|StanleyPain - 2016-02-13 |
I know that plenty of progessive-minded people are supporting Sanders and think they are on the right side of history and that Clinton is apparently Satan in disguise, etc. etc. yadda yadda..
But here's the thing that most Sanders supporters will not discuss in any meaningful, rational way:
The man CANNOT win the election. Ever. It doesn't matter how many memes you share on facebook or how much you stalk Clinton supporters or how many slacktivist causes you attach your name to. He has no. chance. whatsoever.
Assume for a moment that Sanders actually gets the nomination. In that instant, the GOP will entact a massive and coordinated assault against him that will emphasize his proud "Socialist" self-labelling, attack his complete inexperience at diplomacy or foreign relations (which, ,given the times we live in, is a pretty substantial thing) and spend billions uncovering every single negative thing about his life down to most minute detail. The undecided vote in this country who could conceivably vote for someone like Ted Cruz, will do so simply out of the knee-jerk inability to vote for someone as different and self-described radical as Sanders. Not to mention the fact Sanders has ZERO hope of getting even the tiniest amount of cooperation from Congress and the House. Now the issue of Scalia being dead complicates it even more since even left-leaning people think that a Democrat nominee for SCOTUS (which will never even get to the paperwork phase until after the election) will be anti-gun; that magic issue that makes even mildly leftist people go running for cover under the skirt of neo-con fascism.
The man will either lose the nomination or his supporters are effectively handing over the country to the American Taliban. It's that simple. It will be the Bush years part 3 and I seriously don't think the country can really sink lower than it already has in that regard.
Good thing politics are so simple!
Bush part 3? But there were only...
oh, you went THERE didn't you.
"Things are only impossible until they aren't."
- Captain Picard
Who? You mean Jeb! He's like Prince now, his last name is just an unpronounceable symbol.
Lowering the pharmaceutical costs is a step in the right direction, but Bernie's emphasis on single payer is still putting the cart before the horse. A more realistic Bernie would be very clear that taming pharmaceutical costs, plus hospital administration costs plus etc., have to happen before single payer will work.
If Hillary is the nominee we barely even have a race, because - and I'm not one of those "both parties are the same " edgemasters or anything, there are big differences between parties in many, many cases - beneath the radically different campaign rhetoric, Trump's actual positions aren't much different than hers, they're both pro-business, centrist democrats.
And it's not like either Democrat would be able to accomplish much in office this term, the house is already lost for the next cycle (democrats aren't even contesting enough seats to come close to controlling the house, if I remember right they're going to be contesting 18 and need to win 35), for starters. So I'd rather the one whose very presence in the election sends a strong message to the public an the media than the establishment candidate, if both of them are pretty much guaranteed lame duck status, ad as much as I don't want Trump to win he'd still be better than any republican who's been in the office in my life time (Reagan and both Bushes).
But if you look beyond the mainstream news coverage at actual polling data, the majority of people agree with Bernie's core platform even if they don't claim to support him, and in the general election a lot of people who haven't been exposed to him as much as we have will be. If you look at actual economists instead of the Wall Street Journal (nice objective source, PBS! Stay classy!) there's plenty of support for his economic policies.
I'm nowhere near ready to say he's likely to win but I think he has a very real shot at it.
No idea what, if anything, a Bloomberg candidacy will change, but barring him becoming a surprise favorite, it looks like we'll be getting a democrat in office one way or the other, whether it's Bernie, Hillary or Trump, so I'm content to vote my conscience.
Nothing you said provides
A: criteria for falsification.
B : criteria for verification.
This makes everything you said rhetoric, and the growing populace that sees this will find what you said a completely valid reason to vote against whatever it is you support, since gross rhetorical irrationality based fear politics has grown repugnant to them.
I'm not saying you're wrong, at all really, just that day in and day out the pro-Clinton fear rhetoric makes her side look worse and worse and worse.
Fear only works on Republicans.
Now, rhetoric may come in three parts if you want to break it down this way :
Logos : This is your message, which for you is "Bernie bad Clinton good." Now, you have no rational criteria attached, so this is word vapor designed to shunt the reader to the second part...
Ethos : This is you and why we should listen to you. This would mean more if you were not a Hillary sycophant and were, say, a Bernie supporter, or another politician, perhaps a political historian or Vladimir Putin. As it is, this entire category is wasted.
Pathos : This is the only important part of rhetoric, EVER. It is the part where you calculate what emotion necessary to change the behavior of your target to your will. You have chosen "hate and alienation of my target audience" as the emotion to somehow make everyone vote Hillary. This is completely nonsense.
As you can see, critical thought is important because rhetoric is pure animal stupidity, when ANYONE uses it.
You stupid fucking blowhard writing he CANNOT. WIN. PERIOD are the only problem, writing people off like you're the voice of the monoculture for no reason. Retard
My argument against Sanders is that he's a snake oil salesman who knows he can't possibly deliver, and hopes to be knocked out of the competition a la Herman Cain. But he will have persuaded a lot of people that a president can do anything just through force of promises, and that will leave them more cynical than ever when actual presidents aren't Green Lantern.
But I try not to repeat myself too much.
I still insist on being optimistic about the genuine positive intentions of a great many politicians, which is why I'm all for giving them the numbers they need to get anything done. It's Congress that the Left needs to focus on, starting six years ago.
And my optimism isn't blind faith; I don't remind repeating myself about how the House Democrats passed an ACA with a public option, and the Senate Democrats failed only because there were too many Republicans to allow it to pass. Most Democrats have the public's back, jaded Leftie "conventional wisdom" be damned; at least the Democrats show up for work every day, while the Left can't even roll out of bed on Election Day.
I see Republicans as having our backs more than we do each other. There is no politician as polarized as their voting base. We demand our politicians take active steps to fuck over the people who vote for the other party, but they wont. They work together behind our backs constantly to keep the actual country running and only save the bullshit social stuff to yank away and give back to reinforce scarcity based trust (herd instinct, you will not vote outside of it, none of us will) and keep us dumb and in line.
Honestly? The way Democrats and Republican voters are, I think the state governorships are far more important than anything in the Federal government. The way Republicans run states is right in line with the hateful demands of their base, Democrats could do that too. No one in the Federal government acts like the people who vote for them, but state governors do, disastrously, and the Fed never interferes with that.
The Left need to take the states.
I'm just going to ignore your Irish/Negro repurposed slur, because it's beneath you.
Please not I would not have said "There is no politician as polarized as their voting base" two days ago, I would have said "There is no politician as polarized as their voting base, except Justice Scalia."
"Irish/Negro repurposed slur"
What the what?
Bort, you realize that private insurance is the single largest reason that medical costs are have been able to rise as high as they are (much like student loans are the reason tuition costs are high enough that students need loans) right?
"Irish/Negro repurposed slur"
What the what?"
" at least the Democrats show up for work every day, while the Left can't even roll out of bed on Election Day."
I'm neutral on this one, since meme's jab was kind of disingenuous in implying (though deniably) that you were on some level deliberately repurposing historically racist rhetoric, although he was technically right that the "can't even roll out of bed" line is pretty much exactly the rhetoric that has been used against black and Irish people in the USA at various points throughout the last 150 years or so.
It is definitely a line that sounds straight out of a Cruz town hall, though.
That' kind of like if I said that Donald Trump was greedy and meme said "how dare you call Donald Trump a Jew".
"Bort, you realize that private insurance is the single largest reason that medical costs are have been able to rise as high as they are (much like student loans are the reason tuition costs are high enough that students need loans) right?"
So your argument is that, if there were no medical insurance, hospitals would have to drop their prices and patients could pay with home-made pies and adorable thank-you notes drawn by children?
Fair enough, a minimally-regulated medical system, where neither insurers nor medical providers were prevented from gouging the public, did indeed result in both synergistically gouging the public. We've taken to regulating the one. Now let's regulate the other.
|teethsalad - 2016-02-14 |
anybody that allergic to the word socialist is already a likely dyed-in-the-wool GOP voter and has been declaring everything Obama's done over the past 7 years a comintern plot
and the idea that congress is going to work with anyone with a D behind their name, let alone Hillary Clinton, is delusional
i personally don't think the deep state would let bernie, or any candidate, for that matter, alter their plan of action drastically - but, yeah, one major terrorist attack during an election year, and people will break for the neo-con or the strongman. you're right about that.
whoops, meant as reply to StanleyPain
Anyone who thinks Bernie Sanders is a socialist doesn't know anything about him yet, too.
It literally takes 8 seconds to type "congress unanimously" into startpage and find a shitload of examples of D's and R's working together with little to no debate about it.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2655626/partisan-politics-fly-out-the -window-for-christmas-congress-unanimously-passes-microbead-free-w aters-act-with-almost-no-debate/
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s295# (yes, Bort, this one is a bit dated, admittedly)
This one's great!
|Nominal - 2018-09-24 |
Well here we are in the mess that is 2018. I'm still not tied of flipping off all the hip to be cynical Bern victims here whose foot stomping got Trump into office.
"Deep state"? For fuck's sake how are you people not ashamed of yourselves?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|