Also, LOL at "we will remember and blacklist every delegate who backs hillary clinton" - the majority of those people are not even in positions you can vote them out of. In fact, I'm pretty sure that beyond knowing they exist and might be important, they don't even know what delegates are.
That said, even if they were able to be voted out of some political position, I wouldn't be terribly concerned - we're talking about a campaign who, by the hundreds, didn't even bother to show up when they were delegates, with a direct impact on the success of the candidate they're supposedly so passionate about. What are the chances they'll show up to some podunk local election to vote against some rando local politician who they've probably never heard of in their lives up to that point?
What irritates me about Bernie or Busters isn't even that they won't vote Clinton, it's that they won't shut up. It's a bunch of sore losers whose coach never taught them to shake hands with the other team when they played Little League baseball. You don't like Clinton. We get it. Move the fuck on.
What irritates me about Bernie or Busters isn't even that they won't vote Clinton, it's that they won't shut up. It's a bunch of sore losers whose coach never taught them to shake hands with the other team when they played Little League baseball. You don't like Clinton. We get it. Move the fuck on.
Why should they shut up? Nobody has anything to give them or anything to threaten them with ... that works anyway. They have no money, no organization, and not even the support of their own candidate from the looks of it. They are a hashtag and not a movement. They, in so far as there is much of a "they" in the first place are an afterthought as far as this election is concerned.
Seems like the title isn't that inflammatory at all. And the pro-cuts side talks about "program misuse" sounds like they are blaming poor people for receiving inadequate benefits and politicians for wanting to feed the hungry.
When compared to what the Republicans who control Congress wanted and the many necessary provisions within the bill, it seems to be pointing the blame at the Obama administration for making a reasonable compromise instead of blaming the Republicans for tying any such cuts to the bill in the first place. So yeah, still pretty sensationalized, I would say.
That's coldblooded. Well I guess there is no point in arguing this any further.
I mean Conservatives I can understand being complete douchebags, I have so much more trouble when Liberals are complete douchenozzles.
Why? It is in their politics to be. One of the reasons I stopped being a "Liberal Democrat" a long time ago. They have no plan, no agenda, and are left with nothing but a reflexive partisanship. When they have so little is it any wonder that they are left with a bitterness is exhausting to be around.
I called myself a libertarian all throughout college because the active anti-George W crowd was beyond douchenozzle and I just couldn't take it.
It's a pity, depending on the college, as a libertarian you would have able to have fun blaming poor white people for their poverty together with them and talked about how backward the rubes of America are.
What irritates me about Bernie or Busters isn't even that they won't vote Clinton, it's that they won't shut up. It's a bunch of sore losers whose coach never taught them to shake hands with the other team when they played Little League baseball. You don't like Clinton. We get it. Move the fuck on.
Why should they shut up? Nobody has anything to give them or anything to threaten them with ... that works anyway. They have no money, no organization, and not even the support of their own candidate from the looks of it. They are a hashtag and not a movement. They, in so far as there is much of a "they" in the first place are an afterthought as far as this election is concerned.
Well, that's a good reason right there. They have no money, no organization, no support. They are a hashtag not a movement. Just bitching on the internet.
Seems like the title isn't that inflammatory at all. And the pro-cuts side talks about "program misuse" sounds like they are blaming poor people for receiving inadequate benefits and politicians for wanting to feed the hungry.
When compared to what the Republicans who control Congress wanted and the many necessary provisions within the bill, it seems to be pointing the blame at the Obama administration for making a reasonable compromise instead of blaming the Republicans for tying any such cuts to the bill in the first place. So yeah, still pretty sensationalized, I would say.
That's coldblooded. Well I guess there is no point in arguing this any further.
How is that coldblooded? I stated that the Republicans should not have added any welfare/food stamp cuts to the bill (which provides necessary provisions for farmers to continue to farm). The Republicans who were pushing for the cuts (and exponentially larger cuts than ended up in the bill that President Obama signed) are coldblooded. Further, in my previous statement I said that I was NOT saying that this was a good move overall.
I am neither stating that we in the US provide enough for those in need nor that adding administrative barriers to accessing welfare/foodstamps funds is a good thing.
Acknowledging political realities and advocating that blame be placed on those who really caused the situation and being "coldblooded" are two different things. One can be passionate, compassionate, and realistic at the same time.
Quite the recent One-Two punch from Fivethirtyeight, bursting some Sanders theories, and basically taking two sacred cows out back behind the barn and shooting them:
"Sanders did slightly better with Democratic-leaning independents (71 percent favorable) than he did with plain-old Democrats (68 percent favorable), but that appeal does not seem to extend to true independents — those who are most likely to change party allegiances between elections and whose split between the Republican and Democratic candidates nearly matched the split in the nation overall in the last two elections, according to the ANES. In the Gallup poll, Sanders had a 35 percent favorable rating among independents who don’t lean toward either party. Clinton’s favorable rating with that group was 34 percent. Trump’s was a ridiculously low 16 percent."
"Realistically, if you throw everything together, the math suggests that Sanders doesn’t have much to complain about. If the Democratic nomination were open to as many Democrats as possible — through closed primaries — Clinton would be dominating Sanders. And if the nomination were open to as many voters as possible — through open primaries — she’d still be winning."
I still hope when Trump is officially the nominee that he just goes "yeah I was just fucking with you guys. I'm not that much of an asshole I just wanted to get the stupid people to vote for me."
I still hope when Trump is officially the nominee that he just goes "yeah I was just fucking with you guys. I'm not that much of an asshole I just wanted to get the stupid people to vote for me."
That won't happen. While most of him is hot air, I'm pretty sure his ego is real. Actually becoming president would give him a bigger orgasm than getting this far already has.
Avid Sanders supporters and the over the top Hillary hatred is doing me a concern.
Of course a Shillary supporter wouldn't get it. You're probably a criminal too, breaking national security laws and also having a vagina, which is the greatest crime of all.
What we need are real Washington outsiders, like Senator Sanders and his 30 years of not accomplishing anything in Congress.
Of course, if he doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting Trump because I'm edgy and my politics are very complicated.
Avid Sanders supporters and the over the top Hillary hatred is doing me a concern.
Of course a Shillary supporter wouldn't get it. You're probably a criminal too, breaking national security laws and also having a vagina, which is the greatest crime of all.
What we need are real Washington outsiders, like Senator Sanders and his 30 years of not accomplishing anything in Congress.
Of course, if he doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting Trump because I'm edgy and my politics are very complicated.
I am an anyone but the clown-car of Republican candidates supporter. Neither of the Clintons are liberal enough for my taste. Sanders isn't either. Sanders and Clinton's voting records were 93% identical during the period in which they were both in Congress. It could be argued that Clinton and Sanders are functionally identical when it comes to their records. As to what they would do as President, that is all speculation - on their part as well as ours.
So much of this is just based on people's feelings and personal likes/dislikes. Shouldn't we all focus on reason, policy, and record? I do not care if the candidate is nice; I care that they not set liberal causes back and make every effort to move it forward. I care that they can help win back Democratic control of Congress. As to lofty ideals, I will sell them out for more food in the stomachs of children, better funded schools, shoring up of the ACA, reduced troops overseas, etc.
Things will never be as simple as when I was 12 years old reading Karl Marx in my bedroom alone.
Makes a lot of sense until you realize that capital IS the means of production in the modern world =P
Yet it is also a mass delusion and can be modified, regulated, and manipulated to more equitably distribute resources.
Which is why a "post-labor" society is entirely feasible, but it scares people due to their inherent conservatism in the general economic order of the world (do thing = get paid).
Things will never be as simple as when I was 12 years old reading Karl Marx in my bedroom alone.
Makes a lot of sense until you realize that capital IS the means of production in the modern world =P
Yet it is also a mass delusion and can be modified, regulated, and manipulated to more equitably distribute resources.
Which is why a "post-labor" society is entirely feasible, but it scares people due to their inherent conservatism in the general economic order of the world (do thing = get paid)
There also needs to be an exist = have basic needs covered regardless of pay.
Comments
*Sigh*
That said, even if they were able to be voted out of some political position, I wouldn't be terribly concerned - we're talking about a campaign who, by the hundreds, didn't even bother to show up when they were delegates, with a direct impact on the success of the candidate they're supposedly so passionate about. What are the chances they'll show up to some podunk local election to vote against some rando local politician who they've probably never heard of in their lives up to that point?
That's coldblooded. Well I guess there is no point in arguing this any further.
Sanders Isn't Doing Well with True Independents.
"Sanders did slightly better with Democratic-leaning independents (71 percent favorable) than he did with plain-old Democrats (68 percent favorable), but that appeal does not seem to extend to true independents — those who are most likely to change party allegiances between elections and whose split between the Republican and Democratic candidates nearly matched the split in the nation overall in the last two elections, according to the ANES. In the Gallup poll, Sanders had a 35 percent favorable rating among independents who don’t lean toward either party. Clinton’s favorable rating with that group was 34 percent. Trump’s was a ridiculously low 16 percent."
and
The System Isn't 'Rigged" Against Sanders
"Realistically, if you throw everything together, the math suggests that Sanders doesn’t have much to complain about. If the Democratic nomination were open to as many Democrats as possible — through closed primaries — Clinton would be dominating Sanders. And if the nomination were open to as many voters as possible — through open primaries — she’d still be winning."
Edited: Quoted wrong paragraph.
What we need are real Washington outsiders, like Senator Sanders and his 30 years of not accomplishing anything in Congress.
Of course, if he doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting Trump because I'm edgy and my politics are very complicated.
So much of this is just based on people's feelings and personal likes/dislikes. Shouldn't we all focus on reason, policy, and record? I do not care if the candidate is nice; I care that they not set liberal causes back and make every effort to move it forward. I care that they can help win back Democratic control of Congress. As to lofty ideals, I will sell them out for more food in the stomachs of children, better funded schools, shoring up of the ACA, reduced troops overseas, etc.
And optional.
So yeah. Bernie's a little too far right for my real tastes.