• CNN Resorts to Internet Censorship to Promote Hilary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders
    114 replies, posted
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;48934985]so these are bad ideas?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that for the most part it's pointless for you or me or him to go "he should do this" or "He should do that". He has insane amounts of experience in running campaigns and his colleagues are no worse off.
[QUOTE=adamsz;48940519]As much as I would like to see this happen, I can't help but think it will end up exactly like the Occupy Movement did. Create a temporary talking point until the media no longer needs them. After that, they will be vilified by politicians, pundits, media personalities, and since people are stupid and compliant they'll buy every word of it. Feel free to call me out if I turn out to be wrong.[/QUOTE] The only way to know for sure is to try it. And even then, besides using them as a leverage tool against Congress, suppose you decided to turn them against the media and pundits and other propagandists lying about them? Honestly, the best thing you could with them on a long-term basis would be to have them occupy positions in as many of these institutions as they could; infiltration I mean. This was, again to bring back the Germany example, a very effective tactic the SA and Nazi Party members used against the Weimar Republic before they even had any actual power in Germany's parliament. And beyond that, there's also the need to recognize that yeah, no matter what, there will always be a lot of people that will be against you and what you stand for. That's why it's important you mobilize as many people as you can to your side. You'll hit a threshold eventually, but the point isn't to overcome that threshold by then; it's about building loyalty and a willingness to take action in members. You'll just have to work with what you've got the best you can. It's not easy at all, but it's also not impossible like some people are making it out to be; to say it's impossible is to ignore history and deliberately exaggerate anticipated difficulties because you're afraid of failure. Do it or don't do it. The only certainty of failure however is if you don't try to do anything at all with such an opportunity as this. The big reason as well why the Occupy Movement failed was because it didn't have a good centralized organizational leadership structure, a cohesive set of goals (they varied from city to city; for example, I went to Boston's Occupy camp, and it was basically a real-life hippie circlejerk), nor did it have a figurehead to consolidate itself behind. Sanders could be that figurehead now (Obama could have been that figurehead when he was first elected, but he wasted his opportunity, and his supporters for the most part just kind of drifted away as his presidency wore on); he's already outlined his goals, and he could help build that organizational structure around his leadership. Honestly, I supported the Occupy Movement because, while it definitely wasn't capable of actually doing much to create change, it was still a manifestation of that anger and that frustration (etc.) that I was talking about before. The Tea Party Movement was also a manifestation of the same anger and frustration, only from a right-wing perspective. At the time, I thought of it as kind of a prelude to what the future could bring; people are still fed up with American government and politics. Attitudes since Occupy and the Tea Party began are changing. Look at who two of the biggest contenders in the Republican and Democratic primaries have been: Donald Trump (of all fucking people), and Bernie Sanders (a Democratic Socialist from Vermont). That's a pretty radical transition from the traditional cookiecutter politicians we were faced with before who all looked the same, dressed the same, and generally had the same kinds of backgrounds, speech habits, etc. I mean I can't say for certain what the future will bring. Nobody can. So I'm not going to speculate anymore about what-ifs and coulds/woulds/etc. All I know is there's been a definite change in American political attitudes these last few years since the recession hit, and that's been because people really got hurt from it. And they're still hurting. Things can't go on this way forever. People get tired of being subjected to continuous pressures and pain. If they don't decide to change things now, then they'll change them later. Unless of course, again, the powers that be intervene and attempt to alleviate them of their problems: employment and education, financial issues (student loan debt especially), health care concerns that were never really fixed, and so on. We're not exactly collapsing, we're transitioning. And the best politicians, the good ones I mean like Sanders, in this country need to adapt and learn how to read into this transitioning process so they can work with it to do their jobs. I trust in his experience completely and don't doubt he and his colleagues know what they're doing; at the same time, I also know that this kind of grassroots populism works well in democracies based off of what examples history has provided. He could be a kind of modern Huey Long if he was willing to be.
[QUOTE=Megadave;48930955]So the real question is, who the fuck we going to support next? Everyone else is total shit (with the exception of third party candidates).[/QUOTE] I think we all know the only person worth voting for. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g6Ba0Uc9bM[/media]
Why aren't people skeptical of Sanders? he supports all these super left wing policies, but how do we know he wouldn't just go "haha fucking tricked you" like obama did
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48946568]Why aren't people skeptical of Sanders? he supports all these super left wing policies, but how do we know he wouldn't just go "haha fucking tricked you" like obama did[/QUOTE] What are you even talking about?
[QUOTE=CoilingTesla;48946580]What are you even talking about?[/QUOTE] Obama campaigned on change of the political order and was heralded as the washington outsider (1 term senator) who would save America and bring us socialized healthcare and make America better. Then it turned out that he was just like any other politician. Why do people have so much faith in Sanders? They think that he's incapable of just spewing bullshit political opinions to get votes?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48946593]Obama campaigned on change of the political order and was heralded as the washington outsider (1 term senator) who would save America and bring us socialized healthcare and make America better. Then it turned out that he was just like any other politician. Why do people have so much faith in Sanders? They think that he's incapable of just spewing bullshit political opinions to get votes?[/QUOTE]Because he actually has an extensive history of being true to his word.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48946602]Because he actually has an extensive history of being true to his word.[/QUOTE] Like what?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48946568]Why aren't people skeptical of Sanders? he supports all these super left wing policies, but how do we know he wouldn't just go "haha fucking tricked you" like obama did[/QUOTE] Obama didn't trick anyone lmao, he was always a relatively centerist, left (US left, not reasonable-rest-of-the-world left) politician with a few ideas that every politician dreams of implementing and will use in their campaign. Just to be utterly blocked throughout his second term by a Republican majority and all attempts to be civil and include Republicans in his first being used to fuck his legislation up enough to act as fuel against him. Maybe if US politics was more than just a big game to those involved it might feel less like he lied. But he has a pretty good track record so far of trying to keep to his initial ideas.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48946631]Obama didn't trick anyone lmao, he was always a relatively centerist, left (US left, not reasonable-rest-of-the-world left) politician with a few ideas that every politician dreams of implementing and will use in their campaign. Just to be utterly blocked throughout his second term by a Republican majority and all attempts to be civil and include Republicans in his first being used to fuck his legislation up enough to act as fuel against him. Maybe if US politics was more than just a big game to those involved it might feel less like he lied. But he has a pretty good track record so far of trying to keep to his initial ideas.[/QUOTE] I don't understand why anyone thinks this is going to be any different if Bernie does get elected though. The Republicans would block him at any chance they get. And also, he's not getting elected because people are so stuck to their bases it won't happen. Clinton is solidly the winner of the primary, always has been. I'd rather see Bernie elected, but people are thick headed.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48946593]Obama campaigned on change of the political order and was heralded as the washington outsider (1 term senator) who would save America and bring us socialized healthcare and make America better. Then it turned out that he was just like any other politician. Why do people have so much faith in Sanders? They think that he's incapable of just spewing bullshit political opinions to get votes?[/QUOTE] Because Obama accepts legal bribes and Bernie does not. He has been in political office since 1981, and has always espoused the same values (often way ahead of the American people). He was an activist during the civil rights movement. [QUOTE=Xystus234;48946825]I don't understand why anyone thinks this is going to be any different if Bernie does get elected though. The Republicans would block him at any chance they get. And also, he's not getting elected because people are so stuck to their bases it won't happen. Clinton is solidly the winner of the primary, always has been. I'd rather see Bernie elected, but people are thick headed.[/QUOTE] A cynical attitude like this ensures that we make no progress.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48946568]Why aren't people skeptical of Sanders? he supports all these super left wing policies, but how do we know he wouldn't just go "haha fucking tricked you" like obama did[/QUOTE] I applaud your expert analysis of US government you should be a professor
I don't understand why CNN even bothered. It was almost exclusively the Bernie Sanders voters who were even attracted to the poll in the first place, those who will vote Clinton mostly don't give a shit about an online vote. His entire campaign seems almost like an overblown circlejerk straight out of Reddit, and the circlejerking is definitely the norm on here as well. I still don't see him stand a chance against Hillary.
the thing we all know is that bernie had the same coverage that the general media gives the other candidates, he will have massive support from both parties.
[QUOTE=da space core;48948575]massive support from both parties.[/QUOTE] eheh no
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48946568]Why aren't people skeptical of Sanders? he supports all these super left wing policies, but how do we know he wouldn't just go "haha fucking tricked you" like obama did[/QUOTE] He didn't. He was blocked by the Republicans and tried to compromise too much. He was [B]also already a corporate candidate.[/B] Obama also doesn't have Bernies record.
of course not the far right, but more of the general central conservatives will gladly choose him over clinton
[QUOTE=da space core;48948605]of course not the far right, but more of the general central conservatives will gladly choose him over clinton[/QUOTE] no, they'll vote Repub
Clearly you all haven't seen the positions of the Republican Party: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)[/url] He's not getting a shred of the Republican vote.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48946631]Obama didn't trick anyone lmao, he was always a relatively centerist, left (US left, not reasonable-rest-of-the-world left) politician with a few ideas that every politician dreams of implementing and will use in their campaign. Just to be utterly blocked throughout his second term by a Republican majority and all attempts to be civil and include Republicans in his first being used to fuck his legislation up enough to act as fuel against him. Maybe if US politics was more than just a big game to those involved it might feel less like he lied. But he has a pretty good track record so far of trying to keep to his initial ideas.[/QUOTE] Actually there are two videos of him being rather disingenuous about what he knows he can do and what he says he would like to do. He's a career politician, and he was aware both then and now about what he could expect to accomplish, that doesn't really line up with his speeches. Pretty much same thing as Clinton. Lots and lots of rhetoric, not terribly much action.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;48949390]Clearly you all haven't seen the positions of the Republican Party: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)[/url] He's not getting a shred of the Republican vote.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.facebook.com/republicansforbernie[/url] The republican party has moved so far right they are disenfranchising their own moderates.
[QUOTE=27X;48950425]Actually there are two videos of him being rather disingenuous about what he knows he can do and what he says he would like to do. He's a career politician, and he was aware both then and now about what he could expect to accomplish, that doesn't really line up with his speeches. Pretty much same thing as Clinton. Lots and lots of rhetoric, not terribly much action.[/QUOTE] his rhetoric is much more optimistic and considering everyone else we can choose i support him as "probably best choice"
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48950601]his rhetoric is much more optimistic and considering everyone else we can choose i support him as "probably best choice"[/QUOTE] Talking about Obama, not Sanders.
[QUOTE=Reshy;48946875]Because Obama accepts legal bribes and Bernie does not. He has been in political office since 1981, and has always espoused the same values (often way ahead of the American people). He was an activist during the civil rights movement. A cynical attitude like this ensures that we make no progress.[/QUOTE] There WAS that immigration bill he voted against. During the debate he said it was because the bill had provisions to essentially turn immigrant labor into slave labor, but back when he initially voted against it he said it was because they would take American jobs. Sounds like flip-flopping, but in a sense, he's technically not changed, because he thinks Americans need those jobs more (remember, this was in 2007, the Recession wasn't far away), which has been his platform concerning out-sourcing, but he's still a proponent for immigrants having easier access to citizenship. That being said, it's also entirely possible that he simply didn't think to bring up the point of the "slave-like" provision the bill would provide back then, and decided to go for the less-controversial and more widely-accepted "but muh jobs" argument, who knows. All I know is that even good people can change their minds on issues.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.