https://web.archive.org/web/20061018180210/http://www.bernie.org/media/game/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20061018180210/http://www.bernie.org/media/game/)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-gop-debate_55f9efd2e4b0fde8b0cce931?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-gop-debate_55f9efd2e4b0fde8b0cce931?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063)
More later......
Did you see him speaking to a rather stony-faced mob at Liberty University?
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/15-jaw-dropping-quotes-from-bernie-sanders-at-liberty-university/
I have to give him respect for leaping into the lion's den.
He has a great plan ( see: http://usuncut.com/politics/top-economist-says-bernies-plan-will-actually-save-the-us-5-trillion/) The problem is if he ever gets elected, Congress would not follow in his footsteps, and you'll end up with gridlock for the next 4 years. However, that he is running on this platform might wake up some people. But it will take several generations before any of his ideas is implemented. For Americans, he is too far ahead of them. Sad.
Quote from: TomFoolery on September 17, 2015, 08:09:18 AM
Did you see him speaking to a rather stony-faced mob at Liberty University?
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/15-jaw-dropping-quotes-from-bernie-sanders-at-liberty-university/
I have to give him respect for leaping into the lion's den.
I gotta love me some Bernie Sanders!
Quote from: josephpalazzo on September 17, 2015, 08:58:08 AM
He has a great plan ( see: http://usuncut.com/politics/top-economist-says-bernies-plan-will-actually-save-the-us-5-trillion/) The problem is if he ever gets elected, Congress would not follow in his footsteps, and you'll end up with gridlock for the next 4 years. However, that he is running on this platform might wake up some people. But it will take several generations before any of his ideas is implemented. For Americans, he is too far ahead of them. Sad.
His agenda may or may not ever come to fruition, but Bernie is a skilled legislator. I doubt he would try to pass bills that have no chance of passing, but if he makes it to the white house he may just be able to sway the electorate to vote out the idiots currently clogging up the works. Anymore the presidency is increasingly seen as a two term gig because one term president rarely has time to effect change in 4 years.
A lot of young people seem responsive to Sanders' platform, and I personally hope he gets elected.
I was at a comedy show recently and the comic was trying to get political. He asked "who here wants Trump to be elected?" and everyone booed. Same for Clinton. Then he asks "who do you want to be elected?" and everyone yelled "SANDERS". This was in a university setting, with people between 18-25 year old in attendance.
I don't think he will be able to accomplish much of his agenda due to Congress blocking him, but let's hope we get a Democrat-led Congress at least for the first couple of years. As president, he might be able to woo some of those Democrat Congresspersons into supporting his policies.
Sanders says all the right things. I am not convinced, however, that words and feasibility of actions line up.
We have a year to decide, however. I look forward to hearing details of his platforms in the coming year. Right now, I am planning to vote for Clinton.
Poor Bernie, if he doesn't win, this would be his only real chance, since in another 4-8 years he'll be to old
Quote from: Munch on September 20, 2015, 12:24:59 PM
Poor Bernie, if he doesn't win, this would be his only real chance, since in another 4-8 years he'll be to old
Hillary Clinton is only about 6 years younger than Bernie.
Bernie is behind the people, not ahead of them. He is an echo of FDR ... who went out of style in 1945. Obama tried to be a Black Lincoln ... but so far the Red Necks don't want off the plantation ;-( Which candidate is the next Washington? You know, someone who will make war on the central government?
http://www.occupydemocrats.com/bernie-sanders-becomes-fastest-candidate-in-history-to-reach-one-million-individual-contributions/ (http://www.occupydemocrats.com/bernie-sanders-becomes-fastest-candidate-in-history-to-reach-one-million-individual-contributions/)
Socialize that.
:sign0098:
How many pre-designated holes do you think Bernie Sanders already fits in?
https://youtu.be/1JSBhI_0at0
I actually think THIS should be his campaign song. He's already got the millennial vote. Go for broke. ?
Quote from: Mermaid on September 20, 2015, 10:13:35 AM
Sanders says all the right things. I am not convinced, however, that words and feasibility of actions line up.
We have a year to decide, however. I look forward to hearing details of his platforms in the coming year. Right now, I am planning to vote for Clinton.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LkJfuN6ruE
Clinton is one of the worst possible candidates for the Dems I think. Her personality is cringeworthy. She doesn't know how to get people excited. "Start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity." Is that going to get liberals excited to support her? When talking about the email stuff, she admitted that she "just wasn't thinking much" when she started working for Obama. All of these dumb things she is saying are making her look really bad. Even her former biggest supporters, MSNBC, have thrown her under the bus. Joe Biden would just be an extension of the Obama administration, but he'd probably be more of a liberal president than Hillary. If Sanders can't get there, I think Biden is probably the better candidate for the Dems to run. He doesn't have a flat personality like Clinton, is better than her in debates, can connect with an audience pretty well, and doesn't continuously say the type of dumb shit Clinton says to shoot herself in the foot. Biden says some dumb shit, but not close to the level of dumb shit Clinton says.
The more I read about Bernie the more holes I see in him. So far he's said almost nothing about foreign policy and the people who seem most impressed by him don't seem to care if we even have a foreign policy. He's pretty much to the right with guns and has taken money from the NRA in the past.
I like Bernie, but he still has a lot of things to clarify and has to explain why he's such an ardent supporter of Israeli military and government. I realize he's Jewish, but that's simply not good enough.
The "prefect" is the enemy of the "good enough". This is why the Left has been impotent since 1968 ... that and fear of being shot. Lincoln and FDR weren't perfect candidates either ... but they rose to the challenge. Who can rise to the challenge? Isn't Ms Clinton. If she had walked out on Bill during the Bill's second term, as governor, not even yet President. And run on her own, I could respect that. There probably isn't anyone in America who could go toe to toe with Putin and not pee their pants. its a sad day ... since about 1963.
I told my husband yesterday I liked Bernie Sanders and, as anticipated, he was completely appalled. He tends to vote republican and I democrat so we cancel each other out.
I've been following Bernie's career since his election as Burlington's mayor; personally, I'm on board. He represents me more than any other candidate. Perfect? No, but I don't expect perfection. Better than the alternatives on both sides of the aisle? Yes, in degrees ranging from 'a bit' to 'in every possible way'.
At this stage, the New Hampshire primary really doesn't mean anything unless he doesn't win it. What's going to tell the tale is how well he does outside of New England. Looking at the polling -- well, let's be honest, it doesn't look good. But I'm still going to vote for him when primary season comes to Ohio (assuming it's not all over and done with by then), because I want my party to know I want them to move back to the left, not follow the GOP to the right.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on October 13, 2015, 11:56:11 AM
I told my husband yesterday I liked Bernie Sanders and, as anticipated, he was completely appalled. He tends to vote republican and I democrat so we cancel each other out.
My parents were the same, and my mom was S Democrat at that. But fortunately my ex and I usually voted the same. So who does more pearl clutching, you or your spouse? Isn't it bizarre what gives people panic attacks? Bernie Sanders .. Zombie King ... really. I hear the two parties are so desperate, the Rs want to draft Dick Cheney and the Ds want to draft Biden. Total losers.
Quote from: Baruch on October 13, 2015, 02:03:18 PM
My parents were the same, and my mom was S Democrat at that. But fortunately my ex and I usually voted the same. So who does more pearl clutching, you or your spouse? Isn't it bizarre what gives people panic attacks?
Neither of us are interested in politics. I vote, send emails to my senators and representatives on my pet issues, but I don't really follow the candidates until it gets closer to the election. My husband is definitely the one who is emotional and opinionated... about everything.
Quote from: Baruch on October 13, 2015, 02:03:18 PM
My parents were the same, and my mom was S Democrat at that. But fortunately my ex and I usually voted the same. So who does more pearl clutching, you or your spouse? Isn't it bizarre what gives people panic attacks? Bernie Sanders .. Zombie King ... really. I hear the two parties are so desperate, the Rs want to draft Dick Cheney and the Ds want to draft Biden. Total losers.
Well, ya know, don't fuckin vote, then, if you can't make up your mind. Please, you asshat, sit HOME. Zombies, the AntiChrist, whichever your excuse? The Murphy I like more, but only for the badassery......
Google it!
https://i.imgur.com/GCOVi0J.png
shillary clinton does care about the average joe, be a good goy and vote for her :^)
Bernie vs Trump please that would be a show I would care to watch.
Campaign sources (as of July 21st, 2015)
Trump (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864): 95% self-financed
Clinton (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019): 99% individual contributions (of that, 82% are large individual donations)
Sanders (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000528): 90% individual contributions (of that, 69% are small individual donations)
Bernie won the debate, say viewers (http://usuncut.com/politics/6-reasons-bernie-sanders-actually-owned-the-debate-despite-what-pundits-claim/)
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 14, 2015, 10:11:24 PM
Bernie won the debate, say viewers (http://usuncut.com/politics/6-reasons-bernie-sanders-actually-owned-the-debate-despite-what-pundits-claim/)
QuoteEven Fox News and Drudge participants said Sanders won by a huge margin.
The apocalypse really has happened, like some kind of pole reversal or alternate universe or something.
Fox and Drudge are right wing shit peddlers. Of course they're going to say Sanders won because the right really doesn't want to have to take on HRC not because she's the wonderwoman some make her out to be, but because she has a very strong, well organized mechanism in place to win since she faced Obama in 07-08.
Truth is there are no winners/losers in debates like these, but the average citizen would certainly think someone walked away with a clear victory.
Quote from: TomFoolery on October 15, 2015, 08:49:27 AMThe apocalypse really has happened, like some kind of pole reversal or alternate universe or something.
It really happened, but online polling isn't scientific. I suspect that it's skewed somewhat by Sanders' disproportionately online presence. In the meatspace, he's still lagging behind Clinton a little bit (http://www.gallup.com/poll/186098/clinton-maintains-modest-image-advantage-sanders.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles), though that gap has shrunk considerably. One problem is that only 60% of Dems have even heard of Sanders. These debates are really helping him get out there, helping to counteract the low amount of mainstream media coverage.
(http://i.imgur.com/PenGwwO.jpg)
Alternatively, Senator and Senator plus Secretary of State VS vainglorious CEO of Chapter 11, creationist theocrat, and the Invisible Woman (was that last one too mean? She polls in the single digits. I didn't even know the Republicans had a female candidate until today)
Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the Republicans in this picture have ever held political office, while both Democrats have held major political positions for at least a decade.
Quote from: mauricio on October 14, 2015, 09:10:00 PM
https://i.imgur.com/GCOVi0J.png
shillary clinton does care about the average joe, be a good goy and vote for her :^)
Bernie vs Trump please that would be a show I would care to watch.
I am so proud to see my union on Bernie's side of the list.
And so proud to finally be able to say I'm a union man, at that.
I don't think this is the best line up of candidates for the Dems. They may lose the White House. Hillary is uninspiring and is carrying a shit load of baggage. In spite of voters being tired of "the emails", I don't think they are as tired as Bernie said they are in the debate last night, and the Republicans see the email scandal as making Hillary a non starter. Bernie is going to be a hard sell for centrists with his self described socialist Democrat label. Now the Republican front runners are just weird, and that could help the Dems a bit, but last night's lineup didn't look highly electable to me, even running against some weak Republicans.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on October 13, 2015, 11:56:11 AM
I told my husband yesterday I liked Bernie Sanders and, as anticipated, he was completely appalled. He tends to vote republican and I democrat so we cancel each other out.
you should have your hubby read this.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/10/16/bernie-sanders-did-something-amazing-with-donation-from-ceo-who-raised-aids-drug-price-by-5500/
Quote from: Munch on October 16, 2015, 12:45:24 PM
you should have your hubby read this.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/10/16/bernie-sanders-did-something-amazing-with-donation-from-ceo-who-raised-aids-drug-price-by-5500/
Yes, that was perfect. It took four years for my husband and his family to get permission to leave Cuba and the communist government took away all their money and property. As long as Bernie Sanders is associated with socialism he will never get his family's vote.
Quote from: SGOS on October 15, 2015, 10:35:16 PM
I don't think this is the best line up of candidates for the Dems. They may lose the White House. Hillary is uninspiring and is carrying a shit load of baggage. In spite of voters being tired of "the emails", I don't think they are as tired as Bernie said they are in the debate last night, and the Republicans see the email scandal as making Hillary a non starter. Bernie is going to be a hard sell for centrists with his self described socialist Democrat label. Now the Republican front runners are just weird, and that could help the Dems a bit, but last night's lineup didn't look highly electable to me, even running against some weak Republicans.
Eh, I'm optimistic. Romney VS Obama was a close one. This next one isn't going to be nearly as close. It's going to be an experienced Dem versus a complete joke of a candidate. True, both Hilary and Bernie have their weak points, but their policies more than make up for it. Both Clinton and Sanders want to reduce college costs, and Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage. Needless to say, these are VERY popular positions around here. What does the GOP have on offer? Vitriol against immigrants and tax breaks for the rich, apparently. I know full well that the average voter isn't especially intelligent, but John Q. Public would have to be suicidally stupid to favor the Republicans on election day.
(http://i.imgur.com/nCYCO1P.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/asePBtW.jpg)
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-rejects-ceo-martin-shkreli-campaign-donation/FcSKxu1VIr7pubg9cI3CQN/story.html
Bravo!
$2700 isn't that much, considering that would be the equivalent of about three and a half of those pills he attempted to price-hike by 5500%.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 16, 2015, 01:15:44 PM
Eh, I'm optimistic. Romney VS Obama was a close one. This next one isn't going to be nearly as close. It's going to be an experienced Dem versus a complete joke of a candidate. True, both Hilary and Bernie have their weak points, but their policies more than make up for it. Both Clinton and Sanders want to reduce college costs, and Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage. Needless to say, these are VERY popular positions around here. What does the GOP have on offer? Vitriol against immigrants and tax breaks for the rich, apparently. I know full well that the average voter isn't especially intelligent, but John Q. Public would have to be suicidally stupid to favor the Republicans on election day.
There's no doubt about the experience, competence, and policy rhetoric on the Democratic side. If that's what determined outcomes, they would be shoe-ins. But the Republican vitriol carries a lot of weight with voters. The lower middle class hears "lower taxes" and they act like their refunds will be on par with 1%, when actually their refunds might buy them a fast food dinner for the family once or twice. And that's if they actually pay less in taxes next year. Then there is the thing about repealing Obamacare. It's not going to happen, but they talk like it's their top priority. I hear the swing voters are the ones that turn elections. We all know how the Republicans and Democrats will vote. But there appears to be a large group of people that are always in the process of making their minds up until a week before the elections.
I'm not all that good a voter predictions, however. It's just how it looks to me, and my comments are worth less than a quarter. Maybe a nickel or a dime.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 16, 2015, 01:15:44 PM
Eh, I'm optimistic. Romney VS Obama was a close one. This next one isn't going to be nearly as close. It's going to be an experienced Dem versus a complete joke of a candidate. True, both Hilary and Bernie have their weak points, but their policies more than make up for it. Both Clinton and Sanders want to reduce college costs, and Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage. Needless to say, these are VERY popular positions around here. What does the GOP have on offer? Vitriol against immigrants and tax breaks for the rich, apparently. I know full well that the average voter isn't especially intelligent, but John Q. Public would have to be suicidally stupid to favor the Republicans on election day.
The problem with Sanders is that if he were elected, his policies are on the complete opposite side of a Republican-dominated Congress, and you would get gridlock for the next 4 years. OTOH, Hillary, though less exciting, has the experience to deal with the Republicans and most likely would get something done. No matter who wins, it's going to a hell of a roller coaster.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 16, 2015, 01:15:44 PM
Eh, I'm optimistic. Romney VS Obama was a close one. This next one isn't going to be nearly as close. It's going to be an experienced Dem versus a complete joke of a candidate.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. It's going to be extremely close. Obama is an incredibly gifted speaker. Clinton, not so much. She might be 20% as good as Obama when it comes to talent/ability on the microphone and charisma. Right now, in head to head matchups, polls say Clinton is either losing or neck and neck with Bush, Carson, and Fiorina. That's pretty sad and should be very worrying. She is losing to the Republicans in several important swing states as well. Sanders is doing ok vs Republicans in head to head matchups. Biden is the only one that is destroying all Republican candidates in head to head matchups right now.
I like Sanders. I'm all for socialist policies, spreading the wealth and all that good stuff. Sanders seems to be just as bad as Obama and the others on foreign policy though (praising Obama's current wars and the Bush war in Afghanistan). At least he would be better than anyone else domestically. I can't imagine being an American and having my choices be either Clinton or Bush. I don't even like the Liberal candidate here in Canada who is far more liberal than any of the Democratic candidates in the States, but I'll be voting for the bastard in a few days none the less because he's the best option there is.
If Biden is the best against the current R squad ... then that is because he is the best Trojan R we have. Clinton (husband and wife) were Trojan R candidates, as was Obama. The last actual honest D was Dukakis. Gore was all for NWO thru carbon credits to the Swiss gnomes. Don't believe any labels, check whose hand is up Charlie McCarthy's back. Don't be a voter voting for a ventriloquist dummy, you dummy!
It could even be said, at this point already, that both Republican's heads and Clinton Supporter's heads explode after Maher speaks up:
https://youtu.be/Zx95g_UJ9Mc
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 16, 2015, 04:17:38 PM
The problem with Sanders is that if he were elected, his policies are on the complete opposite side of a Republican-dominated Congress, and you would get gridlock for the next 4 years. OTOH, Hillary, though less exciting, has the experience to deal with the Republicans and most likely would get something done. No matter who wins, it's going to a hell of a roller coaster.
I agree with that. Sanders' problem isn't so much getting elected as governing afterwards. (He's a heck of a lot stronger campaigner than prez) Clinton more or less has the opposite problem.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 17, 2015, 01:03:32 AM
I agree with that. Sanders' problem isn't so much getting elected as governing afterwards. (He's a heck of a lot stronger campaigner than prez) Clinton more or less has the opposite problem.
Wait, wait on there, hooooo Silver...
Clinton has more experience than....Bernie Sanders.....? Look that up before you comment, kid.
Seriously, though, look it up before you vote, please.
:confused:
I dunno what you thought I meant (though I'm fairly certain I didn't claim that Clinton has more experience than Sanders), but I was actually just agreeing with you that Sanders would have a tougher time as president than Clinton.
QuoteNeedless to say, these are VERY popular positions around here.
Amongst people my age (college aged), perhaps. But the problem is my generation doesn't vote come election day, so we are not particularly the demographic to be aiming at.
Frankly, all the candidates are extremely disappointing imo. Hopefully I will be studying abroad in Spain and then moving not too long afterwards to a civilized country around the time the next president gets into office.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 16, 2015, 04:17:38 PM
The problem with Sanders is that if he were elected, his policies are on the complete opposite side of a Republican-dominated Congress, and you would get gridlock for the next 4 years. OTOH, Hillary, though less exciting, has the experience to deal with the Republicans and most likely would get something done. No matter who wins, it's going to a hell of a roller coaster.
You're assuming -- and admittedly with probability on your side -- that control of congress will not change with the next election.
But that's hard to predict; Congress is collectively about as popular as a petri dish of active ebola virus floating in a vat of pig shit, and the race to replace Boehner as Speaker has turned into who can run fastest
away from the job -- funny how the wingnut coalition wants all the power, but none of the responsibility -- so I can't rule out people saying, "Fuck this," and throwing the bums out.
I mean, the GOP has had control of the House for most of the last 20 years, and the biggest things they've accomplished are a couple government shutdowns. It's pretty sad when you can seriously refer to the mature (by comparison) leadership of Newt Gingrich.
Quote from: trdsf on October 17, 2015, 08:18:48 AM
You're assuming -- and admittedly with probability on your side -- that control of congress will not change with the next election.
But that's hard to predict; Congress is collectively about as popular as a petri dish of active ebola virus floating in a vat of pig shit, and the race to replace Boehner as Speaker has turned into who can run fastest away from the job -- funny how the wingnut coalition wants all the power, but none of the responsibility -- so I can't rule out people saying, "Fuck this," and throwing the bums out.
I mean, the GOP has had control of the House for most of the last 20 years, and the biggest things they've accomplished are a couple government shutdowns. It's pretty sad when you can seriously refer to the mature (by comparison) leadership of Newt Gingrich.
With gerrymandering, very few incumbent congressman will lose their seat. And that is unfortunate. Until the SCOTUS reverse that trend, which I don't see it soon as SCOTUS is itself controlled by Republicans, the results of the upcoming election will hardly change in any way.
As to the opinion that people have as indicated in successive polls with regard to Congress, it is misleading as most people will answer that their congressman is ok, it's the other congressmen that are screwed up. With such attitude, and the gerrymandering effect of districts, you can foresee another Congress dominated by the Republicans.
That's why it is crucial that the next President is a Democrat in case that judges on SCOTUS are to be replaced, you want to make sure the next nominations are not those crazy Republicans. In my estimation, Hilary has a better chance than Bernie of winning the election.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 17, 2015, 03:37:15 AM
Amongst people my age (college aged), perhaps. But the problem is my generation doesn't vote come election day, so we are not particularly the demographic to be aiming at.
Frankly, all the candidates are extremely disappointing imo. Hopefully I will be studying abroad in Spain and then moving not too long afterwards to a civilized country around the time the next president gets into office.
Spain would be a lovely place to visit, but with the increasing turn to the Right under the new "king of the week club" and incipient Francoism and devolution in Catalonia ... I can see why the Bourbons would start drinking bourbon. Is there any place to hide, when the NWO purpose is to crapify every country?
Quote from: Shiranu on October 17, 2015, 03:37:15 AM
Amongst people my age (college aged), perhaps. But the problem is my generation doesn't vote come election day, so we are not particularly the demographic to be aiming at.
I live in a college town. So my impression is skewed a little bit. And yeah, young people don't vote nearly as much as they should.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 19, 2015, 01:29:34 AM
I live in a college town. So my impression is skewed a little bit. And yeah, young people don't vote nearly as much as they should.
Same, more or less. I suppose I am "lucky" in that I basically spend the majority of my day in either a college town or Austin, but then get to see the "regular" side of the country when I head home out in the woods. Gives me two different perspectives, but it's not a pretty picture. They look almost the same, just one rooting for side A and one for side B. Maybe that's all American politics can aspire to be... a sports match between two teams.
Update: another news media "mistake"
(http://i.imgur.com/DRwqyon.jpg)
But... but... the media is left wing! Surely they would be rooting for Bernie!
On a serious note... the whole democratic primaries has completely fallen off the radar for me... I haven't heard a thing about it as of late. Which is okay because it is still way too far in advance to be campaigning.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2015, 01:58:54 PM
Update: another news media "mistake"
Hmmm, I haven't looked at a poll since Bernie was at 10%. Someone told me over Thanksgiving that Bernie was ahead of Clinton, and I kind of scoffed (to myself) about it.
Polls vary considerably, sometimes Clinton is up to 20% higher, sometimes Bernie narrowly has the lead. Generally, he's trailing, unfortunately. But it's important to remember that Clinton was beating Obama in the polls in the 2008 primary. In the end, all that matters is votes.
Politics... satire... it's so hard to tell these days.
http://mashable.com/2015/12/21/men-who-bern-calendar/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-main-link#S1HF3OG6xGqF
(http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE1LzEyLzIxLzJkL21lbndob2Jlcm40LjBjYzgwLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/df8b7fb0/2d5/men-who-bern-4.jpg)
Sanders might actually win - if he were playing on a level field.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 17, 2015, 01:07:40 PM
Polls vary considerably, sometimes Clinton is up to 20% higher, sometimes Bernie narrowly has the lead. Generally, he's trailing, unfortunately. But it's important to remember that Clinton was beating Obama in the polls in the 2008 primary. In the end, all that matters is votes.
Yeah, and polls don't matter much at all until much closer to the actual election - which is the only poll that really counts, anyway.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 22, 2015, 01:33:26 PM
Politics... satire... it's so hard to tell these days.
http://mashable.com/2015/12/21/men-who-bern-calendar/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-main-link#S1HF3OG6xGqF
(http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE1LzEyLzIxLzJkL21lbndob2Jlcm40LjBjYzgwLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/df8b7fb0/2d5/men-who-bern-4.jpg)
As if I needed another reason to financially support Bernie's campaign... (O.O);
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 22, 2015, 05:05:28 PM
Sanders might actually win - if he were playing on a level field.
To be honest... I doubt it (coming from a Bernie supporter). Name recognition is just an incredibly powerful tool in politics... and Hilary has that in spades. Money aside she has a gender and name advantage over Bernie.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 22, 2015, 07:25:36 PM
To be honest... I doubt it (coming from a Bernie supporter). Name recognition is just an incredibly powerful tool in politics... and Hilary has that in spades. Money aside she has a gender and name advantage over Bernie.
Don't forget ... everyone knows that Bernie is Jewish. This won't help him in even NYC ... because most American Jews shifted from Left to Right during the 70s.
I haven't been following it too closely yet. I personally find it appalling that all this political crap starts more than a year before the election, and money tends to buy more image than actual policies does.
That being said, I have seen a lot of people excited about Bernie. I have seen nobody truly "excited" about Hillary. Personally, I think most of her negatives are either unimportant or manufactured by Republicans afraid to face another Clinton in the election. Hillary is portrayed as a cold-hearted bitch. Maybe that's unfair or maybe it's just the kind of person you need dealing with the crap-throwing primates in Congress right now. She is definitely disconnected from the "common man", thinking that coming close to having to sell one of their mansions because a retired president only makes about $200,000 a year equates to being "dead broke". But I don't think she would be a terrible president, by any means. More importantly, she has the skill and experience, not only to govern, but to deal with a contentious Republican Congress hell bent on making her life difficult.
But Sanders definitely generates a whole lot more excitement, as I said. I don't know of anyone excited about Hillary. And she's a bit of a corporate stooge, like most of them. Not to mention that Republicans have tried their best to poison the hell out of that well with Benghazi, the email scandal and anything else they could dig up. And, granted, most Americans are far to ill-informed to know that both of these things are really non-issues (though the email thing was a bit stupid and had the potential to be a bad thing).
I have a friend that tries to get me to support Sanders every time I see him, on Saturday nights. He has a bit of an abrasive personality (jovial to the point of being a total dick is the best way I can describe it) and I'm pretty sure he's doing it just to fuck with me, but each time he does it I like Sanders less and less just to spite him. He is completely serious in his support for Sanders and disdain for Hillary.
But personally, I'm not quite ready to go from "our fist non-white President" back to "old white guy" just yet, which is my biggest stickler against Bernie. He's the oldest, whitest guy running. The only way he could get any whiter is if he "had a black friend" to prove he wasn't racist, but that's uniquely a Republican thing as far as I know.
Bernie's like a salmon trying to swim upstream during a raging flood.
Quote from: widdershins on December 30, 2015, 02:01:44 PMBut personally, I'm not quite ready to go from "our fist non-white President" back to "old white guy" just yet, which is my biggest stickler against Bernie. He's the oldest, whitest guy running.
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/3d/c2/d6/3dc2d6408c8749026d3da5a849489bfa.jpg)
Please tell me you're not serious. I mean, how do you think it'd go over if I said that I won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman? That'd be a little fucked up, wouldn't it?
Just once, I'd like to have an election where the candidates' sex and race doesn't matter.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 30, 2015, 04:59:58 PM
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/3d/c2/d6/3dc2d6408c8749026d3da5a849489bfa.jpg)
Please tell me you're not serious. I mean, how do you think it'd go over if I said that I won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman? That'd be a little fucked up, wouldn't it?
Just once, I'd like to have an election where the candidates' sex and race doesn't matter.
OR religion.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 30, 2015, 04:59:58 PM
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/3d/c2/d6/3dc2d6408c8749026d3da5a849489bfa.jpg)
Please tell me you're not serious. I mean, how do you think it'd go over if I said that I won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman? That'd be a little fucked up, wouldn't it?
Just once, I'd like to have an election where the candidates' sex and race doesn't matter.
Basically, this. If the chief qualifier for president is stuff like "non-white" or "woman" rather than stuff like "competence" or "integrity," then I question the veracity of your priorities.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 22, 2015, 05:05:28 PM
Sanders might actually win - if he were playing on a level field.
Only suckers play with unmarked cards ;-)
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 30, 2015, 06:47:52 PM
Basically, this. If the chief qualifier for president is stuff like "non-white" or "woman" rather than stuff like "competence" or "integrity," then I question the veracity of your priorities.
That's a great ideal to shoot for. But that is all it is. Name me anybody in politics today that can claim integrity??!! So, if you are going to vote for integrity, you simply are not going to vote. What to vote for then? Competence? That is in the eye of the beholder. And it depends upon what you want them to be competent in. What career politician is not competent in retaining their position or playing the game of politics? Is that a good thing? So, what really divides Hilary from Donald? Sex. I'd vote for the woman. Hilary or Sanders? That one gives me pause and I have not made up my mind yet. Hilary and anybody else--Hilary because she is a woman. She has the same integrity and competence as any other person from the Repubs can put up--but that is really a pox on both their houses. So, ' a woman' wins in my book.
Least worse choice ... I have long hated that.
For me, the most important thing for the next president is three nominations to SCOTUS with Scalia 79, Kennedy 79, and Ginsberg 82 who are due to retire. Remember those who will get nominated will be more likely in their 50's, which mean they will be around for the next 30+years, if they are in any good health. Their influence will be far greater than any president that will come long in the next 30 years. And so for me, a Democratic President is a MUST, and why I favor Hillary, since she has a much greater chance of winning than Sanders - a nice guy, but doesn't have much a chance in a general presidential election.
Quote from: Baruch on December 31, 2015, 10:14:15 AM
Least worse choice ... I have long hated that.
Yeah, me too.........but then who do you vote for? A write-in every time????
I went to a dinner party recently and socialist Bernie Sanders was roundly identified as worst presidential candidate. After dinner we were escorted to the five-car garage and marveled at the host's new $200K Aston Martin.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 31, 2015, 09:46:33 AMThat's a great ideal to shoot for. But that is all it is. Name me anybody in politics today that can claim integrity??!! So, if you are going to vote for integrity, you simply are not going to vote. What to vote for then? Competence? That is in the eye of the beholder.
I prioritize platform (Sanders edges out Clinton there), followed closely by actual political experience (both Sanders and Hillary have quite a bit, while Trump and Carson do not) with personal likability a distant third (again, Bernie > Clinton). I mostly vote Democrat, so competence is sorta hit and miss, unfortunately.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 31, 2015, 11:21:48 AM
I went to a dinner party recently and socialist Bernie Sanders was roundly identified as worst presidential candidate. After dinner we were escorted to the five-car garage and marveled at the host's new $200K Aston Martin.
If we were all Pharaoh, who will build the pyramids?
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 31, 2015, 11:11:01 AM
Yeah, me too.........but then who do you vote for? A write-in every time????
You are supposed to found a grass-roots political organization ... like Perot. Then you have to support your ... like Perot ... no matter what. Spend time, spend money, vote for ... like Perot candidates ... keep expanding until the other parties are beat. You can't be free, if you only choose Left-slave or Right-slave. Or you can build on an existing third party like the Greens. And yes, you will have to let wealthy people run your new or existing party. No, write-ins in most cases won't work, unless you can convince a lot of folks to make the same write-in.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 31, 2015, 11:35:18 AM
I prioritize platform (Sanders edges out Clinton there), followed closely by actual political experience (both Sanders and Hillary have quite a bit, while Trump and Carson do not) with personal likability a distant third (again, Bernie > Clinton). I mostly vote Democrat, so competence is sorta hit and miss, unfortunately.
Yeah, that's basically how I do it. I voted for Obama twice--but I realize that campaign promises are basically hyperbole. So I do not have a high bar for them to jump over. History has a lot to do with it for me; what has either party actually done for the American people. With that test in mind, I'd be crazy to vote for any Repub.
I wonder why people even listen to campaign promises, since the candidates only say what they think will garner them votes, with no intention at all of carrying through on the promises.
But then, I'm a cynic.
Quote from: Baruch on December 31, 2015, 01:14:42 PM
If we were all Pharaoh, who will build the pyramids?
According to the party host certainly not the millenials. They have no work ethic, or as he so wonderfully put, "they are not mission focused. "
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 01, 2016, 01:53:47 AM
According to the party host certainly not the millenials. They have no work ethic, or as he so wonderfully put, "they are not mission focused. "
This is why the Mormons are gaining on us ... their youth are "mission" focused.
QuoteAccording to the party host certainly not the millenials. They have no work ethic, or as he so wonderfully put, "they are not mission focused. "
Very front end of the millennials here but... what a load of shit. I get so tired of people saying this :\.
I am working to pay my way through college while going deeper and deeper in debt in a country that's economy is getting fubar-d by the greed and corruption of the generations before me... and nearly every millennial I know works at least one job in the same situation (sometimes two). I'm sorry I wasn't born into a super-strong post war economy that didn't require as much schooling as it does now just to get an entry level job.
But yes... it's us who are lazy.
That said he does apparently have good taste in cars... so he has that going for him :P.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 31, 2015, 01:38:05 PM
Yeah, that's basically how I do it. I voted for Obama twice--but I realize that campaign promises are basically hyperbole. So I do not have a high bar for them to jump over. History has a lot to do with it for me; what has either party actually done for the American people. With that test in mind, I'd be crazy to vote for any Repub.
Agreed. The last Republicans I supported were John Anderson and Lowell Weicker, both of whom eventually turned Independent. To a person, the current crop wants to take away my right to marry whom I choose, and were I not on the county health plan through my job, they'd want to take my health insurance away too. I see nothing to vote for there.
Quote from: trdsf on January 08, 2016, 01:45:37 PM
Agreed. The last Republicans I supported were John Anderson and Lowell Weicker, both of whom eventually turned Independent. To a person, the current crop wants to take away my right to marry whom I choose, and were I not on the county health plan through my job, they'd want to take my health insurance away too. I see nothing to vote for there.
Well, you are a fossil ;-) I thought that politicians were supposed to figure out what was popular (not necessarily wise) and offer that to the public to buy their votes. But today they only vote, they want to buy, is that of a millionaire. And apparently millionaires are only interested in crazy or worthless candidates, or someone at least worth voting for (if you are a millionaire that is) would run of office. I think it is bad schooling. They think it is about ... running for orifice ;-(
All because his ideas aren't original, that doesn't mean that his ideas are bad, look at the countries that have embraced socialism, they're pretty much better then us when it comes to quality of life by many metrics, happiness, healthcare, homelessness, etc.
To survive as a county, a planet, we need to become a multicellular organism. That's my metaphor for socialism. I think we can eventually communicate, innovate, and automate to the point where the planet runs fairly smoothly. I hope the Doozers don't get bored with all that leisure time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWAAmwzURZk
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 30, 2015, 04:59:58 PM
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/3d/c2/d6/3dc2d6408c8749026d3da5a849489bfa.jpg)
Please tell me you're not serious. I mean, how do you think it'd go over if I said that I won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman? That'd be a little fucked up, wouldn't it?
Just once, I'd like to have an election where the candidates' sex and race doesn't matter.
Are YOU serious? You'd like to have an election where a candidate's sex and race didn't matter "just once"? According to my history books we had 54 presidential elections where the candidates' race and sex didn't matter because they were simply assumed to be "white male". I can see your point, but the "just once" thing...come on.
And yes, I do kind of like Hillary. She's a strong woman and I think she would best be able to handle Republican nuttery. She has dealt with it before, though not to this extent. And, frankly, Bernie supporters are kind of beginning to piss me off a little. I have one friend who, every time I see him, can't say enough about Bernie and asks me to put bumper stickers on my car and propaganda in my business. Bernie supporters, in my experience, are opinionated and pushy, and I don't like being pushed. Of course they're not all that way, but my experience has soured me on Bernie.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 30, 2015, 06:47:52 PM
Basically, this. If the chief qualifier for president is stuff like "non-white" or "woman" rather than stuff like "competence" or "integrity," then I question the veracity of your priorities.
That's a very idealistic view, and one I would normally share, but there's a bigger picture here. America needs to catch up with the civilized world. We need to show that women truly can be anything they want. We've been saying it for years, but it's still not really true. It's like the Republican mantra, "Racism is dead." We all WANT to believe it...so we do! But it's not actually reality. There's still a huge pay gap between men and women. And look at Congress. Total sausage fest still. Maybe Hillary wouldn't be the best president ever. Likely not. But I'm thinking long term. It's time to change the "old white guy" club of American politics. It's time to inspire the little girls of today, to show them that they really can be anything. And frankly, as long as it's not a Republican so that things like the EPA and Minimum Wage survive, I'm pretty much okay with whoever becomes president.
The policies of a single president matters very little in the long term. But the ramifications of shattering the Old White Guy hold on politics can bring about long overdue change. Maybe I'm the idealist here, but I like that idea.
Quote from: widdershins on January 12, 2016, 10:45:25 AMAre YOU serious? You'd like to have an election where a candidate's sex and race didn't matter "just once"? According to my history books we had 54 presidential elections where the candidates' race and sex didn't matter because they were simply assumed to be "white male". I can see your point, but the "just once" thing...come on.
In recent history, race and sex has played a role in a candidate's success or failure. Obama's candidacy was rife with this issue, as have other candidates in recent history. So yes, just once I'd like this to not be an issue in people's minds. It goes without saying, but people who are not racist or sexist probably should not discriminate on the basis of sex or race.
QuoteAmerica needs to catch up with the civilized world. We need to show that women truly can be anything they want. We've been saying it for years, but it's still not really true. It's like the Republican mantra, "Racism is dead." We all WANT to believe it...so we do! But it's not actually reality. There's still a huge pay gap between men and women. And look at Congress. Total sausage fest still. Maybe Hillary wouldn't be the best president ever. Likely not. But I'm thinking long term. It's time to change the "old white guy" club of American politics. It's time to inspire the little girls of today, to show them that they really can be anything.
Thus, in your view, a candidate should get the nod simply for being the owner of a vagina, not unlike the sexist knuckle-draggers who similarly base their votes on the same shallow and irrelevant criteria.
QuoteThe policies of a single president matters very little in the long term. But the ramifications of shattering the Old White Guy hold on politics can bring about long overdue change. Maybe I'm the idealist here, but I like that idea.
You're about 8 years late to that party.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 12, 2016, 11:13:33 AM
In recent history, race and sex has played a role in a candidate's success or failure. Obama's candidacy was rife with this issue, as have other candidates in recent history. So yes, just once I'd like this to not be an issue in people's minds. It goes without saying, but people who are not racist or sexist probably should not discriminate on the basis of sex or race.
Maybe in
very recent history. As in, Obama and...wow. It only takes one name to make it a
huge problem in all of politics everywhere forever? OF COURSE Obama's candidacy was rife with issues. That's kind of the point. So I'm guessing you're, what? 20? 25? 8 years is all of history to you? Well, I'm a little older than that and saying "just once", it sounds a little ridiculous to me. The subtle suggestion that since I considered race or gender as a factor means that I'm racist and sexist was a good touch, though. It's not an honest argument, by any means, but it definitely makes you look good by making me look bad, and winning an argument is what it's all about, right?
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 12, 2016, 11:13:33 AMThus, in your view, a candidate should get the nod simply for being the owner of a vagina, not unlike the sexist knuckle-draggers who similarly base their votes on the same shallow and irrelevant criteria.
Yes. That's exactly what I said. No straw man there. I never said anything about liking Hillary or being turned off by Bernie at all. Nope, it was all about the vagina. Only thing I mentioned, for sure. Yeah, I definitely didn't list a few reasons I would like to see Hillary get elected, so her being a woman was certainly not just ONE of those reasons. You are very good at seeing both sides of an argument fairly and not intentionally and egregiously misrepresenting the side you don't agree with, that's for sure.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 12, 2016, 11:13:33 AM
You're about 8 years late to that party.
Yeah, because this president has been treated no different than any other through all of history. We elected a black guy, now we can move on and never talk about it again.
I get it. You don't think gender or race should be relevant in the election. The problem is that it IS relevant in the election and always has been since pretty much the beginning of recorded history and probably considerably longer. Your view is idealistic. In an ideal world, it's definitely the way to look at it. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a shithole where we had to pass Affirmative Action laws which, guess what, discriminate against whites just so that non-whites would have a chance in the workplace and it STILL hasn't made things even remotely equal. I was actually told a couple decades ago by the Wisconsin Job Service that since I was white they couldn't help me find a job until they had found a job for every single non-white they had in their records. After EVERY SINGLE ONE of them had a job, ONLY THEN could they help me. And STILL being white means I make more money than the average black man, not to even mention the average black woman. I'm sorry it's not an ideal world, but it's just not. Women and non-whites literally can't even win by cheating right now. I'm sorry, but I think that's just a
little bit bigger issue than which Democrat is the next president. As long as it's not a Republican, I'm pretty happy about it.
I'm more concerned about who will be appointed to the SCOTUS than most of the other things presidents do. Whomever gets the nod this time will be able to shape the court with maybe 2 or 3 judges.
All the conservatives need is anyone who can hold a pen.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 13, 2016, 05:25:40 PM
I'm more concerned about who will be appointed to the SCOTUS than most of the other things presidents do. Whomever gets the nod this time will be able to shape the court with maybe 2 or 3 judges.
All the conservatives need is anyone who can hold a pen.
Exactly my thoughts. And if veto power weren't a concern for them, imagine the damage they could do.
I hope all we can do is to imagine it - the reality would be grave.
Bernie Sanders Campaign sets political fundraising record with $33 million in small contributions. (http://www.thomhartmann.com/news/yes-we-can-win-without-billionaires)
(http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/AATTP-Bernie-Snaders.jpg)
Quote from: widdershins on January 13, 2016, 04:35:43 PMThe subtle suggestion that since I considered race or gender as a factor means that I'm racist and sexist was a good touch, though. It's not an honest argument
Well, if you vote for or against a candidate based on their race or sex, then yes, that makes you a racist or a sexist. There's simply no getting around that. And of course, that makes your argument look bad. Because it is bad.
If you don't want to look bad, perhaps you shouldn't have argued against voting for Sanders on the basis that he's an old white guy. Because that's the shittiest and most superficial argument against the guy I've ever heard, and I've listened to lots of Trump speeches.
QuoteWe elected a black guy, now we can move on and never talk about it again.
I'm simply pointing it out to show you that the white men club, as you so put it, is over.
QuoteI get it. You don't think gender or race should be relevant in the election.
And apparently this is both a novel and highly contentious concept. Too idealistic? Maybe for 1960. Currently? Not in the slightest.
QuoteWomen and non-whites literally can't even win by cheating right now.
You say that, but it's manifestly not true (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/12/114th-congress-is-most-diverse-ever/). And that's a trend that will continue, provided we collectively reject identity politics, which unfortunately, seems far from dead.
Okay, let's go about this from a different angle. I'm a little tired of defending my argument against the ones you're making up for me.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 13, 2016, 07:25:45 PM
Well, if you vote for or against a candidate based on their race or sex, then yes, that makes you a racist or a sexist. There's simply no getting around that. And of course, that makes your argument look bad. Because it is bad.
Please quote the part where I said, specifically, that anyone should, or that I would "vote" for or against any candidate at all. Can't find that? That's because I never said it.
Now please quote the part where I said, specifically, that I base my like or dislike for a candidate based on NOTHING but race or gender. Can't find that either? Once again, that's because I never said it. My argument only "looks bad" after you've rewritten it for me.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 13, 2016, 07:25:45 PM
If you don't want to look bad, perhaps you shouldn't have argued against voting for Sanders on the basis that he's an old white guy. Because that's the shittiest and most superficial argument against the guy I've ever heard, and I've listened to lots of Trump speeches.
Good point. Where was it that I argued against
VOTING for Sanders again? I'm very forgetful. Please quote that particular argument for me. In fact, maybe you could quote to me ANYTHING I wrote "against" Sanders where I tried, in any way to convince any person that he should not be their choice. If YOU don't want to look bad perhaps you should spend a little less time rewriting what I said in a way that is more defensible for you and more effort into formulating an honest argument which doesn't require you to control both sides in order to not look like an idiot.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 13, 2016, 07:25:45 PM
I'm simply pointing it out to show you that the white men club, as you so put it, is over.
LOL, that's exactly what Republicans keep saying! Racism is over! If you say it three times while clicking your heals together... I'm sure all the unarmed black men killed by police last year will be very excited to hear how over racism is.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 13, 2016, 07:25:45 PM
And apparently this is both a novel and highly contentious concept. Too idealistic? Maybe for 1960. Currently? Not in the slightest.
Is that how long racism and sexism has been over? We haven't had to consider it at all since 1960? All the women to have walked on the moon, not to mention all the female ex-presidents we've had will certainly be excited to hear that.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 13, 2016, 07:25:45 PM
You say that, but it's manifestly not true (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/12/114th-congress-is-most-diverse-ever/). And that's a trend that will continue, provided we collectively reject identity politics, which unfortunately, seems far from dead.
Wow. That sounded important. "Manifestly not true." Very impressive. Tell me, according to your article, what percentage of Congress is white and what percentage is ALL OTHER RACES COMBINED? But since this argument started with gender, shouldn't we be using numbers directly relevant to the actual conversation of gender (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/14/women-have-long-history-in-congress-but-until-recently-there-havent-been-many/)? Hey, would you look at that. It doesn't matter what numbers we use because they both stand at under 20%. But I see why you didn't use those numbers. Having to admit that white people hold more than 80% of all seats in Congress while making up only about 63% of the population is considerably better than having to admit that men control more than 80% of Congress while making up only about 50% of the population. Yes, those are the numbers I would have used too....if we were talking about Congress and not PRESIDENT! Even so, I would not have so proudly presented numbers like that even if the article did say that things were "better than ever before" knowing that my argument was strongly suggesting that there were no problem at all. Especially after actually overtly stating that by saying "...the white men club, as you so put it, is over."
You haven't given an honest argument yet. If you have one, make it. But I'll make my own arguments from here on, if you please. I know you're just trying to help, but every time you rewrite my arguments they just look stupid when you're done. I'm sure that's an accident, of course.
Sanders' endorsements 2016:
http://front.moveon.org (http://front.moveon.org) -- MoveOn.org; Major Progressive Movement Campaign Union
http://www.cwa-union.org (http://www.cwa-union.org) -- Communications Workers of America Union
2 1/2 weeks into the new year, does not count such things like 3 weeks ago lol......
Check out his donor list:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000528 (https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000528)
Not to mention 3.1 Million in private donors since TUESDAY......
Quote from: widdershins on January 14, 2016, 05:11:00 PMMy argument only "looks bad" after you've rewritten it for me.
QuoteBut personally, I'm not quite ready to go from "our fist non-white President" back to "old white guy" just yet, which is my biggest stickler against Bernie. He's the oldest, whitest guy running.
Please, look back at what you've written. If you still think that isn't a superficial, regressive argument, you're clearly either beyond hope or in desperate need of glasses.
QuoteLOL, that's exactly what Republicans keep saying! Racism is over! If you say it three times while clicking your heals together... I'm sure all the unarmed black men killed by police last year will be very excited to hear how over racism is.
Is that how long racism and sexism has been over? We haven't had to consider it at all since 1960?
All the women to have walked on the moon, not to mention all the female ex-presidents we've had will certainly be excited to hear that.
For someone who whines that he's being strawmanned (as a face-saving technique when being slammed for an idiotic comment, apparently in lieu of admitting error), you sure don't seem to mind indulging in it. If you understand nothing else - which seems to be the case - at least understand that I've stated and continue to state that it's not unreasonable to not judge candidates based on race and sex, not that racism and sexism no longer exist. Obviously, that's still a problem. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't.
QuoteWow. That sounded important. "Manifestly not true." Very impressive.
It means factually incorrect. When you say that "non-whites and women literally can't win by cheating right now" and they actually are winning seats, in fact winning much more seats than in the past, you are wrong.
QuoteTell me, according to your article, what percentage of Congress is white and what percentage is ALL OTHER RACES COMBINED?
Please note the subtle difference between being elected more often than in the past and elected exactly at parity. It's my contention that the situation is getting better, not that it has been resolved.
QuoteBut since this argument started with gender, shouldn't we be using numbers directly relevant to the actual conversation of gender (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/14/women-have-long-history-in-congress-but-until-recently-there-havent-been-many/)?
Sure. And surprise, surprise, it actually corroborates my claim and falsifies yours. As even you should be able to notice, the number of women in congress has steadily risen. The situation is getting better. This stands in stark contrast to "women literally can't win by cheating right now", according to you. You insult the audience's intelligence with such obvious falsehoods.
QuoteEven so, I would not have so proudly presented numbers like that even if the article did say that things were "better than ever before" knowing that my argument was strongly suggesting that there were no problem at all.
No one "strongly suggested that there was no problem at all." Obviously, there is a problem. And as you have demonstrated throughout in this thread, you are a part of that problem.
QuoteYou haven't given an honest argument yet. If you have one, make it.
You're delusional. And talking to you further is hopeless. You're essentially too stupid to know when you're being stupid.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 17, 2016, 04:05:44 AM
Please, look back at what you've written. If you still think that isn't a superficial, regressive argument, you're clearly either beyond hope or in desperate need of glasses.
YOU look back at what I've written. I never ONCE tried to sway any vote, nor suggested how I or anyone else should, might or would "vote", as you keep claiming.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 17, 2016, 04:05:44 AM
For someone who whines that he's being strawmanned (as a face-saving technique when being slammed for an idiotic comment, apparently in lieu of admitting error)...
And here we go again, another attack to hide the lack of substance. You know the easiest way to save face? Respond with an attack rather than actually responding to the substance. I'm not going to bother to read the rest of your post. Instead, I'll pose the same challenges to you.
POINT OUT where I "argued against Bernie".
POINT OUT where I in any way suggested that "a candidate should get the nod simply for being the owner of a vagina" and gave no other reason whatsoever.
POINT OUT how ANYTHING you said or linked which even REMOTELY suggests that "the old white guy club is
over".
POINT OUT how women and minorities have "won" any form of ACTUAL equality anywhere, then point out how that relates to the SPECIFIC example I gave of Affirmative Action for your quote cherry-picking.
You take everything I say out of context and assign to me what I'm saying rather than listen to what I'm saying. You respond with attacks rather than honest conversation. This one starts out with a mild attack, makes a stronger attack next and, I see just above what I'm writing, ends with an attack. The problem here is that you've argued yourself into a corner, making claims about what I've said which, as I have pointed out, simply aren't true.
Case in point, you've done a Watchtower Society on your "quote" of what I said for your last response. You'll notice that when I respond to you, I quote you UNEDITED, START TO FINISH. You certainly didn't do that for me. Why is that, I wonder? You've turned this:
QuotePlease quote the part where I said, specifically, that anyone should, or that I would "vote" for or against any candidate at all. Can't find that? That's because I never said it.
Now please quote the part where I said, specifically, that I base my like or dislike for a candidate based on NOTHING but race or gender. Can't find that either? Once again, that's because I never said it. My argument only "looks bad" after you've rewritten it for me.
into this:
QuoteMy argument only "looks bad" after you've rewritten it for me.
Now why would someone do that? Let's dissect it. Let's see, I ask you to back up a claim and point out you can't, I ask you to back up another claim and again point out that you can't, then we get to the part you chose to quote. Why just that part? Because that part doesn't require you to defend anything you've said. If you start there you can spring right into an attack.
I say again, you haven't given an honest argument yet. This last is no different. You cherry-pick quotes from me to suit your needs, leaving out the parts inconvenient to you, such as the parts where I ask you to back your claims. You have chosen personal attacks over backing your claims at every turn. But I, unlike you, don't think you're to stupid to have a rational discussion with. You're too stubborn to have a rational discussion with. You're too arrogant to admit when you misspoke. You're too proud to admit that you've made a much bigger deal out of what I said than was intended by me. But stupid? No. I do not believe that and I will not lower myself to senseless mudslinging. But do indulge me a little quote cherry-picking of my own, just this once.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 17, 2016, 04:05:44 AM
No one "strongly suggested that there was no problem at all." Obviously, there is a problem. And as you have demonstrated throughout in this thread, you are a part of that problem.
Really?
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 17, 2016, 04:05:44 AM
I'm simply pointing it out to show you that the white men club, as you so put it, is over.
Well, I guess you're right. You didn't "strongly suggest" it. You outright said it was "over".
Cherry-picking quotes out of order and context makes it easy to make someone look stupid with hardly any though or effort at all...and without saying anything worth reading. But it's dishonest, and if you don't have an honest argument, why are you arguing? If I don't have an honest argument I want a new argument, not a better defense for it. I don't mind losing an argument. The loser is the one who learns something, after all, if he realizes he lost and why. There's an easy way to tell if you won or lost. Look back and see if you did a good job meeting all the challenges to your argument, or if you simply ignored them in favor of scoring points by making the other person look stupid with personal attacks. How do you think you did?
There are so many Sanders' supporters who have said that if Hillary wins the nomination, they will rather vote for Trump?!? WTF. How juvenile is that? Trump is literally the anti-Bernie. Everything you like about Sanders, Trump is the opposite. So you take something as serious as voting for the President of the United States as a game to exact revenge on a political opponent in the same party?!? How crazy is that???
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 26, 2016, 09:32:12 AM
There are so many Sanders' supporters who have said that if Hillary wins the nomination, they will rather vote for Trump?!? WTF. How juvenile is that? Trump is literally the anti-Bernie. Everything you like about Sanders, Trump is the opposite. So you take something as serious as voting for the President of the United States as a game to exact revenge on a political opponent in the same party?!? How crazy is that???
Unfortunately the conservative hysteria and hyperbole is starting to become the norm in American politics. Politics in America are becoming decreasingly rational.
Extremism isn't rational, because you are trying to divide by zero. Rational means ... divide power according to some reasonable fraction .... even 1/4 for me and 3/4 for you. But now one side wants 4/4 of the pie, and force the other to accept 0/0 of the pie. This isn't competition, it is annihilation of your enemy, it is Hitler.