[Obdigore]

Tiste Simeon, on 29 February 2016 - 04:34 PM, said:

John Oliver nails it again. He didn't even go into the racism etc...

Except he did, unless you think the 'White Supremacist' movement isn't racist...

[Tiste Simeon]

Oh yeah forgot about that bit. What I meant is he didn't make that the sole focus of his part, and didn't really mention that until at least halfway through. He focused more on just exposing the lies and deceit.

[Nevyn]

Tiste Simeon, on 29 February 2016 - 09:44 PM, said:

Oh yeah forgot about that bit. What I meant is he didn't make that the sole focus of his part, and didn't really mention that until at least halfway through. He focused more on just exposing the lies and deceit.

Yeah, good to have someone lampoon the 'he tells it like it is" bs


More like "he tells it like *I* think it is despite there being massive irrefutable evidence to the contrary and room for serious doubt that even he believes it" - with *I* being the voter in question.

[worry]

The mascot vs man stuff was the best.

And yah including but not aiming at his racism is key because, frankly, the bulk of his supporters don't find fault with that fact.

[Terez]

For those not paying much attention, tomorrow is Super Tuesday. It will be a big day for Hillary and Trump, though both of them will lose at least one state (Bernie will win his home state of Vermont, and Ted Cruz will likely win his home state of Texas). 12 contests, one of which is American Samoa (not a state; only 6 delegates at stake).

Bernie has a chance to win a few other states aside from Vermont, but it's looking like Trump will win 10.

[HoosierDaddy]

Don't matter how many Bernie wins, Terez, unless he wins a majority and upsets. Clinton's already got negative Republican ads running against her in states because the Republicans know what's going down.

You riding the Bernie bus or something?

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 01 March 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

Don't matter how many Bernie wins, Terez, unless he wins a majority and upsets. Clinton's already got negative Republican ads running against her in states because the Republicans know what's going down.

You riding the Bernie bus or something?

This is not a game, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to employ this sort of braggadocious sports-fan rhetoric. This is important, and I think Hillary will contribute just as much to the party realignment we're seeing as Trump will. That's frightening. Neocons are lining up behind Hillary, while the Democratic Party is hemorrhaging white working-class voters. Bernie is the only candidate who can prevent that, and I'll support him until it's done. And in November, I'll write in someone besides Hillary. I'd consider voting for her if I lived in a swing state, but I don't, so I won't. The blood she spills (and there will be blood) will not be on my hands.

[HoosierDaddy]

Edit: After re-reading my statement I can see some "attitude" in it. Not bragging, as Terez thinks but inappropriate if read that way. It was more of a "This is probably going to happen, what's the reason for this...." Etc. But, Terez, you have a point. I have no reason to brag, I've got no dogs in this fight.

Terez, on 01 March 2016 - 03:58 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 01 March 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

Don't matter how many Bernie wins, Terez, unless he wins a majority and upsets. Clinton's already got negative Republican ads running against her in states because the Republicans know what's going down.

You riding the Bernie bus or something?

This is not a game, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to employ this sort of braggadocious sports-fan rhetoric. This is important, and I think Hillary will contribute just as much to the party realignment we're seeing as Trump will. That's frightening. Neocons are lining up behind Hillary, while the Democratic Party is hemorrhaging white working-class voters. Bernie is the only candidate who can prevent that, and I'll support him until it's done. And in November, I'll write in someone besides Hillary. I'd consider voting for her if I lived in a swing state, but I don't, so I won't. The blood she spills (and there will be blood) will not be on my hands.

Does legitimate political discussion mean its a game? I'm just asking a question. You answered the question: No, you won't vote her. Fair enough.

Your rhetoric is obviously pro-Bernie. Your explanations and discussions are pro-Bernie. I just wanted it out in the open that you aren't an unbiased source. You are a Bernie supporter and your words are representative of that.

That's perfectly fine. But, I think neutrals and internationals are taking you as not biased. Which, frankly, isn't the truth.

I like Bernie. He's living in dreamland, but if he could wish it into being awesome.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 01 March 2016 - 04:14 AM

[Terez]

I have been 100% open about being a Bernie supporter in this thread. It has been "out in the open" for months. Where have you been?

PS: Also, why is it so important, in this particular context, for the non-Americans to know my "bias"? Because I said Bernie might win a few states aside from Vermont tomorrow? What's the great deception here?

This post has been edited by Terez: 01 March 2016 - 04:14 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

I edited my post, but you have to realize... it is a game. It's an awful and terrible game, but nonetheless. It's a game. Trying to change it is great and I agree it should be changed; but for now, it's a game.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 01 March 2016 - 04:12 AM, said:

I have been 100% open about being a Bernie supporter in this thread. It has been "out in the open" for months. Where have you been?

PS: Also, why is it so important, in this particular context, for the non-Americans to know my "bias"? Because I said Bernie might win a few states aside from Vermont tomorrow? What's the great deception here?

To your credit you educate lots of members here on American politics. You have been a leading member in this thread and it can seep in, whether you realize it or not. And as someone who would prefer Bernie but vote otherwise, I can catch it.

[HoosierDaddy]

As an FYI, Bernie's got enough money to be advertising here. They just started as well as anti-Hillary campaigns by unknown sources (I'm assuming Republican, in good nature). Politics is like Mafia though.

I can't imagine being in an early state. Blech.

[worry]

I think I'd prefer it if CA was earlier, regardless of the media circus. June is an insane distance from now for our nation's most important state.

[HoosierDaddy]

Zoolanderis Derake, on 01 March 2016 - 04:52 AM, said:

I think I'd prefer it if CA was earlier, regardless of the media circus. June is an insane distance from now for our nation's most important state.

The entire electoral system is goofy. But, the fixes made in order should be:

1. National election day as a holiday
2. National election, not electoral system for Federal positions

The first is obvious.
Second simply removes the electoral college. Which needs to go.


Very far down the line, the Senate needs to change.

[amphibian]

Briar King, on 01 March 2016 - 05:16 AM, said:

Putting this one post here since its on topic ish and I'm not starting a Scandal thread in tv.


Was watching the show Scandal and it's at the same point we are in now minus a few months as people are preparing to make their bids but a Rubio copy was introduced. He's got the Rubio speech,race, hand gestures etc though I'm not sure if character is Pub or Dem yet. Point is it's interesting seeing current RL being carried over to fiction and I'm wondering if they ll throw in a Trump copy...

There is a hilarious Rubio satire character in Alpha House (the Garry Trudeau show) played by Mark Consuelos. That's a couple years old, and it's still so biting at times. They nailed Rubio's lack of depth and love of scripted/nonsensical lines.

I think House of Cards tried to get a Cruz character going, but the actor got a better gig after two or three episodes got filmed, so they wrote him out off screen with a corruption charge.

Nobody parodied Jeb a while ago when the Rubio and Cruz satires were happening. He just didn't have anything memorable going on.

[amphibian]

Also, HoosierDaddy, leave Terez alone. You buzzing in and out is fine, but the majority of times, you're taking shots at her. That's not OK.

She's done a good job explaining her rationale and pointing out her concerns with your words. Listen to her. I'm piping up because I want to publicly affirm support for her and what she's contributed here - in particular, showing better than most articles the mindset and likely action of angry voters.

[Terez]

Thanks phib. But I think it's safe to call HD a friend. I like him; he likes me; we have even almost met IRL (almost because he was sick when I last drove through Indy). I think it's just that time of the evening, if you know what I mean. Apparently he has also forgotten the strength of his pro-Hillary arguments upthread.

[worry]

HoosierDaddy, on 01 March 2016 - 05:02 AM, said:

Zoolanderis Derake, on 01 March 2016 - 04:52 AM, said:

I think I'd prefer it if CA was earlier, regardless of the media circus. June is an insane distance from now for our nation's most important state.

The entire electoral system is goofy. But, the fixes made in order should be:

1. National election day as a holiday
2. National election, not electoral system for Federal positions

The first is obvious.
Second simply removes the electoral college. Which needs to go.


Very far down the line, the Senate needs to change.

0. (in that I'd put it above even those ideas): Campaign Finance Reform.

This isn't gonna change any Trump supporters mind, and probably inflates his brand to the dullest among them, but in addition to all the stuff in the Oliver piece:
http://www.thedailyb...-president.html
Donald Trump Is Paying Himself to Run for President

[Andorion]

Election day as holiday is something we have here. It works really well and I think its necessary everywhere. What about voting districts? They should be decided by an impartial commission so they don't allow so many safe re-elections

[Studlock]

Hell, I agree with HD, politics is a game, for the people who play, who are not the general population. I might have a fundamentally different idea about how power works here but the reason I was skeptical of Sanders (and still am, I've been busy and it wouldn't make sense to reply to Terez now, but I'll simply state nothing I've seen him talk about reflects a basic understanding of international relations, specifically the region of the Middle East, nor economics. You might disagree with the normative stances of economists, I do, you might call out the switch they do from positivist work proving those normative stances, I do, however I think you'd be a fool to overlook or dismiss there positivist work on economics--they understand how the markets work in our current economic paradigm and nothing Sander has suggested is revolutionary enough to actually break down that paradigm so he should probably listen to some of those economists, even if to have opposing view to all the heterodox people from UMass) is because this, what I believe fundamentally false, idea that he is some kind of revolutionary outsider of the 'Establishment'. Unless he's calling for the complete and utter dismantling of the economic, political, financial, and military institutions of America (not simply moving them to the left) then he must work with the Establishment. Those institutions are fundamentally connected via the power elite (see C. Wright Mills), and power is not something that one can own or control in non-standard ways unless they operate in non-standard ways. For all of Sanders bluster he is a standard politician. He is a player in the grand game of American politics. He would, even if he won, still be an old man in same bland grey suit of power, still restricted by the cut of it.