Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
purplerat wrote:The problem I'm seeing for Bernie isn't that people don't like him or that people like Clinton better. The problem is the last guy who ran an insurgent campaign against Hillary with lofty idealistic goals and won but never lived up to those ideals. Obviously Obama was better than any of the republicans he eventually beat out for the White house but I think a lot of people look at Bernie and see him going the same route as Obama, which is that he basically ends up right where Clinton would be anyways. So if that's what we are going to get either way then the smart move is to take the sure thing and not risk the general election. It's simple pragmatism.
purplerat wrote:The problem I'm seeing for Bernie isn't that people don't like him or that people like Clinton better. The problem is the last guy who ran an insurgent campaign against Hillary with lofty idealistic goals and won but never lived up to those ideals. Obviously Obama was better than any of the republicans he eventually beat out for the White house but I think a lot of people look at Bernie and see him going the same route as Obama, which is that he basically ends up right where Clinton would be anyways. So if that's what we are going to get either way then the smart move is to take the sure thing and not risk the general election. It's simple pragmatism.
Willie71 wrote:You can get it from the horses mouth here: Will Bernie Sanders ask his supporters to vote for Clinton?
Watch and find out. I love his answer.
Thommo wrote:Willie71 wrote:You can get it from the horses mouth here: Will Bernie Sanders ask his supporters to vote for Clinton?
Watch and find out. I love his answer.
Presidential candidate doesn't want to be a leader. And the important question to get his support is "what will you do for us?".
I really don't think he came over well there at all.
Teague wrote:I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.
Teague wrote:He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.
proudfootz wrote:From my perspective the USA is far enough to the 'right' as it is. There needs to be a correction to bring us into line with modern nations vis a vis health, education, housing, etc.
In the USA matters are already pretty extreme, and some don't want to see things get any worse.
Thommo wrote:Teague wrote:I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.
That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.Teague wrote:He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.
I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.
It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.
Saim wrote:proudfootz wrote:From my perspective the USA is far enough to the 'right' as it is. There needs to be a correction to bring us into line with modern nations vis a vis health, education, housing, etc.
In the USA matters are already pretty extreme, and some don't want to see things get any worse.
I get that but we're moving in the same direction everywhere. Even in Australia they started dismantling the welfare state, despite the fact that we weren't really hit by the financial crisis in the same way as Western Europe or the US were. I get that you don't want things to get worse, but these issues are systemic and ingrained and are not going to be solved (or, conversely, set in stone forever) by one presidency. We're on an uphill battle in the entire West because of the nature of how our economies and political systems work. The fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Asia is putting a lot of strain on Social democracy and the Western middle class, and America is being hit harder by it because you started off in a worse position already.
proudfootz wrote:Thommo wrote:Teague wrote:I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.
That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.Teague wrote:He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.
I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.
It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.
Likewise, that could be projecting something onto Sanders. It's a bit of a stretch to listen to what he says in this clip and interpret that to mean he doesn't want to be accountable in some weaselly way.
proudfootz wrote:I'm not interested in anyone 'squirming', but I am interested in the Democratic leadership learning from the phenomenally successful campaign Sanders is running. Why is he popular? Is he that charismatic? It's his programs and policies people are responding to, and writing off the voters Sanders has energized because they're not rich enough to afford to buy politicians off the shelf is exactly the kind of business-as-usual 'pragmatism' that keeps voter turnout low.
Thommo wrote:Teague wrote:I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.
That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.Teague wrote:He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.
I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.
It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.
Thommo wrote:proudfootz wrote:Thommo wrote:Teague wrote:I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.
That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.Teague wrote:He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.
I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.
It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.
Likewise, that could be projecting something onto Sanders. It's a bit of a stretch to listen to what he says in this clip and interpret that to mean he doesn't want to be accountable in some weaselly way.
How is it projecting onto Sanders to say that the American public rates leadership or strength in a leader highly? It's not even a statement about Sanders for goodness sake.
proudfootz wrote:I'm not interested in anyone 'squirming', but I am interested in the Democratic leadership learning from the phenomenally successful campaign Sanders is running. Why is he popular? Is he that charismatic? It's his programs and policies people are responding to, and writing off the voters Sanders has energized because they're not rich enough to afford to buy politicians off the shelf is exactly the kind of business-as-usual 'pragmatism' that keeps voter turnout low.
He's not even winning, let alone being phenomenally successful, he's not even likely to be as successful as Mitt Romney, who at least got a nomination.
I'm glad you aren't interested in seeing anyone squirming, but I really don't see what that has to do with anything. The only person I'm assuming that's true of is the person who said it, I don't think it's beneficial for other people to come in and somehow pretend the comment was directed at anyone else.
The idea that Clinton is "writing off" voters is definitely projection too by the way. And saying that's why voter turnout is low is equally daft. Voter turnout is low in pretty much all of the countries in the world where living standards are good and where the best social safety nets exist. The explanation is not down to any one single identifiable factor in such simplistic a way.
Teague wrote:Thommo wrote:Teague wrote:I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.
That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.Teague wrote:He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.
I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.
It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.
I think Sander's comes across as the strongest candidate there is and has been for decades. He's sincere and is obviously not afraid of the establishment and is willing to take them on. That's a guy with balls and a leader imo and why he's doing so well with young people. Personally, I think he comes across great. He says what he's going to do and doesn't bullshit which is refreshing.
proudfootz wrote:Thommo wrote:proudfootz wrote:Thommo wrote:
That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.
I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.
It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.
Likewise, that could be projecting something onto Sanders. It's a bit of a stretch to listen to what he says in this clip and interpret that to mean he doesn't want to be accountable in some weaselly way.
How is it projecting onto Sanders to say that the American public rates leadership or strength in a leader highly? It's not even a statement about Sanders for goodness sake.
You used the word 'weasel' - where did that come from?
You said something about 'accountability' - where did Sanders say anything about not wanting to be accountable?
You imagined all that.proudfootz wrote:I'm not interested in anyone 'squirming', but I am interested in the Democratic leadership learning from the phenomenally successful campaign Sanders is running. Why is he popular? Is he that charismatic? It's his programs and policies people are responding to, and writing off the voters Sanders has energized because they're not rich enough to afford to buy politicians off the shelf is exactly the kind of business-as-usual 'pragmatism' that keeps voter turnout low.
He's not even winning, let alone being phenomenally successful, he's not even likely to be as successful as Mitt Romney, who at least got a nomination.
Funny, Sanders has taken quite a few states from Clinton. So, yes, for an unknown, uncharismatic guy, Sanders is doing quite well against Clinton who's been on the national scene for decades.
People are turning out in droves to see him, which is in contrast to the anemic rallies of the other candidates. Turnout for the primaries have been shattering records because Sanders is in the race.
He outpolls Clinton against all the Republicans in head to head contests.
So I think that's doing pretty well.I'm glad you aren't interested in seeing anyone squirming, but I really don't see what that has to do with anything. The only person I'm assuming that's true of is the person who said it, I don't think it's beneficial for other people to come in and somehow pretend the comment was directed at anyone else.
If you want a private conversation with another poster, send them a PM.The idea that Clinton is "writing off" voters is definitely projection too by the way. And saying that's why voter turnout is low is equally daft. Voter turnout is low in pretty much all of the countries in the world where living standards are good and where the best social safety nets exist. The explanation is not down to any one single identifiable factor in such simplistic a way.
There are possibly many reasons why turnout is low.
It's interesting that in this primary season, Sanders is energizing voters and turnout is higher than it's been for a long time.
Maybe it has something to do with the phenomenal turnout at his rallies?
proudfootz wrote:Teague wrote:Thommo wrote:Teague wrote:I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.
That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.Teague wrote:He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.
I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.
It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.
I think Sander's comes across as the strongest candidate there is and has been for decades. He's sincere and is obviously not afraid of the establishment and is willing to take them on. That's a guy with balls and a leader imo and why he's doing so well with young people. Personally, I think he comes across great. He says what he's going to do and doesn't bullshit which is refreshing.
If it comes down to Sanders v Trump in the election, it will be interesting to see whether US voters go for the integrity of Sanders or for the demagoguery of Trump.
From the perspective here on the ground, I'm afraid it's too close to call.
proudfootz wrote:You used the word 'weasel' - where did that come from?
You said something about 'accountability' - where did Sanders say anything about not wanting to be accountable?
You imagined all that.
proudfootz wrote:If you want a private conversation with another poster, send them a PM.
Thommo wrote:proudfootz wrote:You used the word 'weasel' - where did that come from?
You said something about 'accountability' - where did Sanders say anything about not wanting to be accountable?
You imagined all that.
No, you imagined that I said that he said it. But forget it, I've learned from past experience what conversing with you is like and I'm not prepared to go into more than a single post explaining a couple of plain sentences because the original point is already lost. If you don't find them clear, that's just too bad.proudfootz wrote:If you want a private conversation with another poster, send them a PM.
Yeah, this is the kind of rhetorical dishonesty that gets so dull. Deliberately misrepresenting one comment because I objected to you misrepresenting another.
Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests