Okay, I have a question - Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?
What's more likely - That a bunch of people who didn't know what was up with politics have taken an interest in this election due to burnie, and didn't know what was up with superdelegates?
Or that it's all an establishment trick to spread trivially debunked rumors to try and achieve...something, therefore everyone will elect Clinton, because something something reasons?
I honestly don't think I've see ONE detail of the electoral process that previously uninvolved people didn't know about, that hasn't been turned into a fucking conspiracy theory.
If it helps I think it is the same across the board. The person you like isn't doing so well, you dislike the opposition, must be a conspiracy. Its an easier out than acknowledging a fault in your candidate. We had it over here with Corbyn, the reason things aren't going well for him is due to a Tory plot to cast down the working man and ride upon a wave of their children's corpses. Nothing to do with his unclear positions and party infighting.
On a side note I always felt there was a good comparison between Corbyn and Sanders, both old dudes, a but out of touch, sort of good ideas but no real way of implementing them, popular with the youth, grey hair.
Okay, I have a question - Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?
Well to grossly oversimplify it and make a non factual argument. There are the Ricks of the world and the Mortys of the world. Ricks understand the majority of things and base everything upon fact plus can deal with shit going wrong and accepting it immediately. Mortys question and postulate everything, giving excuses and possible problems with the situation at hand without knowing what is actually going on. Even though from the Morty perspective the perception is valid, to a Rick they seem like silly fools who take up excessive energy to explain the realities of the situation, sometimes manipulating them into just doing what the Rick wants letting Morty foster conspiracies and blind to the fact till it's too late.
tldr - I think I watched too much of Rick and Morty in a short span of time.
1. Interact with complex systems 2. Do not understand said complex systems 3. Do not recognize that said systems are complex 4. Do everything "right" and still get an adverse outcome
I think it's simpler than that. It's more pleasant to think that a small group is manipulating massive amounts of people to fight against what you believe in than to think that massive amounts of people genuinely and independently fight against what you believe in. Which world would you rather live in? One where a third of New Hampshire Republicans have been brainwashed into thinking Donald "I am the best 140 character writer in the world" Trump would make a good president, or one where a third of New Hampshire Republicans have come to the conclusion that Donald "I promise I will never be in a bicycle race" Trump would make a good president by what they actually believe.
If you want to keep track of reported crazy campaign stuff in South Carolina. So far it's mostly Cruz stuff ;-p
Oh man that's great.
From the list -
Caller (cellphone ID indicated it was from Cleveland, Ohio) called around 3:30 Sunday. Said he was from the Bernie Sanders campaign. May have identified himself, but don't remember his name. Encouraged me to to be sure to vote on Feb. 20. When I interrupted him and said "Feb. 27". He said: "No, it's Feb. 20". I again corrected him. Told him Republican primary was Feb. 20 and Democrats were Feb. 27. He said: "You mean I've been telling all these people to vote Feb. 20 incorrectly?" He stayed on the line and asked me to vote for Bernie, that he used to be for Hillary, but Bernie had convinced him to vote with his heart and not his head. He was quite pleasant and honestly I thought (and still do) that it was an honest mistake. But seriously, if all he wanted to tell me was to vote, you'd think he'd know which day the Democratic primary was.
Pretty good debate overall, though Sanders flubbed the foreign policy part (again).
He's campaigning on his consistency. If he didn't flub foreign policy it'd damage the brand :P
His complete lack of knowledge is getting to the point where I would be genuinely uncomfortable about voting for him if he gets the nod.
Is it only once a person is an elected candidate that they would begin to receive foreign affairs briefings? One would hope that a reasonable person might see weaknesses in their understanding, although that obviously does not excuse their problems going in.
Candidates start receiving CIA briefings after they secure their party's nomination.
I thought Bernie had a foreign policy advisor, and a horrible one at that, but he doesn't. Part of the reason why is because Hillary has snapped up as many as possible, and her and Bill's history of rewarding loyalty and punishing disloyalty has ensured that anyone who isn't involved with her campaign has no incentive to work with Sanders's.
You'd think that anyone who'd been in Congress since 1990 would have some handle on foreign policy, regardless of whether he or she had an advisor or not.
Shouldn't awareness of foreign policy be... you know... part of the job description for the House of Representative and the Senate?
The House rarely deals in foreign affairs. Most things like treaties bypass it and go straight to the Senate. His distance from the executive branch and party have likely cost him insider information. Compound that by Clinton's eight years in the White House and four years as Secretary of State, and you've got a hugely uneven playing field. This and poor oratory skills (another trait of Bernie) is what cost Nixon the debates and possibly election in 1960.
The House rarely deals in foreign affairs. Most things like treaties bypass it and go straight to the Senate. His distance from the executive branch and party have likely cost him insider information. Compound that by Clinton's eight years in the White House and four years as Secretary of State, and you've got a hugely uneven playing field. This and poor oratory skills (another trait of Bernie) is what cost Nixon the debates and possibly election in 1960.
While that's a good explanation, it's a poor excuse.
I don't mean to excuse anything. It's not his strong suite. For me, it's a matter of general beliefs. Clinton knows exactly what she'd do in the Middle East as President, she has a record to show she would do it, and it's not what I want. Bernie has a much foggier understanding of the situation, but wants what I want. That's why I'm voting Sanders, but I totally understand why someone else wouldn't.
I don't mean to excuse anything. It's not his strong suite. For me, it's a matter of general beliefs. Clinton knows exactly what she'd do in the Middle East as President, she has a record to show she would do it, and it's not what I want. Bernie has a much foggier understanding of the situation, but wants what I want. That's why I'm voting Sanders, but I totally understand why someone else wouldn't.
I wasn't criticizing you personally, just pointing out that I don't think that excuses Bernie.
While your reasoning is valid, for me, I find Bernie's continued unwillingness to engage in foreign policy debates, and his general disinterest in it as a whole, especially now that he's running for President, says something about his character. If you're going to run for president, personally, I think you need to be a well-rounded candidate, you need to be engaged and knowledgeable about all aspects of government. A willful disregard and a continued disinterest in foreign policy, an area where the President has more influence than almost any other area, is a mark against him in my book.
Poor word choice but basically true. Superdelegates (aka unpledged delegates) were created to prevent popular but unelectable candidates from getting the nomination (and to make sure sitting and former politicians had a seat at the convention). The kind of candidate they exist to stop is Donald Trump.
That said, they rarely stray away from whomever is winning the state delegate count. People (Bernie Sanders supporters) are making mountains out of molehills; so if Bernie is winning the majority of pledged delegates the closer we get to the convention then he will start receiving support from superdelegates.
I wouldn't say they're making mountains out of molehills. I'd say that Superdelegates are adding to an already uphill battle for Bernie. If the margin in popularity is narrow enough, Clinton would certainly get the nomination through the Superdelegates. It's not the biggest roadblock for the Sanders campaign, tho.
But then I have a natural bias against the Superdelegates, as they were created to silence the youth that disturbed the establishment at DNC '68.
The thing is, if Sanders' challenge becomes real in the eyes of the more mainstream elements of the Democratic political machine, then they are even less of a liability. Right now, there is no reason to support him over Clinton, since you lose clout with the latter and the former has nothing to offer you.
But if Sanders starts to be seen as a legitimate challenge, all it will take is for one superdelegate to decide that he's worth backing and they may well split.
The thing is, if Sanders' challenge becomes real in the eyes of the more mainstream elements of the Democratic political machine, then they are even less of a liability. Right now, there is no reason to support him over Clinton, since you lose clout with the latter and the former has nothing to offer you.
But if Sanders starts to be seen as a legitimate challenge, all it will take is for one superdelegate to decide that he's worth backing and they may well split.
That's what happened in 2008 with Obama. At first he had no super-delegate support, but after he won Iowa and New Hampshire they started flocking to him (at first it was just black super-delegates, but when he showed he could consistently get the white vote the rest followed).
Comments
What's more likely - That a bunch of people who didn't know what was up with politics have taken an interest in this election due to burnie, and didn't know what was up with superdelegates?
Or that it's all an establishment trick to spread trivially debunked rumors to try and achieve...something, therefore everyone will elect Clinton, because something something reasons?
I honestly don't think I've see ONE detail of the electoral process that previously uninvolved people didn't know about, that hasn't been turned into a fucking conspiracy theory.
On a side note I always felt there was a good comparison between Corbyn and Sanders, both old dudes, a but out of touch, sort of good ideas but no real way of implementing them, popular with the youth, grey hair.
There are the Ricks of the world and the Mortys of the world. Ricks understand the majority of things and base everything upon fact plus can deal with shit going wrong and accepting it immediately. Mortys question and postulate everything, giving excuses and possible problems with the situation at hand without knowing what is actually going on. Even though from the Morty perspective the perception is valid, to a Rick they seem like silly fools who take up excessive energy to explain the realities of the situation, sometimes manipulating them into just doing what the Rick wants letting Morty foster conspiracies and blind to the fact till it's too late.
tldr - I think I watched too much of Rick and Morty in a short span of time.
1. Interact with complex systems
2. Do not understand said complex systems
3. Do not recognize that said systems are complex
4. Do everything "right" and still get an adverse outcome
If you want to keep track of reported crazy campaign stuff in South Carolina. So far it's mostly Cruz stuff ;-p
From the list - I think I know where that came from...
I thought Bernie had a foreign policy advisor, and a horrible one at that, but he doesn't. Part of the reason why is because Hillary has snapped up as many as possible, and her and Bill's history of rewarding loyalty and punishing disloyalty has ensured that anyone who isn't involved with her campaign has no incentive to work with Sanders's.
Shouldn't awareness of foreign policy be... you know... part of the job description for the House of Representative and the Senate?
While your reasoning is valid, for me, I find Bernie's continued unwillingness to engage in foreign policy debates, and his general disinterest in it as a whole, especially now that he's running for President, says something about his character. If you're going to run for president, personally, I think you need to be a well-rounded candidate, you need to be engaged and knowledgeable about all aspects of government. A willful disregard and a continued disinterest in foreign policy, an area where the President has more influence than almost any other area, is a mark against him in my book.
And who the fuck thinks that sort of arrangement being made via email is a good idea? It's so easy to recover emails, it's silly.
Wait, what?
That said, they rarely stray away from whomever is winning the state delegate count. People (Bernie Sanders supporters) are making mountains out of molehills; so if Bernie is winning the majority of pledged delegates the closer we get to the convention then he will start receiving support from superdelegates.
But then I have a natural bias against the Superdelegates, as they were created to silence the youth that disturbed the establishment at DNC '68.
But if Sanders starts to be seen as a legitimate challenge, all it will take is for one superdelegate to decide that he's worth backing and they may well split.