US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

[Martell Spy]

Well, the Robot is back, with new pro Trump programming installed.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/26/marco_rubio_joins_the_trump_train.html

Marco Rubio Is Now a Full-Fledged Trump Supporter

[The Anti-Targ]

7 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

That isn't to say that there aren't things to improve, but the dirty secret of democracy is that things take time. Obama had a great speech on this - which is that even if you are 100% right about something and the other side is 100% wrong, you still have to compromise if you want to get anything done. And that pisses me off! And it pisses you off too, and that sucks, but that is the nature of Democracy, and that's a good thing. Authoritarian dictatorship is awesome when said dictator is benevolent, fair and on your side because you get things done super fast. That's great! But it really, really sucks when it isn't on your side. Democracy has the advantage of not turning over too fast no matter what. 

 

No it isn't. That's the nature of partisan democracy, which includes partisan factions within a party.

If you take partisanship out of democracy then you can have cooperative problem solving instead of combative/competitive problem solving. In a cooperative decision-making system if someone is 100% right and someone is 100% wrong, then the 100% right position will end up being implemented because people don't start out with entrenched positions. They bring their views to the table on an equal footing and everyone is committed to achieving the best possible outcome, not the outcome that aligns with their initial views.

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

No it isn't. That's the nature of partisan democracy, which includes partisan factions within a party.

If you take partisanship out of democracy then you can have cooperative problem solving instead of combative/competitive problem solving. In a cooperative decision-making system if someone is 100% right and someone is 100% wrong, then the 100% right position will end up being implemented because people don't start out with entrenched positions. They bring their views to the table on an equal footing and everyone is committed to achieving the best possible outcome, not the outcome that aligns with their initial views.

That assumes that there is one objectively 'right' position. Chances are pretty good that there is nuance and that the reason you think yours is 100% right is because you're completely discounting something that is hugely important to another person. 

It really isn't the nature of partisan democracy, either. It's the nature of binary choices. Slavery is a good example here - slavery was not a partisan issue originally - it became a geographic issue, but it certainly wasn't based on party lines for a good long time. Gun rights are another example in this country today. 

[The Anti-Targ]

6 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Well, that's why it's worth reading the chapter. Certainly Palin botched a number of things, but the issues are being mixed up. The media hit heavily for "g" dropping when Obama did it exactly the same amount. I'll dig out the book and find the referenced articles. But it wasn't about policy,

It's odd, because on this side of the world at least I don;t recall anyone having a go at Palin for dropping g's. People made fun of her because she is an above averagley intelligent kook who somehow says rather unintelligent or incoherent things a lot.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Dean's movement didn't die out. It became Obama's movement. Obama consciously built on Dean's 50 State Strategy during his election. Obama was the exciting progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton in 2008. Dean did a lot of good by playing ball with the party after he lost the nomination. I think Bernie should learn some lessons from him.

Your excusing of Bernie's duplicity because it's in the service of a greater good shows a lot of double think. Do you suppose it is possible that Hillary Clinton also thinks that she could do the most good and so her lies are in service of a greater good too? Or is she just an evil liar who lies for her own selfish ends? Bernie cannot be as incorruptible as you seem to imagine him to be if he is being self-servingly dishonest.

But hey, let's talk about Howard Dean some more. He endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2014 and has remained in her camp since. If the Great Progressive Hope of 2004 and the best DNC chair of the last generation supports Clinton, despite coming from the same state as Bernie, does that count for anything?

 

 

I get the feeling you think I'm a Bernie supporter, but I'm not. I understand it's hard to keep track of who all has what positions on this board, but I thought I should say something to prevent misunderstanding. I voted Clinton and have stated my support for her before on this board. Although I'm not her devoted or vociferous supporter. My basic feeling on the matter is that Sanders is a subpar candidate and supporting him would have been to support the Democrats losing this election. I supported Clinton mostly on her experience and ability to kick Republican ass in the general election. I wasn't given a third option and I'm not entirely happy about this. I was an Obama supporter.

I do sympathize with some of Sanders policy goals. And I do think Sanders supporters (with the exception of Bernie Bros) should be treated fairly. However, I gave Bernie a chance to convince me to vote for him and he failed. He convinced me that he would be destroyed in the general instead.

You've given me the impossible task of proving that Bernie is a superhuman creature that never lies. I'd challenge you to name a politician that would behave differently in his situation, provided they had some kind of political goals they wanted to achieve and thus had to stay in the race. I'd bring up the counter example of Cruz. Why did he drop out? Because his a creature of pure ambition, not of policy goals, despite his attempts to portray himself as the perfect conservative. He plans to come back and win in 2020. 

I don't think Clinton is a corporate shill and people claiming this are dishonest or simplistic. I think we don't really know exactly where she stands on everything. (Not to digress but this is different than Trump, where what is really scary about him is he literally has ZERO positions, since they are all negotiable, even the massively racist and unconstitutional ones) She does have a record and she does stake out positions, which can later be used against her if she pulls back from them. In particular I looked up how she voted on the awful 2005 bankruptcy law that passed, and she voted against it. I'd have voted against her if she had supported it.

The fact that Sanders isn't a real Democrat also factored into my voting decision, but not as much as other factors. I basically try to vote what is best for the party in elections, not always what will perfectly match all my policy wishes and dreams. Because the Democratic party is basically a shield for the rights of various vulnerable groups in the US.

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

47 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's odd, because on this side of the world at least I don;t recall anyone having a go at Palin for dropping g's. People made fun of her because she is an above averagley intelligent kook who somehow says rather unintelligent or incoherent things a lot.

 

 

Obama's code-switching ability reflects his mastery of public speaking. His tendency to go to g dropping has been deemed very deliberate, but Palin doesn't often get that pass. Here is an article where Samuel L Jackson calls Obama out on the g dropping: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2013/09/25/samuel-l-jackson-disses-obamas-pronunciation-be-fking-presidential--stop-trying-to-relate-n1709649

I don't often hear this criticism with him though, but I certainly have heard Hillary get a load of shit for code/dialect switching.

As for Palin, and context, she was certainly being ripped apart for bad ideas in 08: http://www.alternet.org/story/102345/12_new_stomach-turning_revelations_about_sarah_palin

I'll quote some of Labov's book. He cites Rob Kall, a radio host, as saying: "When you speak in public, you use your best English, except for occasional emphases. Adopting Palin's de-G-ed 'speakin' is an assault on the language, just like perpetrating the lie that she's ready to lead is an assault on the future of the nation" (Kall). Labov follows this quote with: "However, if we take the same objective measures of variable ING,  we find no difference between Sarah Palin and President Obama. For careful speech, we can take Sarah Palin's interviews with Katie Couric, and for scripted formal style, her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. (A nice figure is inserted here overlaying her speech patterns with Obama's) It is evident that Sarah Palin is obeying the same norms for variable ING as those that govern the speech of President Obama."

So Labov's point isn't necessarily to link gender/race politics here, but to show inherent prejudices toward specific types of speech patterns. Dr Pepper pointed this out with George W, and I'll come back to that, but Labov does show a discrepancy between how men and women are treated due to speech patterns. Rob Kall saying Palin "assaulted" the English language wasn't unique.

What I do find interesting is Dr. Pepper's (I think) reminder that Bush suffered from this. Sociolinguistics and systemic functional linguistics which deals with language prejudice (speak correctly!) are two areas I'm studying in my graduate program and plan to research when I go into Ed Psych for my PhD work. Certainly negative language bias can be piled on either gender, but what I found really interesting in Labov's small illustration is that when two historically oppressed groups perform the same linguistic maneuvers, women are likely to be held to a harsher standard.

I'll circle back to Clinton, Bernie, and Trump. Clinton is the most polished of those three in terms of speaking, she is extraordinarily articulate, and she communicates her ideas clearly, but of the three--I would be willing to bet her speech patterns are held to a harsher scrutiny than the other two. 

All of this to say: I'm glad I've slowly worked through these ideas here. They've helped me to see where I am being short sighted in bigger picture. Kal was right, I was holding the more virtuous qualities of Bernie/supporters against only the negatives of the opposition. 

[mormont]

Quote

If you take partisanship out of democracy

That's a hell of a big 'if'. Partisanship is pretty much inherent to any democracy in some form.

[DanteGabriel]

8 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

 

I get the feeling you think I'm a Bernie supporter, but I'm not. I understand it's hard to keep track of who all has what positions on this board, but I thought I should say something to prevent misunderstanding. I voted Clinton and have stated my support for her before on this board. Although I'm not her devoted or vociferous supporter. My basic feeling on the matter is that Sanders is a subpar candidate and supporting him would have been to support the Democrats losing this election. I supported Clinton mostly on her experience and ability to kick Republican ass in the general election. I wasn't given a third option and I'm not entirely happy about this. I was an Obama supporter.

I do sympathize with some of Sanders policy goals. And I do think Sanders supporters (with the exception of Bernie Bros) should be treated fairly. However, I gave Bernie a chance to convince me to vote for him and he failed. He convinced me that he would be destroyed in the general instead.

You've given me the impossible task of proving that Bernie is a superhuman creature that never lies. I'd challenge you to name a politician that would behave differently in his situation, provided they had some kind of political goals they wanted to achieve and thus had to stay in the race. I'd bring up the counter example of Cruz. Why did he drop out? Because his a creature of pure ambition, not of policy goals, despite his attempts to portray himself as the perfect conservative. He plans to come back and win in 2020. 

I don't think Clinton is a corporate shill and people claiming this are dishonest or simplistic. I think we don't really know exactly where she stands on everything. (Not to digress but this is different than Trump, where what is really scary about him is he literally has ZERO positions, since they are all negotiable, even the massively racist and unconstitutional ones) She does have a record and she does stake out positions, which can later be used against her if she pulls back from them. In particular I looked up how she voted on the awful 2005 bankruptcy law that passed, and she voted against it. I'd have voted against her if she had supported it.

The fact that Sanders isn't a real Democrat also factored into my voting decision, but not as much as other factors. I basically try to vote what is best for the party in elections, not always what will perfectly match all my policy wishes and dreams. Because the Democratic party is basically a shield for the rights of various vulnerable groups in the US.

 

Okay, after reading this, I think there is little daylight between our positions. I was pretty pro-Bernie at the beginning of the cycle, but if I think hard about it I probably cast my vote for him with the expectation that he still wouldn't win the nomination and that Clinton would be the horse I'd have to back in November.

I did misunderstand your position because in your post that I replied to, it seemed like you were excusing Bernie's duplicity in the service of keeping his campaign going past the point where victory was plausible. I thought "little lies in the service of a greater goal" are how a person ends up with a reputation like the Clintons. Indeed, I expect no one to prove that Bernie is a superhuman creature that never lies, because no one, not even the Sainted Senator from Vermont, survives as long as he has in politics without... rhetorical flexibility.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Have any of you seen Trump's scores on Politifact? He's got a 2% true rating lol.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Have any of you seen Trump's scores on Politifact? He's got a 2% true rating lol.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Not surprising since the owner of Politifact, the Tampa Bay Times, has endorsed Clinton.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Shryke said:

Aye. Part of the issue back then was Dean vs Rahm and Obama and others, sadly, sided with Rahm.

A bad move as Rahm's subsequent actions have shown.

Isn't Rahm's brother the inspiration for Ari Gold?

[TrackerNeil]

11 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Well, the Robot is back, with new pro Trump programming installed.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/26/marco_rubio_joins_the_trump_train.html

Marco Rubio Is Now a Full-Fledged Trump Supporter

I knew it! I knew that bottom-feeding, over-polished, ambition-drenched opportunistic little scumbag was going to come around. I didn't think Little Marco could be more pathetic after losing his home state, but apparently there is at least one way in which Rubio never disappoints: he can always be more pathetic than you think.

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Have any of you seen Trump's scores on Politifact? He's got a 2% true rating lol.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Ooohhhh.  So close to being a 1%er there Trumpy.

minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Not surprising since the owner of Politifact, the Tampa Bay Times, has endorsed Clinton.

I see you haven't denied he's an inveterate liar.

[Maithanet]

37 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Not surprising since the owner of Politifact, the Tampa Bay Times, has endorsed Clinton.

Or maybe the arrow is going the other way, that the Tampa Bay Times does not endorse Trump because he is a liar?  I mean, Kasich is rated as more or less as truthful as Sanders, Clinton and Obama, so it is hard to say that Politifact has something against the Republican Party so much as they do against Trump.  Who, even by the sliding scale of politicians, stands out as a huge liar. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

25 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I knew it! I knew that bottom-feeding, over-polished, ambition-drenched opportunistic little scumbag was going to come around. I didn't think Little Marco could be more pathetic after losing his home state, but apparently there is at least one way in which Rubio never disappoints: he can always be more pathetic than you think.

I don't get the invective. I'm not sure that calling a politician ambitious is even actually a knock against them. Nor being polished - even to the point of being "over polished." I'm not exactly sure what makes a Republican Senator "bottom-feeding" but Rubio seems fairly characteristic of his fellow Congressmen that rode into power on the wave of Tea Party support. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Or maybe the arrow is going the other way, that the Tampa Bay Times does not endorse Trump because he is a liar?  I mean, Kasich is rated as more or less as truthful as Sanders, Clinton and Obama, so it is hard to say that Politifact has something against the Republican Party so much as they do against Trump.  Who, even by the sliding scale of politicians, stands out as a huge liar. 

The most striking aspect about Trump's lying is that many of his supporters recognize that he's full of it and yet they don't really seem to care about it.

[TrackerNeil]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The most striking aspect about Trump's lying is that many of his supporters recognize that he's full of it and yet they don't really seem to care about it.

I know, right? It's like they just don't care about the truth.

Or...

Maybe some people think differently about truth. To them, maybe facts don't matter as much as a more general "rightness", meaning that they don't care whether or not this or that budget is revenue neutral, or if the person Trump accused of whatever is actually guilty.  They are more concerned with Trump being right in general--not liking immigrants or anyone not white, thinking women should act in certain ways, etc. I'm just blueskying here, but still...

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

17 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I know, right? It's like they just don't care about the truth.

Or...

Maybe some people think differently about truth. To them, maybe facts don't matter as much as a more general "rightness", meaning that they don't care whether or not this or that budget is revenue neutral, or if the person Trump accused of whatever is actually guilty.  They are more concerned with Trump being right in general--not liking immigrants or anyone not white, thinking women should act in certain ways, etc. I'm just blueskying here, but still...

Of course. It's all political signaling. It's honestly much the same with Bernie Sanders. 

Sanders has no real plan for how he intends to implement a political revolution. None of his policy proposals, like single-payer healthcare or universal free college education, or a $15 nation-wide minimum wage, stand any chance of being passed by Congress. His proposed budget has a shortfall in the multiple trillions of dollars. None of this is workable.

But, Bernie Sanders is signaling his support of ideas that a lot of people can actually get behind - that the current system is corrupt and inefficient. That there's a better way to do things. That we shouldn't have to settle for social welfare programs that are the laughing stock of the developed world. That every person should be able to earn a straight-up living wage just by working 40 hours a week at an unskilled, menial job. And people respond to that because they agree with those ideas. I agree with those ideas. I know Sanders can't accomplish any of that. But I'm voting for him in the primary anyway. 

Trump's signaling to "disenfranchised" white people that he's on their side. That those foreigners are messing things up. That he knows America has the biggest military dick and he's not afraid to swing it around and talk tough. And even though a lot of his supporters know he's probably not going to be able to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, or create deportation squads of sufficient size to relocate ten million people, that's okay, because they know he's on their side anyway. 

[Kalbear]

Sanders talks with univision, doesn't know or have a position for us policy on Latin and south America because he's running for the US presidency .

You can almost imagine Clinton almost jumping out of her seat raising her hand and wanting to answer the question.

 

http://fusion.net/video/307108/bernie-sanders-acknowledges-he-should-know-more-about-latin-america/

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Of course. It's all political signaling. It's honestly much the same with Bernie Sanders. 

Sanders has no real plan for how he intends to implement a political revolution. None of his policy proposals, like single-payer healthcare or universal free college education, or a $15 nation-wide minimum wage, stand any chance of being passed by Congress. His proposed budget has a shortfall in the multiple trillions of dollars. None of this is workable.

But, Bernie Sanders is signaling his support of ideas that a lot of people can actually get behind - that the current system is corrupt and inefficient. That there's a better way to do things. That we shouldn't have to settle for social welfare programs that are the laughing stock of the developed world. That every person should be able to earn a straight-up living wage just by working 40 hours a week at an unskilled, menial job. And people respond to that because they agree with those ideas. I agree with those ideas. I know Sanders can't accomplish any of that. But I'm voting for him in the primary anyway. 

Trump's signaling to "disenfranchised" white people that he's on their side. That those foreigners are messing things up. That he knows America has the biggest military dick and he's not afraid to swing it around and talk tough. And even though a lot of his supporters know he's probably not going to be able to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, or create deportation squads of sufficient size to relocate ten million people, that's okay, because they know he's on their side anyway. 

But with Trump it goes well beyond lying about unachievable policies. Every politician does that to some extent. Trump lies about everything and there seems to be little fallout for doing so. I mean, you can sometimes hear his supporters laughing at a blatant lie and it doesn't seem to diminish their support for him one bit.