Support NeoGAF

[Striek]

I have trouble believing people can't figure out what accelerationism is and why some people might prefer it to the status quo not-so-slowly eroding the economic base and political power of hundreds of millions of people. Hillary is very fucking status quo on these issues which disadvantages most Americans. Important issues. Lynchpin issues for a lot of Sanders fans and a lot of Americans.

We have decades of data showing a one way flow of capital in the US.

Bernie and Hillary are decades apart on the central issue for most Bernie fans. Its not "privilege" its the exact fucking opposite.

 

[boiled goose]

It really doesn't click with some people that lecturing black people about their terrible choices isn't endearing.

It is certainly annoying but I think criticism is fair when it comes backed with facts. An individual could support a candidate for reasons other than next benefit to that the group they belong in.

But candidate X would be better for group Y so I am voting for them is a claim that can be challenged.

Even trump has muslims that support him. We can certainly argue about whether he will be a good president for muslims.

 

[Piggus]

I just can't support bought politicians, you gotta draw a line somewhere

Maybe Hillary will release those speeches soon, that'd be a nice start

What did you do before this election? Or is this your first?

 

[Prodigal Son]

It really doesn't click with some people that lecturing black people about their terrible choices isn't endearing.

I'm black people.

The community makes bad choices sometimes. It's cool.

 

[Tesseract]

I have trouble believing people can't figure out what accelerationism is and why some people might prefer it to the status quo not-so-slowly eroding the economic base and political power of hundreds of millions of people. Hillary is very fucking status quo on these issues which disadvantages most Americans. Important issues. Lynchpin issues for a lot of Sanders fans and a lot of Americans.

We have decades of data showing a one way flow of capital in the US.

Bernie and Hillary are decades apart on the central issue for most Bernie fans. Its not "privilege" its the exact fucking opposite.

It's a rift I don't see Hillary filling, and it will probably cost her the election.

And it will not be Bernie broz fault.

 

[East Lake]

Please point me to substantive corporate welfare reform policies that trump has.

Are we gonna keep doing this dance where you are going to say trump said this you can take it or leave it. At least give me some policy or something. Otherwise it's just BS. The guy is great at selling BS.

If you believe he's great at BS then you've answered your own question. You get it. He doesn't need substantive policy and his results so far prove it.

 

[boiled goose]

I have trouble believing people can't figure out what accelerationism is and why some people might prefer it to the status quo not-so-slowly eroding the economic base and political power of hundreds of millions of people. Hillary is very fucking status quo on these issues which disadvantages most Americans. Important issues. Lynchpin issues for a lot of Sanders fans and a lot of Americans.

We have decades of data showing a one way flow of capital in the US.

Bernie and Hillary are decades apart on the central issue for most Bernie fans. Its not "privilege" its the exact fucking opposite.

E-fucking-xactly. I wish Hill fans on Gaf would get this.

 

[MThanded]

If you believe he's great at BS then you've answered your own question. You get it. He doesn't need substantive policy and his results so far prove it.

You have nothing. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. A single link would do. You said there will be corporate welfare reform. I assume if you feel strongly about it you would have a single shred of evidence.

 

[Russ T]

I have trouble believing people can't figure out what accelerationism is and why some people might prefer it to the status quo not-so-slowly eroding the economic base and political power of hundreds of millions of people. Hillary is very fucking status quo on these issues which disadvantages most Americans. Important issues. Lynchpin issues for a lot of Sanders fans and a lot of Americans.

We have decades of data showing a one way flow of capital in the US.

Bernie and Hillary are decades apart on the central issue for most Bernie fans. Its not "privilege" its the exact fucking opposite.

Do you have examples of accelerationism working?

I'm asking seriously; I'm ignorant on this subject. All I know is someone in another thread insisting it has never worked before, but they also didn't provide examples.

It's a fucking scary proposition, because if it doesn't work, it will hurt millions of people. And even if it does work, it will still hurt millions of people, but then they might see a better world before they die...

 

[bill1148]

I'd much rather face Cruz in the general than Trump. Trump has talent, that gives him a puncher's chance. Cruz is just weak all around.

Cruz does better via RCP.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

It is certainly annoying but I think criticism is fair when it comes backed with facts. An individual could support a candidate for reasons other than next benefit to that the group they belong in.

But candidate X would be better for group Y so I am voting for them is a claim that can be challenged.

Even trump has muslims that support him. We can certainly argue about whether he will be a good president for muslims.

I can't really think of how to phrase what I want to say civilly, so I'll just say it might be advisable to try someone else.

 

[pigeon]

If you think Bernie's campaign is a good thing, how can you also think he is a terrible advocate for socialism? Surely if he was a terrible advocate for socialism, his campaign would be a bad thing?

Sanders is is not what a more modern, fresher advocate for socialism would look like but he has paved the way for those candidates in the future. That alone makes him not terrible, I would say.

I actually just think socialism is such a strong and effective ethos to be arguing right now that even a terrible advocate is useful to start the conversation and bring it into the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

I am sad that Sanders has caused people to associate socialism with stuff like protectionism or reduced immigration, because that is a basic misunderstanding of how socialism can actually work in America, and I have to assume he knows that.

I have trouble believing people can't figure out what accelerationism is and why some people might prefer it to the status quo not-so-slowly eroding the economic base and political power of hundreds of millions of people.

Basically, the answer is "because they're murderous idiots."

 

[ivysaur12]

Cruz does better via RCP.

He's also not nearly as well known. You don't like Cruz the more you know him.

That's why GE polls at this point are tough.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I have trouble believing people can't figure out what accelerationism is and why some people might prefer it to the status quo not-so-slowly eroding the economic base and political power of hundreds of millions of people. Hillary is very fucking status quo on these issues which disadvantages most Americans. Important issues. Lynchpin issues for a lot of Sanders fans and a lot of Americans.

We have decades of data showing a one way flow of capital in the US.

Bernie and Hillary are decades apart on the central issue for most Bernie fans. Its not "privilege" its the exact fucking opposite.

Why are you talking Sanders vs Clinton? That is not the issue. The issue is GE when it's Clinton vs Trump and some former Sanders people are joining team Trump.

That's the issue.

 

[GuessMyUserName]

I have trouble believing people can't figure out what accelerationism is and why some people might prefer it to the status quo not-so-slowly eroding the economic base and political power of hundreds of millions of people. Hillary is very fucking status quo on these issues which disadvantages most Americans. Important issues. Lynchpin issues for a lot of Sanders fans and a lot of Americans.

We have decades of data showing a one way flow of capital in the US.

Bernie and Hillary are decades apart on the central issue for most Bernie fans. Its not "privilege" its the exact fucking opposite.

Once more: Bernie vs Hillary is not the issue it's about Hillary vs Trump.

The conversation is specifically on Bernie voters that would jump to Trump. However far apart you view Hillary and Bernie, the man himself you can be damn sure will be telling you is much further to Trump.

 

[Tesseract]

What did you do before this election? Or is this your first?

This is my fourth. Voted Kerry, Obama, Obama,

Not sure what you mean by do.

 

[pigeon]

You don't have to win to change minds. If you're pushing a new idea, it doesn't always work out the first time, but you still want to push it as far as it can go.

Anyway, you're kind of like backing up from my original point. I based my argument mostly on two things:
1) There is a significant voice that wants Bernie Sanders's candidacy to go away in order to make it easier for Hillary to win the Presidency.
2) Before his candidacy, Bernie Sanders was very well regarded here on GAF.

I can believe that you don't personally agree with either statement, but this is my assessment of the general mood of the forum. It seems like a lot of people got nervous about Sanders as a candidate when he started to challenge Clinton's "coronation".

I agree with both of these statements, but I think the conclusion you're implying is just false and based on apparently an inaccurate understanding of what people's goals are on GAF.

 

[MThanded]

This is my fourth. Voted Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama

Not sure what you mean by do.

He asks because those candidates had corporate funding.

 

[Foffy]

What a waste of time your post is.

A+ retort. As nearly as A+ the ACA was to fixing all of the major issues American health care had!

Mind you, I'm not one of those "ACA is 100% bad and what we had in the golden days is better" kind of cat. If you think the ACA is reasonable in this climate, that's fine. But that's far different than simply being reasonable, which it is not.

Don't imply a half-measure that barely solved progenitor issues to be a gold standard. It makes you look like one who settles for less, where substandard is acceptable in the face of decent humanism.

 

[East Lake]

You have nothing. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. A single link would do.

I'm not sure why you'd want that. For one I don't support Trump's policies and don't think they're all necessarily rational or honest, but you were wondering why people think he's against moneyed interests. The answer is because the average joe isn't only focused on taxes or pouring through his policies looking for contradictions. They hear his stump speech and take most of it at face value. Whether he can save 300 billion or 1/20th of that by shitting on insurance companies is beside the point.

 

[Tesseract]

He asks because those candidates had corporate funding.

Had. Remember occupy wallstreet, remember the 2012 election? Bad money, no good. Must be removed from politics forever.

 

[boiled goose]

Do you have examples of accelerationism working?

I'm asking seriously; I'm ignorant on this subject. All I know is someone in another thread insisting it has never worked before, but they also didn't provide examples.

It's a fucking scary proposition, because if it doesn't work, it will hurt millions of people. And even if it does work, it will still hurt millions of people, but then they might see a better world before they die...

This attack seems unfair. "accelerationism" is not like a single thing. We have to get to what specifically would be done.
We have evidence that the current system now is NOT WORKING.
The current system now is hurting millions of people.

Money in politics affects every single issue.

Perpetual war. hundreds of thousands of deaths. Military industrial complex.
Mass incarceration. War on drugs. for profit prisons.
Cost of healthcare. Cost of drugs. under insurance. millions of deaths.
global warming. big oil lobby. millions of deaths.
income inequality
cuts to science funding
cuts to education

the list goes on and on and on. Change is risky? No change is guaranteed fucking disaster.

 

[excelsiorlef]

It is certainly annoying but I think criticism is fair when it comes backed with facts. An individual could support a candidate for reasons other than next benefit to that the group they belong in.

But candidate X would be better for group Y so I am voting for them is a claim that can be challenged.

Even trump has muslims that support him. We can certainly argue about whether he will be a good president for muslims.

1) Clinton isn't Trump
2) If Sanders wanted the support of black folk he should have actually tried... he didn'. Clinton was in the ground meetin leaders. Sanders was giving up on the South and not bothering to visit South Carolina en route to 90% White Minnesota to tell them how smart they are for voting for him
3) Just because it's worth repeating Sanders has not made an effort to personally connect with black communities. Clinton has. Ergo you have no facts.

 

[MThanded]

I'm not sure why you'd want that. For one I don't support Trump's policies and don't think they're all necessarily rational or honest, but you were wondering why people think he's against moneyed interests. The answer is because the average joe isn't pouring through his policies looking for contradictions. They hear his stump speech and take most of it at face value. Whether he can save 300 billion or 1/20th of that by shitting on insurance companies is beside the point.

I haven't seen a single policy though. On the stump he says "I'll bring companies back" " I won't let China devalue currency" "I'll get rid of corporate welfare". But how?

I'm not looking for contradiction. Just a single shred of substance. That's it.

 

[nomis]

Intellectually, a non-vote for Hillary from a Bernie supporter isn't a vote for Trump.

Causally, enough progressive voter abstinence in the case of a Hillary being nominated will make Trump the 45th President of the United States. You don't get to plead innocence when Trump wins if you stayed home.

Is a feckless, amoral opportunist of a commander in chief really better than the status quo under Hillary Clinton? I'm not sure how anyone can say yes with a straight face.

 

[Russ T]

This attack seems unfair.

"I'm asking seriously; I'm ignorant on this subject."

It wasn't an attack. ):

If you need to make corrections to my assumptions, please do so. If you can provide examples (successes and failures!), please do so!

 

[Tesseract]

Intellectually, a non-vote for Hillary from a Bernie supporter isn't a vote for Trump.

Causally, enough progressive voter abstinence in the case of a Hillary being nominated will make Trump the 45th President of the United States. You don't get to plead innocence when Trump wins if you stayed home.

Yes I do, Hillary didn't earn my vote

 

[whitehawk]

Yes I do, Hillary didn't earn my vote

No you don't. Doesnt matter. Don't vote, don't complain.

 

[Staccat0]

With every thread we've had on GAF about science and how "cool" it is I gotta wonder why the environment is not the great equalizer.

Trump doesn't care about the environment at all. At this point a vote for Trump is condemning my daughter. I can't vote for someone who doesn't care what happens to my daughter.

Aint shit to earn. We're hand to mouth here. Even if Clinton can't do shit, our time is fucking up.

 

[boiled goose]

1) Clinton isn't Trump
2) If Sanders wanted the support of black folk he should have actually tried... he didn'. Clinton was in the ground meetin leaders. Sanders was giving up on the South and not bothering to visit South Carolina en route to 90% White Minnesota to tell them how smart they are for voting for him
3) Just because it's worth repeating Sanders has not made an effort to personally connect with black communities. Clinton has. Ergo you have no facts.

Oh I was speaking in general that criticism can be fair. not arguing a specific case one way or another regarding this election. Folks on this board keep projecting their defensiveness on to me...

 

[excelsiorlef]

Oh I was speaking in general that criticism can be fair. not arguing a specific case one way or another regarding this election. Folks on this board keep projecting their defensiveness on to me...

Maybe to reply to a specific with an unclear generic which sounds likeva response to a specific.


This is also not the first time I've talked to you today about this soecific issue.

 

[boiled goose]

"I'm asking seriously; I'm ignorant on this subject."

It wasn't an attack. ):

If you need to make corrections to my assumptions, please do so. If you can provide examples (successes and failures!), please do so!

I guess I should have said, the phrasing of the question was unfair and meaningless. You would have to ask about specific ideas.

Maybe to reply to a specific with an unclear generic which sounds likeva response to a specific.
This is also not the first time I've talked to you today about this soecific issue.

Fair enough sorry. I can see why you were led that way.
My only point in this case was that the discussion CAN be had. Regarding AA support for Clinton to be honest I have more questions than accusations myself. Too tired to discuss now though.

 

[Russ T]

Semi-related to the conversation at hand: I've talked to a number of Republicans who say that if Trump wins the nomination, they won't be voting for Trump.

(Ignoring for the moment that I find it very difficult to trust someone who would be a Republican in 2016.)

 

[Tesseract]

No you don't. Doesnt matter. Don't vote, don't complain.

Nah, that's a cliche. This is a great election to hold your vote if you want money out of politics.

Hillary still has plenty of time to make some amends. Start with those paid speeches.

 

[SneakersSO]

No you don't. Doesnt matter. Don't vote, don't complain.

Many of us Bernie supporters who refuse to vote Hillary will be voting. Just because it's a two-party system, doesn't mean we can't fill in our candidate's name. Many of us who are going to vote will either fill in Bernie's name or Jill Stein (or some of us will vote Trump, it looks like).

 

[eBay Huckster]

Basically, the answer is "because they're murderous idiots."

I get the feeling you can elaborate on this a hell of a lot better than I can - because I'm the guy Russ T is talking about and I'm not sure the worldwide historical trend toward far-right parties during recessions is enough of an argument (and that's basically what I said the last time that subject came up).

 

[MThanded]

With every thread we've had on GAF about science and how "cool" it is I gotta wonder why the environment is not the great equalizer.

Trump doesn't care about the environment at all. At this point a vote for Trump is condemning my daughter. I can't vote for someone who doesn't care what happens to my daughter.

Aint shit to earn. We're hand to mouth here.

What I've learned from this thread is that some voters are single issue voters.

Im a many issue voter. I can't really relate.

 

[pigeon]

Semi-related to the conversation at hand: I've talked to a number of Republicans who say that if Trump wins the nomination, they won't be voting for Trump.

(Ignoring for the moment that I find it very difficult to trust someone who would be a Republican in 2016.)

I think that this is likely, because Trump is way outside the bounds of conventional politics. Having zero relevant experience, being an explicit racist, and also just generally being ridiculously terrible are all things that in most cases would be immediately disqualifying for a presidential candidate. Obviously because the GOP is in the middle of a seismic shift this isn't true this time around, but for exactly that reason the GOP is likely to nominate a candidate a significant number of GOP voters won't want to vote for, just like the Reagan Democrats.

 

[whitehawk]

Many of us Bernie supporters who refuse to vote Hillary will be voting. Just because it's a two-party system, doesn't mean we can't fill in our candidate's name. Many of us who are going to vote will either fill in Bernie's name or Jill Stein.

then you are pretty much throwing your vote away. Believe, a two party system is stupid, but that isn't going to change with that tactic.

 

[MartyStu]

Semi-related to the conversation at hand: I've talked to a number of Republicans who say that if Trump wins the nomination, they won't be voting for Trump.

(Ignoring for the moment that I find it very difficult to trust someone who would be a Republican in 2016.)

I think this is very likely. I have seen this myself quite a bit.

 

[Staccat0]

What I've learned from this thread is that some voters are single issue voters.

Im a many issue voter. I can't really relate.

Sure... 20 years ago. Now though? Every time we have a fucking thread about how the goddamn end of the fucking world is about 100 years out people go "we gotta do something quick!"

If you are gonna be a single issue voter, I would imagine that basic fucking survival would be a good one.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

If Hillary can't excite her base enough to win against an immigrant hating, womanizing neo nazi, it's her fault. Period.

Placing the blame on people who were never voting for Clinton in the first place has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read. You're doing the same fucking thing Dems did to Ralph Nader supporters. It was fucking stupid then and it's fucking stupid now.

 

[Officerrob]

Semi-related to the conversation at hand: I've talked to a number of Republicans who say that if Drumpf wins the nomination, they won't be voting for Drumpf.

(Ignoring for the moment that I find it very difficult to trust someone who would be a Republican in 2016.)

My mother in law is a lifelong Republican (voted Rubio in VA today), who says under no circumstances would she ever vote for Trump. She said she's staying home or voting 3rd party if he's the nominee

 

[Russ T]

I get the feeling you can elaborate on this a hell of a lot better than I can - because I'm the guy Russ T is talking about and I'm not sure the worldwide historical trend toward far-right parties during recessions is enough of an argument (and that's basically what I said the last time that subject came up).

Ah, yeah, it was you! Hello.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

They should let us do half a vote. That way when the election comes I can place my half vote for Hillary. I'd rather have Bernie who would get my full vote but, i could live with hillary if i can sort of support her with a partial vote.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Oh I was speaking in general that criticism can be fair. not arguing a specific case one way or another regarding this election. Folks on this board keep projecting their defensiveness on to me...

I was addressing something specific, not general. If you can't argue specifics, don't bother.

There's a difference a minority weighing Clinton and Sanders, who differ significantly in areas but are not openly xenophobic and racist as part of their campaign, and a minority weighing a Democratic candidate and Trump, who is openly xenophobic and racist as part of his campaign.

I have no issues doubting the intelligence of someone who decides to vote for Trump, ESPECIALLY someone who decides to hate-vote for Trump, because in addition to being xenophobic and racist he also lacks substance or a coherent political platform. That would apply to any human.

When a section of upset Sanders supporters blames his losses on the ignorance of the black electorate (while young voters barely turned up at all in support of him or anyone else), that's a significantly different issue.

 

[MThanded]

It's pretty nuts to me that there are Bernie supporters who are being hoodwinked by trumps false money out of politics narrative. He is the money guy and will surely work to support corporate interests.

 

[East Lake]

I haven't seen a single policy though. On the stump he says "I'll bring companies back" " I won't let China devalue currency" "I'll get rid of corporate welfare". But how?

I'm not looking for contradiction. Just a single shred of substance. That's it.

One example would be competitive bidding for drugs. He used it a lot because he could beat up on Obamacare and Jeb! at the same time. The basic thrust being that when the US purchases drugs they can't negotiate the price (save billions of dollars) because the campaign contributors have control over the candidates, like Woody Johnson with Jeb.

Like I said this argument doesn't necessarily have to be accurate for him. He inflates the savings and his numbers in general tend to be all over the place but there is a grain of truth in there and that's what hooks people, not whether he has the totally pragmatic policy.

 

[Ecotic]

then you are pretty much throwing your vote away. Believe, a two party system is stupid, but that isn't going to change with that tactic.

It's that line of thinking that got us the disastrous rule of President Kang.

 

[Rubenov]

Don't worry Alaska, take your time. It's not late or anything :/