Support NeoGAF

[Cipherr]

...he's not. He says he's not. What is the issue?

Hillary spoke english words.

 

[NIGHT-]

He's obviously not. Some people just don't care about that.

As they shouldn't. Really shouldn't be the basis of why you consider a candidate

 

[T'Zariah]

I'd have to hold my nose big time at this point to vote Bernie, but I would do it.

Like hell I trade meager progress for full on regression in the supreme court and in the dozen or so progressive moves we have managed to achieve in the last 8 years.

No fucking way. Not even close.

If Bernie, by some goddamn miracle of the last century, made it to the White House, not only would he be a lame duck, one-term President, he'd probably set back the Progressive movement for at LEAST a generation.

Carter was massively lucky that he wasn't President during the age of social media.

 

[Fenderputty]

so what's stopping him from using even the tiniest part of it to support people running for the house/senate/gubernatorial offices right now

MILLIONS OF YOUNG PEOPLE PROTESTING OUTSIDE PAUL RYAN'S CHAMBERS!!!!!!!

 

[Korigama]

...he's not. He says he's not. What is the issue?

Hillary spoke english words.

Pretty much this.

 

[Aaronrules380]

If Bernie, by some goddamn miracle of the last century, made it to the White House, not only would he be a lame duck, one-term President, he'd probably set back the Progressive movement for at LEAST a generation.

Carter was massively lucky that he wasn't President during the age of social media.

I mean, even if you believe this (and I don't), he'll be far less of a setback than the republican candidates

 

[NoblesseOblige]

LOL I dont even understand you. "She's a politician. They lie sometimes."

Is that what Im getting out of your comment?

Nah, you're just extremely easily to influence is all. What you get out of it is up to you. But maybe you should go find a youtube video to confirm it with first.

 

[NotBacon]

*Bernie having a good time, winning the last 8 (Nevada flipped) states by sizable margins, building momentum*

Meanwhile....

The race is over, it's time to prepare for the general.

 

[phanphare]

...he's not. He says he's not. What is the issue?

there really isn't one, at least in regards to the thread topic

 

[Drek]

It's a matter of fact that she's profited greatly from some of these very institutions. Whether or not it will affect her political performance and tenure in relation to them is obviously down to personal opinion and assumption, but to me personally it's inconceivable that someone who's benefited so much, could be completely unswayed. I also don't care if it's a GOP attack point, if it's actually true, credible and of merit, which in this instance it is, at least the former anyway.

This sort of shit is the kind of stuff I routinely attack or criticise the GOP for as well. The money in politics, the lobbying, indirect bribery, pandering, corruption etc. I'm certainly not about to let Hillary off the hook just because she's a Democrat.

So you are assuming that she's bought and it's your opinion that she's corrupt. Yet her legislative and policy support records state the exact opposite is true.

This is basically might litmus test for a likely Sanders supporter. Do you believe what you feel more than hard evidence presented to you? Then you're probably feeling the Bern. It took a few years but the truthiness epidemic has made it's way to the left side of the political spectrum.

This is the real death of the American political system, not party politics or the two party system, both of which are flawed but have worked for literally hundreds of years. The self-entitled personal belief over reality sentiment in America has created a landscape where most citizens are incapable of making an objective choice based on facts.

We'll get a Sanders 2.0 in the near future, don't worry. He'll probably run against a Trump 2.0 as well. No matter who wins effective governance loses.

*Bernie having a good time, winning the last 8 (Nevada flipped) states by sizable margins, building momentum*

Meanwhile....

Check the scoreboard bro, winning states doesn't matter. Winning delegates does.

 

[Sheriff_Battlesnake]

hell yeah let me devote 13 minutes to a video you can summarize in text in less than a minute

Why are we writing off YouTube videos? Sure anyone can make them but anyone can also make great content. If unbiased news existed then sure, but when everything is slanted YouTube CAN BE just as credible.

Also if you are suggesting 7 or 8 topic discussions how do you expect that to be summarized in less than a minute? Or a 13 minute video in less than a minute?

 

[nitekrawlwer]

This is where I am now, after starting the campaign with the attitude of "I'd happily vote for either in the general election."

I'm now convinced he'd be a completely ineffective president, but pretty much everything I've said to the Bernie or Bust crowd is a valid reason to vote for him if he somehow gets the nomination. I just don't have to like it.

I'm also concerned about empowering and emboldening his nuttier supporters. I'm not gonna go as far as to say the far left is just as bad as the far right but the gulf between them isn't quite the canyon I initially thought it was.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

*Bernie having a good time, winning the last 8 (Nevada flipped) states by sizable margins, building momentum*

Meanwhile....

The actual total number of states is meaningless. Bernie is several hundred delegates down and needs to pull record setting shifts in votes to close that gap.

 

[legacyzero]

I mean, given his campaign promises,Sanders is either lying about everything, or he's completely delusional, because there's literally no chance he'd be able to achieve any of his stated goals during the 4-8 years he'd get in office if he won the election

Thats if the revolution stops. Is it going to be tough? With this congress? Fuck yeah it will be. But those voters have to keep the fight going. Bernie may have had a victory in Wisconsin, but a loss in the WI supreme court with that awful candidate.

Nah, you're just extremely easily to influence is all. What you get out of it is up to you. But maybe you should go find a youtube video to confirm it with first.

Ah, so youre trolling. Gotcha.

 

[Aaronrules380]

So you are assuming that she's bought and it's your opinion that she's corrupt. Yet her legislative and policy support records state the exact opposite is true.

This is basically might litmus test for a likely Sanders supporter. Do you believe what you feel more than hard evidence presented to you? Then you're probably feeling the Bern. It took a few years but the truthiness epidemic has made it's way to the left side of the political spectrum.

This is the real death of the American political system, not party politics or the two party system, both of which are flawed but have worked for literally hundreds of years. The self-entitled personal belief over reality sentiment in America has created a landscape where most citizens are incapable of making an objective choice based on facts.

We'll get a Sanders 2.0 in the near future, don't worry. He'll probably run against a Trump 2.0 as well. No matter who wins effective governance loses.

People caring more about emotion than logic when making decisions is nothing new. Hell, studies have even shown people who strongly believe something will actually just reinforce said beliefs when actual evidence is presented. Because it's easier to downplay or reject evidence than to admit you were wrong for most people

 

[TheOfficeMut]

*Bernie having a good time, winning the last 8 (Nevada flipped) states by sizable margins, building momentum*

Meanwhile....

It's fucking over man. Stop pinning hopes on super delegates flipping. He's going to get FUBAR in the more important states such as New York and California, but sure, let's keep perpetuating this false idea that he has a fucking shot at winning. Hillary even dropped out in 2008 and she was much closer to Obama than Bernie will ever get to her.

Do you people lie to yourselves this much because you can't handle the reality?

 

[T'Zariah]

So you are assuming that she's bought and it's your opinion that she's corrupt. Yet her legislative and policy support records state the exact opposite is true.

This is basically might litmus test for a likely Sanders supporter. Do you believe what you feel more than hard evidence presented to you? Then you're probably feeling the Bern. It took a few years but the truthiness epidemic has made it's way to the left side of the political spectrum.

This is the real death of the American political system, not party politics or the two party system, both of which are flawed but have worked for literally hundreds of years. The self-entitled personal belief over reality sentiment in America has created a landscape where most citizens are incapable of making an objective choice based on facts.

We'll get a Sanders 2.0 in the near future, don't worry. He'll probably run against a Trump 2.0 as well. No matter who wins effective governance loses.

That's the number one problem with American politics.

We are now relying on faith based politics and ideology. If we FEEL like it's true, than therefore it must be true. If they FEEL like Hillary is a corrupt, warmonger than that means it HAS to be true, because to admit you might be wrong is a sign of weakness.

 

[Mael]

Why are we writing off YouTube videos? Sure anyone can make them but anyone can also make great content. If unbiased news existed then sure, but when everything is slanted YouTube CAN BE just as credible.

Also if you are suggesting 7 or 8 topic discussions how do you expect that to be summarized in less than a minute? Or a 13 minute video in less than a minute?

if you can't summarize your point outside of lengthy vid on youttube you don't have a point to begin with

 

[Sheriff_Battlesnake]

if you can't summarize your point outside of lengthy vid on youttube you don't have a point to begin with

They are on mobile. I think saying they has nothing to back up they position when he provided something is lazy too. But idk, I guess that's assuming they would engage if they had a keyboard.

 

[old manatee]

But he's not even a puppet!

 

[jakonovski]

If Bernie, by some goddamn miracle of the last century, made it to the White House, not only would he be a lame duck, one-term President, he'd probably set back the Progressive movement for at LEAST a generation.

Carter was massively lucky that he wasn't President during the age of social media.

I'm disturbed that a variation of the "we need tough men making tough decisions" has entered the liberal discourse like that.

 

[Drek]

People caring more about emotion than logic when making decisions is nothing new. Hell, studies have even shown people who strongly believe something will actually just reinforce said beliefs when actual evidence is presented. Because it's easier to downplay or reject evidence than to admit you were wrong for most people

Sure. But once upon a time people weren't given cover for this postmodernist "I can't possibly be wrong so I'm going to ignore all these facts" bullshit. Now everyone can go hide in their little internet echo chamber of choice and act like everyone really agrees with them, if not for whatever evil boogieman gaming the system.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Why are we writing off YouTube videos? Sure anyone can make them but anyone can also make great content. If unbiased news existed then sure, but when everything is slanted YouTube CAN BE just as credible.

Also if you are suggesting 7 or 8 topic discussions how do you expect that to be summarized in less than a minute? Or a 13 minute video in less than a minute?

I'm saying I'm gonna be a hell of a lot more likely to listen to whatever point is being made if it's in text form, because my reading speed is absurdly fast (and my skimming speed is even faster), than if I have to devote 13 minutes to it.

Like, depending on the length of the post, I could read and parse and commit to memory a summary of that video in less than a minute.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Thats if the revolution stops. Is it going to be tough? With this congress? Fuck yeah it will be. But those voters have to keep the fight going. Bernie may have had a victory in Wisconsin, but a loss in the WI supreme court with that awful candidate.

Ah, so youre trolling. Gotcha.

Aside from him not supporting down ballot votes for Democrats (and thus doing nothing to help ensure that if he wins, we'll get more democrats in congress), you're assuming that every democrat in congress would be willing to support his plans. Which is quite frankly not true at all

 

[Sheriff_Battlesnake]

I'm saying I'm gonna be a hell of a lot more likely to listen to whatever point you're making if it's in text form, because my reading speed is absurdly fast, than if I have to devote 13 minutes to it

Fair enough!

 

[Mael]

Thats if the revolution stops. Is it going to be tough? With this congress? Fuck yeah it will be. But those voters have to keep the fight going. Bernie may have had a victory in Wisconsin, but a loss in the WI supreme court with that awful candidate.

There's no Revolution.
Sanders voters didn't even care enough to vote for SCOWI, they're not going to vote for the midterms or any other elections.
Sanders himself isn't even interested in supporting anyone for downtickets, if the candidate doesn't care why should his fan?

 

[NeuAscension]

Incredible, lol

More of "GUIZ SHEZ JUST A REPUBLUCIN IN DEESGISE"

Nonsense

Edit: LOL even more!



I wonder how many of these posters know her record is slightly to the left of Obama....

...but offset back to the right by her war hawk foreign policy. They don't call her a neoliberal for nothing. They compare her to the Republicans because she holds the same foreign policy as many neoconservatives. She's made atrocious arms deals, supported war in Iraq, Lybia, Syria....

 

[TheOfficeMut]

I'm disturbed that a variation of the "we need tough men making tough decisions" has entered the liberal discourse like that.

Uhm, I think what's being implied is that Bernie is already a too-tough, straight arrow blowhard.

 

[Mael]

As a French guy, please keep mentioning Libya as Clinton's failure. But can we also blame all the others on her too?

They are on mobile. I think saying they has nothing to back up they position when he provided something is lazy too. But idk, I guess that's assuming they would engage if they had a keyboard.

Might as well not post a link if that's the only point you're making.
It isn't interesting to debate the point of random guy on youtube more than someone who post here.

 

[NIGHT-]

Lol at the comments here. Even if Hillarly wins, I doubt she will be a 2 term president. She already extremely disliked.

 

[JesseEwiak]

...but offset back to the right by her war hawk foreign policy. They don't call her a neoliberal for nothing. They compare her to the Republicans because she holds the same foreign policy as many neoconservatives. She's made atrocious arms deals, supported war in Iraq, Lybia, Syria....

There's a perfectly reasonable liberal humanitarian reason to support intervention in both Libya and Syria.

 

[NeuAscension]

There's a perfectly reasonable liberal humanitarian reason to support intervention in both Libya and Syria.

but the end result of all these efforts was the rise of ISIS, so justifying removing Saddam, Gaddafi, and to unseat Assad really hasn't ammounted to much except complete instability of The Middle East. We didn't learn anything in our first 50 years meddling there, so why stop now, am I right?
Not to mention her support of the coup in Honduras has resulted in the deaths of many human rights activists.

 

[jakonovski]

Uhm, I think what's being implied is that Bernie is already a too-tough, straight arrow blowhard.

Ah, I was for some reason thinking of a narrative of Carter as the weak president being replaced by the capable Reagan.

 

[eBay Huckster]

i mean, frankly speaking, it was CPA Order #2 that had the end result of the rise of ISIS

even with a regime change, the country could've wound up not being a complete disaster if we didn't literally disband the existing civil society

 

[Karsticles]

I mean, given his campaign promises,Sanders is either lying about everything, or he's completely delusional, because there's literally no chance he'd be able to achieve any of his stated goals during the 4-8 years he'd get in office if he won the election

Or he has goals, and wants to do the best he can to accomplish them.

 

[Josh5890]

Lol at the comments here. Even if Hillarly wins, I doubt she will be a 2 term president. She already extremely disliked.

I doubt whoever wins in November will get a second term. The fact that we are about to complete a third consecutive eight-year presidency is very rare (Hasn't happened in two hundred years).

 

[TheOfficeMut]

Ah, I was for some reason thinking of a narrative of Carter as the weak president being replaced by the capable Reagan.

I didn't even get that. lol

 

[titiklabingapat]

This thread shows the double standard Clinton has had to deal with her entire political life. Sanders conveniently converts to become a Democrat to take advantage of a political expediency and he isn't hiding it yet she is the one who is a 'politician who will take advantage of anything'.

 

[zelas]

Hillary spoke english words.

Its pretty sad that some similarities can be drawn between the negative reaction to Hillary's comments and the blanket distrust of obama by republicans. Really aren't doing a good job convincing others that dems are trying to be above the extremist politics of the right.

 

[Aaronrules380]

but the end result of all these efforts was the rise of ISIS, so justifying removing Saddam, Gaddafi, and to unseat Assad really hasn't ammounted to much except complete instability of The Middle East. We didn't learn anything in our first 50 years meddling there, so why stop now, am I right?

But rather than hide out and pretend the issues in the middle east don't exist, couldn't we also try to learn from what went wrong in our past attempts at intervention and try to see if there's a way to overthrow dictators that will work out better?

I understand the fear of a power vacuum, but is doing nothing and hoping everything will work out really a viable option either? Especially as the world has become increasingly globalized. I don't know that we should go to war, but I do think the US has to have some plans for dealing with the issues of the middle east, because doing nothing could easily lead to escalation and other issues.

 

[Omegasquash]

Was 2008 filled with Clinton and Obama supporters calling each other sexist and racist?

Filled is an inaccurate word to use.

And yes. Unconscious bias is a very real thing. I encourage you to look into it. You think the first woman in US history that has a viable shot at becoming president isn't going to have to break down barriers most of us don't even know we're putting up, to say nothing of the ones that are actively, knowingly, and consciously doing it?

Edit: I see you were genuine in your question, so I removed the latter bit of my post.

 

[Drek]

Lol at the comments here. Even if Hillarly wins, I doubt she will be a 2 term president. She already extremely disliked.

I don't now, effectively doing your job as a politician will likely help her favorable numbers quite a bit.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Or he has goals, and wants to do the best he can to accomplish them.

None of his goals are remotely realistic though, and he's giving them as campaign promises. He also really isn't doing much to help them happen if he becomes President, because he has no interest in supporting down ballot democrat votes. The President can't just do whatever he pleases. He can't pass laws, he can only reject them. It is not a position of unlimited power, not even close

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I doubt whoever wins in November will get a second term. The fact that we are about to complete a third consecutive eight-year presidency is very rare (Hasn't happened in two hundred years).

I don't see the alternate. The demographics don't favor the GOP and will continue to get worse and they're not going to be able to change their image in 4 years.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Or he has goals, and wants to do the best he can to accomplish them.

Generally a president sets an agenda for their party, and then sits back and watches the chaos unfold.

Without a congressional majority, they set an agenda, and watch Paul Ryan laugh and vote to repeal Obamacare for the 60th time.

 

[Karsticles]

None of his goals are remotely realistic though, and he's giving them as campaign promises. He also really isn't doing much to help them happen if he becomes President, because he has no interest in supporting down ballot democrat votes. The President can't just do whatever he pleases. He can't pass laws, he can only reject them. It is not a position of unlimited power, not even close

Generally a president sets an agenda for their party, and then sits back and watches the chaos unfold.

Without a congressional majority, they set an agenda, and watch Paul Ryan laugh and vote to repeal Obamacare for the 60th time.

Like I said, I will vote for whoever has an agenda that is the most closely aligned with my own views. I cannot convince myself to be dishonestly excited and supportive of a candidate that is in opposition to my beliefs and interests. The practicality of those beliefs is largely irrelevant to me.

 

[jtb]

Like I said, I will vote for whoever has an agenda that is the most closely aligned with my own views. I cannot convince myself to be dishonestly excited and supportive of a candidate that is in opposition to my beliefs and interests. The practicality of those beliefs is largely irrelevant to me.

so... you don't care about protecting minorities, the poor, women, voting rights, etc.? I mean, there's just a tiny bit of daylight between republicans and democrats if you really squint and look closely

 

[Aaronrules380]

Like I said, I will vote for whoever has an agenda that is the most closely aligned with my own views. I cannot convince myself to be dishonestly excited and supportive of a candidate that is in opposition to my beliefs and interests. The practicality of those beliefs is largely irrelevant to me.

I really fucking hate super idealistic viewpoints like this that don't give a shit about reality. They seem to exist only so people can pat themselves on the back and say they did a good thing by standing uncompromising behind their beliefs, while not actually doing a thing to realize them. Ideals are worthless if you do nothing to make them a reality. In the end, the only thing these viewpoints help is the person who gets to pat themselves on the back, since they do nothing to help anyone else since they accomplish literally nothing. Ideals are important, but being flexible and able to achieve them is incredibly important to. Being uncompromising generally ends up being a setback to achieving what you want, rather than a positive

 

[titiklabingapat]

Like I said, I will vote for whoever has an agenda that is the most closely aligned with my own views. I cannot convince myself to be dishonestly excited and supportive of a candidate that is in opposition to my beliefs and interests. The practicality of those beliefs is largely irrelevant to me.

Hillary's is hardly the 'opposite' of your beliefs and interests. Saying otherwise shows your true colors of not really caring for progressive policies but for a purely ideological purity test. I've heard this before...Tea Party much?

 

[Karsticles]

so... you don't care about protecting minorities, the poor, women, voting rights, etc.? I mean, there's just a tiny bit of daylight between republicans and democrats if you really squint and look closely

I would love to know how you got this from my post.

Hillary's is hardly the 'opposite' of your beliefs and interests. Saying otherwise shows your true colors on not really caring for progressive policies but for a purely ideological purity test.

She is opposite to me on a few issues, such as military action and personal freedom, given her support for the Iraq War and Patriot Act.

I really fucking hate super idealistic viewpoints like this that don't give a shit about reality. They seem to exist only so people can pat themselves on the back and say they did a good thing by standing uncompromising behind their beliefs, while not actually doing a thing to realize them. Ideals are worthless if you do nothing to make them a reality. In the end, the only thing these viewpoints help is the person who gets to pat themselves on the back, since they do nothing to help anyone else since they accomplish literally nothing. Ideals are important, but being flexible and able to achieve them is incredibly important to. Being uncompromising generally ends up being a setback to achieving what you want, rather than a positive

I hope you feel better now that you had the chance to vomit all that rage out.