Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
It's only "reflective" through the Clinton camp confirmation bias narrative of one guy reflecting on the entire campaign.
There isn't any evidence they are telling the truth either. And considering it comes from (respectively) a Clinton supporter and one of the most bullshit-heavy dens ever conceived, the only reason to believe them is once again - confirmation bias.
With comments like that?
◊ Yeah right. I'll give you that though, that's also one guy. Probably guy, it's blurred. Although there's more comments about "real world"
◊, and "economic competence"
◊ - Clinton campaign slogans, not-so-coincidentally.
She drew the conclusions that the internet is no kinder to a woman supporting Bernie Sanders than to a woman supporting Hillary Clinton, the inconvenient truth the Clinton campaign wants to keep ignoring for the sake of their "Berniebros" message. And if you gonna claim most of the harrassment here comes from other camps(like Republican), you'll have to prove the same isn't true about the alleged "Berniebros". Someone attacking Clinton isn't always a Bernie voter - they could just be a Republican voter, unless they explicitly state their support for Bernie.
Total hoax. One has to be really desperate to even entertain the possibility of otherwise.
Here are Bernie's actual
tweets on the matter.
edited 14th Mar '16 7:33:13 AM by Luminosity
While that may be true, it'd be also drastically irresponsible and immature of Bernie to provoke Trump like that, had he actually said it. Good thing it's a hoax.
And funny thing... for all the talk of "Bernie voters vote for Trump", we don't see Clinton voters protesting Trump rallies.
edited 14th Mar '16 8:15:06 AM by Luminosity
As usual the Daily Fail has no standards whatsoever.
Speaking of standards, some on the further Left find that Sanders fails to meet theirs.
This guy thinks Sanders' movement is an empty promise
. Like Obama's "Change", he feels that the whole movement/revolution will be shut down after the Presidency is obtained, and then it's business as usual.
Corey Robin in Salon explained how the Clintons rose to power on this reactionary agenda. The Clintons, and the Democratic establishment, he wrote, repudiated the progressive agenda of the Jackson campaign and used coded language, especially regarding law and order, to appeal to the racism of white voters. The Clintons and the party mandarins ruthlessly disenfranchised those Jackson had mobilized.
Sanders is, in all but title, a Democrat. He is a member of the Democratic caucus. He votes 98 percent of the time with the Democrats. He routinely backs appropriations for imperial wars, the corporate scam of Obamacare, wholesale surveillance and bloated defense budgets. He campaigned for Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential race and again in 1996—after Clinton had rammed through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), vastly expanded the system of mass incarceration and destroyed welfare—and for John Kerry in 2004. He called on Ralph Nader in 2004 to abandon his presidential campaign. The Democrats recognize his value. They have long rewarded Sanders for his role as a sheepherder.
Kshama Sawant and I privately asked Sanders at a New York City event where we appeared with him the night before the 2014 climate march why he would not run for president as an independent. “I don’t want to end up like Ralph Nader,” he told us.
Sanders had a point. The Democratic power structure made a quid pro quo arrangement with Sanders. It does not run a serious candidate against him in Vermont for his U.S. Senate seat. Sanders, as part of this Faustian deal, serves one of the main impediments to building a viable third party in Vermont. If Sanders defies the Democratic Party he will be stripped of his seniority in the Senate. He will lose his committee chairmanships. The party machine will turn him, as it did Nader, into a pariah. It will push him outside the political establishment. Sanders probably saw his answer as a practical response to political reality. But it was also an admission of cowardice. Nader paid a heavy price for his courage and his honesty, but he was not a failure.
these wonder why he isn't more critical of Israel
.
That kind of rhetoric is one of the worst obstacles to change because it paints the tasks facing the Democrats as "revolution or bust", ignoring that steady change can be both legitimate and effective in moving progressive goals forward without undermining the stability necessary to remain in power.
Have the Democrats gone too far in the "stability" direction? I would say yes. But that doesn't mean the answer is to tear the system down from below.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"As someone not allowed into the system of my own country, I tend to sympathise. People betrayed by the system over and over again are understandably inclined to believe the only way they'll ever achieve their goals is without the system in place to begin with. Not helped by the typical moderate response of the "scary alternative", the automatic assumption that the familiar status quo is always better than the unknown.
This guy, though? Is nuts. He seems to believe Sanders has to run as an independent, and that his refusal to do so carries some kind of a uterior motive, other than complete impossibility of an independent candidate winning the presidency in the current environment.
False equivalence with Obama too. Obama acted mostly consistent within his own actual platform, if we remember that the whole "Obama is a socialist" thing as a Republican hoax and he himself is a moderate conservative, who then consistently acted within those policies as President, moving a bit left because Republicans kept treating him as a leftie.
And in believing such, they make themselves little different from Trump supporters, except in that they aren't overtly racist (mostly).
edited 14th Mar '16 8:56:33 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Jeez. Hysteria much, people? Is it not possible to approach both Clinton and Bernie in a calm manner, and avoid the broad-brush characterization of the supporters of either?
It's not rational, and the high-horse mentality is very misguided. That doesn't mean every individual supporter is a good person, or that there's no bad behavior on either side.
Don't forget the "red vs blue" experiment where they arbitrarily assigned a color to people and all of a sudden both sides were accusing each other of all kinds of things and fighting.
Don't fall into the "red vs blue" mentality and instead calmly and fairly appraise issues without falling into groupthink.
edited 14th Mar '16 9:47:12 AM by CassidyTheDevil
Your post makes the fundamental mistake of painting the sides of an argument with false equivalence, saying that they must be both "equally guilty" of incivility and/or intolerance towards each others' views. Yes, it is true that #NotAllX support a given extreme position, or do a particular bad/hateful thing. However, using #NotAllX as a way to ignore or pooh-pooh the very real bad behavior exhibited by some members of a group is equally fallacious.
There are significant differences between Sanders and Clinton supporters, as there are differences between their own political views. That is something to celebrate as healthy for our party. What is not healthy is when particular supporters of each candidate resort to ad hominem attacks on the other candidate's supporters. Everyone needs to disavow that kind of behavior.
What I've seen is that many supporters of Sanders do resort to direct ad hominem attacks on Clinton and Clinton supporters, painting them as "tools of a corrupt system". This is both false to fact and blatantly ignores the real reason many people support her; plus, it lowers the level of discourse, distracting from the actual policy issues at hand.
edited 14th Mar '16 9:53:13 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And what I've seen is that many supporters of Clinton completely excuse or ignore such behavior on their own part, right while engaging in it no less, believing every single negative thing about Sanders and his supporters at face value without ever bothering to fact-check because of confirmation bias, and painting his supporters with a nasty stereotype of exclusively and particularly bigoted scumbags ready to vote Trump with exclusive slurs such as "Berniebros".
All while claiming to do no such thing, in an act of either collossal dishonesty or monumental tone-deafness.
Meanwhile the so-called "Would-be-Trump-voters" managed to get a Trump rally cancelled, but that breaks the cosy and convenient narrative of some campaigns, and thus is not talked about.
edited 14th Mar '16 10:04:19 AM by Luminosity
That's all well and good and I can agree with that, but problem is that the myopia resulting from "us vs them" is a fundamental feature in human psychology and shifting the ball to the other side to be responsible and reasonable, even if objectively true rather than a symptom of such things, does not actually do much positive good and polarizes people further.
That's why focusing on commonalities and willing to give the benefit of the doubt to both sides helps, even if you're 100% correct that Clinton supporters have the high ground.
edited 14th Mar '16 10:12:10 AM by CassidyTheDevil
I think most people here aren't quite understanding the fact that Sanders and Clinton's potential voters are the same people. Just about every person I've heard say that they want Sanders for president have also said they'll vote for Hillary, should she win the nomination. Just about every Hillary supporter I've heard has said they'll vote for Sanders rather than a republican.
This only seems to be a "Hillary or Sanders, no in between" situation in your heads. The majority of Democrats (and moderates that I've met) are willing to vote for either.
Are the people making these attacks actual Sanders voters or simply people on social media who claim that they're Sanders voters? Become assholes on social media claim to represent lots of things and we shouldn't listen to their claims.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranA very fair article from the Times on Bernie's time as a legislator
. Basically, it paints him as a skilled player of using side rules and working across the aisle on narrow issues to get things passed that would be unlikely to go through in a straight up or down vote. While this has succeeded with some small issues and projects, however, it's been pretty unsuccessful with getting much big legislation passed. What I thought were the most relevant parts of the article are quoted below.
But one naysayer remained — Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who had opposed a similar effort in 2007 and once again did not like provisions in the new bill that he thought would displace American workers. And he had a price, a $1.5 billion youth jobs program.
Through wheeling and dealing, shaming and cajoling, Mr. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, got his wish, and his favored provision was grafted incongruously onto a tough-minded Republican border security amendment and paid for by higher visa fees for some foreign travelers.
The immigration bill, opposed by House Republicans, never became law. But the jobs program amendment was classic Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist who has spent a quarter-century in Congress working the side door, tacking on amendments to larger bills that scratch his particular policy itches, generally focused on working-class Americans, income inequality and the environment.
...
But in spite of persistent carping that Mr. Sanders is nothing but a quixotic crusader — during their first debate, Hillary Clinton cracked, “I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done” — he has often been an effective, albeit modest, legislator.
Over one 12-year stretch in the House, he passed more amendments by roll call vote than any other member of Congress. In the Senate, he secured money for dairy farmers and community health centers, blocked banks from hiring foreign workers and reined in the Federal Reserve, all through measures attached to larger bills.
“It has been a very successful strategy,” said Warren Gunnels, Mr. Sanders’s longtime policy adviser.
...
His congressional relationships with Democrats and Republicans have been largely legislative and not loving. A backscratcher he is not. Mr. Sanders is far more likely to be found alone in his apartment watching cable news than out for Chinese food with other members of Congress. In an institution where relationships are often the butter, Mr. Sanders leverages a shared policy passion to grease his legislation.
“He is not Ted Kennedy, who managed to have these personal relationships that come from the day in and day out working the halls,” said Representative Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont, who replaced Mr. Sanders in the House. “The way he works is consistent with his temperament and his skills.”
Yet counter to his reputation in his bid for the White House as a far-left gadfly, Mr. Sanders has done much of his work with Republican partners, generally people with whom he has almost nothing in common, with the notable exception of the discrete issue or two on which they see eye to eye.
He worked with Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, to prevent foreign workers from replacing Americans at banks that have had a federal bailout, and with former Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who shared his zeal for monitoring the Federal Reserve.
Mr. Sanders’s most notable partnership with a Republican was also one of his greatest successes. In 2014, Mr. Sanders, as chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, worked out an accord with Senator John Mc Cain, Republican of Arizona, on a bill to expand veterans’ access to health care after a scandal involving veterans’ hospitals across the country.
The bill did something Republicans wanted: It allowed veterans to go outside of the official hospital system to get care under certain circumstances, while it expanded the government services that Mr. Sanders demanded.
“Given how liberal he is, it made the work hard,” Mr. Mc Cain recalled last week. “But he was an honest liberal. I’ve worked with people who tell you they are going to do one thing and then do another, and Bernie did what he said. And he was very effective. It was the first real reform of the V.A. ever.”
Big legislation largely eludes Mr. Sanders because his ideas are usually far to the left of the majority of the Senate — from his notions about bank regulations, to the increase he seeks to the minimum wage, to his repeated attempts to get the federal government in the business of providing rebates for the purchase and installation of solar heating systems.
Long story short contest, a reporter from Breitbart who used to be on Fox News claims that one of Trump's campaign managers grabbed her hard enough to leave bruises while she was trying to ask Trump some question and is pressing assault charges. The bruises are real, as I saw by researching the story and saw her talking to local news about it and showing the bruises. Trump's campaign claims the whole thing never happened, and started personally attacking the reporter and her credibility. Breitbart waffled for days on its position and never quite backed up the reporter. Now a number of reporters and some editors have resigned in protest over the group's behavior.
Speaking of chaos in conservative ranks, a National Review writer vents his frustration at Trump by attacking Trump supporters, saying they and their communities are morally broken, lazy, and drains on the economy. Most of the original article, Father Fuhrer
is at least currently behind a paywall (it's only a quarter for the article, but who wants to do that, right?) but portions of it are circulating in pro-Trump regions of the internet, where they're of course causing a backlash. A quote of the portion of the article being discussed:
If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy — which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog — you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that.
Nothing happened to them. There wasn’t some awful disaster. There wasn’t a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence — and the incomprehensible malice — of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain’t what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down.
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does Oxy Contin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.
If you want to live, get out of Garbutt.
So, in short, at least some of the Republican orthodoxy is starting to openly treat poor backwater whites they way they've been treating "welfare queens driving cadillacs
" for the past 40 years or so, and those poor whites don't much care for it.
Meanwhile, Trump supproters are doing their part to hold mature dialog by shouting things like Go to fucking Auschwitz
, and throwing intentional Nazi salutes and Heil Hitlers at Trump protestors. Video and pictures inside the article.
Rubio is doing his best to prove the old adage about the stopped clock being right twice a day by denouncing the way trump has run his campaign and rallies
.
This has happened repeatedly now. This is not new. This is a pattern of the idea that: We are angry. And since we are angry we can say or do whatever we want. We are tired of being constrained by civility, tired of being constrained by rules of cultural engagement. We are tired of being told.
And I get it, people are frustrated with the direction of our country.
But leaders cannot say whatever they want, because words have consequences. They lead to actions that others take. And when the person you're supporting for president is going around and saying things like, 'Go ahead and slap them around, I'll pay your legal fees,' what do you think's going to happen next?
...
This is a different level that we're discussing now. This is the intentional injection of the use of people's anger, basically. This is a political candidate in Donald Trump who has identified that there's some really angry people in America. They feel as if they've been mistreated by the culture, by society, by our politics, by our economy. And he knows this. And they have been in many instances. They really have. … And along comes a presidential candidate and says to you, "You know why your life is hard? Because fill in the blank — somebody, someone, some country — they're the reasons for it. Give me power, so I can go after them."
That's what he's feeding into. That is not leadership. That is not productive leadership. That is not good leadership. And it is not keeping with our American tradition. That is a style of leadership that says, "I know you're angry, and I'm going to take advantage of it so that you vote for me." But what it overlooks is the consequences of it.
I'll give Rubio credit, my opinion of him went up after reading that. The man can occasionally be more than an empty suit after all.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Kasich is already sunk (even more so); because of a delay he won't be on the ballot in Pennsylvania.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/politics/john-kasich-gop-primary-pennsylvania-ballot/index.html
The best he can do now is hold Trump off in Ohio and allow the RNC to pull a fast one at the convention.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Kasich won't be their hero, though. A brokered convention would be between Cruz, Rubio and Romney.
And now I want someone at that convention to quote The Dark Knight. "Trump is the candidate the Republican Party deserves, but not the candidate it needs."
Treating poor backwater whites like that is a sure fire way to convince them to vote Democrat like it has for African-Americans, Hispanics, and Muslims, and without those poor backwater whites, the Republicans have no damn base for their party.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyThe reason that poor backwater whites won't vote Democrat is because they are racist as fuck.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Did Mc Cain just endorse Sanders in a way?
No, the Republican Establishment are the rich, white guys. The Republican Base is poor white folk. Without the poor white folk, the rich white guys would have no chance of winning any election.
Wizard Needs Food Badly

@Achae, I bought this up last time and you never answered, how did the campaigner know that the guy he was calling was black? Or is it not more likely that he didn't and that it's the guy who was called who's making a link between being black and welfare?
@Sixth, I see proof that such folks exist as people on the internet, but no proof that they're actual voters who actually vote for Sanders and would actually defect to Trump. It's entirely possible that the entire online lot are a combination of troll non-voters, 15 year old Sanders supporters who can't vote, Trump supporters trying to discredit Sanders and 4-chan members stirring the pot for fun.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran