Jeevesmeister
Banned
I'm just heading off a bad-faith argument at the pass, here.
I never called anyone insane or a child, so regarding me as "petty" is weak as hell.
Two new Iowa polls show Clinton with GIANT leads over Sanders
- Thread starter Bam Bam Baklava
- Start date
- Status
I'm just heading off a bad-faith argument at the pass, here.
I never called anyone insane or a child, so regarding me as "petty" is weak as hell.
*your
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
Someone needs to put Bernie's face over Clinton's.I think Hillary needs to declare the $4.7 million the BENGHAZZZIII!!!! committee spent as a campaign contribution.
Damerman
Member
how are you saying this with a straight face?
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
America does not generally like socialism. A significant percentage of Americans absolutely hate it.
lol ivy you corrected the "you're" but didn't correct the "heals"?
You mean you seriously haven't noticed the last 7 years of political attack ads the GOP made?
i am whom i am
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
Fenderputty
Banned
Maybe if you don't understand what irony is.
Damn iphone ...
Edit ... no iphone excuse for heal though.
Damerman
Member
I'm pretty sure during the debates sanders admitted to being a capitalist.
No, you use massive hyperbole to talk down supports of a different candidate.
And try to use stupid leading arguments like "Arab lives don't matter to you" as a serious statement.
Not to mention you constantly switching topics when arguing points. Going from SC nominations to Foreign policy without anything linking them in the specific discussion.
Facts don't matter to the Republican party, they'll slander him in every way possible.
Damerman
Member
you don't think the conversation has shifted over the last 7 years?
Those people wouldn't know shit from Shanghai.
We got too many of those folks...):
You could have saved face, for I thought it was intentional.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Or I fail to see how you doubling down on the same view you've been promoting in every related political thread by pointing a finger isn't a form of heel digging. Not that you don't understand what irony is, technically. Just that you, ironically, cannot see how it might apply to yourself.
shoplifter
Member
Most Americans define socialism as some combination of Stalin, Chsirman Mao and Pol Pot.
He has also called himself a democratic socialist. While the facts are that these two labels are not mutually exclusive, the perception is that they are.
Which is why defining oneself as a socialist is pretty silly. The term progressive is much more palatable to an American audience.
I didn't castigate people who intend to vote for someone else, I castigated those with more passion than knowledge. People ignoring reality and who clearly don't know much about politics in general or about other candidates specifically.
Again, people can vote however they'd like. Just don't ignore reality to justify it. If you like Bernie and think he would do a better job, great, cast that vote. But don't then come here and mischaracterize reality just to argue against counter points being brought up. It's those arguments and the people making them that I commented on.
Your comment was:
"Also the ideal that Hillary is going to automatically decide some super-progressive messiah liberal judge will take the Supreme Court justices, based on, uh... nothing, is laughable."
My reading comprehension is not the problem here.
Her voting record and her comments regarding this specific topic make it clear she will, in fact, nominate progressive liberal candidates. Your ignorance here is obvious, inarguable and entirely unsurprising.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Most Americans don't bother defining at all in practical terms, because they would be forced to uncomfortably acknowledge its practical application in their lives. Its been reduced to a boogeyman, quite successfully.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
And the argument against me was that I don't care about gay people because I won't get behind Hillary. Double standards, bub.
And I have the evidence of what she's supported and spearheaded to be largely regressive policies - i.e. forwarding her husband's cause of wiping out welfare as First Lady. You and I can both form reasonable arguments here and I've yet to insult your mental health or call you a child.
Fenderputty
Banned
Or I fail to see how you doubling down on the same view you've been promoting in every related political thread by pointing a finger isn't a form of heel digging. Not that you don't understand what irony is, technically. Just that you, ironically, cannot see how it might apply to yourself.
The statement can be used to describe the argument between both parties. I don't believe I've commented one way or the other in this thread.
The only thing I've promoted in these topics is that people please vote regardless of the primary outcome.
I'm only human, man. One that isn't ashamed in admitting poor spelling.
When the two party system is giving you varied candidates like Sanders and Clinton what exactly is the problem? There is plenty of room. Your candidate doesn't win so you pout and sit things out instead of supporting the next best things? I don't get it.
They now have to play to corporate interests to get elected. At least most of them do. Corporate America matters more than Americans.
The game is worth burning and watching it sink.
And yet her husband also nominated RBG and Breyer. Clinton and Obama both nominated progressive bona fides to the SCOTUS. There's no reason to believe that Hillary wouldn't, especially listening to her talk about her thoughts on the body, unless you actually believe she's a neocon in disguise.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Without getting too lost in which arguments you're referring to, which I honestly didn't follow tit for tat and probably would't have the energy to parse point by point, there's an underlying issue with what's considered reality.
I see the term bandied about a lot, along with pragmatism. Those are useful terms to a degree, but they're often applied to mere opinion which is promoted as somehow definitive, irrefutable, or all encompassing. The reason for that imo is emotional attachment. Person A puts something forward as a matter of personal preference, then person B challenges it. In turn, person A feels called out, and now their pride is at stake, so feeling personally insulted they double down with an even more passionate defense. This occurs back and forth until no one is concerned with shades of gray, because conceding on any particular or giving room for two opposing but equally earnest views is now a "loss".
And politics inspire a lot of passion in people. Someone makes themselves vulnerable expressing an unpopular view, then they feel dogpiled if there's a flurry of vehement responses, and that passion slowly becomes unhinged as their emotions are further stirred. I don't think this is particular to any specific candidate or ideology, although the scales might tip further in one direction of the other depending on the issue. It's why there was that not all republicans are alike thread.
I know that this is a tangent from the whole discussion about the poll in the OP and ensuing debate over the validity of this candidate for that reason etc., etc. But I wish these things were at least generally in the back of people's minds when these discussions occur, because it seems depressingly familiar when both sides of any argument are people who might actually have a lot of common interests in the abstract suddenly hell bent on tearing each other apart, trying to prove points by dominating each other intellectually, and the result is that no one feels like they gained anything other than a platform to get shit off their chest.
Kinda a shitty outcome for threads that probably have a lot of posters of above average intelligence and shared goals, socially speaking.
Key words, in this thread. I thought I had seen you promoting something other than people voting their conscience in other primary threads, but if I've conflated you with someone else I apologize.
Good thing we ensured that corporate interests were enabled when we elected bush and gave him a few Supreme Court nominees. might as well keep that going because we only agree with a candidate on 84% of topics on isidewith
Are you saying that Sanders supporters aren't white supremacists in disguise?
The things one does not side with could be a big enough red flag.
Being for the corporate TPP, for example. That almost supersedes a cure for AIDS in how bad people get fucked. Not even considering how much they can get away charging for the medicine, either..
If you actually support Bernie Sanders you would ask to have your account permanently closed since you are doing by far the most damage to his campaign and his image of any poster I have seen on the internet. Quite a feat
Everything else you have said which I have not quoted has been spectacularly wrong, but this is a stark example of you having absolutely no idea of what you are talking about to the point that you are in fact supporting a regressive view of public policy in the United States. People below the poverty line overwhelmingly benefit from Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act has expanded Medicaid to an unprecedented extent. Where states have implemented countless rules to deny health insurance to the poor, Obamacare has changed the law to uniformly allowed those below the poverty line to have access to free healthcare, even erasing the terrible assets-based means testing which once plagued the Medicaid program. The only reason it is not an even greater social benefit to the poor is that the Supreme Court ruled against it, making the Medicaid expansion optional for states and allowing Republican governors in some of the poorest states to deny their citizens these benefits.
The sources you posted (including the heinous right-wing mooney rag Washington Times) to support your "Obamacare is bad for the poor" nonsense still overwhelmingly cite that it's failure is due to the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling which allows right-wing governors to limit access to the program. I do not believe for one second that your original contention was based on fact, and that you did anything but google "obamacare bad for poor" and post the first few results. This is an absolutely shameful position for one who supports Bernie Sanders to take. Before Obamacare there has not been a greater expansion of benefits for the poor and vulnerable since the days of LBJ and the original creation of Medicare and Medicaid.
Stop destroying the good image of Bernie Sanders on this forum by spewing your uninformed and often paranoid rhetoric.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
The two party system doesn't appoint SCJs. One party does. If you give a shit about politics and the direction of the country, which you seem like you do, then you care enough to make a decision which party you could live with appointing those SCJs.
teruterubozu
Member
Depends, especially if you make a recess appointment.
No and no else in this thread has.
teruterubozu
Member
Nah, Bernie's just the token White Priveledge candidate, apparently.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Bernie Sanders certainly has interesting supporters.
Political doomsday predictions are virtually always disproved. Hillary won't save the world, nor will she damn it. Incremental improvement is the best you can hope for in this age, and by that metric, she will be fine. Not great, but fine. If you think Bernie Sanders has a BETTER chance in the general, you are delusional.
Political doomsday predictions are virtually always disproved. Hillary won't save the world, nor will she damn it. Incremental improvement is the best you can hope for in this age, and by that metric, she will be fine. Not great, but fine. If you think Bernie Sanders has a BETTER chance in the general, you are delusional.
Damerman
Member
LMAO!
thank you for that edit... other wise it would have been another 10 pages of infighting.
Well, I'm a Sanders supporter, and I am happy that he is running, win or lose. Frankly, I am surprised his message is resonating as much as it is. If someone had told at the beginning of the year that a relatively obscure senator with little party backing and no financial resources would become a media phenomenon that would capture the imagination of large segments of the youth of this country, I would have said that person was crazy. Yet, of all the candidates, Republican or Democrat, Sanders is only politician who has succeeded in gaining a strong following among voters under 30. That should be great news for all Democrats, because it shows that the economic views traditionally associated with the party since the time of Franklin Roosevelt are palatable for a new generation. As a point of contrast, when my parents were about the age I am now, Regan was the old guy who was capturing the imagination of many (white) young people.
Regardless of what the polls show between now and the primaries, an old man calling himself a Democratic Socialist is now a major candidate in a Presidential election. He is and will continue to make appearances on talk shows like The View and Ellen, where he will talk about policies like single payer healthcare through Medicare, publically funded k-16 education, and expansions to social security. Anybody who watches how he is received on those shows and knows about phenomena like the exposure effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect
should understand the implications of that. All of the above mentioned are good policies, and they are policies that should be part of the Democratic platform going forward. By not only running a viable primary campaign, but also energizing the demographic that will form the majority of voters in the coming years, the Sanders campaign should be demonstrating to Democrats that his policies and platform are the direction the party should head in the future.
In my view, this primary has always been more about what the platform of the Democratic party will look like the in the mid to late 2020's, the next time the party has a prayer of actually enacting any of its policies, than it is about what is going to happen during the next Presidency. Although Sanders argues, and I agree, that a strength of his campaign is the ability to bring new voters into the Democratic coalition, even he doesn't go as far as to say that the Democrats will be able to retake the House. The same is true for a President Hillary Clinton. The value in running on an "extreme" economically left platform now is that by injecting those ideas into the political debate and demonstrating their electoral viability it will be more likely that future Democrats will support those policies ........ if they are wise.
Regardless of what the polls show between now and the primaries, an old man calling himself a Democratic Socialist is now a major candidate in a Presidential election. He is and will continue to make appearances on talk shows like The View and Ellen, where he will talk about policies like single payer healthcare through Medicare, publically funded k-16 education, and expansions to social security. Anybody who watches how he is received on those shows and knows about phenomena like the exposure effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect
should understand the implications of that. All of the above mentioned are good policies, and they are policies that should be part of the Democratic platform going forward. By not only running a viable primary campaign, but also energizing the demographic that will form the majority of voters in the coming years, the Sanders campaign should be demonstrating to Democrats that his policies and platform are the direction the party should head in the future.
In my view, this primary has always been more about what the platform of the Democratic party will look like the in the mid to late 2020's, the next time the party has a prayer of actually enacting any of its policies, than it is about what is going to happen during the next Presidency. Although Sanders argues, and I agree, that a strength of his campaign is the ability to bring new voters into the Democratic coalition, even he doesn't go as far as to say that the Democrats will be able to retake the House. The same is true for a President Hillary Clinton. The value in running on an "extreme" economically left platform now is that by injecting those ideas into the political debate and demonstrating their electoral viability it will be more likely that future Democrats will support those policies ........ if they are wise.
Past 3 Canadian elections:
2006
5.3 million Conservative votes
9.3 million left-leaning votes
2008
5.2 million Conservative votes
8.5 million left-leaning votes
2011
5.8 million Conservative votes
8.8 million left-leaning votes
Conservatives won all three of those elections because those left-leaning votes were split before 4 different parties. Keep that in mind before you start crying out for the end of the two-party system.
I'm glad we have a source for social democratic policy up here, but that kind of split would be way more harmful in the US.
True progressivism might be a slow burn in the US, but you'll get there.
2006
5.3 million Conservative votes
9.3 million left-leaning votes
2008
5.2 million Conservative votes
8.5 million left-leaning votes
2011
5.8 million Conservative votes
8.8 million left-leaning votes
Conservatives won all three of those elections because those left-leaning votes were split before 4 different parties. Keep that in mind before you start crying out for the end of the two-party system.
I'm glad we have a source for social democratic policy up here, but that kind of split would be way more harmful in the US.
True progressivism might be a slow burn in the US, but you'll get there.
You have to admit it's a good thing though right? I mean opening up America to the ideals of socialism, and that hey, maybe it's not so bad. I assume you think Bernie has no chance so I wouldn't imagine how him pushing a socialist agenda is anything but a good thing for America.
Damerman
Member
this is actually a very poignant, yet good point.
Damn good post. Even though I'm voting Hillary, I've got nothing but the utmost respect for Bernie for trying to pull the Democratic Party back to the side of progressives.
hydrophilic attack
Member
is hillary the robot or the monster
Gnome Scat
Member
I guess Iowa got some aloe vera.
To be fair, you never have a choice. Freedom is an illusion. Free in what way? You don't even have free will.
- Status