User Banned (1 Week): Ignoring Staff Post With Regards to Hostility Over Multiple Posts
You asked a question I answered on the same page ~10 minutes prior. You should get a ban for your "asshole" comment.
Edit-added quotation marks.
Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
You asked a question I answered on the same page ~10 minutes prior. You should get a ban for your "asshole" comment.
Edit-added quotation marks.
To lose Florida by ten points and lose a bunch of house seats in the process. Can't imagine there a lot of happy dems in south FL right now
No one to Sanders' left expects or believes that a US presidential election will start the process of transitioning to communism in 8 years time. The ruthless criticism of everything that exists will continue until consciousness emerges. This does mean that a potential Sanders presidency will face dozens of cutting and valid criticisms on its left flank from bloggers and academics with audiences of thousands. I'll leave it to you to decide how much of a concern that is.
People in the comments are saying they were there and were counted in line at least 3,500-4000, but am I crazy or does that look like 1,500-2,000 max? Obviously there's some spillover too but yeah there's no way this single event was 10,000+ lmfao
Sanders has a decent path to victory without Florida. Turnout is expected to be bigger this time around and republicans have already hit their ceiling. As long as Sanders can win the same blue states that Hillary did and flip a few battleground states that's all he needs to clinch. Hillary was the most disliked nominee ever to run and she was beat out in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan by less than a percent. And there's still Ohio, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Texas that will be in striking distance with Sanders. Things aren't hopeless without Florida.
i like the cuban refugees that always talk about fleeing oppression and wanting to build a better life and then turn around and vote for trump and other republicans. swell job they are doing there, fighting oppression. but since the people building the camps are nice and wear suits and talk about freedom then i guess its all okay.
No, I'd say the "areas where markets don't work" mean that those are things which are fundamental rights and should never be subject to for-profit extortion. This is how many European socialist-leaning countries operate and it works more or less well for them.
Perhaps, but on the campaign trail, it gives him the flexibility to make him palatable to a larger amount of voters on different ends of the left wing spectrum. In addition, it doesn't pin him on a single narrow path later on and gives him a bit more options once decisions start getting more complex.
I think he will only disappoint people if he doubles back on certain key promises or seriously starts selling out. If he goes all Jimmy Carter on us in particular, he'll lose much of his support. But I am hopeful about Bernie and believe he is a man of convictions.
were gonna lose florida (my state) and i think thats ok. we have a shot in arizona*, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and the Entire rest belt.
Last edited:
The person you referenced even said theyre not an expert. List a source rather than talking to people like that for asking a simple quesiton.
After Sanders blowout in Nevada I'd say that's a pretty safe state. If Hillary beat trump in Nevada I think Sanders will no doubt.
Kissing the asses of 70 year old Cubans who still give a shit about Castro ain't gonna win us Florida. It's trending Republican because old, white boomers are moving there in droves. It's gone.
I mean.... traditional candidates have been losing ground in FL for years as it is. Bernie was always going to be weak in FL - and therefore weak for others, if he got the nom. I think it's a simple fact that FL is trending hard to the GOP and it has been for years.
Yeah, I think there are a large amount of voters that just want to beat Trump and if there's a clear front runner then the whole party needs to unite behind them and make it happen.
I don't know how to express my thoughts, but if Bernie is the obvious front runner and some fuckery goes on during a brokered convention that leads to somebody else who isn't incredibly close in delegates, it's going to be a lot more than just Bernie supporters who will be pissed.
And holy fuck, watching NBC news and they seriously had a headline saying Biden was in second in Nevada, and then mentioning Buttigieg. No mention of Sanders and the phrasing made it sound like Pete won. Even my wife who has no love for Bernie was completely confused. Took another 20 minutes for the news to put up a better headline saying Bernie won - and in both segments they mention Russian meddling and have a clip of James Carville calling anybody who thinks Bernie can win "a fool".
If anything we should be focusing on Texas. Sanders has a legit chance of flipping that state and if Democrats can keep winning there then republicans are done for.
Someone should ask Warren what she thinks is the market solution to the multiple housing crises affecting our richest cities. I'm not someone who wants 100% centrally managed economy but "I believe in markets" is laughable when we're being swamped in housing crises and ballooning healthcare debacles, to say the least of child hunger, income inequality and even the recent Boeing 737 MAX failures. Charter schools? The list goes on. The best thing you can say in favor of "markets" is it produces neat gadgets and lots of entertainment.
This is why I roll my eyes any time someone says Warren is not that different from Sanders. Even though I like Warren, I see a huge difference between their perceptions of the economy. Sanders is a materialist in the Marxist tradition, he looks at who's hurting and then gets mad about it. Warren is fundamentally a Capitalism cheerleader because she was raised into Liberalism. She defaults to support of markets, and then finds a position to cover her moral misgivings. Her best trait is that she's willing to admit when she's wrong, but I'd rather have someone who just placed people's material needs on top of the priority list.
This is why I roll my eyes any time someone says Warren is not that different from Sanders. Even though I like Warren, I see a huge difference between their perceptions of the economy. Sanders is a materialist in the Marxist tradition, he looks at who's hurting and then gets mad about it. Warren is fundamentally a Capitalism cheerleader because she was raised into Liberalism. She defaults to support of markets, and then finds a position to cover her moral misgivings. Her best trait is that she's willing to admit when she's wrong, but I'd rather have someone who just placed people's material needs on top of the priority list.
Last edited:
That is definitely not 1500-2000. (Things that going to a high school with 4000 kids unexpectedly prepares you for)
VA's in the bag. It's a bad state for Bernie in the primaries though where him winning it requires a hyper-divided field.
Green Papers. Am I typing with invisble ink? If they're not an expert they shouldn't be making false declarative statements.
GP is a legit website that does the correct math with the right data. Their numbers are accurate.
No need to thank me anyone. But if you want to believe NBC(apparently) and Pete is getting no delegates from NV then whatever floats your boat.
The major networks hate both progressive candidates and have been ignoring them, because they are a threat to the corporatocracy those corporations thrive under and derive their power from. Warren has been basically ignored, even as she is having a groundswell after the last debate. A CBS poll today puts her in 2nd place nationally, yet hardly anyone is talking about it.
The Castro thing was always going to hurt. But the substance of it isn't unlike Obama's perspective on Castro. The only difference is Obama made the "he's bad but did good things" point, and Sanders is making the "he's bad but did good things in order to stay in power and continue to do bad things" point.
It ruins their beautiful progressive vs moderate graphics.
in her "i believe in markets" statement, it appears she explicitly stated that markets don't work for healthcare and education, so it's a bit strange to include those two examples here.
(her plan to deal with housing crisis, as a i recall from one of the debates last year, was "we should build more housing, for people to live in, that's actually affordable and not those luxury condos that get built and labeled as affordable housing even though they largely stay empty because no one can afford them)
The place that has its domain for sale? Like honestly with as irritated as you sound it would have saved you a lot more time to just link it.
Yeah it's just a shallow answer that goes part of the way to understanding the core problem at play but stops before going all the way for ~reasons~. I mean, they're reasons that are very politically obvious, of course, but still. If you are intelligent enough to realize and accept that certain things are too important for "markets" to treat responsibly or solve the problems of, like healthcare or education, then you're acknowledging an inherent unfairness and exploitativeness in markets that you're only deciding to address because the problems caused by them are so visible, disruptive, and plainly cruel. But the exact same argument holds for virtually everything else you mention.
Markets "work" for things of completely trivial importance, though even in the case of aforementioned gadgets, we're choking the Earth to death continuing to make them. So even then the end-result of those markets for extravagant luxury goods is completely impossible to morally justify without some sort of severe restrictions from the state. This is one of those core philosophical disagreements between Bernie and Warren that just sort of gets brushed aside for reasons I don't understand.
I just don't get the aggressiveness. the other person was off by 3 so it's especially silly. and Buttigieg is indeed less than 15% in the final count, which people generally would think means you don't get delegates.
Florida is only getting redder and redder every election cycle. None of the dem candidates were polling well there so i don't see how that is on Bernie. Bernie was actually doing the best out of all of them (expect Bloomberg but Bloomberg isn't a democrat)
You're welcome. Don't forget the website for future delegate totals. It's nice to see how and where the delegates come from than just a whole number.
her plans are fine. it's just her messaging is dogshit. who really is enthusiastic about markets and being a capitalist? like I study economics and basically they're the only people I know who fetishize the market system like she does. it's such a weird message to a specific, non-significant group of people.
I think those are mice, not rats.i guess i just don't see the resemblance?
No joke. Outside of the tri county area, no Democrat has a prayer here.
The "market solution" is reducing artificial zoning restrictions in order to allow businesses that want to build housing in order to sell it to people the ability to do so. In the places with the bad housing markets, there's a gigantic difference between the cost of new construction and the price- the margins are such that the issue isn't a lack of desire to take advantage of the easy money sitting on the table, the issue is that businesses that would normally love the massive margins in play are being prevented from doing that by anti-growth government regulations imposed by NIMBYs. The problem with building new housing is fundamentally a political problem causing an economic crisis that needs a political solution. Not a fundamentally economic issue.that needs a political solution.
No need to wonder about Warren's plan for housing, it's on her site: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/safe-affordable-housing
She recently re-introduced her American Housing and Economic Mobility Act, which would "invest $500 billion over the next ten years to build, preserve, and rehab units that will be affordable to lower-income families." An independent analysis estimates that will also bring down rental costs by 10%. Not enough in my opinion for heavily-rental cities like LA and NYC, but it's something. It also creates a down payment assistance program for first-time buyers in areas of traditionally discriminated groups.
mice usually have bigger ears in proportion to their heads than rats
So what's her motive for believing in markets if it can't handle healthcare, education, and housing? I mean, yes, there's other things to worry about aside from those three, so what are they that they would produce such faith in the system in her?
Like, this is equivalent to conducting an experiment with the expectation of getting X, getting Y then saying "I believe in X regardless". This goes back to what I was saying earlier about her heritage. She trusts the authority figures in her life far more than she trusts the real world or her own convictions. If the popular consensus is "markets are good" then she believes that. If her family history tells her she has Cherokee heritage, she believes that too.
This is my explanation for why she used to be a Republican. The academic consensus was really once "Reaganomics works", so of course she believed that as well. What separates her from other Reaganites is she's willing to admit Reagan was wrong, but not willing to admit capitalism was a mistake.
All on my "forwards from grandma" racist emails come from Florida residents.
You could try not acting like an "asshole" about it, for starters. Maybe more people would listen and engage with you
- Status