Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I wouldn't really go so far as to say the success of Sanders was indicative of anything, let alone of the youth or the population as a whole was moving farther left. There is no indication of the people who supported Sanders supporting him for his actual policies (if they were, you would see them lining up behind Clinton, not a libertarian). To me it is similar to the Nader voters. These are people who don't really get into the minutiae of policy at all. These voters are the same voters that arise every election. They want to stick it to "the man". Kucinich, Paul Sr., Nader, etc. they (young voters) eventually align with one of the two parties (because they start thinking about practical results as opposed to idealistic pursuits and idealism becomes quaint). Hell, Bob Dylan was thinking this stuff in his youthful drug addled state: "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now". People tend to take stuff overly seriously when they haven't lived all that much. Just look at Frazz to see what happens to us as we age. He deflects all serious discussion with humor because he knows, not because he doesn't take it seriously.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Just look at Frazz to see what happens to us as we age. He deflects all serious discussion with humor because he knows, not because he doesn't take it seriously.

Nah... he lives by the Snake Plisskin principle:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
There is no indication of the people who supported Sanders supporting him for his actual policies (if they were, you would see them lining up behind Clinton, not a libertarian).

Sounds like you aren't paying much attention then. There are a lot of us who supported Sanders and now support Clinton as the best of the alternatives. Yes, there were clueless idealists who don't even know what any of the policy issues were, but there's a lot more to it than that.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
There is no indication of the people who supported Sanders supporting him for his actual policies (if they were, you would see them lining up behind Clinton, not a libertarian).

Sounds like you aren't paying much attention then. There are a lot of us who supported Sanders and now support Clinton as the best of the alternatives. Yes, there were clueless idealists who don't even know what any of the policy issues were, but there's a lot more to it than that.

I don't think you fit into the group I was discussing at all--you seem like the type of person who whould know why they are doing something. That doesn't dismiss the overall point though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-will-millennials-start-liking-hillary-clinton/2016/09/22/4f2e0de8-80fb-11e6-a52d-9a865a0ed0d4_story.html?utm_term=.00fd07f1c232

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I don't think you fit into the group I was discussing at all--you seem like the type of person who whould know why they are doing something. That doesn't dismiss the overall point though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-will-millennials-start-liking-hillary-clinton/2016/09/22/4f2e0de8-80fb-11e6-a52d-9a865a0ed0d4_story.html?utm_term=.00fd07f1c232

Then maybe you shouldn't generalize about a whole group of people when you know that the generalization isn't true. In your own words: "There is no indication of the people who supported Sanders supporting him for his actual policies".

And even your own source disagrees with you. It presents the theory that younger voters see Clinton as inevitable and are thinking that it's safe to make a protest vote, not genuinely hoping that the libertarian candidate wins. In previous polls younger voters did overwhelmingly favor Clinton, which directly contradicts your idea that they're all bitter ex-Sanders zealots.

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Just look at Frazz to see what happens to us as we age. He deflects all serious discussion with humor because he knows, not because he doesn't take it seriously.

Nah... he lives by the Snake Plisskin principle:

That's funny, but I don't think that is true at all. He cares. He cares deeply. His kid just went off to college, he has to try to find a way to help pay for it, he needs to help the student find/pay for insurance, he tries to find a way to square his kids' views on society with his own, he cares about his dog, he cares about bacon tax. He cares. He deflects because sometimes it is easier to than to debate something with someone in a war gaming thread populated with people half his age who seem to know everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I don't think you fit into the group I was discussing at all--you seem like the type of person who whould know why they are doing something. That doesn't dismiss the overall point though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-will-millennials-start-liking-hillary-clinton/2016/09/22/4f2e0de8-80fb-11e6-a52d-9a865a0ed0d4_story.html?utm_term=.00fd07f1c232

Then maybe you shouldn't generalize about a whole group of people when you know that the generalization isn't true. In your own words: "There is no indication of the people who supported Sanders supporting him for his actual policies".

And even your own source disagrees with you. It presents the theory that younger voters see Clinton as inevitable and are thinking that it's safe to make a protest vote, not genuinely hoping that the libertarian candidate wins. In previous polls younger voters did overwhelmingly favor Clinton, which directly contradicts your idea that they're all bitter ex-Sanders zealots.

Okay, I'll bite. Did you support Sanders because of his policies? Even the ones that you, yourself, being educated enough to realize they were just pie in the sky ideals that had no basis in reality? Or were you just putting up a protest vot, you know the one, you rag on Whembly for?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Okay, I'll bite. Did you support Sanders because of his policies? Even the ones that you, yourself, being educated enough to realize they were just pie in the sky ideals that had no basis in reality? Or were you just putting up a protest vot, you know the one, you rag on Whembly for?

Why are you assuming that support for a candidate means endorsing every single one of their policies? I, like many people, supported Sanders because he was willing to push his party to the left. Some of his policy ideas weren't supported by the math, but most of his general ideas were reasonable and figuring out the math to make it work is something that can be dealt with in the long process of turning an idea into a law. Despite not being the perfect candidate, he was more appealing than Clinton (the only other relevant candidate). And now, despite Clinton's flaws, she is the clear choice over Trump.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Okay, I'll bite. Did you support Sanders because of his policies? Even the ones that you, yourself, being educated enough to realize they were just pie in the sky ideals that had no basis in reality? Or were you just putting up a protest vot, you know the one, you rag on Whembly for?

Why are you assuming that support for a candidate means endorsing every single one of their policies? I, like many people, supported Sanders because he was willing to push his party to the left. Some of his policy ideas weren't supported by the math, but most of his general ideas were reasonable and figuring out the math to make it work is something that can be dealt with in the long process of turning an idea into a law. Despite not being the perfect candidate, he was more appealing than Clinton (the only other relevant candidate). And now, despite Clinton's flaws, she is the clear choice over Trump.

I don't assume that, I Support Clinton, but don't really align with her foreign policy. Sanders did want to push his party to the left (if by "his party" we'll assume he was putting his name forward as a democrat because he actually believed in the party and not for political expediency), but what indication do you have he accomplished any of his goals? Lip service? I guess he got that at the convention. A bit of movement from Clinton to the left on her policies? Maybe. We'll see. As to figuring out the math, I sort of expect a candidate, or their team to do that when they propose it. Call me crazy, but I don't subscribe to saying the most radical thing that pops into my mind just to give me a position to negotiate down from. You can have the art of the deal philosophy, thank you very much. He might have been appealing, but consider the appeal--illogical, unworkable math, a way of speaking that wasn't the political norm (the non politically correct crowd applauds you), what else?

 Peregrine wrote:
The success of Sanders and weak enthusiasm for Clinton will likely push the democrats to the left,

I wouldn't be so sure about "will". Should, perhaps, but Clinton very much is the Democratic establishment and she's more interested in trading favours with Republicans than standing in solidarity with the poor. The party is more likely to collapse under the weight of the Clinton machine than move significantly to the left (much less become actually leftist).

 Peregrine wrote:

And, speaking anecdotally, the "Clinton is just as bad" element of the left doesn't seem too impressive. They're great at reposting facebook memes, but they don't have much more than "the system sucks" outrage and a love of absurd conspiracy theories. It's the kind of thing people grow out of and then look back on with some embarrassment. And I think it's something where the "radicals" are really loud but outnumbered by people who liked Sanders but aren't going to put on the tinfoil hat about all the anti-Clinton stuff.

There isn't much in the way of radical leftist mass organisation in the US because most of it has been crushed. People simply say that the system sucks because that is currently the only thing they can do with the glaringly obvious insight that the system is, in fact, terrible. Things are going to have to get a bit more intense (and everything is likely building up to that) before truly powerful movements can form.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Sanders did want to push his party to the left (if by "his party" we'll assume he was putting his name forward as a democrat because he actually believed in the party and not for political expediency), but what indication do you have he accomplished any of his goals?

We don't have any indication yet because we can't have any indication yet. This is something that won't be known either way until the democrats start passing new laws, and new candidates start their primary campaigns. But what we do know is that Sanders demonstrated that there are a lot of voters who want a shift to the left. That's a lesson, much like Trump's success with a zero-substance appeal to the worst racists and angry old white men is likely going to drive the republican party in that direction in the future regardless of who is president in 2017.

As to figuring out the math, I sort of expect a candidate, or their team to do that when they propose it.

Then you don't really understand politics. It always works this way, campaign promises are nothing more than broad ideas about what direction a candidate wants to go in. They're always full of holes and need work to become viable policies and new laws. You can say that you don't like it, but it's something that's pretty much universal in (US) politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure about "will". Should, perhaps, but Clinton very much is the Democratic establishment and she's more interested in trading favours with Republicans than standing in solidarity with the poor. The party is more likely to collapse under the weight of the Clinton machine than move significantly to the left (much less become actually leftist).

Yes, Clinton is a politician and cares about power. That's why Sanders' success is likely to produce a shift to the left. It's a very clear statement that there are left-wing votes to be won, and even the most cynical power-hungry opportunist can understand that taking advantage of this is a way to win elections. It doesn't matter if a politician is helping the poor out of genuine altruism or just to secure votes and win the next election as long as the end result is still help for people who need it.

There isn't much in the way of radical leftist mass organisation in the US because most of it has been crushed. People simply say that the system sucks because that is currently the only thing they can do with the glaringly obvious insight that the system is, in fact, terrible. Things are going to have to get a bit more intense (and everything is likely building up to that) before truly powerful movements can form.

No, it's more than just that. The people I'm thinking of aren't leftists in need of mass organization, they're stupid people believing stupid conspiracy theories and reposting stupid facebook memes because they don't know any better. That's why these people went from rabidly supporting Sanders to crucifying him as a traitor as soon as he endorsed Clinton, and are simultaneously supporting the libertarian party (aka "extreme right-wing economic policy but less Jesus") and the green party just because they're both third-party options. That isn't a coherent left-wing ideology, it's the same old childish outrage that is always present. It's just easier to get attention by posting facebook memes 24/7 than in the past, where you actually had to talk to people to convince them of your fringe political theories.

And Ted Cruz has endorsed Trump.
By Facebook post.
No speech, no press release, no article published directly through a major news organization.
But a Facebook post.
Probably because he just didn't have the balls to actually say the words aloud just yet.

I actually read it, too, despite my loathing for him, and despite that loathing increasing with every line I read. He even used his utter argument regarding keeping the internet free.


And the worst part is that I actually read some of the comments.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And Ted Cruz has endorsed Trump.
By Facebook post.
No speech, no press release, no article published directly through a major news organization.
But a Facebook post.
Probably because he just didn't have the balls to actually say the words aloud just yet.

I actually read it, too, despite my loathing for him, and despite that loathing increasing with every line I read. He even used his utter argument regarding keeping the internet free.


And the worst part is that I actually read some of the comments.

Don't do that to yourself man. You're a good dude don't subject yourself to that level of insanity. I don't even want to try to imagine what the comments on a Facebook post of Cruz endorsing Trump that's light years beyond the Tyson zone into a whole new realm of crazy.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And Ted Cruz has endorsed Trump.
By Facebook post.
No speech, no press release, no article published directly through a major news organization.
But a Facebook post.
Probably because he just didn't have the balls to actually say the words aloud just yet.

I actually read it, too, despite my loathing for him, and despite that loathing increasing with every line I read. He even used his utter argument regarding keeping the internet free.


And the worst part is that I actually read some of the comments.

Eh... I disagree.

If anything, he's forced to do this by the RNC leadership (maybe threatened him by primarying his seat).

It's a luke warm endorsement, really focused justifying it by being #NeverHillary.

This'll give the Cruz supporters an opening to renounce their #NeverTrump stance.

We'll see if that works (I have my doubt).

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it's more than just that. The people I'm thinking of aren't leftists in need of mass organization, they're stupid people believing stupid conspiracy theories and reposting stupid facebook memes because they don't know any better. That's why these people went from rabidly supporting Sanders to crucifying him as a traitor as soon as he endorsed Clinton, and are simultaneously supporting the libertarian party (aka "extreme right-wing economic policy but less Jesus") and the green party just because they're both third-party options. That isn't a coherent left-wing ideology, it's the same old childish outrage that is always present. It's just easier to get attention by posting facebook memes 24/7 than in the past, where you actually had to talk to people to convince them of your fringe political theories.

And here is where I see your argument is essentially the same as mine. See my post at the top of the page. We are saying basically the same thing. Where we differ, I think, is that you see an actual movement underlying the real Sanders supporters from the posers. I don't really see it. Time will tell, I guess, but right now those posers seem to be about the same as we get in every election.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
And here is where I see your argument is essentially the same as mine. See my post at the top of the page. We are saying basically the same thing. Where we differ, I think, is that you see an actual movement underlying the real Sanders supporters from the posers. I don't really see it. Time will tell, I guess, but right now those posers seem to be about the same as we get in every election.

What I see is that, in addition to the people we're both criticizing, there are a lot of people who genuinely liked Sanders for reasons besides being young and rebellious. Some of them thought he was a great candidate, some of them thought he was the best of the available options. But you don't win elections with the angry facebook meme crowd, as demonstrated by the fact that third-party candidates continue to see "win 5% of the vote" as their optimistic goal. There had to have been a substantial number of reasonable Sanders supporters to get him anywhere near a competitive fight for the nomination.

Possibly the greatest vine ever!
https://vine.co/v/5vz6jnFDIXU

And this... Cruz need to work on his campaign poster... no?

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And Ted Cruz has endorsed Trump.
By Facebook post.
No speech, no press release, no article published directly through a major news organization.
But a Facebook post.
Probably because he just didn't have the balls to actually say the words aloud just yet.

I actually read it, too, despite my loathing for him, and despite that loathing increasing with every line I read. He even used his utter argument regarding keeping the internet free.


And the worst part is that I actually read some of the comments.

Eh... I disagree.

If anything, he's forced to do this by the RNC leadership (maybe threatened him by primarying his seat).

It's a luke warm endorsement, really focused justifying it by being #NeverHillary.

This'll give the Cruz supporters an opening to renounce their #NeverTrump stance.

We'll see if that works (I have my doubt).

Part of me sees it as party loyalty...and/or pressure...as finally overwhelming his resistance. More frighteningly, I also think he sees what I see, and that being that the hairpiece is going to be the next POTUS. Yep, I believe it's going to happen. Now you'll excuse me while I wash the vomit from my mouth...

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And Ted Cruz has endorsed Trump.
By Facebook post.
No speech, no press release, no article published directly through a major news organization.
But a Facebook post.
Probably because he just didn't have the balls to actually say the words aloud just yet.

I actually read it, too, despite my loathing for him, and despite that loathing increasing with every line I read. He even used his utter argument regarding keeping the internet free.


And the worst part is that I actually read some of the comments.

Eh... I disagree.

If anything, he's forced to do this by the RNC leadership (maybe threatened him by primarying his seat).

It's a luke warm endorsement, really focused justifying it by being #NeverHillary.

This'll give the Cruz supporters an opening to renounce their #NeverTrump stance.

We'll see if that works (I have my doubt).

Part of me sees it as party loyalty...and/or pressure...as finally overwhelming his resistance. More frighteningly, I also think he sees what I see, and that being that the hairpiece is going to be the next POTUS. Yep, I believe it's going to happen. Now you'll excuse me while I wash the vomit from my mouth...

I think I figured it out...

His wealthy backers are pro-Trump(The Mercer family and Peter Thiel ), and he must of gotten the message.

EDIT: wait... you think Trump is going to win!?!? o.O

 whembly wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And Ted Cruz has endorsed Trump.
By Facebook post.
No speech, no press release, no article published directly through a major news organization.
But a Facebook post.
Probably because he just didn't have the balls to actually say the words aloud just yet.

I actually read it, too, despite my loathing for him, and despite that loathing increasing with every line I read. He even used his utter argument regarding keeping the internet free.


And the worst part is that I actually read some of the comments.

Eh... I disagree.

If anything, he's forced to do this by the RNC leadership (maybe threatened him by primarying his seat).

It's a luke warm endorsement, really focused justifying it by being #NeverHillary.

This'll give the Cruz supporters an opening to renounce their #NeverTrump stance.

We'll see if that works (I have my doubt).

Part of me sees it as party loyalty...and/or pressure...as finally overwhelming his resistance. More frighteningly, I also think he sees what I see, and that being that the hairpiece is going to be the next POTUS. Yep, I believe it's going to happen. Now you'll excuse me while I wash the vomit from my mouth...

I think I figured it out...

His wealthy backers are pro-Trump(The Mercer family and Peter Thiel ), and he must of gotten the message.

EDIT: wait... you think Trump is going to win!?!? o.O

The commonality of backers is a very good point and probably the deciding factor in this.

As to thinking POTUS Trump becoming a reality? Yes, unfortunately, I do.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And Ted Cruz has endorsed Trump.
By Facebook post.
No speech, no press release, no article published directly through a major news organization.
But a Facebook post.
Probably because he just didn't have the balls to actually say the words aloud just yet.

I actually read it, too, despite my loathing for him, and despite that loathing increasing with every line I read. He even used his utter argument regarding keeping the internet free.


And the worst part is that I actually read some of the comments.

Eh... I disagree.

If anything, he's forced to do this by the RNC leadership (maybe threatened him by primarying his seat).

It's a luke warm endorsement, really focused justifying it by being #NeverHillary.

This'll give the Cruz supporters an opening to renounce their #NeverTrump stance.

We'll see if that works (I have my doubt).

Part of me sees it as party loyalty...and/or pressure...as finally overwhelming his resistance. More frighteningly, I also think he sees what I see, and that being that the hairpiece is going to be the next POTUS. Yep, I believe it's going to happen. Now you'll excuse me while I wash the vomit from my mouth...

I think I figured it out...

His wealthy backers are pro-Trump(The Mercer family and Peter Thiel ), and he must of gotten the message.

EDIT: wait... you think Trump is going to win!?!? o.O

The commonality of backers is a very good point and probably the deciding factor in this.

Yup. Oddly enough, this may reform his standing among his peers. (as long as he doesn't lead another shutdown )

As to thinking POTUS Trump becoming a reality? Yes, unfortunately, I do.

I know he has a chance... but it think it's more like this:

 whembly wrote:

Eh... I disagree.

If anything, he's forced to do this by the RNC leadership (maybe threatened him by primarying his seat).

And his fellow GOP Senators, most of whom find the man insufferable; something on which we agree.

 whembly wrote:

This'll give the Cruz supporters an opening to renounce their #NeverTrump stance.

They've had that opening for some time now. It isn't like Cruz has absolute control over the people that voted for him.

Regardless, I'm sure Cruz actually wants Clinton to win because he wants another shot at the big chair in 2020; though he could still take one if Trump wins. And I'm sure that sort of ambition is exactly why so many of his fellow Senators despise him, as they realize the big chair isn't all it is cracked up to be and the rhetorical hoops you need to jump through in order to get the GOP nomination work against the GOP agenda.

The one that sticks in my mind the most is "Abolish the IRS!...but not really." Dude knows the IRS cannot be abolished, his website straight up said as much, but it's a nice talking point for supporters who don't think about what that entails, and won't read the "...but not really." element of the policy position. All they see is "abolish the IRS" and assume "no federal taxes". These people are dumb.

So... Obama vetoes 9/11 bill, setting up showdown with Congress.

You guys know me as the Anti-Obama... but, I gotta say, I think he's right to veto this.

If this bill get overturned, this could open our legal system in ways that I believe was unforseen that could severely impact a President's Foreign Policy ability.

Thoughts?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

This'll give the Cruz supporters an opening to renounce their #NeverTrump stance.

They've had that opening for some time now. It isn't like Cruz has absolute control over the people that voted for him.

About a third of the comments I read on Cruz's Facebook post (before my brain started to bleed too badly) were from people stating they no longer support Cruz because of this. There was even a frontpage opinion piece on CNN talking about how Cruz's greatest moment was when he stood his ground at the RNC and how he's thrown it all away.

Regardless, I'm sure Cruz actually wants Clinton to win because he wants another shot at the big chair in 2020; though he could still take one if Trump wins. And I'm sure that sort of ambition is exactly why so many of his fellow Senators despise him, as they realize the big chair isn't all it is cracked up to be and the rhetorical hoops you need to jump through in order to get the GOP nomination work against the GOP agenda.

There's also that story from a few days back that the GOP head was suggesting that any of the candidates who pledged to support the nominee, but don't endorse Trump, may not be even allowed to run for it in 2020. Cruz is getting something out of this from the GOP, though, I'm just not sure what. His buddy being on Trump's SC list just isn't a big enough bone to throw to him for it. It could be that he'll get support for his attempt to block the government from releasing control of ICANN

The one that sticks in my mind the most is "Abolish the IRS!...but not really." Dude knows the IRS cannot be abolished, his website straight up said as much, but it's a nice talking point for supporters who don't think about what that entails, and won't read the "...but not really." element of the policy position. All they see is "abolish the IRS" and assume "no federal taxes". These people are dumb.

The ICANN thing is what's pissing me off right now. Cruz even made it one of his listed reasons for endorsing Trump, and of course had to use the scare words of saying it will give control of our internet to Russia, China, and Iran. Someone needs to tell this jackass that websites start with WWW and not USW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... Obama vetoes 9/11 bill, setting up showdown with Congress.

You guys know me as the Anti-Obama... but, I gotta say, I think he's right to veto this.

If this bill get overturned, this could open our legal system in ways that I believe was unforseen that could severely impact a President's Foreign Policy ability.

Thoughts?

I had heard about this. The idea of allowing US citizens to sue a foreign government is not a Pandora's Box we want to open, because that door swings both ways. Just look at the history of the CIA. Are we ready for everyone they screwed with all over the world to sue us?

 whembly wrote:

You guys know me as the Anti-Obama... but, I gotta say, I think he's right to veto this.

How would they actually file suit? Saudi courts could just say "No" and the US would have no recourse except for invasion.

 whembly wrote:

Thoughts?

Stupid grandstanding.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You guys know me as the Anti-Obama... but, I gotta say, I think he's right to veto this.

How would they actually file suit? Saudi courts courts could just say "No" and the US would have no recourse except for invasion.

In US courts. (not in foreign courts).

 whembly wrote:

In US courts. (not in foreign courts).

And where do the plaintiffs get restitution from?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

In US courts. (not in foreign courts).

And where do the plaintiffs get restitution from?

Good question... my assumption is any assets held in US territories.

 whembly wrote:

Good question... my assumption is any assets held in US territories.

My assumption is "They don't get any." and that the legislation is a joke.

When Ted Cruz refused to endorse Trump, I gained the tiniest shred of respect for him - a truly awful man who at least makes one really principled stand, you have to admire at least a little.

I'm glad I can go back to totally dismissing him in totality again.

 Ouze wrote:
When Ted Cruz refused to endorse Trump, I gained the tiniest shred of respect for him - a truly awful man who at least makes one really principled stand, you have to admire at least a little.

I'm glad I can go back to totally dismissing him in totality again.

Ditto, and yes, there is that prize at the bottom of the box!