Marty Taylor 1 week ago
Everyone keep a close eye on the man in glasses standing behind Bernie Sanders. Did he queue this man to collapse? Look at the gestures he makes with his eyes right before the fall. Also, he has a greatly delayed reaction compared to everyone else on the stage. Watch it a few times, you can clearly see it.
LERN THE **T*R*U*T*H**
FREE YOUR MIND
STOP BEING CONTROLLED
Yeah. I don't know why I would say Raelian. Simple fnord mistake, I guess.
Those Youtubers are silly. Why would somebody stage something like this? What would they have to gain?
In all seriousness, I think it helps to remember a couple of thing.
First, the notion that stage performers might use audience plants is not a controversial one. It is widely acknowledged to occur, and indeed, in the case of sales presentations (which is what political campaign speechs are) it is even expected.
Second, fainting audience members being helped by politicians is something that happens _all the time_. President Obama, for example, has done this perhaps dozens of times on camera, to great PR effect. Each of Bernie Sanders' opponents have done this, too.
It could indeed be a coincidence that, these days, every politician happens to get this kind of opportunity to shine, but we can't really fault the plebs for being skeptical.
I would agree with EH but I have to stick to my vow of "emotional appeals and emoticons only," because the last thing I want is to be accused of being a flip-flopper.
Five for the misleading preview image, five more for this allegedly being the "complete video" despite the obvious cut (most likely edited just to shed some boring around-standing but still), and another five for the last couple seconds where Bernie violently lashes out at the poor man.
Practicing ancient Hawaiian Kahuna magic taught to him by Barack Obama, Bernie is able to project thought forms from his solar plexus with such force as to be able to knock a man down at twenty paces. #feelthebern
This was his subtle warning to the Republicans: he has the ability to bring death as well as restore life, so they'd better not obstruct him.
You can see the majestic moment in his stump speech where he walks off the stage into empty space, levitating up to the ceiling and exploding in a shower of golden and crimson sparks.
It's so refreshing to have a presidential candidate that has recognizable human emotions for a change.
I don't begrudge Sanders showing the bare minimum of human integrity at a public event where pretty much any Democratic candidate would feel obligated to demonstrate some concern. And I don't doubt it's sincere on Sanders' part. But come on, all he did was walk over when a guy collapsed 20 feet from him; he didn't even make contact with the guy until the end of the video.
That's how deep the blind cynicism has become.
Bort can't let us have this one nice thing. There's no hope allowed in Bort land. Only the status quo. Bort bort bort.
Jesus Christ, Bort. It was a joke.
For someone that vigorously tows the line of compromise and political cooperation, you seem remarkably willing to die on every single fucking hill you see.
Not to mention, the guy arguing that Bernie Sanders will never be able to accomplish anything so we should all line up before Clinton of the Clintons because she knows hot to play the game accusing anyone of cynicism is just mind-blowing.
No, Bort is right to caution us against emotional manipulation, as he often is. As Discordia points out below, this is a fairly common occurrence on the campaign trail, and it would be a mistake to read too much into it.
Consider politicians kissing babies. If you saw a candidate kissing a baby, what would be your response?
For fuck's sake, Sanders is showing just a very base level of decent behavior, and people are practically swooning. It's a bit much.
And I'm not saying people should line up behind Clinton because Sanders will not be able to accomplish anything. I'm saying people should reject Sanders because he is cynically manipulating people who have more idealism than good sense. If he were straight with his supporters -- "look, no Democrat will be able to get much done until you fix Congress, that's a job only the voters can do" -- I'd be much more supportive of the guy. But Sanders trashes Obama for being "naive" (because Obama can do elementary school math and knows Republicans have numbers that allow them to obstruct), while more often than not making like he will be exempt from it because he'll have "popular support" and a "political revolution" and a "bully pulpit". (Yes O_Z, sometimes he mentions voting Republicans out of Congress too. Just a hell of a lot less frequently than you think he does, and certainly less frequently than he should.)
"Bort can't let us have this one nice thing. There's no hope allowed in Bort land. Only the status quo. Bort bort bort."
I just showed up in your mirror. Put on a different shirt, that one has stains.
So it's not a nice thing that, as Discordia showed, politicians who aren't Bernie will also show a base level of empathy?
Voting them out of Congress is so easy to do with the whole gerrymandering they've accomplished and all.
Also, what makes you think the center-right party that is the Democrats are going to change anything for the better? They're guided by a neoliberal ideology and have no interest, by and large, in upsetting their corporate donors and getting us anything approaching sensible progress like UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE or UNIVERSAL EDUCATION or even basic HUMAN FUCKING DIGNITY.
SO why not upset their apple cart and throw a vote Sanders's way in the primary and try and change something a little?
ANd when he eventually loses, push for third party reform by voting for Stein.
"Blah blah neoliberal dross blah blah Clinton is sensible choice blah blah status quo blah blah I am comfortable in this economy so why change, I got mine blah blah"
"Voting them out of Congress is so easy to do with the whole gerrymandering they've accomplished and all. "
Gerrymandering gives Republicans an advantage of, what, 5% or 10% per district. That's the arithmetic of it: give the Republicans a barely sufficient advantage in as many districts as possible. That arithmetic is based on the awareness of how terrible the Left is at voting: 5% or 10% would be easy to beat in a midterm election, if the Left were ever to vote.
Also, how is it that those districts got to be so gerrymandered in the first place? Couldn't be because Leftie dumbfucks stayed at home in November 2010, could it?
"Also, what makes you think the center-right party that is the Democrats are going to change anything for the better?"
Once again, the story of the public option is instructive: House Democrats passed an ACA with a public option in 2009, and the Senate Democrats failed to do so only because there were one too many Republicans in the chamber. Consider that a pretty good indication that the Democrats will pass good legislation for you if you put enough of them in office, and if there is a problem it lies not with the Democrats but with the idiots on the Left. You know, the jackasses who decided the best response to disappointment in 2009 was to let a wave of Teabaggers into office in 2010.
"SO why not upset their apple cart and throw a vote Sanders's way in the primary and try and change something a little?
ANd when he eventually loses, push for third party reform by voting for Stein."
Fine, if you're fucking retarded, that's a GREAT strategy. You deserve to be ruled by Republicans; hope nobody you know ever needs an abortion.
Like Hilary isn't going to roll back abortion access. Who are you trying to kid?
Bort's died on so many hills he should change his name to WWII Batallion
One thing I find interesting about all this is that, apparently, not even Democrats want to vote for a Democrat anymore.
You can say what you like about the Clintons, but one thing for sure is that they like to party!
"Gerrymandering gives Republicans an advantage of, what, 5% or 10% per district. That's the arithmetic of it:"
Stop trolling me by pretending to be a super low information voter, EvilBort!
For the rest of us :
"Stop trolling me by pretending to be a super low information voter, EvilBort!"
I stand by 5% - 10%. Let's look at Pennsylvania:
"For example, in Pennsylvania, Democrats won 50.7 per cent of the statewide popular vote to Republicansí 49.3 per cent. Yet thirteen Republicans won their races with an average of fifty-nine per cent of the vote, while five Democrats won their races with seventy-six per cent of the vote."
The game of gerrymandering is about giving Democrats a huge advantage in a small number of districts, while giving Republicans a slight advantage in a large number of districts. Hell, I live in Marcy Kaptur's ridiculously-shaped district; she pulled 67.7% in the last election -- not at all competitive for Republicans, by design. But Republican-leaning districts are conceivably competitive in low-turnout years, if the Left would just vote. A 37% turnout rate doesn't get to complain.
"One thing I find interesting about all this is that, apparently, not even Democrats want to vote for a Democrat anymore.
The Left is so afraid of being "sheeple", they look for every excuse to consider themselves violated by the Democrats. This leads to them believing indefensibly stupid things, for example kingarthur saying "like Hilary isn't going to roll back abortion access".
The exception is when some fresh-faced newcomer to Washington appears and says things the Left wants to hear, like Obama or Sanders. Then they believe with all their hearts that they have found a new messiah who will fix everything with the magic wand that all presidents are given ... and then they feel betrayed all over again when (surprise!) it turns out they didn't elect an emperor after all. Because the Left never ever figures it out, that the problem isn't the Democrats nearly as much as the Republicans, and if they bothered to oust the Republicans they might stand a shot at some of their goals.
You know who else went through the same process? Bill Clinton. People hoped and prayed he would be The One, but then he couldn't pass health care and voters let the Republicans take over the House in 1994. This happens like clockwork, and the only people who have the power to break the cycle are Leftie non-voters. (I consider writing in a joke candidate -- like "lizard people" or "Pinkie Pie" or "Jill Stein" -- equivalent to not voting at all.)
I'm not going to argue with you over your cherry picking.
I made this :
"Fine, if you're fucking retarded, that's a GREAT strategy. You deserve to be ruled by Republicans; hope nobody you know ever needs an abortion."
-into a motivational poster, but have no place to upload it. I laughed out loud. This would be straight out of Aristotle's rhetoric if Aristotle were your alcoholic out of work dad. Please don't go out like Breitbart from an alcoholic political rage stroke. Old Zircon would be :(
But please keep endorsing Bernie by representing Hillary in this way.
Bort, if you're not PJ O'Rourke already, you need your own AM radio show or Sirius XM time slotted podcast. You're a great pundit and I think you would enjoy it, especially if you had guests and took calls.
Bort - I mostly agree! Although I am not convinced of your claim that Democrats act like scoundrels, because of the existence of Republicans. I think it's far more likely those Democrats act like scoundrels _because they are scoundrels_.
Meme - you are a fan of PJ O'Rourke?!
EH - It's not so much "act like scoundrels" as "can only pass legislation that is satisfactory to Republicans". That means compromises that piss off the Left, but are necessary to get anything at all passed. The solution, of course, is to change the makeup of Congress so that Republicans have less power, which unfortunately falls to the Left.
meme - here ya go:
Is that _really_ true though, Mr Bort? First, the way you frame your view presupposes that America is split into well-defined camps of Good Guys (Democrats) and Bad Guys (Republicans), an extremely simplistic viewpoint, and one which I don't think someone as intelligent and well-informed as you are could honestly believe. And leaving aside the framing of the issue, if your claim was true, it would necessitate the corollary - Republicans can't pass legislation unless it's satisfactory to Democrats. If all legislation is the result of a dialectic which makes it acceptable to BOTH parties, then both parties must therefor be partners in the resultant legislative scoundrelry.
Homie, I have a weird fascination with his fashion sense. I can't explain it.
"First, the way you frame your view presupposes that America is split into well-defined camps of Good Guys (Democrats) and Bad Guys (Republicans), an extremely simplistic viewpoint, and one which I don't think someone as intelligent and well-informed as you are could honestly believe."
EH, can you think of a single good policy the Republicans have championed since the 20th century? It really has been that long since the Republicans have been good for anything.
"If all legislation is the result of a dialectic which makes it acceptable to BOTH parties, then both parties must therefor be partners in the resultant legislative scoundrelry."
What either party can accomplish in the absence of obstruction is far different from the middle ground they finally meet at, though. And that's just the stuff where a compromise of any kind can be found; a great deal of legislation simply died in the Senate because of Republican obstruction.
Medicare D, biggest socialist act in American history.
Dubya is more of a socialist than Hillary.
I'm not sure that Medicare Part D is the wonder that you make it out to be:
>> EH, can you think of a single good policy the Republicans have championed since the 20th century?
Well, the question isn't whether Team Republican is good (the question is whether one team is good and the other is evil; it is entirely possible that both are evil) but YES! Yes, in fact, I can think of four good policies which the Republicans have championed since the 20th century.
1. In the late 90s, Dick Cheney (later to become Vice President of the United States) wrote the core draft of the USA PATRIOT Act, a key piece of legislation which, only a few years later later, was needed to keep America safe from terrorists. While often underestimated and (some might say purposefully) ignored by the mainstream media, Cheney was absolutely instrumental in laying the framework for our current security.
2. Last year, retired military officer and former Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain, made the following statement: "(During World War II) if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didnít say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war... If these people are radicalized and they donít support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States as a matter of principle, fine. Itís their right and itís our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict." Internment camps for the politically disloyal; makes sense to me. About time, too!
3. In 2008, Karl Rove, Chicago-educated academic and trusted advisor to President GW Bush, wrote a series of papers calling for covert government infiltration of dissident groups, employing non-government actors (sometimes without their knowledge) for the purpose of spreading vital, Republican-Party-approved points of view. While some leftwing conspiracy theorists claimed that this was a clear and blatant call for state-sponsored brainwashing and propaganda, what these people failed to consider was that the Republican Party has the public's best interests at heart, and any lies or media manipulation will be done for the sake of freedom and egalitarianism.
Four things, Mr Bort, four admittedly _difficult and challenging_ things which, nevertheless I think, needed to be done. Do you agree?
Five stars for the "CLEARLY THIS WAS STAGED" Youtube comments.
Apparently a common occurrence https://youtu.be/ynyXGScxUu0
Here's Hillary taking charge of the situation: https://youtu.be/78rfAAjriBo
Ted Cruz: https://youtu.be/PMttf7z-Pbs?t=18m39s
It's funny, I submitted this video almost entirely to troll Bort (hence the description), but after seeing those I'm actually surprised to see how emotionless the other candidates' responses are.
I wasn't going to take the bait until Ana started going "OMG Bernie's so soulful SQUEEEEEEEE!"
But if we're going to read way too much into this, I'd rather have a President who identifies a problem and then directs the appropriate resources to solve the problem, than one who just stands there looking befuddled. We had the latter with Katrina, and we're seeing it again with BernieGuyFallDownGate.
Now who's trolling whom?
Oh. So poester aren't actually taking this nonsense seriously, they're merely pretending to, in order to troll Bort?
In that case - Bort, why do you hate sick people?
EH, I can't speak for anyone else, I saw this clip the other day and pretty much forgot about it until I saw this on the front page:
and the plan pretty much hatched itself.
I suspect most of the commenters on here are at least half serious, though.
I admit I was conflicted about whether or not to put something in the tags to signal I was messing with it, since posting this now just makes it look like I'm trying to backpedal, but I figure better that and have it work.
We're all flip floppers, it's cool. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little bitches.
: ) 2016
Don't lock the knees when standing for prolonged periods of time.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|