FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Ultimate Paragon on February 04, 2016, 01:53:37 pm
-
Are they a legitimate problem? Or is the media making a mountain of a molehill again? I'm personally leaning towards the latter.
-
You honestly have no fucking clue how to post topics do you?
-
...who?
-
He's "just asking questions".
-
UP, that one sentence doesn't really work as a starter for a thread. You are supposed to give some explanation on what you are talking about and not everyone here knows about this particular story.
Here: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/users/2016/02/bernie_bros_are_bad_the_conversation_around_them_is_worse.html
I already linked that in another thread but as it explains what the hell you are talking about it might as well be here as well.
Also, a short quote from the article to give a TL;DR version:
ver the past few weeks, the political press has been following an elusive campaign animal. Known as the “Bernie Bro,” he typically presents as a white, male Bernie Sanders supporter who haunts Internet comment sections. He has been spotted orchestrating pile-ons on Hillary Clinton’s Facebook page and firing off tweets reducing Clinton and her supporters to their vaginas. BuzzFeed News reporter Evan McMorris-Santoro recently observed these “unruly online men” and determined that even “the Sanders campaign and the Sanders digital army are aware that the Bros are a real issue, a dangerous and unruly crowd that can shock even the closest Sanders supporters.” The BBC reports that the Bro has earned Sanders supporters a “bad reputation online.” Time’s Charlotte Alter claims that he has recently been spotted in—dun dun dun—“real life.”
Or maybe the Bernie Bro is just a fantasy. On Sunday, the Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald diagnosed the Bro talk as a “cheap,” “false,” “handy, all-purpose pro-Clinton smear” meant to "inherently delegitimize all critics of Hillary Clinton by accusing them of, or at least associating them with, sexism.”
My own Bro research has revealed that both viewpoints are correct, depending on how you choose to filter your Twitter feed. The divide in how Clinton and Sanders supporters view Bernie Bros—or whether they see them at all—is emblematic of how social media has accomplished the impressive feat of making American political discourse even more annoying.
See, that didn't take much more work than what UP posted but now people have a way of knowing what this is about.
And now it's Ultimate Paragon's turn: How do YOU feel about this matter, do you think these people exist, are they a problem if they exist or if they don't exist why do people claim otherwise?
-
Sorry, I assumed you knew what I was talking about. Well, when you assume...
Anyway, I think it's blown out of proportion.
-
See this is the problem thinking you're in a hive mind when you're not. You post these types of topics, look around like everybody knows what the fuck it is you're on about then get all flabbergasted when you find out nobody has a clue what it is you're talking about because you give no context!
That being said, here's one of the "Bernie Bros".
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/technology/users/2016/02/160202_USERS_BernieFans.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg)
Ironbite-that's just adorable.
-
Now that I see a full size version of that pic...that dude is my age, not quite typical of an alleged Bernie Bro. Look at the wrinkly neck and grey beard. Why...goddammit! It's Dennis Miller! Traitor and Double agent provocateur! Or, as the sane part of the world describes him, a has-been barely clinging to the outskirts of the Hollywood E-list. FOX lets him rant neocon BS now and then for peanuts and malt liquor.
-
Every candidate has asshole supporters*. It's easy to build a narrative around the particular demographics of Sanders supporters, so people talk about 'Bernie bros', but I suspect we'd find roughly the same attitudes if we looked at the support base of any major candidate (Except Trump. Trump supporters are a breed of their own)
*Except, of course, for Lawrence Lessig, who doesn't have supporters at all.
-
Who in the everloving fuck is Dennis Miller? Is he like a poor man's PJ O'Rourke?
I think the narrative is easy to build around Sanders because he has enthusiastic supporters who are more likely to be on the internet.
And Sigma's right about Trump supporters, I haven't seen any other supporters beating people up at rallies while they are encouraged by the candidate.
-
^ The last time people like Trump Supporters came around, it was 1930s/40s and they were lead by an irate, shrieking Austrian with funny facial hair and an ugly combover.
-
Every candidate has asshole supporters*. It's easy to build a narrative around the particular demographics of Sanders supporters, so people talk about 'Bernie bros', but I suspect we'd find roughly the same attitudes if we looked at the support base of any major candidate (Except Trump. Trump supporters are a breed of their own)
*Except, of course, for Lawrence Lessig, who doesn't have supporters at all.
No, I think that there is a difference. There has long been this cult like support for Bernie because, in many ways, a lot of his supporters believe that not only is he perfect, but he is objectively better in every facet than Hillary. This notion is absurd as (1) no one is perfect nor is anyone a liberal messiah, (2) Bernie cannot be better in EVERY category than Hillary, (3) a lot of this is subjective and not objective.
I've been aware of the BernieBro for months now. In fact, I had an awkward situation in which one yelled (literally) at me for saying "eh, I support Hillary." Clinton certainly has idiot supporters, every politician does. However, I have not seen anywhere near the same level of hostility from Clinton supporters that I have seen from Bernie supporters over which candidate one endorses. Personally, I think a lot of it has to do with the "enthusiasm gap" combined with Bernie drawing younger, and at least in my insignificant opinion, more naive crowds (a naivety which grows into a belief that Bernie will change the political system for the better).
While a lot of this speaks only to my personal experiences, that really is all we have going either way (that is, this is blown out of proportion I have not seen Berniebros vs. I have seen them and they're real and obnoxious). There isn't going to be a scientifically conducted poll on this phenomenon.
So, in closing, Sigma, you're an asshole. So now that we've established that, 100% of Lawrence Lessig supporters are assholes [/sarcasm]
Edit to clarify: and when I say "for the better" I mean similar to Obama. Obama made grandiose promises of change during the election, and ran to the center immediately after election. Nevertheless, I think he has been a great president. So, at least in my opinion, grandiose promises of change don't materialize, but a centrist democrat is better than a republican. And this is what I am talking to about the naivety, largely my own experiences 8 years ago with Obama.
-
^ The last time people like Trump Supporters came around, it was 1930s/40s and they were lead by an irate, shrieking Austrian with funny facial hair and an ugly combover.
The last time? Off the top of my head I can think of David Duke nearly becoming the Democratic candidate for governor of Louisiana in 1991 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke#1991_campaign_for_Governor_of_Louisiana), only minimally hindered, perhaps even helped along, by his openly white supremacist platform and then-public-knowledge that he was a Grand Wizard in the Ku Klux Klan.
He won 32% of the primary votes, more than the incumbent governor.
-
Mrs. Rookie postulates that Sanders has the supporters he does based on the fact that he reminds everyone of that one college professor they had. All disheveled and rumpled, spouting ideological nonsenses.
Anyways, having never heard of these Bernie Bros before, I looked into it. I've had people get sad or disappointed with me when I say I'm not supporting him. Once even had confused. But I haven't seen angry or abusive. Are we sure they aren't really Clinton supporters making Sanders' camp seem a little more nuts?
-
More likely they're legit than a false flag. Remember, every group has its assholes.
-
Yeah, probably. I've been reading a lot of Ludllum lately. Perhaps that's coloring my perception.
-
It's-a me, Sanders!
-
Browskis, y'know everyone's all mad-enthuzzied about The Bernster.
Free college means MOAR BOOZINATION YO! More frat parties too~
YOLO
-
Browskis, y'know everyone's all mad-enthuzzied about The Bernster.
Free college means MOAR BOOZINATION YO! More frat parties too~
YOLO
I Challenge The Bernster to a Drinking Contest!!
-
Browskis, y'know everyone's all mad-enthuzzied about The Bernster.
Free college means MOAR BOOZINATION YO! More frat parties too~
YOLO
I Challenge The Bernster to a Drinking Contest!!
I'd challenge the Bernster to a drinking contest as well. Unfortunately, the difference between the Bernster (well, everyone for that matter) and myself is that others simply drink the liquor; I am the liquor.
-
Yeah so about those Bernie Bros....
Bernie Sanders doesn't want anything to do with 'em. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-condemns-bernie-bros_us_56b75a28e4b08069c7a79b1e?)
Bernie Sanders likes to express appreciation for his grass-roots supporters, but he is not standing by the so-called Bernie Bros.
Jake Tapper asked Sen. Sanders (I-Vt.) about the phenomenon of his backers saying sexist things to supporters of Hillary Clinton, his rival for the Democratic nomination, on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.
Sanders renounced them unequivocally.
“I have heard about it. It's disgusting,” Sanders said. “Look, we don't want that crap. ... We will do everything we can and I think we have tried. Look, anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist things is -- we don't want them. I don't want them. That is not what this campaign is about.”
Now that's how you stop a fringe element from taking over your supporters. You shut them down and tell them how much you don't appreciate their support. It keeps you on message, tells undecided that you're not gonna let extremists take over your message, and keeps your message of a clean campaign squarely on track.
Ironbite-bravo to Senator Sanders.
-
Yeah so about those Bernie Bros....
Bernie Sanders doesn't want anything to do with 'em. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-condemns-bernie-bros_us_56b75a28e4b08069c7a79b1e?)
Bernie Sanders likes to express appreciation for his grass-roots supporters, but he is not standing by the so-called Bernie Bros.
Jake Tapper asked Sen. Sanders (I-Vt.) about the phenomenon of his backers saying sexist things to supporters of Hillary Clinton, his rival for the Democratic nomination, on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.
Sanders renounced them unequivocally.
“I have heard about it. It's disgusting,” Sanders said. “Look, we don't want that crap. ... We will do everything we can and I think we have tried. Look, anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist things is -- we don't want them. I don't want them. That is not what this campaign is about.”
Now that's how you stop a fringe element from taking over your supporters. You shut them down and tell them how much you don't appreciate their support. It keeps you on message, tells undecided that you're not gonna let extremists take over your message, and keeps your message of a clean campaign squarely on track.
Ironbite-bravo to Senator Sanders.
Wow, he actually has more political savvy than my underpants!
-
Yeah so about those Bernie Bros....
Bernie Sanders doesn't want anything to do with 'em. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-condemns-bernie-bros_us_56b75a28e4b08069c7a79b1e?)
Bernie Sanders likes to express appreciation for his grass-roots supporters, but he is not standing by the so-called Bernie Bros.
Jake Tapper asked Sen. Sanders (I-Vt.) about the phenomenon of his backers saying sexist things to supporters of Hillary Clinton, his rival for the Democratic nomination, on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.
Sanders renounced them unequivocally.
“I have heard about it. It's disgusting,” Sanders said. “Look, we don't want that crap. ... We will do everything we can and I think we have tried. Look, anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist things is -- we don't want them. I don't want them. That is not what this campaign is about.”
Now that's how you stop a fringe element from taking over your supporters. You shut them down and tell them how much you don't appreciate their support. It keeps you on message, tells undecided that you're not gonna let extremists take over your message, and keeps your message of a clean campaign squarely on track.
Ironbite-bravo to Senator Sanders.
Wow, he actually has more political savvy than my underpants!
Sorry, had to do it
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcT6NDAw7jwj2VrEpxdmieRINRatRr1JYZ3xOscsj71TjkSvJ6pHrMbX3KZcJp4GZy18gJuruD70&usqp=CAE)
-
This is nothing but B.S., probably from Clinton's camp since she tried the same stunt in 2008 against Obama. Funny how Sanders' supporters are the ones called sexist when Clinton is the one basically saying, "Vote for me, I have a vagina."
Sanders doesn't have a fanatical following. He has a following of people who believe he will improve things in this country and who don't trust Clinton. I'm inclined to agree with them.
-
This is nothing but B.S., probably from Clinton's camp since she tried the same stunt in 2008 against Obama. Funny how Sanders' supporters are the ones called sexist when Clinton is the one basically saying, "Vote for me, I have a vagina."
Sanders doesn't have a fanatical following. He has a following of people who believe he will improve things in this country and who don't trust Clinton. I'm inclined to agree with them.
I've detailed on this board a number of times the cult of Bernie and how objective reality can suck it when that reality doesn't mesh with the Bernster. When I point the cult out, people generally ignore the point and then reassert conspiracies at a later date.
As for "vote for me, I have a vagina," I'll address that point later. Maybe the day after valentines.
-
Bernie Bros sure ain't helping, whether they're "real" or not, but neither are Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright lately, who're both definitely real....old.
-
I'm assuming that I'm one those members of the cult of Bernie, and you know what I'm ok with it. That being I plan on having a gathering this weekend,we might have a human sacrifice and course there will be both booze and snacks available.
-
Sounds fun! I know a person for the sacrifice, am I invited or do you already have someone slated?
-
Bring them on down. FOR BERNIE!!
-
I'm assuming that I'm one those members of the cult of Bernie, and you know what I'm ok with it. That being I plan on having a gathering this weekend,we might have a human sacrifice and course there will be both booze and snacks available.
Keep in mind, I don't say people are in the cult of Bernie for supporting him. That I do not mind. I think you happen to be in the cult for your belief that my support for Hillary is an attempt to fight you. I think you're in the cult because you have been as rude as anyone has been to me, and I have returned your venom with logic. I think you're in the cult because you call my support for Clinton "hard-core" and state that I am not a socialist, making a direct attack on my political identity (while expecting others not to say that you cannot be a feminist for supporting Bernie). I think you're in the cult for making repeated statements that the DNC and the "mainstream media" are out to get Bernie, without a shred of credible (read: non-spurious) evidence. Combine that with your sheer refusal to admit that Bernie can make mistakes* and that is a pretty good case for the cult... And I'm not even getting into your underwear choices.**
*while you have said "I never said Bernie is perfect" you have never admitted to any one of his many flaws. Essentially, on each sub-point, Bernie is right, but "Bernie isn't always right." It doesn't mesh.
**Thongs should never have politicians on them. Not sexy. Of all the designs I have on mine, poison symbols are the most common. Followed by hearts. Then quippy innuendo. Finally, I have one with a cartoon kitty on it.
-
It could be worse it could have Trump on it. Also I used to go to a satire site during the reign of Bush Jr, and they sold thongs with him or Cheney on it.
-
It could be worse it could have Trump on it. Also I used to go to a satire site during the reign of Bush Jr, and they sold thongs with him or Cheney on it.
Two wrongs thongs don't make a right.
EDIT: fixed it for me
-
He has a following of people who believe he will improve things in this country and who don't trust Clinton. I'm inclined to agree with them.
Mind if I ask why you believe he'll improve the country? Or, perhaps how he'll improve it would be a better question. Either way, what makes you think Sanders can improve the country? If it helps, I'm looking for specifics.
-
Mind if I ask why you believe he'll improve the country? Or, perhaps how he'll improve it would be a better question. Either way, what makes you think Sanders can improve the country? If it helps, I'm looking for specifics.
(http://goinglikesixty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/BernieSandersPlatform.png)
Took long enough to find this thing, since the modified image we saw in "worst protest signs" has been taken down. For posterity, I found another copy of that one, too.
(http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/12037998_10153293621383717_500588.jpg)
-
Mind if I ask why you believe he'll improve the country? Or, perhaps how he'll improve it would be a better question. Either way, what makes you think Sanders can improve the country? If it helps, I'm looking for specifics.
-snip-
The only ones of those he can realistically do is to end the war on drugs on the federal (though, not state) level and overturn Citizens United (through Supreme Court appointments, which Hillary would do the same).
The republican congress would never go along with any of the rest of it. And the last two are not even issues that he could address as president because they are state, and not federal, matters.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that while Rookie questions what, I question how: so, how will these things like single-payer health care and free college go from great ideas to great legislation?
-
Well for starters you vote in a like minded congress with the same ideals and progressive leanings as the President.
Ironbite-that'd be a start.
-
Well for starters you vote in a like minded congress with the same ideals and progressive leanings as the President.
Ironbite-that'd be a start.
Come on, you know that the House districts are so gerrymandered that best case scenario nothing gets done until 2020. Realistic scenario, nothing gets done. Worst case scenario, the house obstructionism makes Bernie a "failed president"* and sets the stage for Republican gains in 2020. And there is realistically no chance that the democrats get a super-majority in the Senate to prevent filibusters.
And, even if he could get super-majorities in both chambers of Congress, maybe half of the democrats would vote for single-payer health care. The democrats are still licking their wounds from passing the Affordable Care Act, and I do not think you could find many people in the party willing to put their neck on the line over one piece of legislation.
In sum, your argument boils down to "lets ignore reality, jerk off a brony, and spread magical friendship-sprinkles over everything."
*To use the language from Doris Goodwin's book "The Bully Pulpit." If Sanders tries to pass half of these, nothing will happen, and he'll look ineffective, which would not bode well for the democrats.
-
Honestly, I have to side with Queen on the "never gonna happen" hypothesis. It's the part that disappoints me about elections in general; by the time a law gets into practice. How many of you thought "Obamacare" would be a public health care payment option (an NHS clone), instead of publically funding private insurance companies (the Romneycare clone we actually got)?
-
and this is what is wrong with the electorate, we've more or less have just given up at this point. Why even care if you have no motivation to help in changing things??
-
I didn't want to make the question too wordy. Queen was a bit better at getting the information I was looking for. How specifically is President Sanders going to make health care and college free? Or whatever else he says he wants to do. Pyro, what you did was put up a picture of him and a list of campaign promises. Very nice. But you ignored the specifics I was looking for. Furthermore, you put up a list of soundbites. If you can find a better example of what's wrong with politics than soundbites, I'd like to see it. Ironbite, I cannot vote in a like minded congress. I mean, I can only vote for one district's representative. You can't vote in a like minded congress anymore than I can.
-
Niki, I don't lack motivation to change things. I do, however, lack what it takes to change things. And I care because I want to know who's screwing me over and how.
-
and this is what is wrong with the electorate, we've more or less have just given up at this point. Why even care if you have no motivation to help in changing things??
I think that is an unfair characterization. I also think rookie articulated a very good point: on our best days we can only vote in 1 progressive Representative and 2 progressive Senators, out of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. And, there are plenty of non-progressives that would impede electing those officials. About 45% of the country would vote GOP no matter what, and the South (in generals, not primaries) would never vote in a self-described "Democratic Socialist."* These are very real limitations which do not make the time right for Bernie (in my opinion). I have said it before, but I think Bernie's larger contribution to politics is dispelling this fear of socialism**
It's not that I do not care as much as I realize these limitations. I think things like single-payer health care and a $15 minimum wage are great ideas. I am very on the fence about the effect of free college, as I fear potential unintended consequences, but that is neither here nor there. Nevertheless, I think the fatal flaw in your approach, and again this is why I think you're in the cult, is that you assume once everyone (teabaggers, republicans, libertarians, moderates, hawkish dems, progressives, and socialists) hears Bernie, they will realize the profound truth and follow him, and that to not follow him is "giving up." That is not so. It is not that I, or anyone else, has given up, it's a realization that the electorate would never create the environment conducive to his promises, even if every socialist and progressive went out and voted for him and a like-minded Congress. Keep in mind that even when the democrats got the super-majorities in both houses, a lot of those Congress-people were blue-dog democrats who won narrow races because they ran not as progressives or socialists, but as moderates to triangulate the electorate. Then, once elected, *gasp*, they legislated as moderates.
*Not a knock on Bernie, but a point made about electing in a like minded Congress.
**While Bernie is a "democratic socialist," the label is really just a silly nuance created because "socialist" is still a dirty word. However, while a silly nuance, he still dispels fear surrounding socialist politics.
TL;DR
There are more political identities than socialists and progressives in this country, and the realization of that is not "giving up." Further, you accusing me of "giving up" on progressive politics sounds notoriously like Spuki, which doesn't help my opinion of you being in a cult.
-
Queen, that was very good but you left out one very important variable. To put a proper name on it, it would be K Street. For those who have never been to DC, K Street is where most of the lobbyists' offices are. The variable? Hundreds of millions of dollars going to candidates all over the country in all levels of government.
Niki, the cost of running for office is staggering. Bernie is strictly using private donations and Trump is self funding. (For the purposes of discussion, I'm taking everyone at their word.) That's one of the reasons they're both getting attention, because they're anomalies in that regard. Niki, I don't have millions of dollars to effect change.
-
So, we know where to send the Predator drones...don't mind me, not doing anything suspicious at all. >.>
-
Ravy, before you send those drones, consider what lobbyists actually are. Yes, it's so freaking easy to hear that word and think of the NRA or big oil, tobacco, pharma, whatever. But don't forget about NOW. NAMBLA as well. Also NORML. And, well, whatever it is you care about there's a group of people speaking to elected representatives on that issue's behalf.
-
Speaking of lobbyists and influence organizations, unless the saner half of the citizenry work on disbanding or discrediting ALEC and Citizens United, or create rival groups with equivalent money and power, we're going to keep sliding on down into becoming a gigantic version of a stereotypical "Banana Republic". No middle class. No transparency in government. No accountability in government. Near total voter disenfranchisement.
-
Nah, I wouldn't strafe all of 'em will hellfire missiles. Just the ones who do demonstrable harm to our nation, and the human race in general.
-
Speaking of lobbyists and influence organizations, unless the saner half of the citizenry work on disbanding or discrediting ALEC and Citizens United, or create rival groups with equivalent money and power, we're going to keep sliding on down into becoming a gigantic version of a stereotypical "Banana Republic". No middle class. No transparency in government. No accountability in government. Near total voter disenfranchisement.
To hard, let's just not give a shit, and then whine about it.
-
Speaking of lobbyists and influence organizations, unless the saner half of the citizenry work on disbanding or discrediting ALEC and Citizens United, or create rival groups with equivalent money and power, we're going to keep sliding on down into becoming a gigantic version of a stereotypical "Banana Republic". No middle class. No transparency in government. No accountability in government. Near total voter disenfranchisement.
To hard, let's just not give a shit, and then whine about it.
We could also ignore points and be snippy about it.
-
Speaking of lobbyists and influence organizations, unless the saner half of the citizenry work on disbanding or discrediting ALEC and Citizens United, or create rival groups with equivalent money and power, we're going to keep sliding on down into becoming a gigantic version of a stereotypical "Banana Republic". No middle class. No transparency in government. No accountability in government. Near total voter disenfranchisement.
To hard, let's just not give a shit, and then whine about it.
No. That's not a good idea. Instead let's naively shout the most vague pseudo fixes and get butthurt when people point out flaws. So let's fine one person and one person only to pin our hopes on!
-
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooow.
-
Look, I like Sanders too. If he gets elected, I have no expectations of his platform solidifying into legislation, but the ideas and logic behind those platforms would in fact get into the mainstream narrative, even if mostly in critiques by conservatives. There is a problem when saying "we need to catch up with the rest of the developed world" gets shot down as pie-in-the-sky because the opposition has done a better job of selling shit to the general public over the past three decades. We need to do a little bit better at winning hearts and minds than the other guys. If Clinton wins, Congress will blockade her platform as much as they did Obama's. If a GOP candidate wins, expect things to get much, much worse as the pork barrels roll out the Capitol building door onto the Koch gravy train express. First order of business; Those poor, starving oil companies...prices have nose-dived! Too big to fail. All over again. The chance of a Clinton/Sanders or Sanders/Clinton White House run is rather high. Don't piss on either candidate. It's silly season, so let it slide if someone's over-enthusiasm for their candidate bugs you. I think either one would do as best as can be expected with the Congress we're stuck with. I'd rather see a Democratic president who can do little else than veto horrible bills, than a four or eight year long looting season enabled by a GOP president.
-
Speaking of lobbyists and influence organizations, unless the saner half of the citizenry work on disbanding or discrediting ALEC and Citizens United, or create rival groups with equivalent money and power, we're going to keep sliding on down into becoming a gigantic version of a stereotypical "Banana Republic". No middle class. No transparency in government. No accountability in government. Near total voter disenfranchisement.
To hard, let's just not give a shit, and then whine about it.
No. That's not a good idea. Instead let's naively shout the most vague pseudo fixes and get butthurt when people point out flaws. So let's fine one person and one person only to pin our hopes on!
I can't any possibly flaw whatsoever in that plan. I mean, it's not like this has happened before as recently as 2008, where someone was hyped up to be the progressive messiah that will drag America kicking and screaming into the 21st century, won by a landslide and yet it was just business as usual for another 8 years. Nope, not at all. I'm sure Bernie will be everything his campaign promises and more. After all, whoever heard of a politician not keeping their promises? The very idea of it is utterly absurd.
-
I'm not pinning my hopes on one person you jackasses, but I'm also not sitting on my butt complaining like fair amount of the assholes are.
-
Look, I like Sanders too. If he gets elected, I have no expectations of his platform solidifying into legislation, but the ideas and logic behind those platforms would in fact get into the mainstream narrative, even if mostly in critiques by conservatives. There is a problem when saying "we need to catch up with the rest of the developed world" gets shot down as pie-in-the-sky because the opposition has done a better job of selling shit to the general public over the past three decades. We need to do a little bit better at winning hearts and minds than the other guys. If Clinton wins, Congress will blockade her platform as much as they did Obama's. If a GOP candidate wins, expect things to get much, much worse as the pork barrels roll out the Capitol building door onto the Koch gravy train express. First order of business; Those poor, starving oil companies...prices have nose-dived! Too big to fail. All over again. The chance of a Clinton/Sanders or Sanders/Clinton White House run is rather high. Don't piss on either candidate. It's silly season, so let it slide if someone's over-enthusiasm for their candidate bugs you. I think either one would do as best as can be expected with the Congress we're stuck with. I'd rather see a Democratic president who can do little else than veto horrible bills, than a four or eight year long looting season enabled by a GOP president.
To be fair, Bush may have kicked off the "too big to fail" mess, but Obama didn't exactly curtail it.
Also, I doubt that Clinton would choose Sanders as her running mate or vice versa, for the same reason Obama didn't choose Clinton as his. Each already faces a disadvantage in getting elected, Clinton because she's a woman and Sanders because he's a socialist (at least by US standards), just as Obama did because he's black, and putting both of those on the same ticket could make the barrier insurmountable.
-
Sanders because he's a socialist (at least by US standards),
Thing is, and he explained it in detail, he's not a socialist; he's a social democrat. He has no desire to make us like USSR. He fully wants to keep Capitalism; he just wants to make sure people making less than $1 million have a chance to live normal lives.
Now I doubt he'll get all his plans through, but if he gets as few as 12%, he'll be farther ahead than anyone else in the WH.
-
Sanders because he's a socialist (at least by US standards),
Thing is, and he explained it in detail, he's not a socialist; he's a social democrat. He has no desire to make us like USSR. He fully wants to keep Capitalism; he just wants to make sure people making less than $1 million have a chance to live normal lives.
Now I doubt he'll get all his plans through, but if he gets as few as 12%, he'll be farther ahead than anyone else in the WH.
He can call himself whatever he wants, but the Republican Party's spin machine is strong enough to get him tainted as a socialist in the minds of a significant chunk of the electorate, who, while they may not vote for the Republican candidate, might at least elect to stay home rather than vote for a "socialist". The label he gives himself is less relevant than the label his opponents pin on him.
That doesn't necessarily make him unelectable, but I think it makes a Clinton/Sanders or Sanders/Clinton ticket unelectable. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see him choose a Blue Dog Democrat as his running mate should he win the nomination.
-
I'd say a combo of Clinton and Sanders would be the way to keep a momentum similar to 2008 going. Without Sanders, a large percentage of younger voters will just not vote. Without Clinton, a large percentage of mainstream Democrats will abstain, too. Unless either candidate manages to pull a well known and respected rabbit out of their hat as a running mate...uhhh...maybe Elizabeth Warren? Joe Biden again? John Kerry?
-
I'd say a combo of Clinton and Sanders would be the way to keep a momentum similar to 2008 going. Without Sanders, a large percentage of younger voters will just not vote. Without Clinton, a large percentage of mainstream Democrats will abstain, too. Unless either candidate manages to pull a well known and respected rabbit out of their hat as a running mate...uhhh...maybe Elizabeth Warren? Joe Biden again? John Kerry?
Just because each isn't the other's running mate doesn't mean they can't be a prominent supporter. As for your suggestions: Warren is a woman, Biden is more of the same, and Kerry is a loser (and speaks French).
I'm not well versed enough to guess who each would pick, but I suspect Sanders would pick a Blue Dog, while Clinton would pick someone seen as a bit more progressive than she is (but not Sanders). They would probably also pick Southerners to balance the ticket geographically.
-
I'm not pinning my hopes on one person you jackasses, but I'm also not sitting on my butt complaining like fair amount of the assholes are.
At this point, you're not even attempting to debate points, you're simply making petty ad hominems while acting like you're more enlightened than the rest of us. This totally is not a cult like attitude to have. I.E. see Spuki's meltdown and the 10 fundamentalist qualities that a poster presented.
ETA: I also realize that I have not addressed Rookie's K street point. That is a very good point, that money plays a huge role in who can be elected. Hence why elected a democrat is of the utmost importance in the next election (I've stated this several times, both Hillary and Bernie would appoint SCOTUS Justices, maybe even as many as 3 or 4, who will overturn Citizens United). However, the point I was making to Ironbite rested on a best-case scenario that did not depend on political fundraising (hence why I said something to the effect of "even if every socialist and progressive gets out and votes for a like minded Congress.") Nevertheless, that is an additional limitation that I was not thinking of at the time of my post which bolsters the overall point that I was attempting to make.
-
Queen, the K Street comment wasn't anything more than just adding to why we (the little guys) can't create change. Another drop of ineffectiveness in the bucket stacked against us.
-
Queen, the K Street comment wasn't anything more than just adding to why we (the little guys) can't create change. Another drop of ineffectiveness in the bucket stacked against us.
Oh, I know. I was just drinking last night after my court win and wasn't as articulate as I could've been. My thought process when addressing it was "Rookie made a good point that when unmentioned, I should address it for the reason that he took the time to type it."
ETA: and while I was drunk last night, my points against Nicki may have been similarly inarticulate. I do not argue that Bernie should not be voted for because his platform is unrealistic and will never happen. There are many reasons to vote, or not vote, for a candidate. I simply wish to state that these are considerations that I weigh more heavily than most others, and hence my support for Clinton. I said it before, and it is in Ghoti-Lite's sig, but different people have different values and can come to different conclusions. So, to clarify, I do not think the proper way to refute our points is to argue with us over them or get into name-calling, but to state that "I value these things, and that is why I will vote for Sanders."
For all of our back and forth these last several months, I've always held this idea that it is a civil disagreement over politics. While of monumental importance, it really boils down to the subjective opinion of who is better. In this vein, it is no different than a couple arguing over which curtains best accentuate the room (not in importance, but subjectivity). You have gotten very rude with me going back to the very beginning, and I tried to be civil with you because we've both been here for several years and, at least prior to this, I've never had a problem with you. While I have been saying that you're acting like a cult, that started in the last month to some of your more vitriolic attacks on me, and I will stop saying that once the personal digs at me, and now other posters, ends. However you feel about me, I keep my word.
So, in sum, this is simply a disagreement of opinion, and I do not take anything about this difference personally. I take personally some of the vitriol that has come my way, as I am sure you take personally my cult-statements, but I am willing to bury the hatchet it you are. I really think that these are just different ideas about the best way to help our country and that everyone's heart is in the right place. And, this point about Congress is not intended from me as a knock on Bernie, but as support for my subjective position to vote Hillary.
-
I think this might be worth a read:
https://medium.com/@lleeiii/this-is-what-happens-when-a-woman-supports-bernie-sanders-online-42b642ba673f#.257a1x998 (https://medium.com/@lleeiii/this-is-what-happens-when-a-woman-supports-bernie-sanders-online-42b642ba673f#.257a1x998)
-
I think this might be worth a read:
https://medium.com/@lleeiii/this-is-what-happens-when-a-woman-supports-bernie-sanders-online-42b642ba673f#.257a1x998 (https://medium.com/@lleeiii/this-is-what-happens-when-a-woman-supports-bernie-sanders-online-42b642ba673f#.257a1x998)
I think the article is spuriously written. Several of the comments attack her for being liberal, and one goes so far as to use a distorted idea of socialism to say "show us your tits." Only one comment makes reference to Hillary "A supermodel dissing a former secretary of state." While that is wrong to call her "just a supermodel," I think what we're seeing is conservatives bash a woman for supporting Bernie as opposed to a Clinton equivalent of the "Bernie Bro." Nevertheless, the article is more than happy to push such a false equivalence.
While the last comment in the article mentions Hillary as well, it is not attacking her for being female as much as saying that Bernie Bros are douchebags.
-
Saw this on my facebook food this morning, along with someone I know saying that she would join that religion...
-
I prefer this
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/12728828_958525760904722_6303549524805342544_n.jpg?oh=cd0e35e23232659393c39e3e92a40722&oe=575BA170)
-
There is a difference in that you're posting that in satire: this person did not post the Jesus comparison in jest. I am not trying to say everyone's in the cult of Bernie, but that shit like this is a little scary, and I would hope that a board that mocks fundamentalists would realize that.
-
But that HAS to be satire, right??
-
But that HAS to be satire, right??
It was not.
-
The Jesus comparison weasel-words so much...