Put weed legalization on the ballot. Although I'm not sure if you can do that on a national level.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Iowa Caucuses |Feb 1|: Winter is here
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
Put weed legalization on the ballot. Although I'm not sure if you can do that on a national level.
nocturnalis
Member
According to people who know the law, if Obama was born in Kenya to an American mother, he would only be a natural born citizen if his mom lived 4 years after the age of 15 in the United States. She would have had to have had him at 19 according to the law, but she had him at 18. So if they were able to prove he was born in Kenya, he would have been ineligible due to the rules under which he was born (the have now changed and we all know he was born in Hawaii).
I'd like to point out Edgar used both a coin toss and fraud to become king
(But Sabin won)
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
Crimson_Gold
Member
That's one way to spin it. He did kinda steal votes from Carson though
He was at liberty to do so.
so where does that fit into his budget? how does that impact it?
I've seen countless times on reddit someone say "I'm not old enough to vote, but...."
No, it show those young people really don't care Bernie's views if they won't vote for Clinton in his steady, seeing she is the candidate that shares the most of his views. IF they are willing to let there be a chance that any of the republicans could win the nomination just cause Bernie not in the running for President, they personality cultist. There not fighting for an ideal, there fighting for a man.
Future PhaZe
Member
uh oh
donald going to work
donald going to work
Yes, yes. Go all in Donny, go all in. Rip, tear your foes apart!
boiled goose
good with gravy
Lots of posts misunderstood what I have said. Of course you compromise in the end! But you dont go to the table saying you will compromise when the other side is saying they will destroy everything you propose. This is negotiation 101.
Republicans are wrong on effectively every issue but they are MUCH better at politics.
While I generally agree with you that obama was of course better than the alternatives, what progress really? Obamacare sure and no war with iraq. Also props on ebola, reducing deficit, and improving economy.
The issue is that imo the influence of money in politics is now bigger than ever. He forced a few progressive ideas through a system that has become more corrupt. This means any progressive idea will have a tougher time in the future.
Do you think Hillary will be able to do better than obama? Not unless she pushes ideas approved by the corrupt interest groups controlling Washington today. That is my point.
As someone who would of course vote Hillary against any Republican and someone who actually agrees more with Hillary issue by issue than Bernie I think you are not quite getting it.
How did the poor and middleclass in general fair under obama? How are students doing these days? Young graduates?
They are WORSE not better than any time in recent history. The economy is doing better as a whole but a larger and larger fraction of the gains are going to the rich.
I 100 percent agree things will be worse under a Republican.
BUT, "you will still be fucked, but less fucked with me as President" is not an exciting message to get people behind you.
People are DEFINITELY supporting an ideal with Bernie. If you don't get it at this point then you just dont want to see it.
Except for, y'know, the important ones about wealth inequality, healthcare, and money in politics. The ones people are actually trying to vote for.
Oh these tears, so yummy, so refreshing.
boiled goose
good with gravy
^exactly. Instead of dismissing Bernie supporters, folks should really get this through their head.
That person isn't dismissing them, he is drawing a distinction between voting for your principled candidate in the primaries (legit), and taking your ball and going home on the General election night or voting republican. There is a difference between voting against someone and voting against your own interests. The positions Clinton and Sanders disagree on are not nearly as different compared to the republicans. Maybe you can afford to stay home on election night and enable another right wing takeover, but many minorities (Racial, LGBTQ, and women) cannot.
Pretty much. I'll never begrudge anyone for supporting whomever they want in the primaries. Both candidates are compelling; I can understand voting for either one.
But this willingness to throw minorities, women, society's vulnerable, etc into the GOP's woodchipper because they'd be getting 90% of the loaf instead of the full loaf? A willingness to burn-down the possibility that Bernie 2.0's achievements will survive the inevitable challenges in a GOP-stocked judiciary?
That's short-sighted. Selfish. Illogical. And I'll call it out, whether it's coming from a Bernie supporter or a Clinton supporter.
or that certain bernie supporters put a greater value in some of the differences between the candidates. I'm sure there are a lot of supporters out there (myself included, though I'm not going to support Trump or any of those fools) that view corruption in politics as one of the most important issues from his platform. sure, bernie and hillary seem to want similar things regarding health care, wall street and things of that nature but a lot of people just don't trust that hillary will bring about meaningful change in those areas because of the money she receives from the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies, and wall street.
so if this is the most valued issue for someone it's easy to see why a vote for hillary is so conflicting because it's a vote against one of the issues that a person values most. also this isn't a case of being a single issue voter either because that corruption affects everything else as well, which is why corruption in politics is such a meaningful issue for a lot of voters. this isn't to say that democrats and republicans are the same but if it's hillary vs. a republican it becomes a lose lose situation, hence the frustration yall are seeing.
I'm sure most will come around by the time the general election is in full swing, though
Campaign finance reform is the clearest dichotomy between them. Clinton continues the cycle of the corruptive influence of money in politics. Bernie rejects it. There's also the stance of tuition free education and the expansion of medicare for all. You really think people are rooting for Bernie just for the fuck of it? He's a 74 year old white guy with an ambiguous religious stance, but it's almost as though he has some other qualities people like about him. He stands for real progressive ideals. A continuation of Roosevelt economic policy and has a long track record of taking a hard stance on social issues regardless of political convenience.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I agree, but in these folks eyes it is either a woodchipper or an axe to the knew.
I think they are silly for not choosing the axe, but I understand why they are not very excited to chose the axe.
They dont think they will get 90% instead of 100%. They think they will get 5% of the loaf and an axe.
Again, yes it is strickly against their own interests (because one option is much worse), but do you guys understand why "not AS bad" is not particularly appealing?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I'm not sure that's the right question to ask, though. Obama didn't do better than Obama, and he was, believe it or not, selling more optimism/idealism than Bernie or Hillary are.
Trickle-down revolution doesn't work. You don't change government by electing a president who makes everyone change. That's what mid terms are for, that's why local politics and local government is so goddamned important to show up for. A lot of us save our idealism for 4 to 8 years and wonder why its weak and ineffectual when we spend it on the President.
I don't think either Hillary or Sanders are in a great position to "do better than" Obama in most instances. The question should be which of these two is capable of getting as close to it as he did?
I get it; I've chosen enough primary losers over the past few decades to be in their shoes.
My big hope, should Hillary be the nominee, is that Bernie communicates the stakes going forward clearly and repeatedly. His supporters say that they trust his judgement. In a situation where he makes an endorsement, that trust is going to be put to the test.
Campaign finance reform is the clearest dichotomy between them. Clinton continues the cycle of the corruptive influence of money in politics. Bernie rejects it. There's also the stance of tuition free education and the expansion of medicare for all. You really think people are rooting for Bernie just for the fuck of it? He's a 74 year old white guy with an ambiguous religious stance, but it's almost as though he has some other qualities people like about him. He stands for real progressive ideals. A continuation of Roosevelt economic policy and has a long track record of taking a hard stance on social issues regardless of political convenience.
It's clear why he has such support and resonance, these are important issues that he stands strong on. But that's not the issue. No one here (mostly) is suggesting that Bernie's motives are wrong, only that the type of change he is after doesn't come from the executive action. It comes from the courts and midterms and years of work. Having the right president is important sure, but it won't revolutionize the country as much as Bernie's voting block continuing to vote for other candidates far after this race will. No matter who wins the primary, Dems MUST rally and push the right back down again. Or people will suffer, simple as that. High minded ideals are great, when you have food to eat and aren't being killed by the police. Vote for Bernie, and then vote for the Dem nominee, and then vote again in the midterms. That's how change happens, not only by electing one man.
Hillary Clinton remains the pro-war candidate on the Democratic side, hence I cannot see how her and Bernie are comparable. Between her and the Republicans there is a clear choice but saying her and Sanders are somehow the same is grossly underestimating the amount of issues people have with Clinton. A lot of the issues Sanders brought up were buried by Clinton and she would not have addressed them if she wasn't being pushed by Sanders.
Sanders is the best option because he signals a different focus for the American public and clearly shows how exactly we go about making a shift in the policy undertaken by Dems and Republicans over the last fifty years which have clearly be mainly focused on serving corporate interests.
Sanders is the best option because he signals a different focus for the American public and clearly shows how exactly we go about making a shift in the policy undertaken by Dems and Republicans over the last fifty years which have clearly be mainly focused on serving corporate interests.
honestly I think most bernie supporters know this because he says it in pretty much every speech he gives
I know a lot of people hear the word "revolution" and cringe or whatever but the translation is basically "hey people, get engaged, stay engaged, and keep voting or nothing's going to change."
this too
But the divide isn't enormous, go take the quiz at isidewith.com and see for yourself. Here is mine:
Absolutely Sanders represents me better, and I will be voting for him in Alabama. But don't buy the standard Bernie Bro line that they are worlds apart. Clinton has put forward plans to address many of the areas people criticize her for. Now, that doesn't mean they are as good/progressive as Sanders' plans but don't believe for a second that just because Clinton doesn't agree with sanders 100% on an issue, that she is the enemy. THATS the difference, the republicans actually are the enemy and will try to walk back progress. Clinton might just bring less progressive change, or slower change. Not negative change.
Orbis Tabula
Member
So, on caucus night, I heard a lot of people upset because Clinton won all six coin tosses. But now I guess that was just fog of war, because now I hear that it was Bernie who won six, and it was out of seven?
No, it is you who don't get my consistent point. The person who holds the ideology doesn't matter. The ideology is- that should excite you. That is what should be driving you to the polls for this election, the next, and the next.
Let talk about Obama. Obama failure a squarely on the youth voters who abandoned him after it was done being cool and historic to support him. Where were they during midterms? Why did those voters let Tea Party and Republicans retake the slim majority of the House and Senate.
Of course you'll blame it on Obama who failed to excite voters to get out. I blame lazy idealists who only vote when it is entertaining for them to do so. A true progressive movement needs to be maintained by a group of people.
When Bernie stops being the leader, seriously, what is in place to keep his message alive? IT will fizzle just like "Hope and Change" and Occupy Wall Street did because once the excitement dies down, no one want to do the boring hard work like the Tea Party does raise up and elect new candidates at all levels of governments.
AcademicSaucer
Member
Turns out it was true , Why lie ?
Apparently there were more than a dozen coin flips, and both won a few. They really didn't matter though becuase they were only deciding county delegates.
My comments weren't so much a defense of Bernie as it was for his young voters. It was in response to this:
Campaign finance reform is the mother of all issues. A lot of young people know this, and it goes beyond party lines (probably one reason why there are people saying they will vote for Trump if Hillary wins). Money in politics is a big factor in why the poor have nothing to eat and why they're getting shot in the streets by police. That's what really should be pushed back.
Maybe Bernie can't do much with executive action, but it helps to have someone in charge who will at least try. He could also use the bully pulpit and rile up voters for the mid terms. There could be a wave of confident voters, rather than defeated apathetic element that has been a problem for democrats in the mid terms. You can figuritavely beat up on young voters till you're blue in the face, but that's not really going to be a convincing approach on a large scale.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Actually, I side with Hillary more issue by issue. She is also arguably more progressive on important issues like education and gun control.
But for many folk, the difference is that Bernie is a contrast to Hillary when it comes to the single most important issue. The influence of money in politics.
This issue is so important, that I would consider voting for a republican if it was his platform to pass meaningful reform to limit money in politics (to be clear that is NOT the case at all in 2016!)
Want to fund education? Want to avoid unnecessary war Nope. Military industrial complex wants money instead.
Want to reform prisons? End the war on drugs? Nope. Prison industrial complex
Want to reform schools? Nope. Unions donate
Want to pass reasonable gun control (90% of Americans agree)? Nope. NRA
Want net neutrality? OK, only because there was more money on Silicon valley than the provider monopolies.
Want to prosecute corruption in Wall street? Executives effectively laundering drug money? Nope. Too big to prosecute (under Obama!!)
This is the issue. It doesn't matter what Hillary says, as long as she is "ok" with maintaining the status quo, folks are going to be continuously screwed over and progressive causes will have an increasingly uphill battle.
Ok. To move forward I will acknowledge one thing, but then you have to recognize the point I will make, which I think you made it for me.
Sure. People should be excited and smart enough to always vote and fight for their causes. Giving up because it is hard is unacceptable.
However... look at what your wrote. You say that the ideals matter, not the person right? Then you say that they abandoned Obama. Soooo... they did not care about the person (Obama), but rather the ideals themselves. The reason they abandoned Obama is because his ideals changed. He was still the same person.
So yes! The ideology should excite you!
As I explained above yes, Hillary and Bernie agree on 90% or more. However, it is that 10% difference that is by far the most important to many voters, including myself. This issue is not important out of principle or idealism. To me, it is the most important because it effectively affects every other issue.
I don't blame Democrats themselves. The system is rigged against progressive values. They have to straddle the line between appeasing voters and donors. Look at the example of the Tea Party and Occupy. The republican establishment embraced the tea party (which was arguably a terrible idea for both them and the country), but the democratic establishment threw Occupy under the bus from day one.
I wasn't calling you out and I'm not disparaging young voters, fuck I am one! I believe in Bernie's cause and will do my part in my state to vote for him. I am only cautioning against the reflexive response if he doesn't win the nom. I think it's important to encourage my fellow millennial to wall out the republicans no matter who gets the nom.
I've never seen anybody take that test and have Hillary ever be more than about 5 points ahead (or behind) Bernie, but from all the talking that his most vocal supporters do, you'd think she's as bad as Ted Cruz.
Single-issue voters are what's gotten us years and years of the eroding of the right to choose. Single issue kept same-sex marriage off the table for decades. Voting based on a single issue, regardless of what that issue is, just doesn't make sense to me.
On top of that, Bernie's going to have two choices if he manages to get the nomination: stick to public/small donation funding and get absolutely slaughtered by the $1B+ GOP messaging machine, or he's going to have to go the traditional SuperPAC/big money donation route to be competitive. He can't have both, regardless of how much his supporters think he can. The realities of politics are going to set his supporters up for huge disappointment.
agreed. I think it's the single most important issue facing america politics today regardless of party affiliation.
if you read the discussion that's been going on it's pretty clear why that sentiment exists. the issues they disagree on are quite important.
Yeah, it is definitely skewed.
Absolutely, but if we can't get Bernie in the answer is to push Clinton to fix it and not give up on the presidential election completely.
Getting rid of Citizens is Job #1 for anyone who claims to want to reduce the role of money in our political system.
If we blow 2016 and a GOP president strengthens their grip on SCOTUS, Citizens United is safe for at least a few decades - the place of money in our system would become solidified.
Either candidate will name appointees who'll get it done. Anyone refusing to vote for whomever the nominee is can't claim with a straight face that they're serious about reducing money's role.
If we blow 2016 and a GOP president strengthens their grip on SCOTUS, Citizens United is safe for at least a few decades - the place of money in our system would become solidified.
Either candidate will name appointees who'll get it done. Anyone refusing to vote for whomever the nominee is can't claim with a straight face that they're serious about reducing money's role.
I'm certainly not going to disagree, I'm more explaining why going for hillary is such a conflict even though she and bernie agree on 90% of the issues. the issues they disagree on are quite important and regarding money in politics it affects all of the other issues that, on the surface, they agree on. a lot of hillary's stances can reasonably be seen as a balancing act between the people that give her money and the people that give her support.
also it's not the general yet. hillary's supporters have their eye on the general because she's the likely candidate, bernie's supporters do not. just something to consider when you see that kind of sentiment.
true but surely you can see why people who view money in politics as an important issue have problems with hillary
Dude Abides
Banned
Money in politics is really an issue that the Supreme Court is going to have to solve in the first instance. If you're making that the focus of your presidential choice you're barking up the wrong tree.
He's not wrong though. It's funny how he keeps winding up with the high ground when fighting Cruz. Just speaks to how unspeakably slimy Cruz is I suppose.
Bernie has said nothing about decreasing military budgets, only not increasing them at the expense of social programs. Military spending decreased under Bill Clinton.
Both have similar stances here
Bernie wants to make it easier for unions, who by the way contribute way more money than wall street to politicians
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/06/bernie-sanders-launches-pro-union-bill-battle-for-organized-labor-intensifies
I find it intriguing that Bernie never criticizes Unions the way he does "Wall Street" despite them actually giving way more money to politicians.
Bernie is to the right on gun control
Maybe Bernie should start by naming names and the laws they broke instead of vague anti-wallstreet populism.
it's not just about the issue itself, it's about the politicians that participate in the practice which negatively affects their stance on pretty much every other issue
Absolutely, I have issues with some of her stances as well. But if I were in a swing state, I'd still push the button for her. She'll be gone in a very quick 4 or 8 years, and when we do succeed in electing a Bernie-like candidate (which, by the way the youth vote is going, should be in a cycle or two), he/she won't be hamstrung by a judiciary that'll be happy to knock achievements down left and right. Thinking about the long game here.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Ah, I see. Serves me right for believing anecdotes on the night of. I remember one or two people complaining that six winning coin flips in a row was so statistically unlikely that it was probably fraud. Which is silly, and now, apparently, a moot point anyway.
User 463088
Banned
Also, for the record, does anyone here want to tell me which politician was being attacked by the group Citizens United that lead to the Citizens United vs FEC ruling?
You may know her. She's running for President. The film they tried to air was called Hillary: The Movie
Hillary wants to overturn Citizens United. She was the person they were trying to smear from the get go. This would, obviously, be a personal fight for her. So....
You may know her. She's running for President. The film they tried to air was called Hillary: The Movie
Hillary wants to overturn Citizens United. She was the person they were trying to smear from the get go. This would, obviously, be a personal fight for her. So....
like I said before, it isn't the general yet. bernie's supporters seem fully focused on the primary right now while hillary's supporters are looking to the general which makes sense given their chances at making it there. I think this is why you're seeing such a difference in the types of thoughts coming from both camps. let the nomination be decided and then see where everyone stands.
I've said that comparing her to Republicans there is one choice, problem is I'm comparing her to Sanders and even Sanders isn't as far left as I'd hope. I don't really care about the differences in isidewith, since it's not just a matter of positions Hillary has undertaken after she has been pushed to the left during the primary. It's the positions she would undertake once elected that worry me. Sadly for Clinton there is a trust factor and due to her bad judgement in the lead up to the primary season. The fact that she chose to attack Sanders on Single Payer in the same way Republicans have been attacking ACA is just another notch against her.
- Status