BlastProcessing
Member
D.C. seems a little too close to the South for him to be comfortable.
-
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 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
D.C. seems a little too close to the South for him to be comfortable.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
lmao environmentalists and organized labor, the two biggest supporters of free flowing capital
He could just ask Sierra Club or the AFL-CIO
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Kirblars question is also a good one but I do wonder if this interview is going to be the type where we would suspect substantive answers from any politicians on questions like this. Just don't know enough about the format or context I guess
Someone has to be a gadfly to the gadfly
I mean, I was being snarky.
That said, what's the plan to boost Malaysian and Vietnamese labor and environmental standards, now that we've successfully defeated this effort to do so?
Autodidact
Banned
Ask him if he knows the difference between democratic socialists and social democrats, and why he calls himself the former when he's really the latter. If he insists on the "democratic socialist" angle, politely badger him about central planning and government owning the means of production. If necessary, tell him Norway and Denmark love capitalism and private enterprise but also believe in spreading its bounty equitably throughout society.
Sorry, it just bugs me that America's Overton Window is so far right that anything moderately left is called socialist, but that doesn't mean that Bernie Sanders, to whom people listen, should mislabel himself and further muddy the political discourse here.
Sorry, it just bugs me that America's Overton Window is so far right that anything moderately left is called socialist, but that doesn't mean that Bernie Sanders, to whom people listen, should mislabel himself and further muddy the political discourse here.
I've wondered the same thing in the past but I think he knows the difference. He's a huge fan of Debs, but at the same time he has said that he isn't talking about revolutioninzing control of the means of production and wants to follow a Scandinavian model. I think he just realized that Americans have thought of socialism and communism differently since so many social democratic parties in Europe have historically labelled themselves socialists while being opposed to the USSR, and he's just trying to run with that history to destigmatize the word. That's my assumption anyway.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Isn't the old socdem goal to use reform to eventually replace the capitalist mode of production and achieve democratic socialism? I realize most socdem parties now aren't really advocating that but I thought that was the original goal of UK Labour and its ilk?
Original, long since abandoned by most.
TestOfTide
Banned
Ask Bernie if he would be okay with foreign intervention that is more in line with stuff like the Iran Nuclear Deal and the Marshall Plan.
Ask Bernie if he feels that environmentalists should take advantage of the fact that many businesses want to take advantage of clean energy.
Ask Bernie how he feels about real moderate republicans like Charlie Baker and Bill Weld.
Ask Bernie if he feels that environmentalists should take advantage of the fact that many businesses want to take advantage of clean energy.
Ask Bernie how he feels about real moderate republicans like Charlie Baker and Bill Weld.
Yes, but realistically they're all just regulatory capitalists and trying to switch control of the MOP isn't the goal. It doesn't ever really even come up. But since that sort of tendency moderated the word "socialism", Americans have a less extreme reaction to that than "communism".
VendettaRed07
Member
Might be sort of a long question but if I was to ask Bernie something it would be sort of like this.
"You've said many times in the past that the 'middle class has declined' over the past 40 years. During the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, we had significantly higher tax brackets on the wealthy, we invested in our countries infrastructure, invested in science and education; college and housing was significantly more affordable; financial industries and corporations were not given free reign on the economy. General Motors was our largest employer, who paid their workers quality wages. Now our largest employer is Walmart. The middle class in its entirety on paper, was better off. You have said a fair economic deal for the working class will help pull our minority population out of poverty.. However, many could simply point to this period of time and we can see how due to systemic racism, minorities in the country didn't see any of it. Much of what you are proposing isn't so much an attempt to turn the USA into a European country, but is attempting to get back to some of the economic schemes that were successful at making the middle class grow. How do you plan on bridging the gap in your messaging? Because understandably you don't necessarily say the country needs to back to what we were doing at that that time due to the implications of what that sort of rhetoric would imply to minorities. How do you plan on addressing their concerns that even in a fairer economic climate they will not be excluded as they have always been? What needs to be different this time that we were not doing back then when the middle class was booming?"
This is something I feel like I'd want Bernie to answer in his own words. Because when he's sidestepped economic issues I don't think he's ever been pressed with the conflicting point that when the middle class was more like what he has proposed is should be like again, it didn't lift the minority population out of poverty like he said would happen should we do that now.
"You've said many times in the past that the 'middle class has declined' over the past 40 years. During the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, we had significantly higher tax brackets on the wealthy, we invested in our countries infrastructure, invested in science and education; college and housing was significantly more affordable; financial industries and corporations were not given free reign on the economy. General Motors was our largest employer, who paid their workers quality wages. Now our largest employer is Walmart. The middle class in its entirety on paper, was better off. You have said a fair economic deal for the working class will help pull our minority population out of poverty.. However, many could simply point to this period of time and we can see how due to systemic racism, minorities in the country didn't see any of it. Much of what you are proposing isn't so much an attempt to turn the USA into a European country, but is attempting to get back to some of the economic schemes that were successful at making the middle class grow. How do you plan on bridging the gap in your messaging? Because understandably you don't necessarily say the country needs to back to what we were doing at that that time due to the implications of what that sort of rhetoric would imply to minorities. How do you plan on addressing their concerns that even in a fairer economic climate they will not be excluded as they have always been? What needs to be different this time that we were not doing back then when the middle class was booming?"
This is something I feel like I'd want Bernie to answer in his own words. Because when he's sidestepped economic issues I don't think he's ever been pressed with the conflicting point that when the middle class was more like what he has proposed is should be like again, it didn't lift the minority population out of poverty like he said would happen should we do that now.
Good follow up on that Paris/Pitsburgh masculinity Twitter thread from yesterday that addresses the major issues I had w/ that author- https://twitter.com/PhilSandifer/status/871017984336285696
@PhilSandifer
Phil Sandifer Retweeted Michael Sweeney
From that "the left needs to be more masculine" thread that went viral yesterday. Lots to unpack, but let's start here.
"23) It's Democrats in Washington that don't seem to get that they're losing workers' votes across the country not because of self-interest"
First thing to point out is the use of "workers" in a way that's tacitly rooted purely in American heartland manufacturing and the like.
While not wanting to reject solidarity with traditional blue collar workers, a fundamental issue in America is the decline of that sector.
As the factoid that's been going around points out, there are considerably more yoga instructors than coal miners in America.
Or, to put it another way, in 2017 most workers are not classical blue collar factory types.
I say this because it's absolutely crucial for the left not to let "workers" be defined to exclude the majority of actual workers.
But this gets at the larger problem, the mythic masculinity at the heart of the argument here. Look at this image from the thread.
Now, never mind that the 2013 image has literally never been suggested as capturing any sort of iconic anything.
The gobsmackingly important thing to realize is that the 1943 image is a fucking painting, as opposed to an actual person.
This is about a mythology of masculinity. One that never really existed. You might as well pick Wonder Woman as iconic 1940s femininity.
So this isn't about appealing to "manly men." It's about appealing to people sympathetic to a particular ideology and mythology.
Which becomes relevant when we get to the bit about how some people take truck masculinity so seriously they run bikes off the road.
Which Sweeney just sort of leaves there, but which I think it's important to pause, look at, and say "holy shit, fuck those assholes."
Because at some point in a political argument, you have to say that. There's got to be some point you don't compromise past.
I feel pretty comfortable saying that people who run bikes off the road to feel manly should be on the wrong side of that line for the left.
More broadly, the vision of masculinity that says your dick is only as big as your truck, and understands only dominance and humiliation?
That vision of masculinity is not the persuadable middle. It is the enemy. The left's goal isn't to market to it. It's to destroy it.
The left is never going to appeal to that aesthetic and ideology without fundamentally ceasing to be the left anymore.
That's not to say the left should abandon masculinity. And it doesn't. It just offers different visions of masculinity.
Barack Obama rocking the dad jeans, shooting hoops, and maintaining an image of unflappable level-headedness? That's a vision of masculinity
It's a vision of masculinity Obama's political team actively cultivated. And it's a pretty good image of masculinity.
Justin Trudeau's political career hinges on his successful projection of an alternative vision of masculinity.
Baron von Loathsome
Member
LOL
He's treating that quote like it's a compliment.
Late reply but I see that now. I swear I read headlines in your post *checks eyes*
Because anti-trump is an easy political point in Europe and he has legislative elections coming up. So he wants to keep his voters engaged and the recent headlines to wonders for that.
The real test will be what does he do domestically in France after all the elections settle down.
cooljeanius
Member
- Who he'd choose as a running mate if he runs again in 2020. Given that he's pretty old, his choice of who'd be the best younger version of himself would be pretty important
- If he attended a #MarchForTruth today. If so, ask what his experiences at it were like. If not, ask why not
- Which of the Squid Sisters from Splatoon he prefers (hold up pictures if necessary)
Ugh, I get so frustrated by the conservatives I know posting rebuttals to the Paris accords as "it's expensive" and "muh taxes".
This is the problem with trying to convince people in this day and age. People have their minds set in stone that anything that costs money is bad, and that any move in the right direction is bad unless it is a mythical perfect plan that costs exactly the right amount of money and solves the problem in one easy step. It's the same with healthcare.
I can't argue with these people so I just ignore them. I can only hope there are more people with more pragmatic views and they will vote.
This is the problem with trying to convince people in this day and age. People have their minds set in stone that anything that costs money is bad, and that any move in the right direction is bad unless it is a mythical perfect plan that costs exactly the right amount of money and solves the problem in one easy step. It's the same with healthcare.
I can't argue with these people so I just ignore them. I can only hope there are more people with more pragmatic views and they will vote.
Finale Fireworker
Member
Has the idea of a GAF PAC (NeoPAC?) ever been brought up before? Not in the literal sense, but perhaps creating a specific thread or community topic geared towards donating to progressive institutions and causes?
I know there have been specific themed ones in the past. I remember a very compelling environmental thread that listed a lot of ways you could put your money where your heart was.
I'm signed up with a ton of stuff now and a lot of it is because people online have pointed me in the right direction. Having a constantly updated topic that keeps up to date with house seats, environmental groups, human rights organizations, healthcare providers, could be... cool, right?
We would have a thread with permanent fixtures. Donate to Planned Parenthood, donate to the ACLU, etc. Then we have contextual fixtures. Donate to Swing Left, donate to Bold Progressives, etc. Then we have time-sensitive fixtures. Donate to Jon Ossoff, donate to Beto O'Rourke, etc. The constant signal boost to essential causes and figures on a progressive and heavily centralized forum like NeoGAF seems productive to me.
But it's mostly just a fantasy of mine. I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how I can organize people and make a difference while also being trapped at work six days a week.
Separately, what are people's thoughts on the Sierra Club in 2017? I know they've received criticism in the last few years for becoming too corporately minded, but they are still a very highly rated charity. I donate to them currently but am wondering if there's a more effective alternative.
I know there have been specific themed ones in the past. I remember a very compelling environmental thread that listed a lot of ways you could put your money where your heart was.
I'm signed up with a ton of stuff now and a lot of it is because people online have pointed me in the right direction. Having a constantly updated topic that keeps up to date with house seats, environmental groups, human rights organizations, healthcare providers, could be... cool, right?
We would have a thread with permanent fixtures. Donate to Planned Parenthood, donate to the ACLU, etc. Then we have contextual fixtures. Donate to Swing Left, donate to Bold Progressives, etc. Then we have time-sensitive fixtures. Donate to Jon Ossoff, donate to Beto O'Rourke, etc. The constant signal boost to essential causes and figures on a progressive and heavily centralized forum like NeoGAF seems productive to me.
But it's mostly just a fantasy of mine. I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how I can organize people and make a difference while also being trapped at work six days a week.
Separately, what are people's thoughts on the Sierra Club in 2017? I know they've received criticism in the last few years for becoming too corporately minded, but they are still a very highly rated charity. I donate to them currently but am wondering if there's a more effective alternative.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I can see the curly white locks atop that magnificent dome. He's headed our way.
Also, taller than expected.
Also, taller than expected.
Finale Fireworker
Member
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
The Republican motto. "We don't care about our people"
Ask him why he worked with the DNC to sabotage Martin O'Malley's candidacy.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
did you see O'Malley saying Biden and Sanders would both lose to Trump but he would have won?
Tell me this is a joke. I mean, I know eveeryone is saying it because that's how this shit goes, but O'Malley too?
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141968/martin-omalley-thinks-martin-won-election
Imagine failing to hit 1% of the vote in Iowa and thinking "wow I am such a strong presidential candidate"
Like I said, everyone says they'd have won after a loss, especially if they want another go, but you're damn right about O'Malley. Dude was a joke and he's got no way to change it.
Also ask how he feels about hacking Clinton's donor list and splitting the democratic party.
Ask him about the practice of presidential candidates releasing their tax returns.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Holy Shit at Trump's infrastructure plan.
Republicans are bad people
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sanders is charismatic as fuck. I don't necessarily mean in a people-person way, in the sense you'd want to go for a drink with him, but he just has this zeal and faith that's infectious. You can't help but be caught in what he says. You get a gist of it from watching screens and stuff, but actually talking to him is something else, just off the charts and I've met Bill Clinton for comparison. Five hundred years back and he'd have been a Calvinist preacher extolling the masses with all the fire and the fury and the belief.
Will write up his responses to all the questions that got asked shortly. There were some good ones on stuff you guys might want to know about - e.g. the difficulty of building a coalition between the white working class and black Americans.
Will write up his responses to all the questions that got asked shortly. There were some good ones on stuff you guys might want to know about - e.g. the difficulty of building a coalition between the white working class and black Americans.
I wonder if this stuff just bypasses me completely cause I'm an introvert lol
I need a poncho to cover myself up from all of this semen coming from you right now.
😉
You're not exactly impartial dude, you're the choir he's preaching to. There'd be a big problem if you didn't find him charismatic.
Sounds like somebody didn't get the truth about O'Malley today
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Cesare Borgia
Banned
I can't imagine thinking Bernie Sanders is charismatic.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's not necessarily a good trait. For example, Nigel Farage definitely has it too and I despise the man - I'm obviously not his target crowd. I think it's an absolutely iron sense of self-belief, something like that. There's no doubt at all about what they think and believe and it doesn't leave room for you to doubt either. Compare that to Clinton or Ed Miliband, who I think both suffered from a kind of insecurity about their position and beliefs.
Nah. If you meet someone who you already like and idolize, and he says all the things you like and want to hear, then obviously you'll think that guy is awesome and charismatic.
That's how Trump gets around.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Anyone mention today's Gallup has him at 37%?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Really not the case. Ed Miliband was one of my favourite politicians, and he simply doesn't have it. Farage is one of my most despised politicians, and he definitely does.
Autodidact
Banned
Yes, and they tend to be rather bullish on him, do they not? And by that I mean a few points higher than other mainstream polling outfits.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
- Status