Oh, I think he's genuine about what he says, I disagree with he way he goes about his message. I say he's a message candidate in a way that his campaign is strongly advocating for a particular cause. If that's incorrect terminology to use, then apologize for the mis-wording, but generally speaking that hasn't changed since he started his campaign.
Fair enough, I understand.
He does have control over that, to some degree. Obviously he can't force his supporters to think a certain way, but he has a huge amount of influence on what direction they should go after he loses. Therefore, I'd say that's a reasonable amount of control, but feel free to disagree!
What do you mean by huge?
Feel free to bring up a specific quote and I'll be more than happy to explain myself.
You brought up his body language in debates in your last post and how that makes him come across as senile. That's obviously subjective, but I think senile is a tad strong.
And sadly, they are not working together against trump.
But given the state of the race so far, you can't just expect him to fall in line, can you? I don't think it's realistic.
Really? You mean, he can't just be in the race anyway, take his "fight" (without any negative rhetoric, key point here), to the convention and encourage his supporters and endorse Clinton all the while promoting his point of a liberal/progressive (whichever term you want to use) agenda, and unify the party then? Is there really no such thing? Not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious.
I thought you had an issue with him taking the fight to the convention and endorsing Clinton then. I also thought you considered him not to be working with Clinton enough at the moment.
Bolded part is exactly my point, and why Bernie has shot himself in the foot multiple times (or at least, I see it that way). It's simply illogical to me to not utilize your influential position as a presidential candidate to unify your supporters with your opponent who's basically on the same side as you are, and continue a nonsensical battle to the convention in which you're going to lose anyway, and your supporters would still claim that it's rigged. That is my worry.
Winning would be nice, but losing the nomination now or later isn't the only objective of Sanders' run. The longer he stays in the race, the more influence he has versus the DNC. If he drops out now before any concessions are made (and you can bet that they're talking to each other behind the scenes), then it's possible that he'll just be effectively forgotten and he wouldn't have made an impact on the democratic party.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again for the benefit of those still following: it's simplistic to think that a Sanders endorsement of Clinton constitutes unifying the party. A lot of his supporters don't see it your way - that they're basically on the same side as Clinton - and would be satisfied with a more progressive platform. It's not about what he says, it's about whether the political vehicle that is the Democratic Party has seats for Sanders supporters. If they feel that their views aren't represented, nothing that Bernie Sanders says can do anything about that. If you go into the store and want to buy something that's red, and they don't have it in red, no salesman pitch would change the fact that they just don't have it in red.
That's why I've said that it's not illogical for Sanders to not unify the party in the way you've been demanding of him so far.
Unless I'm incorrect, she dropped out right after California on June 7th, right? Or was D.C somehow a week earlier?
The schedule of the Democratic primary actually changes every election cycle. The last primaries was held in Montana and South Dakota on June 3. She conceded and endorsed Obama on June 7th of 2008.
Bernie Sanders doesn't lose much if he concedes because him and Clinton are so similar in stance to begin with? Wait, didn't you say something like this yourself?
I don't know where you get your information from concerning Sanders, but I've watched all of the debates and many of his speeches and he says "the Secretary and I agree" and things of that sort over
Look, sometimes when you make an argument, you take quote out of context and as a result misrepresent the meaning of that quote. I noted Sanders' comparatively conciliatory attitude during debates in response to your assertion that:
Sanders absolutely refusing to (or just flat out not doing it) connect with Clinton in the same way that she's been trying to connect with his supporters
I don't think that Sanders and Clinton are very similar in their stances - they have some major differences. But I think it counts as extending a hand that he not only makes mention, but also highlights his agreement with Clinton where they exist. He also says "this is where the Secretary and I differ" a lot too, but when I wrote that statement, it was to make the point to the Democratic audience that there's a lot that they have in common, and therefore a lot they can work towards. Obviously they have some major differences, but we have to consider both similarities and differences.
Bernie does have a lot to lose: 1) less-interventionist foreign policy, 2) less pressure on minimum wage, 3) potentially less pressure against TPP if Clinton flipflops back, 4) less pressure to get money out of politics, among others.
He already exacted influence on the Democratic Party. His general point is to turn the party as left as possible, instead of being flat out center (or center-left), is that correct? With only one primary remaining, and a month separating and the Democratic National Convention, I'm not exactly sure, barring conceding to Clinton and endorsing her/campaigning for her and spreading his message to shape the party (which is my point), what else he can really do. Take big money out of politics? Clinton and Sanders both agree on that. International trade deals? Eh, that can probably be worked on, I dont think it's a huge contention between both of them.
The change he argues for is more revolutionary, admittedly, but I honestly don't think that most Democrats disagree with his goals - they just think it's not politically possible. Trade and war policy there will be genuine disagreement on. But expanding and deepening healthcare coverage for all Americans? - no Democrat could say no to that. And $15 minimum wage? It's definitely more liveable and dignifying than $12, but some people think it might be too much of a shock to the economy. My assertion is that most Democrats agree with Sanders' "Left" vision (barring war and trade, and perhaps some others), but aren't as comfortable with the idea of getting there as soon as possible. A lot of Democrats talk "left" but when push comes to shove, they are satisfied with less.
The big thing vs. Clinton is trust. It seems like you trust her to carry forth with all of the positions she advocates at this moment (some of which she's changed on within the last couple of years). Obama ran on a much more progressive platform than the actions he championed as President. I think if Obama had more pressure on him, he could have kept more of his word. Same thing with Clinton.
And why is it that Sanders, when its this near the convention, which is the most pivotal moment for any party in the hopes of winning the general, still acting like it's the middle of the primary? His "recycled" rhetoric is exactly what bothers me. In my eyes, If all Sanders is going to do is attack Clinton, he's just giving more ammo to Trump for the general election, and even Trump admitted this.
But it's not just rhetoric, it's what he's stood for since the beginning of his political career. It's what many Americans, some of which are on this forum, agree with. Bernie Sanders is an advocate and I don't think it's fair to expect him to shut down his "recycled rhetoric" because of political expediency. For example, Clinton and Sanders both want to get money out of politics, so why shouldn't they talk about her expensive speeches? They're there and they're ugly, but the fact of the matter is that they've happened and we all know they've happened. The speeches and the continued absence of their being addressed don't really support a reputation of being tough against money in politics.
It would help Clinton to divert attention away from her unsavoury aspects, but many of those aspects are representatives of big issues that need political attention. Winning isn't everything, and I believe that there are limits to the actions we take in order to win. I don't think the end of winning the election justifies the means of silencing reasonable political criticism.
It's not like Bernie will become irrelevant if he does concede at this point, contrary to what many may think. His message of a political revolution, to take big money out of politics, to make college education cheaper, to make healthcare more affordable, etc will live on through many young people who will vote for the Bernie Sanders equivalent in Congressional and District races, because that's how politics works. That's not being irrelevant or losing influence policy-wise; I'd argue he's successfully run a pretty damn good race.
People like winners, which Sanders most likely won't be :( But people like fighters too. My worry is that if Sanders quits too early it'll give people the impression that change was never going to happen anyways. If he continues to fight, then that (at least for me) gives me the impression that yes, the vision that Sanders espouses is worth fighting for even if the man himself cannot win - that the message can transcend his candidacy. Bernie Sanders won't become irrelevant if he concedes now, but I think it's important that it gets across to the American public that a vision of an America that works better for the 99% should not go down with the candidates that support it. He might have run a good race, but what's more important is enduring ideas.
I'm getting the impression that you're more disappointed that she isn't outright adopting Sanders' policies. I don't expect her to, to be completely honest. I think the two should compromise on something, but it's kinda silly to expect Clinton to suddenly go as far left as Sanders without losing the support of moderate and conservative Democrats. In short, she's playing it smart: she's saying she can compromise while not specifically adopting his policies, because that'd be alienating people who already support her for being pretty liberal but not FAR left liberal.
Not exactly. It would be nice for her to do so, but the main issue is trust and whether she'd keep to her word. Some of her rhetoric is not very trustworthy, and to me it implies that although she wants us all to believe that she's just as progressive as Sanders, she waffles in her rhetoric because she can't say the same message with as much conviction as Sanders.
Personally, I don't think what a lot of what Sanders is calling for is politically viable in the short term, but it's the right direction. What I worry about is that, in her attempts to differentiate herself from Sanders, she's advocated against the right direction. She helped write a healthcare bill in 1993 that did not provide for a single payer system because she felt it wasn't politically viable. Now she's on tape saying that single payer will never ever come to pass. That sounds like she's closing doors that shouldn't be closed.
What do you think of his policies? What of his stance & rhetoric vs. the financial industry, eliminating the influence of big money from politics, a $15 minimum wage, eliminating tuition from public universities, expanding social security, adopting a less interventionist foreign policy, increasing the tax burden on the top 1%, and moving to a single payer healthcare system?
Ignoring the unobjective and excessively biased because I think those are pretty silly terms to use especially in a political debate where everyone is really biased to a degree, I already explained myself multiple times, and I've explained my reasoning multiple times as well. It's just that you see things differently than I do, which is fine.
I don't think it's silly. I have no problem with bias existing in a debate, because it does and I respect that it exists and even if I didn't there's nothing anybody could do about it. But I have an issue with excessive bias. It's like saying that I have no problem with pepperoni on my pizza, but I really hate it when there's too much pepperoni.
I've disagreed with Harley Quinn, and gimmiepie, and Carcharodin, and Ivysaur (and more but I can't recall from the top of my head) and I'm totally fine with that, because they acknowledge their biases and acknowledge my arguments by responding to them. I feel totally fine to disagree with you, because why else would I be active in this section? I don't mind that we see things differently, but I'd like it if you addressed some of my concerns. For example, when I accuse you of not talking about Sanders policies, you say "I did" and just leave it at that. That's not a rebuttal, that's just an expression of disagreement. I don't really want to go back to the previous posts because that's tedious, so whatever.
And should I go back and quote every single post in your thread where, except for one instance, it seems that have showered Sanders with praise and back and flat-out ignored Clinton accomplishments or demonized it? I dunno, feel free to prove me wrong here. I'd really love to see it!
What would the point of that be? I have a lot more to say about Sanders and a lot more to criticize about Clinton. I don't think it's important to treat all the candidates with equal amounts of praise. Obviously we haven't been doing that with Trump. I don't think participants in a political debate thread should be balanced vis a vis the candidates, because that just stifles the presentation of personal opinions, but I think the participants should avoid excessive bias (obviously having bias is fine and is to be expected) and do that by responding to critiques.
Also, being a jerk in a debate doesn't help people to "see your reasoning". I mean, that's just how debating works. You present arguments utilizing your own language and the oppositions language in the hopes that you as well as the opposition can find a middle ground, or you just debate by trying to understand to come to some sort of understanding where they're coming from. Nowhere in debating does it qualify being a jerk, throwing shade, making sarcastic remarks, being pedantic, condescending, patronizing, disrespectful or rude in any shape or manner whatsoever. Doing so, you've effectively invalidated your own argument, because acting like a polite human being helps in actual discussion.
Well my points still stands. I don't think that either Sanders or The Dark Avenger was being hostile. I don't think Sanders is much different from Obama in his "hostility" towards Clinton. Both of them have been noted as being unwilling to fully pursue Clinton. Both of them stepped up their attacks towards the end of the campaign. Even though Obama eventually won, I'd say they were both pretty similar in their behaviour versus Clinton on the campaign trail. As for The Dark Avenger, he disagreed with you and explained why quite extensively and articulately. If his comments were directed at me, I wouldn't consider them to be hostile.
I don't think my argument or any argument becomes invalidated because of the attitude of the proponent, or because of the proponent at all. That's the beauty of arguments - it's an idea that stands regardless of whose mouth it's coming out of. I admit that I could've been much less rude, and that's why I'm trying to do now, but ignoring a logically consistent and otherwise valid argument because of attitude is just ignoring the argument. I don't mean to persuade any individual person in this thread, but I do mean to articulate an argument clearly, and follow up on rebuttals.
I'm confused. You have no problem with me being biased, but yet I'm criticized for being unobjective?
It's all about degrees. I've repeated this so many kinds: issue is not with whether bias exists, but how much of it there is.
Sorry, I tend to ignore people when they respond to me in an unreasonable "tone" (that can be described on the internet, anyway). It gives off the impression that they have no interest in what I have to say and that they're just really want to shove their views down my throat and nothing more. My vocabulary in utilizing Sanders is perhaps extreme yes, but it was far from unfounded. But that's just me.
You might ignore what I have to say, but I hope that people who aren't as invested in this discussion won't. Look, if I read an argument and I think there's something wrong with it, or make a challenge that isn't responded to, I'm going to point that out and there's nothing personal about it. I have no desire to shove my views down your throat - you're just one person and that kind of thing doesn't matter to me personally. Also, there's quite a bit of a gap between extreme and unfounded.
Anyways, I've gone out of my way to structure my arguments and I hope that will be a good example to how to explain your argument more clearly in cases of misunderstanding.
Interesting. I'm actually pleased because despite ignoring Clinton's victory yesterday (which he was criticized for a lot, and "i congratulated her on the phone" isnt really saying much). Perhaps with this we can actually move forward at this point.
But outside
Which he seems to do according to you link, so that's fine.
You don't think I have a point with Sanders still having an objective to stay in the race by exerting influence on the DNC to present to Sanders supporters commitments instead of just rhetoric and better ensure their loyalty come November?
It certainly happened at the Nevada convention. Who's to say it won't happen at the Pennsylvania convention next month? Who's to say that Bernie's supporters still feel like he got screwed out of the election and they'll storm the stretch outside the DNC until he gets nominated? Who's to say (and this happened a lot in American history), they'll create a massive protest where hundreds of people get arrested just for the sake of wanting to prove some sort of point?
I wouldn't really call that a riot. I recall the 2011 riots in Vancouver, the 2010 G20 riots in Toronto, and the Baltimore riots last year, and that's not exactly what happened at the Nevada convention. But yeah, maybe riots do happen. But couldn't they happen anyways even if Sanders concedes? That could be the inciting event for further riots, because Sanders supporters might perceive that as the ultimate betrayal.
The problem is you repeat your point, each more condescending than the next, which causes me to ignore it because it's condescending, therefore causing you to repeat yourself more with snark, which doesn't really help your point any. Ergo, you should've skipped out on the snark in the first place. I don't like repeating myself either, and I felt like you ignored a lot of my points (or misinterpreted them in some way), but you don't see me making ad hominems in here.
Ad hominem attacks are those that are directed towards your character, not at your arguments. I think I have gone out of my way to make my posts about the flaws in your arguments. I don't think I ever said that your arguments are invalid because you're rude, or because of some other aspect of your personality, because that would be an ad hominem attack.
...
Which seems to imply you don't care what someone's tone is in a debate as long as they present logical arguments, which is precisely why D&D/RT/OC fell into pieces earlier, because newer members didn't find a reason to participate in a forum with discussion if they're just going to get chastised for their own views and thoughts.
It doesn't imply that. That is not logically valid - not wanting to tone-parse does not mean I don't care about how other people present themselves. In fact, if everybody presented themselves politely, then I wouldn't have to tone-parse so it's completely reconcilable that I both care about attitude and not want to dissect other people's tone.
I think D&D/RT/OC "fell into pieces" earlier because people weren't presenting logical arguments, but were chastising each other and ignoring logically valid points in place of that.
Because you should've worded them in a more respectful way. Like I said, I tend not to respond to points that I feel are generally either roundabout ad hominems, because there's no reason to and it just defeats the purpose of debating in the first place.
Well, my last two posts are devoid of jabs (which you admit earlier), so there's quite a reserve of respectfully worded concerns that could be responded to.
There's another view to look at this: despite the flip-flopping, it can also be argued that Clinton has changed her viewpoints and has simply outgrown them. I suppose it is particularly difficult to trust a politician when they do change positions like we change clothes daily, but I find it unfair that, if we as human beings are able to have a change of opinion on a subject matter, is it such a bad thing that a politician does so within reason?
Flip-flopping, to me, will always be an iffy argument to use depending on the context and why the politician changed, but I firmly believe Clinton legitimately changed her views throughout time and now genuinely believes what she does now--she isn't all talk--and that's the kind of message that I get from her speeches and her actions (I mean it's hard to deny that she's been a serious political/social activist for YEARS).
We'll see after the fact, once she gets elected.
I think she'll be able to. I can raise this same question about Sanders though. Out of the blue, Sanders can turn a 180 on his policies and implement something different. However, like you said in an earlier post in this thread, isn't that what trust is about?
Any human being is able to change their mind. But the issue isn't whether or not Clinton or Sanders have the potential to change their minds, it's who do you trust to stay the course once campaigning turns into governing. Sanders has a long track record of saying and doing the same old thing for a very long time, so I trust him to stay the course if in power. Clinton on the other hand, has maintained positions opposite to the ones she holds now for much of her political career, so the possibility that she changed her mind for political expedience exists. Both of them are capable of changing their minds, but Clinton has a risk factor that Sanders doesn't have, so Sanders is the more trustworthy one.
Then why did you bring up the fact that I was "excessively biased" anyway? If you wanted more reasoning, you could've (and should've) asked nicely. It's odd that you dismiss this since you brought up the fact that I was unobjective or unbiased in the first place. If you don't want it to be discussed, then don't bring it up as a supportive argument. oO
My point isn't that hey you can't call me biased because you're just as biased as I am. My point is that hey you're biased because of a), b), and c).
I had a feeling this could be brought up and should've changed the word. Read "more or less", "rather", "pretty", "somewhat", or another moderating adjective.
Then this was moreso an argument that basically says that it's kind of hypocritical to call me heavily biased when you are also biased on your own throughout most of this discussion.
I don't give the candidates equal coverage, but I don't think I'm biased by ignoring your points. My issue with your bias isn't that you need to talk more or less about Bernie Sanders, but that I don't think you've sufficiently addressed my rebuttals and therefore haven't considered all of the points when it comes to a specific issue (because I raise points that you don't raise).
I feel it's kinda circular when this discussion amounts to "YOURE being biased", "no YOURE being biased", "no, clearly im being objective and clear, you're just being unobjective and unreasonable".
I think we are using "bias" in different senses. I brought this up first and meant to refer to how certain factors were being ignored when you make your judgements and how attempts to point out the ignoring remain unaddressed. From what I understand, and that's just how I understand it at the moment, you felt that you were not as biased as I said you were because you had given Sanders praise and thus adequate acknowledgement of his efforts/accomplishment/race etc. You also said that I wasn't being objective because I had little or nothing good to say about Clinton, and I addressed that by more extensively explaining my views about her in my previous post.
I don't think the discussion is actually circular - we were talking about two different ways of the same idea. I hope my more in-depth discussion about Clinton addresses your concerns for bias on my part, and I hope you address more fully (and don't worry I'm not saying you haven't addressed any of my points - I got some of that) my rebuttals and the factors you haven't so far considered.
If you made your points with politeness instead of snark and being condescending, then we'd be going somewhere. Of course, according to your earlier quote, I'm not sure if that seems to be something that you're willing to take into account. This isn't shade, this is genuine concern.
---
Last point I'm going to make: Kanzler, if there's one thing I really dislike, it's people misinterpreting my posts or presenting them as something that they're not. If something I'm saying is unclear, you ask for clarity in a polite/nice way. That's not hard in the slightest. I understand that I can word my points and arguments in a rather vague or unclear way; after all, I'm not exactly the best at articulation by any means. But this doesn't mean anyone should have to jump at me and make preemptive judgments or read too much into what I'm saying. All that's going to do is create unnecessary conflict because of simple misunderstandings.
I get that, and I don't want to make this go any longer, but don't you think that elaborating more clearly is something you do regardless of how the other person behaves? Personally, I try my best to be articulate and be clear and give structured arguments without any condition as to what the other person does. I might only be able to meet the other person half way, but I'm going all the way on my part.
That being said, another thing should be made clear, that I feel should be ignored throughout my previous post about Bernie Sanders: whether he chooses to conceded after the D.C primary or whether he concedes after the convention is yes, ultimately up to his choice. However, I feel that timing of when he concedes is important here. It's pretty hard to ignore that that tensions are high between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters, because the latter feels like they've been wronged by the system and blame the former unreasonably for doing the such. I mean for goodness sake, there are entire Facebook groups dedicated to either writing Sanders' name in, voting Trump (which would go against what Sanders stood for in the first place) or just voting Green party or staying home. This is precisely why I believe it's logical and reasonable for Sanders to concede early so he can utilize his influential position and convince his supporters that we should all work together and unite against the GOP's nominee (which he seems to have done today by the link that you posted, but it still doesn't really make sense that he's still fighting to the convention despite this).
Kind of responded to this earlier, but conceding before the DNC delivers more concrete commitments would undermine his influential position. I don't think Bernie Sanders' integrity and his reputation as a passionate, principled politician is unassailable. I'm closer to the Sanders crowd than you are, and I'd feel a bit betrayed if he dropped out right now (especially since he vowed not to already).
With all of that explained, I hope that, even if you cannot respond to this humongous, gigantic, 27,000+ character post taking your recent posts, sentence by sentence and responding to them with reasoning and my own positions, that you be able to understand my positions even to some degree and why I make the arguments that I do. It's just that Sanders' recent actions has left me cynical when he could've avoided those actions entirely which gained him a good amount of negative media attention.
and the rest
I don't think you should be so cynical because of Sanders' recent actions, because in short they're to be expected. He has expectations to uphold from his supporters, and he needs to continue to sufficiently uphold those expectations if we want his supporters to transfer their allegiance to Clinton. If he can't uphold those expectations, then he loses, Clinton loses, and nobody wins.
He might have a lot of negative attention on mainstream media, but people who put a lot of faith in that tend to be the people who didn't vote for him in the first place. It doesn't really affect the people who really support him. I'm making this argument because I have the feeling that you didn't consider these factors when you made that initial judgement.
