No, be fucking quiet. You don't know dick about the media, and you sound like a Gator desperately twisting and trying to justify how it really IS all about ethics in gaming journalism, really, seriously. Stop embarrassing yourself, for your own sake. It's not even entertaining, anymore, it's just depressing how proud and confident you are in your ignorance.
Now taking bets on how long Muppet's gonna lie low before coming back with the same argument again.
Bernie won in New Hampshire, so less than a day.
Speaking of, I'm pleased with the result there. Bernie needed to win big in NH, after the tiny margin loss in Iowa, and he did. It was expected - but if he'd won by a small margin again, or if he'd taken an early lead and had Hillary pull up on him, it wouldn't have looked good for the campaign. A real, tangible win is good news.
I'm still not laying any big money bets on his overall victory - but this helps, and gets him closer. And if he does lose, it gives Hillary a bigger reason to tap him for VP if she takes the nomination, which would also be a good scenario - they're quite complimentary, when you get right down to it. Between the two of them, they'd be able to beat pretty much any candidate the republicans can field right now.
I don't come back with the same argument again. If you mean that I'm pretty consistent in my views: yeah. Churba can condescend and make up infantile bedtime stories about me eating animal shit if he wants. If that's what passes for debate here, well, all right then.
The number of "if it's not my candidate, I ain't voting in the general" comments I've seen popping up on social media of late. Would these people be unwilling to compromise some of their ideals in order to make a prudent and practical choice?
This tantrum if I don't get my lolly nonsense is the exact weakness that larger interests are exploiting.
Hillary represents establishment politics that have not worked, but that she will perpetuate anyway with the excuse of pragmatism. By and large, people are buying that message less and less. Most Bernie supporters I know and talk to are aware that if we want actual progressive change in the US, it's going to mean cleaning up the Congress as well, and are in it for the long haul.
Hillary is not a feminist choice. She's made it as far as she has as a woman by playing the same game as every rich white male in DC and playing it well.
People are less and less impressed by "but but Republicans will win if we're split" scare tactics. Republicans have won, and it's been awful, but excruciating incremental progress (or none at all) in the name of preventing absolute Right Wing pandemonium is a sorry state to live out one's life in, and increasingly, it's not a compelling message for voters.
In NH, her best demographic were voters over 60 with a household income of $200K or more annually. There's a reason that those are the Democrats she resonates best with, Churba's "white middle class male" finger pointing at me notwithstanding.
So... at this point, you guys can call me a bigoted shit eater some more if you want to, but the above is a very condensed version of why many people say that they will not vote for Hillary regardless of the nomination. They are, and I am, just tired of this "but it could be so much worse so just keep poking yourself in the eye and be happy about it" logic.
To quote another Facebook user who I thought put it pretty well without getting into minutia:
"We care that Hillary has a long history of being only as "liberal" as is politically convenient for her, changing her stances at the last possible moment to claim empty victories in fights she wasn't fighting.
We care that she is firmly situated in the company of the 1%; her friends and allies on Wall Street, in big pharma, in the private prison lobby, in the private insurance lobby.
We care about her "can't do" attitude towards any progressive agenda that would actually benefit the poor, towards single payer health care, a living minimum wage, and free tuition for our future generations.
We don't want Hillary Clinton to be the voice of our party, and it has nothing to do with the right wing smoke screen tactics, and everything to do with her failed establishment policies."
The number of "if it's not my candidate, I ain't voting in the general" comments I've seen popping up on social media of late. Would these people be unwilling to compromise some of their ideals in order to make a prudent and practical choice?
This tantrum if I don't get my lolly nonsense is the exact weakness that larger interests are exploiting.
I honestly don't see the point of it. All or nothing gets you nowhere in politics, be it as a voter or a politician. Ideological purity is nice and all, but there's more value in getting something done, than sitting around between failures navel gazing about how you continue to suffer because nobody else is good enough.
And of course it's not limited to these sort of people, but I suppose there's a some people who are really taking a serious interest in politics for the first time this election, and maybe been forced to face some of the harsher realities of politics. Nothing happens all at once, and no policy ever survives first contact with the opposition.
That ideological purity seems valuable, because they're not willing to compromise on what's right, because it's the right thing to do, damn it, all the way or not at all. Which feels good, gets you nice and fired up, ready to take on all comers - until you get forced to eat a few rather bitter not-at-alls.
Or, some people are just chucking a tanty because they might not get what they want. It is the internet, after all, the golden age of the hissy fit.
Dude you're like a scratched record of Marco Rubio. You know what I do when my record's scratched? Take the needle off. My faith doesn't change much, but you don't see me necroing the religion thread every two weeks to remind people we're still at odds only to complain that I got dogpiled again.
If you say so, Greg. I am frustrated with the echo chamber in here, sure. And I may respond to the same ideological threads more than once as they intersect different issues, but that's called participating in discussion as far as I know. Churba doesn't own the thread. I had a great deal of respect for the guy when I first got here, for his ability to come into a thread full of "me too" type posts and go against the current and get a positive response. All that's lost on this thread. Shit eating bigoted monkey that I am for having a contrary opinion that I can actually back up with logic and reasoning.
Still, that I should get the ire for "repetition" and no other participants speaks to the fact that this IS an echo chamber. Era of good feelings indeed.
Still, that I should get the ire for "repetition" and no other participants speaks to the fact that this IS an echo chamber. Era of good feelings indeed.
I talk about that all the time. Those exact words, usually (one should expect no less from a student of Jackson like me). Hell, I pointed it out on the last page of this very thread. Maybe if you read some of the other threads and got to know the forum you'd have a better idea of the group as a whole than isolating yourself in the most charh as thread on the Forum.
I talk about that all the time. Those exact words, usually (one should expect no less from a student of Jackson like me). Hell, I pointed it out on the last page of this very thread. Maybe if you read some of the other threads and got to know the forum you'd have a better idea of the group as a whole than isolating yourself in the most charh as thread on the Forum.
I'm hardly the picture of conforming to the group myself. I've argued with or disagreed with pretty much everyone here. Almost everyone else has at some point or another, too.
But I'll bet just about anywhere would seem like an echochamber, when nobody agrees with you. For example, geology, cartography, and other related sciences probably seem like an echochamber to flat earthers, since they refuse to take the idea that the earth is flat seriously.
I've been looking at the superdelegates and I'm reminded of my love/hate relationship with them.
On one hand, their distribution on the Democrat side makes it look like Hillary could take everything even if Bernie is more popular.
Conversely, they could singlehandedly stop Trump on the GOP side if they so chose.
I more or less agree with everything you just said, but to add to it: Could you imagine if they did either of those things? Even both? That'd get traction.
I think the American public would notice when the candidates from both parties with the most votes, aka the winners, lost anyway. I think that'd contribute to the anti establishment sentiment you can already see. I don't know where that leads but, I kinda wanna find out.
I've been looking at the superdelegates and I'm reminded of my love/hate relationship with them.
On one hand, their distribution on the Democrat side makes it look like Hillary could take everything even if Bernie is more popular.
Conversely, they could singlehandedly stop Trump on the GOP side if they so chose.
I more or less agree with everything you just said, but to add to it: Could you imagine if they did either of those things? Even both? That'd get traction.
I think the American public would notice when the candidates from both parties with the most votes, aka the winners, lost anyway. I think that'd contribute to the anti establishment sentiment you can already see. I don't know where that leads but, I kinda wanna find out.
Right now I see them doing exactly the opposite of what they're supposed to do.
The Democrat party has someone who won NH by a landslide. He is, by all counts, a legitimate candidate who fits in with party ideology. The NH delegates should have gone with him, or at least split the percent between the two. Instead, they just ran to the establishment candidate because they felt like it and they're allowed to, ignoring the voters.
The GOP, if it had any legitimacy left, would have it's delegates run screaming from Trump and to actual candidates. Kasich or Bush or even Cristie are more legitimate politicians. Instead, they're letting a narcissistic sociopath with rhetoric so alarming that the entirety of racist America is behind him run the show. The SD's in the GOP should be preventing this exact thing from happening.
I've been saying it for a while now: Most of the people in politics on a state and national level are not concerned with voters. They're concerned with winning the game, citizens be damned.
It would ugly if Bernie won the majority of the elected delegates but lost the primary because the super-delegates chose Clinton. There's a non-zero chance of that happening, but it is unlikely; if it did, then the chances of a brokered convention for someone other than Hillary or Bernie goes up marginally
I've been saying it for a while now: Most of the people in politics on a state and national level are not concerned with voters. They're concerned with winning the game, citizens be damned.
Not trusting voters is kind of the point of our political system in general. It's (partly) why we have an electoral college instead of a popular vote.
Not trusting voters is kind of the point of our political system in general. It's (partly) why we have an electoral college instead of a popular vote.
Yeah. It took about a century before the public got to choose its Senators. This country was founded on the principals of exclusion and elitism, and after 250 years Alexander Hamilton's fear and disdain for the public is still damaging our idea of democracy.
Right now I see them doing exactly the opposite of what they're supposed to do.
The Democrat party has someone who won NH by a landslide. He is, by all counts, a legitimate candidate who fits in with party ideology. The NH delegates should have gone with him, or at least split the percent between the two. Instead, they just ran to the establishment candidate because they felt like it and they're allowed to, ignoring the voters.
The GOP, if it had any legitimacy left, would have it's delegates run screaming from Trump and to actual candidates. Kasich or Bush or even Cristie are more legitimate politicians. Instead, they're letting a narcissistic sociopath with rhetoric so alarming that the entirety of racist America is behind him run the show. The SD's in the GOP should be preventing this exact thing from happening.
I've been saying it for a while now: Most of the people in politics on a state and national level are not concerned with voters. They're concerned with winning the game, citizens be damned.
Are you talking about superdelegates? The superdelegates that Clinton has pledged themselves a while before the primary, when it wouldn't have been viable to predict NH. They're not locked in, so if Bernie looks like he's going to be winning a majority of state delegates, superdelegates almost certainly won't oppose him - the image of fucking over your party voters is a good way to lose an election at every level.
The RNC cut some backroom deals a ways back that delegates not bound by primaries would support whomever most of the state delegates - to avoid that image of potential unfairness and also try to avoid a brokered convention. So they're stuck with their superdelegates keeping silent for now. A lot of key players are also probably waiting for a winner to emerge from the Bush/Rubio/Kasich scramble to give out their endorsements, although at this point they should get together on one and force the others to drop out.
God, is there something that Democrat's can't bitch about EVERY single time we have a presidential primary, I guess having not had to worry about one 4 years ago made everyone forget this debate that occurred in 2008... (and 2004 and 2000 and 1992 and so on) The super delegates are there to prevent a Donald Trump from happening.
FYI, the Democrat primary super delegates have pledged to Hillary at this time, and if you expected anything else your crazy, she's the only actual Democrat in the race right now (as in someone who has worked and campaigned for most other democrats and held office as a Democrat). However if Sanders does starts winning like 10 or so primaries you'll see the super delegates start to drift away from the early favorite, about how Obama did to Hillary in 2008. Bitching about it on the second primary is WAY premature.
I think this would be fun to see. Call it the Hypothetical Hail Mary scenario:
A month out from the election, polls indicate $REPUBLICAN_CANDIDATE is going to lose for sure. Why not radically and fully move to the left? Adopt every single position Hillary espouses. Maybe even go farther left than her. Nobody knows who to vote for. You were going to lose anyway, what are you afraid is going to happen, you super-lose?
They'd never do it. But it would be cool to see how much chaos they could sow.
Hey man, I'm not going to hold it against them. Superdelegates being the latest thing that Sanders supporters discover, and then freak out about wins me twenty bucks. (I took fifty on games of chance to break ties).
Also, get ready for it to intensify way beyond this - if the polls bear out, Hillary is way ahead for Nevada, and is so assured of a win in S.C that burnie might as well just save the fuel in the tour bus and not show up. Expect an explosion of conspiracy theories and other nonsense if it does go down the way polls indicate.
Churba, I wouldn't be so sure about numbers at the moment, for some reason (and Nate Silver) pointed this out. There has been very little polling in South Carolina and Nevada (actually he was surprised) so while the early stuff showed HUUUUUUUGE leads for Hillary, who knows if they are still there.
Churba, I wouldn't be so sure about numbers at the moment, for some reason (and Nate Silver) pointed this out. There has been very little polling in South Carolina and Nevada (actually he was surprised) so while the early stuff showed HUUUUUUUGE leads for Hillary, who knows if they are still there.
Fair point, very little polling in Nevada. Burnie could catch up there. There's some decent and recent polls in SC, though, and they're not showing any substantial shift from prior results. I'd be surprised if between then and now we see enough of a shift to make much of a difference, considering.
To be fair, those polls were conducted before Bernie gets a set of favorable media coverage due to landsliding NH, and I wouldn't be surprised to see things tighten a bit just on the basis of Bernie getting more name recognition from it.
(Side note - "I hope Hansard didn't get the first part of that." Hansard is a mostly verbatim record of parliamentary debates and other similar goings on. It is generally publicly accessible, in one form or another. Spoiler - They did get the first part of that.)
Comments
Also, Hillary was saying something about going "undercover in alabama to uncover racism in schools." What was that about?
The only way I could get through the Trump speech was with this in the other tab.
I'm still not laying any big money bets on his overall victory - but this helps, and gets him closer. And if he does lose, it gives Hillary a bigger reason to tap him for VP if she takes the nomination, which would also be a good scenario - they're quite complimentary, when you get right down to it. Between the two of them, they'd be able to beat pretty much any candidate the republicans can field right now.
Found these numbers interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/09/us/elections/new-hampshire-democrat-poll.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
This tantrum if I don't get my lolly nonsense is the exact weakness that larger interests are exploiting.
Hillary is not a feminist choice. She's made it as far as she has as a woman by playing the same game as every rich white male in DC and playing it well.
People are less and less impressed by "but but Republicans will win if we're split" scare tactics. Republicans have won, and it's been awful, but excruciating incremental progress (or none at all) in the name of preventing absolute Right Wing pandemonium is a sorry state to live out one's life in, and increasingly, it's not a compelling message for voters.
In NH, her best demographic were voters over 60 with a household income of $200K or more annually. There's a reason that those are the Democrats she resonates best with, Churba's "white middle class male" finger pointing at me notwithstanding.
So... at this point, you guys can call me a bigoted shit eater some more if you want to, but the above is a very condensed version of why many people say that they will not vote for Hillary regardless of the nomination. They are, and I am, just tired of this "but it could be so much worse so just keep poking yourself in the eye and be happy about it" logic.
To quote another Facebook user who I thought put it pretty well without getting into minutia:
"We care that Hillary has a long history of being only as "liberal" as is politically convenient for her, changing her stances at the last possible moment to claim empty victories in fights she wasn't fighting.
We care that she is firmly situated in the company of the 1%; her friends and allies on Wall Street, in big pharma, in the private prison lobby, in the private insurance lobby.
We care about her "can't do" attitude towards any progressive agenda that would actually benefit the poor, towards single payer health care, a living minimum wage, and free tuition for our future generations.
We don't want Hillary Clinton to be the voice of our party, and it has nothing to do with the right wing smoke screen tactics, and everything to do with her failed establishment policies."
And of course it's not limited to these sort of people, but I suppose there's a some people who are really taking a serious interest in politics for the first time this election, and maybe been forced to face some of the harsher realities of politics. Nothing happens all at once, and no policy ever survives first contact with the opposition.
That ideological purity seems valuable, because they're not willing to compromise on what's right, because it's the right thing to do, damn it, all the way or not at all. Which feels good, gets you nice and fired up, ready to take on all comers - until you get forced to eat a few rather bitter not-at-alls.
Or, some people are just chucking a tanty because they might not get what they want. It is the internet, after all, the golden age of the hissy fit.
Edit - Here's the rest of the Candidates on the NH ballots, and who they are.
Still, that I should get the ire for "repetition" and no other participants speaks to the fact that this IS an echo chamber. Era of good feelings indeed.
On one hand, their distribution on the Democrat side makes it look like Hillary could take everything even if Bernie is more popular.
Conversely, they could singlehandedly stop Trump on the GOP side if they so chose.
But I'll bet just about anywhere would seem like an echochamber, when nobody agrees with you. For example, geology, cartography, and other related sciences probably seem like an echochamber to flat earthers, since they refuse to take the idea that the earth is flat seriously.
I think the American public would notice when the candidates from both parties with the most votes, aka the winners, lost anyway. I think that'd contribute to the anti establishment sentiment you can already see. I don't know where that leads but, I kinda wanna find out.
The Democrat party has someone who won NH by a landslide. He is, by all counts, a legitimate candidate who fits in with party ideology. The NH delegates should have gone with him, or at least split the percent between the two. Instead, they just ran to the establishment candidate because they felt like it and they're allowed to, ignoring the voters.
The GOP, if it had any legitimacy left, would have it's delegates run screaming from Trump and to actual candidates. Kasich or Bush or even Cristie are more legitimate politicians. Instead, they're letting a narcissistic sociopath with rhetoric so alarming that the entirety of racist America is behind him run the show. The SD's in the GOP should be preventing this exact thing from happening.
I've been saying it for a while now: Most of the people in politics on a state and national level are not concerned with voters. They're concerned with winning the game, citizens be damned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/carly-fiorina-ends-2016-republican-bid-for-president/2016/02/10/227e7e2c-d034-11e5-90d3-34c2c42653ac_story.html
How much longer do you think Carson stays in? Probably not much longer.
The RNC cut some backroom deals a ways back that delegates not bound by primaries would support whomever most of the state delegates - to avoid that image of potential unfairness and also try to avoid a brokered convention. So they're stuck with their superdelegates keeping silent for now. A lot of key players are also probably waiting for a winner to emerge from the Bush/Rubio/Kasich scramble to give out their endorsements, although at this point they should get together on one and force the others to drop out.
Because Sanders is Trump.
If you really want to compare him to any of the current GOP candidates, then Ted Cruz is the better choice than Trump.
A month out from the election, polls indicate $REPUBLICAN_CANDIDATE is going to lose for sure. Why not radically and fully move to the left? Adopt every single position Hillary espouses. Maybe even go farther left than her. Nobody knows who to vote for. You were going to lose anyway, what are you afraid is going to happen, you super-lose?
They'd never do it. But it would be cool to see how much chaos they could sow.
Also, get ready for it to intensify way beyond this - if the polls bear out, Hillary is way ahead for Nevada, and is so assured of a win in S.C that burnie might as well just save the fuel in the tour bus and not show up. Expect an explosion of conspiracy theories and other nonsense if it does go down the way polls indicate.
(Side note - "I hope Hansard didn't get the first part of that." Hansard is a mostly verbatim record of parliamentary debates and other similar goings on. It is generally publicly accessible, in one form or another. Spoiler - They did get the first part of that.)