• 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 Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Sanders defends Killer Mike, Attacks Bill Clinton & Doesn't Want To Be Lectured On CR

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pizoxuat

Junior Member
Apr 17, 2013
867
0
0
Bernie Bros are guys on social media, mostly Twitter, Facebook, and reddit, who swarm positive messages about Clinton/negative mentions about Bernie with such numbers, volume, and condesention if the poster appears female that it makes it unpalatable for the original commenter to keep using the service. Like a certain other Internet swarm that likes to show up in force with whataboutisms and gendered slurs.
 

ucdawg12

Member
Feb 21, 2005
378
0
0
41
I'm not going to get into the "hey, let's debate people on the merits and be colorbind" argument but if you think 2016 Hillary is one of the most warhawkish neoliberal candidates ever, I'd like to introduce you to 2000 Al Gore and Bill Bradley, every candidate in the 2004 Democratic Primary outside of Kucinich and Carol Mosley Braun, every candidate in the 2008 Democratic Primary outside of John Edwards, Mike Gravel, and Kucinich again, and of course, the vast majority of every Democratic House and Senate Caucus for the past 30 years.

OK, don't trust Hillary that she's being truthful despite the reams of evidence that politicians once in office try to pass what they've promised. But, Hillary is not some person on the right wing of the modern Democratic party.



I've got no problems with the movement to move the DNC to the left. I support that. But yes, once you start slamming Alan Krueger, Paul Krugman, and every economist to the right of one of the few Marxist economics programs in the US (U Mass Amherst) as being paid off shills of the evil Establishment, then yeah, I can call you out for acting like idiots.

The main reason why Democrats have had any credibility for the past 30 years is we depend on the actual numbers - or as the evil neoliberal shill who saved Obama's campaign in 2012 would say - arithmetic. Once we abandon that and start believing every economist who says we can have pizza, soda, and ice cream every night for dinner and we'll end up with a six pack, we're no better than the idiotic Republican's who believe tax cuts can pay for themselves and taking social programs away from poor people will make them get great jobs.

Is the bolded an actual point of debate or are you making a gross strawman to ridicule those you disagree with? Is employing such a tactic really the way you want to go about discussing things?
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,096
2,008
1,180
It's a worthless quote because Hilary is super qualified to be president regardless if some people prefer her because she is a woman.
 

googleplex

Member
Jun 7, 2010
9,069
1
0
I'm not going to get into the "hey, let's debate people on the merits and be colorbind" argument but if you think 2016 Hillary is one of the most warhawkish neoliberal candidates ever, I'd like to introduce you to 2000 Al Gore and Bill Bradley, every candidate in the 2004 Democratic Primary outside of Kucinich and Carol Mosley Braun, every candidate in the 2008 Democratic Primary outside of John Edwards, Mike Gravel, and Kucinich again, and of course, the vast majority of every Democratic House and Senate Caucus for the past 30 years.

OK, don't trust Hillary that she's being truthful despite the reams of evidence that politicians once in office try to pass what they've promised. But, Hillary is not some person on the right wing of the modern Democratic party.



I've got no problems with the movement to move the DNC to the left. I support that. But yes, once you start slamming Alan Krueger, Paul Krugman, and every economist to the right of one of the few Marxist economics programs in the US (U Mass Amherst) as being paid off shills of the evil Establishment, then yeah, I can call you out for acting like idiots.

The main reason why Democrats have had any credibility for the past 30 years is we depend on the actual numbers - or as the evil neoliberal shill who saved Obama's campaign in 2012 would say - arithmetic. Once we abandon that and start believing every economist who says we can have pizza, soda, and ice cream every night for dinner and we'll end up with a six pack, we're no better than the idiotic Republican's who believe tax cuts can pay for themselves and taking social programs away from poor people will make them get great jobs.

Excellent post.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
Bernie Bros are guys on social media, mostly Twitter, Facebook, and reddit, who swarm positive messages about Clinton/negative mentions about Bernie with such numbers, volume, and condesention if the poster appears female that it makes it unpalatable for the original commenter to keep using the service. Like a certain other Internet swarm that likes to show up in force with whataboutisms and gendered slurs.

They're also sexist, bigoted, and predominately white/male.
 

JesseEwiak

Member
May 9, 2013
5,839
0
0
Is the bolded an actual point of debate or are you making a gross strawman to ridicule those you disagree with? Is employing such a tactic really the way you want to go about discussing things?

Any economist who says we can have 5% growth, an increase of 38% of average GDP, a 3.8% unemployment rate, and increase of the employment ratio of 8% and a doubling of the productivity rate has a screw lose, whether he's saying we're doing it via massive tax cuts to rich people or massive increases in social spending.

I believe in universal health care and largely fee-free access to public universities, but don't pretend it'll be a fix to all the problems in modern society.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
27,818
2
0
That's what Bernie Bros means? I've never used the term before, but I definitely did not think it implied all that weighted stuff. I sorta think it might be a bit of over sensitivity at play there.

It's a code word to dismiss discussion based on perceived group affiliations.

Basically associating people that support Sanders with frat boys - automatic dismissal of their points, irrespective of content - because it's not seriously worthwhile considering.

Not dissimilar to every other instance of such code words really... SJW, feminazis, etc.

They combine some sort of perjoratives with a descriptor of the general group beliefs/affiliations.

In what situation should people not be annoyed that their beliefs and thoughts are dismissed in such a bullying and cowardly manner?
 

hawk2025

Member
Jan 20, 2013
15,488
0
0
It's a code word to dismiss discussion based on perceived group affiliations.

Basically associating people that support Sanders with frat boys - automatic dismissal of their points, irrespective of content - because it's not seriously worthwhile considering.

Not dissimilar to every other instance of such code words really... SJW, feminazis, etc.

They combine some sort of perjoratives with a descriptor of the general group beliefs/affiliations.

In what situation should people not be annoyed that their beliefs and thoughts are dismissed in such a bullying and cowardly manner?


Can we throw "establishment" in that list?
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
27,818
2
0
Can we throw "establishment" in that list?

Establishment in itself is a descriptor without automatic perjorative association.

It can (and is regularly) used in a context to describe entrenched power structures (literally the current establishment of power), without opinion of whether or not this is positive or negative.

Of course, like all other code words can be used for dismissive purposes - but its use unlike other group descriptors with inbuilt perjorative labels shouldn't automatically signal that this person is been disingenious about their arguments.
 
Jun 19, 2013
23,820
1
0
It's a code word to dismiss discussion based on perceived group affiliations.

Basically associating people that support Sanders with frat boys - automatic dismissal of their points, irrespective of content - because it's not seriously worthwhile considering.

Not dissimilar to every other instance of such code words really... SJW, feminazis, etc.

They combine some sort of perjoratives with a descriptor of the general group beliefs/affiliations.

In what situation should people not be annoyed that their beliefs and thoughts are dismissed in such a bullying and cowardly manner?

It's a term for a very strident section of Sanders supporters whose existence Sanders himself has recognized.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
Establishment in itself is a descriptor without automatic perjorative association.

It can (and is regularly) used in a context to describe entrenched power structures, without opinion of whether or not this is positive or negative.

Of course, like all other code words can be used for dismissive purposes - but its use unlike other group descriptors with inbuilt perjorative labels shouldn't automatically signal that this person is been disingenious about their arguments.


I agree with this as well.
 

Tesseract

Banned
Dec 7, 2008
61,303
69,636
1,875
It's a code word to dismiss discussion based on perceived group affiliations.

Basically associating people that support Sanders with frat boys - automatic dismissal of their points, irrespective of content - because it's not seriously worthwhile considering.

Not dissimilar to every other instance of such code words really... SJW, feminazis, etc.

They combine some sort of perjoratives with a descriptor of the general group beliefs/affiliations.

In what situation should people not be annoyed that their beliefs and thoughts are dismissed in such a bullying and cowardly manner?

i'm memorizing this post, naked, wrapped in an american flag
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
It's a term for a very strident section of Sanders supporters whose existence Sanders himself has recognized.

Unfortunately, many people who use it don't care. They'll continue to use it as a dismissive generalization.


Case in point, I've been called a Bernie Bro, despite never having made a comment remotely resembling that of a Bernie Bro.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
27,818
2
0
It's a term for a very strident section of Sanders supporters whose existence Sanders himself has recognized.

That may be its original intent, but as such things go, the term is overused and used outside of intended context, causes it to morph into a broad band perjorative surrounding his general supporters too.

If the context is made clear, a reasonable point with the use of the word can of course be made! But more often then not, this is not what happens.
 

hawk2025

Member
Jan 20, 2013
15,488
0
0
That may be its original intent, but as such things go, the term is overused and used outside of intended context, causes it to morph into a broad band perjorative surrounding his general supporters too.

If the context is made clear, a reasonable point with the use of the word can of course be made! But more often then not, this is not what happens.


So, exactly like establishment.

You split that particular hair and then put it right back together.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
So, exactly like establishment.

You split that particular hair and then put it right back together.

There's still a distinction. 'Establishment' isn't an inherently pejorative term while 'Bernie Bro' is.

...

You quote my posts, but do you actually read them?

Sure do. You originally argued that the term referred to a subset of Bernie supporters. However, that is no longer the case, so using it as a generalization (especially a pejorative) cannot be handwaved simply because the original meaning of the term wasn't a generalization.

Now, have you been actually reading my posts?
 
Oct 8, 2009
16,977
4
0
I'm not going to get into the "hey, let's debate people on the merits and be colorbind" argument but if you think 2016 Hillary is one of the most warhawkish neoliberal candidates ever, I'd like to introduce you to 2000 Al Gore and Bill Bradley, every candidate in the 2004 Democratic Primary outside of Kucinich and Carol Mosley Braun, every candidate in the 2008 Democratic Primary outside of John Edwards, Mike Gravel, and Kucinich again, and of course, the vast majority of every Democratic House and Senate Caucus for the past 30 years.

OK, don't trust Hillary that she's being truthful despite the reams of evidence that politicians once in office try to pass what they've promised. But, Hillary is not some person on the right wing of the modern Democratic party.

Firstly. If you think I am inciting a "colorblind" argument you're mistaken. It's not either-or situation.

You're citing two presidential candidates, like somehow namedropping those names makes Clinton exempt. I am sure those two are very bad men, but doesn't doesn't excuse Hillary. I think you're deflecting.

As for the second part, what the hell are you talking about? Truthful - personal bias on your part. Libya, Iraq, arming syrian rebels, whistleblower crackdown, Nafta and deregulation of wall street-
moderate on abortions "lets keep abortions rare", against gay marriage back in the 90s, using Kosovo to fuel personal agenda, being campaign funded by Saudi monarchs. Militarization of Israel.
For a democrat with influence, she has continuously exercised appalling political acts and flipped the agenda.




I've got no problems with the movement to move the DNC to the left. I support that. But yes, once you start slamming Alan Krueger, Paul Krugman, and every economist to the right of one of the few Marxist economics programs in the US (U Mass Amherst) as being paid off shills of the evil Establishment, then yeah, I can call you out for acting like idiots.

The main reason why Democrats have had any credibility for the past 30 years is we depend on the actual numbers - or as the evil neoliberal shill who saved Obama's campaign in 2012 would say - arithmetic. Once we abandon that and start believing every economist who says we can have pizza, soda, and ice cream every night for dinner and we'll end up with a six pack, we're no better than the idiotic Republican's who believe tax cuts can pay for themselves and taking social programs away from poor people will make them get great jobs.

You don't understand socio economic policy if you actually believe this bile. Do you think countries with social economic models are some made up fantasy land that gives pizza and soda to everyone?

You're proposing a hypothetical. I don't know who said what or why about those people you mentioned, but from everything I have seen, conflict of interest and lobbying with wall street and the government is intertwined. Some of Geitners top people and political advisors during the bailouts were partially responsible.
You talk about strength in numbers give the democratic party credibility.

Is that really true? Haven't the democrats showed a continued lack unity revolving around their candidates as well as coming out for midterm elections?
And really, even if they did- what does being a majority have to do with being credible?
The democratic party in the united states is a proto center party that has been pushed to the right by a far-right republican party. Unlike most other places in the world, the US democratic values within the democratic party, are not very democratic party.

Again- Sanders is a New Dealer, reciting policy by a Republican from more than half a century ago. "If you don't believe in the new deal, you have no future in the political process". If you actually think about the many times that blue democrats have voted yes for cutting of social welfare, yes to war, yes to increased surveillance, the militarization of police, the destabilization of regions they feel no obligation to support or help after destruction, supporting rebels who end up causing destruction and death on innocents, - It all ends up to a party who is not very democratic.
So I say, if anything, Bernie Sanders has a lot more credibility for having on record- consistently, being an independent, running against this shitshow in liberal clothes.

You end by saying that voting for Bernie Sanders and believing in his policies are no better than voting for the republicans. That isn't true either. There is no consensus that their economic policies will benefit everyone but the rich. There is a proven record for Sanders, based on what is done in other countries.
America has more wealth than any other nation on earth. It is astonishingly rich. Almost none of that money is being poured into the economy, and it is a massive problem that could have global ramification as the equality goes. What the bailouts proved to everyone, was that the government(and the country) needs the banks, more than the banks, if only because the CEOs and top people in banks got theirs, if shit went to worse. Essentially, if another collapse comes, due to continued greed and corruption and the mantra of "too big to fail", the government will have to bail it out again, on the tax payers dime.
I'm puzzled that you cannot see the problematic nature of the current landscape, citing social democratic economics as some farce. It's sensible, and it's the right thing to do.
 

hughesta

Banned
Jan 16, 2014
6,270
0
0
are people seriously upset about that Killer Mike quote (that he quoted from elsewhere?) He's right. Having a uterus does not qualify you to be President. Neither does having a penis. The quote is saying that appearance and gender shouldn't matter when running for President. How is that not agreeable?
 
Jun 19, 2013
23,820
1
0
There's still a distinction. 'Establishment' isn't an inherently pejorative term while 'Bernie Bro' is.



Sure do. You originally argued that the term referred to a subset of Bernie supporters, but that is no longer there case, so using it as a generalization (especially a pejorative) cannot be handwave simply because the original meaning of the term wasn't a generalization.

Now, have you been actually reading my posts?

This is your opinion, not a fact.

Look man, I like Sanders, and am able to recognize that the paternalistic, patronizing tone that a subset of his supporters take when speaking to or about anyone who doesn't support him is no reflection on the man himself. I also don't personally use "bernie bros" because I feel that the somewhat longer but more easily understood phrase "some Sanders supporters" or a variant works better. It would apply to disingenuous posts like the one trying to equate "bernie bro" with "thug" as a code word for black people.

I can't speak for other's intentions, just mine.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
Does marching with King qualify you?

Not in and of itself, but actively participating in the civil rights movement definitely speaks well of your past judgements and political leanings, which are relevant when looking at qualifications.

What's not ok is this trend to downplay Bernie's activism just because it may not have been as significant as other activists. I find it disgusting to be quite honest, and it is in no way comparable to responding to someone who challenges your decision to not vote for Hillary by saying that she's a woman and that you need to support woman.
 

Tesseract

Banned
Dec 7, 2008
61,303
69,636
1,875
i thought bernie bros. was a millennial super mario free nintendo games from millionaires and up thing
 

FlyinJ

Douchebag. Yes, me.
Sep 22, 2005
12,696
1
0
Bernie Bros are guys on social media, mostly Twitter, Facebook, and reddit, who swarm positive messages about Clinton/negative mentions about Bernie with such numbers, volume, and condesention if the poster appears female that it makes it unpalatable for the original commenter to keep using the service. Like a certain other Internet swarm that likes to show up in force with whataboutisms and gendered slurs.

I find it fascinating that a large portion of these guys moved from Ron/Rand Paul to Sanders.

They were all Randite free market deregulation invisible hand unbridled capitalism guys who shifted to the polar opposite of their political ideals.

Mind boggling.
 
Aug 23, 2010
4,194
123
840
Florida USA
A woman said "Cue #SJW freakout"?

SMH at the way Bernie tried to compare voting for a woman because she's a woman to voting for a man because he's a man. Tone deaf.

Whats this rubbish? Its exactly the same thing. It doesn't matter whether or not men have dominated the world, if a woman wants to have a position at the table she has to bring something other than "am a woman". Ofcourse his statement that he cant say "vote for me, am a man" is stupid, but thats does not invalidate that you cannot claim to be a better candidate based on sex (or rather ride on that fact). If Sanders has the best policy he should win, likewise if Clinton has the best policy she should win. People however don't give a shit about such things, thats why idiots like trump are polling so high.
 

ApharmdX

Banned
Aug 20, 2014
3,812
0
0
If you're the wage class and/or a low income minority, how much better is today's economy for you than 25 years ago? I think it's fair to look critically at the policies passed by the Clinton administration.

Nah, minorities have no grounds to look critically at Clinton's administration, because really, he's one of us, or something.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
This is your opinion, not a fact.

No, it is a cold, hard fact based on empirical evidence. I've been called a Bernie Bro as well as hundreds of other people on the internet and around the country who don't fit the definition.

I don't just think that it happened; I EXPERIENCED IT FIRST HAND.

It's fine if you don't use the term in that way, but it doesn't mean that other people don't. Note that I'm not saying that it's the only way that it's being used right now, but it certainly is one of the ways that it's being used.
 

Aselith

Member
Mar 17, 2008
30,246
0
1,285
www.youtube.com
Not in and of itself, but actively participating in the civil rights movement definitely speaks well of your past judgements and political leanings, which are relevant when looking at qualifications.

What's not ok is this trend to downplay Bernie's activism just because it may not have been as significant as other activists. I find it disgusting to be quite honest, and it is in no way comparable to responding to someone who challenges your decision to not vote for Hillary by saying that she's a woman and that you need to support woman.

Maybe people downplay marched with King because it's not recent or relevant activism. Great he did that but if that's all he has he's been out of the game too long.
 

JesseEwiak

Member
May 9, 2013
5,839
0
0
You're citing two presidential candidrtes, like somehow namedropping those names makes Clinton exempt. I am sure those two are very bad men, but doesn't doesn't excuse Hillary. I think you're deflecting.

My point is, Hillary Clinton in 2016 isn't in the top 20 of Democratic candidates when it comes to hawkishness or neoliberalism "ever" to use your own words. I mean, fuck, Kennedy went to the right of Nixon on national defense during the 1960 election.

As for the second part, what the hell are you talking about? Truthful - personal bias on your part. Libya, Iraq, arming syrian rebels, whistleblower crackdown, Nafta and deregulation of wall street-
moderate on abortions "lets keep abortions rare", against gay marriage back in the 90s, using Kosovo to fuel personal agenda, being campaign funded by Saudi monarchs. Militarization of Israel.
For a democrat with influence, she has continuously exercised appalling political acts and flipped the agenda.

Actual studies show politicians actually try to follow up on their promises (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...features/campaign_promises034471.php?page=all / https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...aign-promises/2011/08/25/gIQAwCA9DQ_blog.html) so even if yo believe Hillary is a secret Republican, she's still going to attempt to pass some of the things she's stated.

As for the usual "the 1990's were horrible and sucked and the Clintons are terrible human beings," I'll simply point out that prior to Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party was in the same exact position the GOP is in now - they'd lost 5 out of the last 6 general elections and they were perceived as extremists, rightly or wrongly by the middle of the nation.

So, a social democrat or a New Dealer was not going to win the 1992 election. So yeah, Bill Clinton did some shitty things. He also helped preside over the strongest economy in decades, and the first economy in decades where African Americans and Hispanics actually had wealth grow - probably part of the reason why older minorities still love him - because for many of them, it was the last time the American Dream seemed possible for them.

The alternative in 1993 was not Bernie Sanders or hell, even Barack Obama if Bill Clinton wasn't the nominee. The alternative was George H.W. Bush winning another term and being forced right by his own Congress and then an even more conservative nominee from the Democrat's in 1996.

I'd also point out that every history by those within the Clinton White House during that time paints Hillary as somebody who was always making the liberal argument for policy.

You don't understand socio economic policy if you actually believe this bile. Do you think countries with social economic models are some made up fantasy land that gives pizza and soda to everyone?

Other countries are upfront with the cost - they tax middle class people a lot on their income and also have things like VAT which add additional cost to things. Which I'm fine with - but they don't throw out things like "oh, you'll save money because you won't be paying student loans or a health insurance premium." They say, "we all need to pay higher taxes to prove for society."

You're proposing a hypothetical. I don't know who said what or why about those people you mentioned, but from everything I have seen, conflict of interest and lobbying with wall street and the government is intertwined. Some of Geitners top people and political advisors during the bailouts were partially responsible.

Yes, that's fine. But, we're not talking about them. We're talking about the columnist who was the only real liberal voice on TV and in the New York Times throughout Bush's Presidency pouting cold water on the insanity of the Republican economic plans and one of the economists who authored the study that gave the idea of minimum wage hikes any positive momentum within the economics sphere.

That's not even getting into the trashing of a civil rights hero like John Lewis or an organization like Planned Parenthood simply because they chose to endorse somebody insufficiently pure.

You talk about strength in numbers give the democratic party credibility.

Is that really true? Haven't the democrats showed a continued lack unity revolving around their candidates as well as coming out for midterm elections?

I mean, I agree. It sucks that young people didn't turn out and defend the gains they made in 2008 simply because Obama didn't fix everything in eighteen months.

And really, even if they did- what does being a majority have to do with being credible?
The democratic party in the united states is a proto center party that has been pushed to the right by a far-right republican party. Unlike most other places in the world, the US democratic values within the democratic party, are not very democratic party.

Again, this is simply false. Before recently, the Labour Party picked their leadership through a system where the couple of hundred MP's had 1/3 of the vote. Most leaders in parliamentary systems are decided by the vote of the members of parliament and you're selected for a parliamentary seat by leadership within the party, not a primary.

In fact, the primary systems is one of the most open systems for deciding a nominee for leader in the world.

As for the "Democrats have moved right" silliness, the Democrat's have moved right on economics as compared to 1968. Because staying still on economics got them killed because many people who were left leaning on economics were only left leaning on economics when it came to poor white people.

So, the DNC had to go where the votes were - and those votes where with socially liberal, but economically moderate former Republican's who didn't like the Republican's embrace of populist social conservatives in the south.

Until very recently, there frankly wasn't a coalition of white liberals who were liberal on economics and social policy _and_ minorities that could win a national election. Again, numbers, not dreams.

Even putting that aside, since 2004, the Democratic Party has moved very far to the left economically. Go find the economic plans of Howard Dean, John Kerry, and the like from 2004. Now, compare them to even Hillary's promises. Hillary sounds like Kucinich compared to them.

Again- Sanders is a New Dealer, reciting policy by a Republican from more than half a century ago. "If you don't believe in the new deal, you have no future in the political process". If you actually think about the many times that blue democrats have voted yes for cutting of social welfare, yes to war, yes to increased surveillance, the militarization of police, the destabilization of regions they feel no obligation to support or help after destruction, supporting rebels who end up causing destruction and death on innocents, - It all ends up to a party who is not very democratic.

Even if I agree or disagree with the policies you stated, what does that have to do with democracy? A majority of the populace, including many Democrat's were for the war in Iraq. The vast majority of Democrat's are not isolationists, they're liberal internationalists who don't believe we should let Libya burn and let Gadaffi kill thousands or we should let ISIS and the Syria regime battle it out while tens of thousands are killed or stuck under the reign of people so extreme they make Al Qaeda go "what the fuck are you doing guys?" And frankly, I know you guys hate to hear this, but outside of Reddit and the Internet, nobody gives a damn about the NSA reading your emails.


You end by saying that voting for Bernie Sanders and believing in his policies are no better than voting for the republicans. That isn't true either. There is no consensus that their economic policies will benefit everyone but the rich. There is a proven record for Sanders, based on what is done in other countries.

Again, other countries are upfront with the actual cost - they don't try to sugar coat by telling people, "oh, you'll save money" or "you won't even notice the tax changes."

No, Denmark, Sweden, and the like say, "you're going to pay a lot more in taxes compared to America and that's a good thing."

America has more wealth than any other nation on earth. It is astonishingly rich. Almost none of that money is being poured into the economy, and it is a massive problem that could have global ramification as the equality goes. What the bailouts proved to everyone, was that the government(and the country) needs the banks, more than the banks, if only because the CEOs and top people in banks got theirs, if shit went to worse. Essentially, if another collapse comes, due to continued greed and corruption and the mantra of "too big to fail", the government will have to bail it out again, on the tax payers dime.

I'm puzzled that you cannot see the problematic nature of the current landscape, citing social democratic economics as some farce. It's sensible, and it's the right thing to do.

Like I said, I'm in favor of universal health care coverage. I'm in favor of largely fee-less based public universities. I'm in favor of vastly cutting our military budget and demilitarizing the police. I'm in favor of large scale immigration reform.

But, I'm also honest about the costs of these projects and they won't be miracles that will make America a perfect society. That's my problem with Bernie - he's promising to change the world in a moment and American politics doesn't work like that.

To enact change in America, you're going up against a political system built to make change as difficult as possible and that means small incremental changes take blood, sweat, and tears that'll largely be ignored by extremists on both ends.
 

neurosisxeno

Member
Dec 2, 2013
8,143
0
440
Vermont
Bernie Bros are guys on social media, mostly Twitter, Facebook, and reddit, who swarm positive messages about Clinton/negative mentions about Bernie with such numbers, volume, and condesention if the poster appears female that it makes it unpalatable for the original commenter to keep using the service. Like a certain other Internet swarm that likes to show up in force with whataboutisms and gendered slurs.

Before that the Internet was so civilized.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
Maybe people downplay marched with King because it's not recent or relevant activism. Great he did that but if that's all he has he's been out of the game too long.

First of all, you don't downplay something that historical, period. Doesn't matter if it's no longer current, it's just disrespectful. Secondly, that march is not the sole example of his activism over the years. He's been involved in plenty of protests and legislation over the years fighting for civil and human rights.

Bernie Sanders' historical accomplishments may not have been the most significant, but they've certainly been noble and commendable, and it's something that he's been doing for all of his adult life. His activism is certainly worth considering when discussing his qualifications as president.
 

xenist

Member
Mar 9, 2012
6,420
0
0
I don't see what the problem was with Clinton's remarks. Support for Sanders is motivated by exactly the same sentiment that motivated the Tea Party except that it comes from the opposite side of the political spectrum. "Shit's fucked up and someone radical is needed to unfuck it." Sanders' message is more palatable to me than the Tea Party's, of course, but this doesn't make the observation untrue.

It really doesn't speak highly of people's poltical acumen if they can't see that.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
27,818
2
0
This post just made me realize that eventually somebody's going to try to make "millenialaires" a thing. Fuck this darkest timeline we live on.

When do you think the last big timeline split was?

I still maintain that the hanging chads fiasco that got George W Bush into the whitehouse was the point at which timeline A split from B.

Not Berenstein/Berenstain fucking bears like people were hyping last year.
 

chugen

Member
Mar 5, 2013
2,657
5
550
your political campaigns are way too long america. everybody getting more and more mad
 

BudokaiMR2

Member
Dec 18, 2005
11,063
0
0
Osaka
When do you think the last big timeline split was?

I still maintain that the hanging chads fiasco that got George W Bush into the whitehouse was the point at which timeline A split from B.

Not Berenstein/Berenstain fucking bears like people were hyping last year.

It's more nuanced than that yo.

It split that day when Facebook became a thing for everyone and not just kids with EDU mails.
There is a timeline where Facebook comments are a bastion of political discourse and education reform has made America one of the most progressive countries in the world. And then the timeline we got stuck in.
They didn't get the Social Network movie as a result though, so maybe we win in the end?
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
I don't see what the problem was with Clinton's remarks. Support for Sanders is motivated by exactly the same sentiment that motivated the Tea Party except that it comes from the opposite side of the political spectrum. "Shit's fucked up and someone radical is needed to unfuck it." Sanders' message is more palatable to me than the Tea Party's, of course, but this doesn't make the observation untrue.

It really doesn't speak highly of people's poltical acumen if they can't see that.

I think people see the validity of the comparison just fine. But some comparisons carry certain implications beyond the surface, and that's what people are responding to.

Besides, Sanders is usually asked to comment about things that are said about him. Considering the implications of being compared to the Tea Party, what the hell is he supposed to say, "Uh, thanks"?
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
27,818
2
0
It's more nuanced than that yo.

It split that day when Facebook became a thing for everyone and not just kids with EDU mails.
There is a timeline where Facebook comments are a bastion of political discourse and education reform has made America one of the most progressive countries in the world. And then the timeline we got stuck in.
They didn't get the Social Network movie as a result though, so maybe we win in the end?

Yeah, that doesn't seem like a thing that would've been probable, even if the first event you describe had occurred. :p
 

nib95

Banned
Feb 26, 2007
34,612
2
0
I don't see what the problem was with Clinton's remarks. Support for Sanders is motivated by exactly the same sentiment that motivated the Tea Party except that it comes from the opposite side of the political spectrum. "Shit's fucked up and someone radical is needed to unfuck it." Sanders' message is more palatable to me than the Tea Party's, of course, but this doesn't make the observation untrue.

It really doesn't speak highly of people's poltical acumen if they can't see that.

You just described every presidential campaign ever. Or do you think the slogan "Change!" implies things are all lovely and don't merit radical shifts?

Or is it instead that you think there should be a cap on the degree of ambition towards change? Either way, what a ridiculous post.
 

Brakke

Banned
Jan 21, 2014
16,743
0
0
www.terrisus.com
When do you think the last big timeline split was?

I still maintain that the hanging chads fiasco that got George W Bush into the whitehouse was the point at which timeline A split from B.

Not Berenstein/Berenstain fucking bears like people were hyping last year.

Berenteain wasn't a split, it was a quantum timeline collapse. Not a lot of people know this but about 50% of the world's cats died during that period.
 

xenist

Member
Mar 9, 2012
6,420
0
0
You just described every presidential campaign ever. Or do you think the slogan "Change!" implies things are all lovely and don't merit radical shifts?

Or is it instead that you think there should be a cap on the degree of ambition towards change? Either way, what a ridiculous post.

Radicalism of this degree hasn't been majorly present in US elections in ages. From both the left and the right.

And I absolutely think there should be a level after which promises of change should be considered false advertizing. Democracy doesn't work like that. Change happens in degrees, not sharp turns. And the political systen should be responsible for educating people about this.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
Radicalism of this degree hasn't been majorly present in US elections in ages. From both the left and the right.

And I absolutely think there should be a level after which promises of change should be considered false advertizing. Democracy doesn't work like that. Change happens in degrees, not sharp turns. And the political systen should be responsible for educating people about this.

None of Bernie's proposals are being sold as overnight solutions. He's calling for dramatic change, but not at the rate you're suggesting.

And I'm sure his opponents will do a fine job in educating the public on the feasibility of his policies, just like every candidate does during election season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.