a lot of what we are talking about now, just minus the Sanders;
( http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...als-dont-control-the-democratic-party/283653/ )
This narrative being spun is that Sanders is bringerof this storm. Not true. This is all the doing of the democratic party. It's amazing how this word, for word shows you the rhetoric used to talk about the differences between them being negible as a que call for Sanders to go fuck himself. Strikes me as absurd.
It's not ideological purity bullshit. It's a rift in perspective, and this is not the time to pipe it down under a faux sense of unity.
Being progressive for change can be uncomfortable, scary and potentially dangerous. That's why traditionally brave people are those who are willing to stand by their unpopular opinions and not let themselves be belittled or fall into line.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; It never was, or is about Sanders. He stumpled into this at a pecurilar time. He is just a harbinger of what is naturally going on among a significant part of the populace.
Warren should be the VP. That is how you give real symbolic credence to this liberal wing of democratic party. That is not Tea Party rhetorics either (false). It's just acknowledging that as Sanders has been too obtuse on many of his proposals, so has Clinton on the specifcs of some of her dedications to pushing Bankers to task. From 3 years ago;
( http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-wing-learned-to-love-hillary-clinton/278633/ )
Sanders become this scapegoat for things that have been brewing, and it's largely a fallacy. Both his supporters, and Hillary supporters give him too much credit.
Any leader, has to consolidate his or her forces. Any leader who is worth a damn will push for what is right. Sanders is doing that, hoping that he can win progress. It might not work. Liberal democrats might continue to be a rarity in the US Democratic even though they like to mascarade like they are all so progressive right now, but that would be a shame.
Because to defend the current status quo is to defend Israeli defense policy, failed state foreign policy, a lack of commitment to tackle income inequality of which Clinton has been obtuse, deflective and have not given specific areas to tackle besides superficial no-shit-sherlock worth pieces like "I will punish bankers". It's not enough. It's too arbitrary. Just like Sanders has policies where he is not specific enough, so does Clinton.
Weed, Israel, more than a 3 dollar minimum wage increase (look at what it would have been had you accounted for inflation from when it was frozen to now). Bernie would be the biggest failure if he doesn't use his leverage to push her left.
She doesn't want to, because who the fuck wants more commitments? Thats like adopting a sick cat with all sorts of diseases. It's a pain in the ass and just more obligations. I understand why she don't want to give him inches, or make Senator Warren the VP. Headaches! But I sure as hell also understand why Sanders fight this fight.
He is probably toast after this. He is old, like other ex-presidential candidates, he will fall into obscurity as a meme. This is his last time to make a impact that matters.
shinra-bansho
Member
How will Bernie Sanders punish bankers in a specific, non-arbitrary way?
What specific concession is he after there, so that he can go back to Vermont and I can never hear about him again, because he is boring.
Why should the loser that lost get to dictate what he gets out of losing?
What specific concession is he after there, so that he can go back to Vermont and I can never hear about him again, because he is boring.
Why should the loser that lost get to dictate what he gets out of losing?
All bankers deserve to be burnt alive so I don't understand the question.
/s for if anyone is still waking up
He didn't say he was rooting for it, just that it could be a calculation of Bernie's. Drawing conclusions based on post history is a bit unfair as he's obviously trying to clean up his act.
Btw I'm with the 'he'll concede this week' crowd.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
0,5% tax on stocks, bonds and general speculation; http://www.robinhoodtax.org/how-it-works
If you run on that you're going to tax someone at 0,5% that seems specific to me. We can argue of that would cover the cost of programs that Sanders wish to implement, but that is another story.
The question is; will Clinton put specific numbers on. How much will be Obamacare be expanded? Saying you want to expand Obamacare can mean many things. But if you say you want to double it, then you're committing to a goal right there, right?
I think a rift comes from both politicians depending on who you like. If you already dislike someone, their explanations and justifications will seem ill sufficient, and vice versa if you like someone. Hillary and Bernie supporters accuse each other of the same thing.
The onus is also on Sanders simply because the nature of having the more radical and untested platform will be met with resistance, where Hillary has a platform that largely builds on Obamas platform, which probably fuels into how you feel about it right now given the state of affairs.
NYtimes had a good article about the income inequality being made largely worse due to the taxation policy. Even though its from 2014 I would expect the trend to be largely similar; http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/opinion/inequality-unbelievably-gets-worse.html?_r=0
It makes me think that Sanders is not completely off the money on thinking that solving this through taxation is a bad policy, even if the taxation probably wouldnt pay for his social programs like free college ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-says-wall-street-tax-would-pay-his-/ )
On the wall street tax, is it just on speculative transactions? Does hedging get taxed (ie covering positions taken to support corporate & FI clients)? If so, I would not support that.
I mean, no, he lost.
I mean, no, he lost.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Well he didn't lose. He did what nobody in history has done without the help of corporate funds. He has done the impossible essentially, while running on a insurgent campaign, as a nobody, came out and started a conversation.
He ran on a platform he didn't belong too. His supporters are not democrats, but people who either don't care much for the political process, are disgusted by it, or just hate Hillary. So he has tapped into a base that is off limits to the democratic establishment.
He gets to dictate terms if the democratic party feel they need those votes. Maybe they won't move in an inch, and tell Sanders to go home. Plausible. Calling his bluff, he can be the next Nader. Which he has said from the beginning which he won't want to be.
If Sanders represents a wing, a army, a faction, and the Queen wants that faction to her under her banner, she has to use those famous kids gloves of her.
I'd like to see Warren be VP because she represents his values, but without the Sanders baggage of a toxic campaign. Warren is in the fight with Trump, she is respected by all, she has Sanders leanings but the compromise nature of Clinton. She has the best of Clinton and Sanders.
So Sanders has to play his part and puff chest and then like Ron Paul, it's over for him. And that is okay. It's up to his supporters to carry it forward in grassroots movements that helps people on the ground and local elections.
But Clinton could make a lot of these people happy by having Warren VP.
Even if she finds another one who has a very vocal track record, there just aren't anyone else who has spearheaded and become the face of these issues. And like all other voter blocs, white young liberals are selfish and want their needs addressed amist all their privilege. Making Warren VP is more of a symbolic gesture than it would give actual change, but then again you might say that Sanders has been more of a symbolic insurgent than the guy who was actually going to transform America.
Idealism vs pragmatism. You need both, and depending on where you are either of those will mean a lot to you
nature boy
Member
The fucker is going all in:
Well he didn't lose. He did what nobody in history has done without the help of corporate funds. He has done the impossible essentially, while running on a insurgent campaign, as a nobody, came out and started a conversation.
He ran on a platform he didn't belong too. His supporters are not democrats, but people who either don't care much for the political process, are disgusted by it, or just hate Hillary. So he has tapped into a base that is off limits to the democratic establishment.
He gets to dictate terms if the democratic party feel they need those votes. Maybe they won't move in an inch, and tell Sanders to go home. Plausible. Calling his bluff, he can be the next Nader. Which he has said from the beginning which he won't want to be.
If Sanders represents a wing, a army, a faction, and the Queen wants that faction to her under her banner, she has to use those famous kids gloves of her.
I'd like to see Warren be VP because she represents his values, but without the Sanders baggage of a toxic campaign. Warren is in the fight with Trump, she is respected by all, she has Sanders leanings but the compromise nature of Clinton. She has the best of Clinton and Sanders.
So Sanders has to play his part and puff chest and then like Ron Paul, it's over for him. And that is okay. It's up to his supporters to carry it forward in grassroots movements that helps people on the ground and local elections.
But Clinton could make a lot of these people happy by having Warren VP.
Even if she finds another one who has a very vocal track record, there just aren't anyone else who has spearheaded and become the face of these issues. And like all other voter blocs, white young liberals are selfish and want their needs addressed amist all their privilege. Making Warren VP is more of a symbolic gesture than it would give actual change, but then again you might say that Sanders has been more of a symbolic insurgent than the guy who was actually going to transform America.
Idealism vs pragmatism. You need both, and depending on where you are either of those will mean a lot to you
He lost by 5 million votes.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
It would have been impossible to win. They would never elect a socialist nor an atheist or a tax raising one. He had political suicide written all over him. It's not even due to him that he got this far, which should have been possible. The DNC and RNC should not have allowed these people who are not part of that community to take advantage of their platforms, with their own financing, endorsing and media outlets. This election has been such a freak show. One that likely will never happen again.
By 2020 election campaign financing will go upwards 3 billion (from 2 billion spent this election). So if Sanders run out of money constantly and doesn't have the time, power, money or campaign staff to even campaign in all those states where he lost, nobody else is going to raise money needed to combat the SuperPACs in the next election.
So I really, really, really hope for all Americans sake that Hillary will be succesful in overturning Citizen United. Let us hope it will happen.
If she managed to do that, she would be like Sulla taking control of rome and then disbanding his legions and giving it all away. She'd be shutting down the very SuperPAC fumes that got her into office.
It would be very amazing if she really is going to do that. A gesture that would undermine many Sanders concerns and pessimism for the process I think.
Yes. I'm surprised it wasn't a lot more. Sanders should not have gotten further than Nader. It doesn't really make sense if you really think about it.
Leaving the rest of this aside, quite how is that supposed to happen? Is Trump not familiar with the fact we have these amazing new phones which can connect to the internet these days?
How is this not, at the very least, Hitler-adjacent?
The last time we were at absolute/total war we dropped nukes Trump. Christ this guy is scary.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked