05-26-2016, 01:19 PM | #1526 | |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
Quote:
Please rephrase in a way that is not "divisive or bigoted."
__________________
|
|
05-26-2016, 03:38 PM | #1527 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
It's difficult for me to say anything without coming across as though I'm in agreement. I'm not. Objectively, the facts say that foreign Muslims who emigrate or even just visit the US are the least likely to commit acts of terror; and a ban on them would accomplish next to nothing.
However, I'm really not seeing where the bigotry lies. He is not suggesting this attitude out of a hatred or fear of Muslims specifically; it seems to me that he is drawing a clear line between ethnic groups and governments. If ISIS is sending Muslim agents into the US, it would be logical (if insensitive) to suggest that the travel of Muslims be stopped entirely until there is a better and more secure way of handling that problem.
__________________
|
05-26-2016, 03:53 PM | #1528 | |||
Silver LO
|
Now, Imma let you finish, but that clause is dead wrong. Painting the majority of Mexicans immigrants as thieves and rapists, wanting to ban all Muslims from coming into the country (nearly a quarter of the world's population, and let's not forget they worship the same God he purports to worship), leading the idiocy that was the "birther" movement, stereotyping seemingly every group... he's practically the anthropomorphic manifestation of bigotry.
And honestly, when he rants out about Muslims, it's pretty clear he doesn't mean white Muslims. He means the ones that "look like" Muslims, whether or not they're actually Muslim at all. While clearly and indisputably a xenophobic thing, it's also got a fair amount to do with racism as well. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Slash; 05-26-2016 at 03:58 PM. |
|||
05-26-2016, 04:28 PM | #1529 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Lines are pretty much firmly drawn now for Trump vs Not Trump, and the Trump side is smaller. He's had so much limelight and been so divisive that I doubt there are a great number of truly floating voters left.
Trumps strategy at this point really has to be twofold. First, make sure to turnout the faithful; both the Trump faithful and, by working with the Republican establishment, the Republican faithful. It's in the party's best interests to work with him on this as well because higher turnout of the party faithful helps down ballot Republicans. Second, he needs to play on the fact that Clinton is nearly as unpopular as he is and drive down turnout amongst traditionally Democrat voters by slinging as much mud her way as possible. Democrat voters tend to turn out better for Presidential elections than other elections, but if he can drag Clinton through the mud he can drive turnout down. Republican voters are more likely to turn out to a Presidential race with two unpopular candidates (just to vote in other elections on the same day, which Republicans are better at driving turnout for) and thrn just throw a vote to him while there because he's not a Democrat named Clinton, so it's in his interest to make the race as toxic as possible for both candidates. Tl;dr toxic race with two unpopular candidates much more negatively impacts Democrat turnout than it does Republican turnout, so being as unpleasant as possible whilst cosying up to the Republican establishment is a potentially winning strategy. He'll walk back his campaigns most controversial points just far enough to get the bulk of the Republican establishment behind him and ramp up the same childish personal attacks he used during the primary race for Clinton.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 05-26-2016 at 04:38 PM. |
|
05-26-2016, 05:15 PM | #1530 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
The last week has demonstrated to me quite clearly that no-one on UPN has any idea what objectivity is lol.
The race looks fun! A man who is woefully unqualified to be President (or be in charge of anything, for that matter) vs a woman who is known to be corrupt, ineffective and a pathological liar to boot. Veeps yet to be picked, a number of stragglers still in the race for reasons that have varying degrees of sense, and a political system which is straight up designed to be incredibly unrepresentative. Democracy! |
05-27-2016, 04:54 AM | #1531 | |||
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
Unfortunately he seems to be going with the other strategy, the one you mentioned: Quote:
The worst part is that Clinton and Sanders are both not bothering to appeal to conservative voters. Trump could set himself as an obvious leftist candidate and his core voter base would still love him + he'd snap up Democrats who find Clinton and Sanders too far left for their tastes. Presumably Trump's political analysts know better than I do, but it's hard to say that in good conscience when the easy move goes ignored for this long. He has the nation's attention, and he keeps throwing it away on reinforcing his image as a divisive bigoted asshole. I can't figure out for the life of me why he would willingly do that. Quote:
Clinton may be corrupt, ineffective, and dishonest, but she has connections that might keep things from getting too out of hand. And even if a Hillary presidency hits its worst case scenario to delay the country's recovery for another four long, draggy years, she's still the first female president and that's noteworthy. ;) Tbh our system is misleading. You may think that a Democrat majority in congress plus a Democrat president plus a Democratic SCOTUS would mean that the Democrats do what they want, but in fact the Republicans still have the power to stall and block if they really dislike something. Our system lends huge amounts of weight to individuals and small groups, and there is no way to guarantee that you can push anything through Congress. Filibusters, committee votes, and other small political processes can kill a bill before it's even heard. That said I totally agree with you, this election is a huge farce. But that's why I love it!
__________________
|
|||
05-27-2016, 05:55 AM | #1532 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Sadly the fact that it takes Hillary Rodham Clinton to be a conceivable female candidate says a whole lot about sexism in America.
And by unrepresentative I was more talking about how unashamedly rigged the constituency and EC systems are. |
05-27-2016, 07:16 AM | #1533 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
My eyes are dollar signs.
If Trump gets elected, I could retire after the killing I make this Fall.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
05-27-2016, 07:31 AM | #1534 | |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
Gameable? Yes. Absolutely. Clinton just proved that by being senator of a key swing state and doing basically nothing in order to easily secure the delegates from that state in the convention. But I dunno about rigged, that's a little different. Unless Hillary engaged in voter fraud to secure votes she otherwise would not have gotten thanks to her position in power over New York polling, in which case the States have a bigger problem than the College system itself.
__________________
|
|
05-27-2016, 02:18 PM | #1535 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
It's fun watching Trump talk energy policy. He's straight up lying/comically-mistaken about COP 21 in order to get coal miner votes.
|
05-28-2016, 12:07 AM | #1536 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Unsurprising. Rewinding to the Democratic primary, Clinton's courting of the environmentalist left cost her West Virginia, a state well-known for its poverty and reliance on coal mining to provide jobs. Sanders didn't have to really say "COAL IS AMAZING!" so much as not say "COAL IS THE DEVIL!" to give him a huge leg up over Clinton.
__________________
|
06-01-2016, 09:56 AM | #1537 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
|
06-01-2016, 04:03 PM | #1538 |
Noted homosexual
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
|
Have we gone over Donald Trump's desire to "open" California's water yet? Because that was actually really interesting.
Also I'm done with the primary and the last thing I'm going to say about this is that the Bernie Bros really lost me when they started going after poor little retiring Barbara Boxer for absolutely no reason and calling one of the most liberal members of Congress a DINO. I really hope that once Bernie's gone his "movement" quickly evaporates and doesn't try to become a left wing tea party. On a note unrelated to the presidential election I am going to be a delegate at the Massachusetts Democratic Party's convention this Saturday so that should be a fun and interesting experience.
__________________
|
06-01-2016, 05:56 PM | #1539 | ||
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
Did you not watch ANY of the Nevada state caucus? Prior to this, Bernie had secured more delegates in Nevada than Hillary did. Barbara Boxer and the out-of-state establishment democrats came to the convention, suspended the rules when the votes against doing so were VERY OBVIOUSLY louder and more prevalent than those in favor of it, and then basically allowed roughly 30 more delegates to represent Clinton, which allowed her to overtake Bernie's narrow lead over her, ultimately securing her a few more delegates on a national level, even though prior to this Bernie actually had more. And yeah, there is a conflict of interest - Boxer's grandson is Hillary's nephew. They're practically family. When "Bernie Bros" got angry and protested what the democrats in control of the convention were doing, Boxer basically told them all to shut the fuck up and deal with it. Tell me, Deh, how can you in good conscience be so obviously biased? Like, to such an extreme? And before you try to say 'pot calling the kettle black', you don't even need to read a single article on any of this. You can go on YouTube and watch pure, live recorded, unadulterated footage of the convention yourself. I'm not sure how anyone could watch it and not think "Wow, maybe there really are some shenanigans afoot!" edit: Quote:
This movement isn't going anywhere. Neither you nor anyone else will diminish the millions of angry American democrats and independents who are fed up with so many broken things in the system. You can pretend it's gone, but it's not going anywhere but up. Even if Bernie loses, the movement only manifested itself because so many of us feel the same way. It's not going anywhere. And I do hope that perhaps the outcome means a new Progressive party, if that's what it takes. Last edited by deoxys; 06-01-2016 at 06:08 PM. |
||
06-01-2016, 06:39 PM | #1540 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Maybe it's because I am less invested in Sanders than many who prefer Sanders to Clinton, but when I read deh's post I didn't take "Bernie Bros" as a personal attack. I felt like he was attacking the *ahem* "neckbeard fedora tippers" who ardently support Sanders. The types who support Sanders with as much fanaticism and fervor as the woman with the creepily joyous face oozing religious ecstasy who supported Trump. You remember the one. Her. When deh says something like "Bernie Bros," I don't feel like he's talking about me. I feel like I've been pretty calm, level-headed, even dispassionate. And I don't even feel like he's talking about you or Rangeet. I feel like he's calling out the Bernie Sanders equivalents of the fanatical Trump supporters.
__________________
|
06-01-2016, 06:53 PM | #1541 | |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
And the best part is they've done this song and dance before, you just might not remember it (because it wasn't nearly as widespread). Bonus post-primary aftermath reaction |
|
06-01-2016, 06:56 PM | #1542 |
Noted homosexual
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
|
Thank you for demonstrating what I think has gone wrong among a surprisingly large portion of the progressive movement. They are unwilling to accept the fact that their favored candidate lost the primary fair in square, even though their candidate has explicitly come out and said that the primary was not rigged against him, many of them refuse to consider supporting Hillary Clinton once Bernie finally admits he's been defeated and in doing so make it that much easier for fucking Donald Trump to become president. They threaten violence against the convention and send death threats to party members. They complain about the primary system when in fact undemocratic caucuses are a large part of their candidates success and once it becomes clear they're not going to win a majority of pledged delegates they start running around telling the unpledged delegates that they should vote for their candidate even though that goes against the national popular vote.
This isn't to say that I think everything is fine as is, i was a VERY early supporter of Senator Sanders and I voted for him in the Massachusetts primary, but since then the level of vitriol and immaturity coming from his campaign, his supporters, and even the man himself and being directed at literally anybody who doesn't agree with them 100% of the time on 100% of the issues has driven me and many other progressives away from him, destroyed our faith in his ability to govern good faith, and seriously damaged my lpersona opinion of the man himself. And now this stunt he's pulling by pretending he can win in California and pretending he can still win the nomination is seriously hurting the party, himself, and the progressive movement and granting Donald Trump an early boost. Bernie Sanders said that his main priority would be defeating Donald Trump but it seems to me and many others that he intends to burn down the Democratic Party just to prove a point and hope that Trump will be so bad at the job that a"#TrueProgressive" (whatever that means) is elected in 2020. In case you weren't aware of this that's what Nader supporters said in 2000, accelerationism didn't work then, it didn't work with Reagan, and it's not going to work now. What us progressives can do is try as hard as we can to elect as good a person as we can. We tried to elect Bernie and failed, now it's time to go to the next best option, Hillary Clinton, who was more liberal than Obama in 2008, and who's campaign in 2016 is so liberal that it makes Obama 2008 look like a Blue Dog in comparison. And before you reply, everything that happened in Nevada was as a result of a highly undemocratic caucuses that less than 10,000 people participated in, and what happened at their convention was completely legal according to the rules of the party, which isn't too say that those rules shouldn't be changed, just saying it was fully and completely allowed and the Sanders campaign knew that. Now please excuse me while I go back to focusing on my own personal issues of education, LGBT rights, infrastructure, housing, and transportation, work that I do with a variety of progressive groups and organizations in Massachusetts. While you sit around and pray to your Great God of Politics hoping that he'll magically make things better. That is, of course, unless you actually do on the ground work with progressive organizations to further progressive causes beyond the presidential level.
__________________
|
06-01-2016, 07:01 PM | #1543 | |||||
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
edit: Decided to be polite enough to skim the rest of what you had to say. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by deoxys; 06-01-2016 at 07:13 PM. |
|||||
06-01-2016, 07:01 PM | #1544 |
Noted homosexual
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
|
I'd just like to add that Talon's assessment of my use of the phrase Bernie Bros is spot on, just that, as a former volunteer for his campaign, I've seen how these people have been becoming more prevalent as the primary continued and eventually can't that I could not work in the same campaign as them while they ran around praising fucking Jill Stein and attacking people like Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Barney Frank, who I have actually had the pleasure to meet on multiple occasions, with vicious half truths and blatant lies, even resurrecting things like whitewater and the Vince Foster conspiracy.
__________________
|
06-01-2016, 07:06 PM | #1545 | |
Noted homosexual
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
06-01-2016, 07:16 PM | #1546 | |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
I'm leaving it at that because this discussion has been seriously skimming the rules of the debate forum as it is and I'd rather not invoke the wrath of our overlords. |
|
06-01-2016, 07:17 PM | #1547 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
And it's the same for me with a label I had never even heard before June 1, 2016, like "Bernie Bros." First I've ever heard it. But I see a label like that and my mind instantly shifts to the recent kerfuffle in Nevada. Hardcore Sanders supporters who are doing his movement more harm than good. The ones that delegate after delegate has been quoted on record as saying, "I had been on the fence"/"I had been going to vote for Sanders," either/or!, "but now I'm not going to. If that's what his supporters are like, then no thanks." They don't see passionate youth fighting to rid a corrupt system of its poison. They see a nutjob angry mob. They see people they would be uncomfortable sharing a bus seat with, much less inviting into their homes for tea and cake. They see people they sincerely diagnose as deranged. They worry about concealed weaponry and how it might be used by the crazies to harm them. They distance themselves. They want no part of it, of any of it. "Get me outta here!" If deh is saying that anyone who dislikes Clinton as a candidate but identifies as liberal is "a leftist Tea Partier," then yeah, I'm with you in your disapproval of his post and his attitudes. But I didn't take his post that way. When he spoke of a "leftist Tea Party," of "Bernie Bros," I took him to mean the Sanders supporters who have already donated thousands of dollars despite working a minimum wage job less than 40 hours a week. I took him to mean the fanatics who have attended every convention in the country. I took him to mean the ones who stroke Bernie's decrepit electronic dick at every opportunity Reddit and Facebook permit them. Like ... I don't think he's entirely wrong. There are radical liberals coming out of the woodwork now, who are every bit as fervent and ideological as their conservative Tea Party counterparts. Sanders has reopened a discussion in this country about socialism and you have more than teens reading The Communist Manifesto for their first time weighing in on this. Many of Sanders' proposals are as impossible to see passed into legislation in the next ten years than the craziest of Tea Party wishlists. I can well understand why a more moderate liberal, and one who identifies as a party Democrat to boot, would be disturbed by the Sanders movement. I have moderate Republican friends who have been there for the past eight years with respect to the Tea Party. EDIT: In the time it took me to proofread my reply before posting, you each got in an additional three posts and are at each others' throats, it seems. Holy cow. Will be back soon, I need to read what you all wrote. But ... uh ... I would suggest you both not lose more time on this thread right now. You both deserve better than that. Life's too short to waste an hour on Internet arguments.
__________________
|
|
06-01-2016, 07:24 PM | #1548 |
Noted homosexual
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
|
I've gone off and thought for a few minutes and I've realized that in this exchange I've been guilty of some of the things i accused you of. I would like to take this time to apologize for any perceived personal insults and I hope that we can work together in the future.
__________________
|
06-01-2016, 07:26 PM | #1549 | |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Talon: Really quickly - while you may have not heard the term until today, I just want to leave this here and here are two articles a quick google search returned on the term and the short history of its use
Quote:
|
|
06-01-2016, 07:33 PM | #1550 | |
Noted homosexual
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
|
Quote:
I'd like to turn our attention now to an experiment in Oakland that is trying to test the effects of a universal basic income on people's lives. This has been proposed by many in the face on a potential mass automation of jobs in coming decades. http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/31/y-c...nt-in-oakland/ On a side note Switzerland may also be implementing such a program on a nationwide scale pending the results of a referendum on the issue.
__________________
|
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|