Well during the hey-day of US capitalism capital was a lot less mobile than it is today, many industries and wealthy folks didn't really have a choice but to pay it where as now, they often do.
Indeed and that could have made an interesting conversation. Bregman's position is that he wants higher tax rates everywhere so that there is not the same opportunity to move to a low tax location, but I accept that would not be easy to implement.
A Native American described it to me this way, you are Native American only if a tribe claims you. Ancestry is not enough to make that claim. By her definition, you could say you have ancestry but you are not Native American.
So, is there a vet process or something? How does a nationality that doesn't use "tribes" measure it? Do I need to go to Scotland and get their permisson before I can call myself "Scottish"? Or is Native American somehow more special?
Hold, can I back this up a moment for a question? Is there a difference between having Native American ancestry, and "being" Native American? My great great grandfather was Cherokee on my mother's side, and Scottish on my father's side. If someone asks about my ancestry, my typically response is that "I'm Native American and Scottish", not "I have Native American and Scottish ancestry." Is there really a difference?
Culture.
Ever been to a powwow? No? You probably aren’t indigenous.
Is your mother or father part of a tribe or band? No? You probably aren’t indigenous.
Now that last one is tongue and cheek as the indigenous Canadians do have a greater housing crisis than the rest of us, and homelessness is rampant. Any efforts to help is more than welcome, just don’t turn around and say it isn’t enough. I really want to go back twenty years and calculate how much indigenous groups have received from the federal government as no amount of money seems to be helping them. It’s like their spinning their wheels and the government of the day is just throwing money at them saying “look we’re helping!” Without really doing anything but paying off the bureaucracy that they’ve created to address the problem... but I digress!
There is nothing wrong with saying, I have an ancestry that contains Cherokee. That is much different than saying I am Cherokee.
A Native American described it to me this way, you are Native American only if a tribe claims you. Ancestry is not enough to make that claim. By her definition, you could say you have ancestry but you are not Native American.
So, is there a vet process or something? How does a nationality that doesn't use "tribes" measure it? Do I need to go to Scotland and get their permisson before I can call myself "Scottish"? Or is Native American somehow more special?
Also Scotland won’t pay for your secondary education, but a indigenous band will (from money given by the federal government).
Indigenous people also don’t have to pay sales tax in Ontario. There are other benefits that a band gives people of Indian Status but those are the two big ones here.
Problem is, basically no one in the United States is more than 50% Native American. Between the genocide and the disease, Native American DNA only survived when it mixed with European and African DNA. If I can bring up the Cherokee chief again, he's 31/32 non-Native American, barely over 3% Native. I don't know what percent of X you need to be to call yourself X, but you'd think the standard would be somewhere in the double digits. I'm part Swedish, apparently, but not enough to call myself Swedish by ethnicity, considering the rest of me is overwhelmingly English.
So, does this mean we lower the percentage to qualify as Native American, so people we normally consider Native American still count? Or do we set the percentage at the same level as we'd expect from another group ("you have to be at least 50% Japanese to be an ethnically Japanese person"). Because the latter would mean Native Americans would be basically extinct. Most folks in Eurasia have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA, and we consider Neanderthals to be extinct.
I actually don't know. I knew Native Americans were a very tiny minority in the U.S., but until this controversy came up, I didn't realize how little Native American DNA is actually in the average Native American. There are actually non-Neanderthals who are more Neanderthal than the Cherokee chief is Cherokee.
Naturally, belonging to a specific cultural tribe would be a factor of the people you know, rather than your DNA. I'm referring to how we'd define the ethnicity, specifically.
Maybe we just shouldn't bother trying to pin down an inherently amorphous concept. It's not like "ethnicity" is anything more than an arbitrary group of allele frequencies.
She included herself in the Native American category and not in the white category. If you, 75% Italian by blood with a 100% Italian adopted family, were presented with 2 checkboxes, "Italian" and "Irish," would you check the Irish box? What if you weren't 25% Irish, but only 3.125% Irish? Which box would you check?
I'm telling you, it's weird.
I've checked both "Native American" and "White European" when presented with the question. I never check "White", because that's not a race and an incredibly stupid general term.
There maybe a glimmer of hope for democracy after all:
North Carolina will hold new elections in the 9th due to the alleged fraud.
And
Roger Stone is now banned from doing any interviews after his little instagram stunt where he thought the target was a Celtic Cross. Judge didn’t buy it, but is giving him a second and last chance. I give him about 10 days before he is behind bars for violating the gag order.
Ohhh good. Have we come to the part of the primary where Bernie gets to claim the system is rigged because of CNN's broadcast schedule?
I swear. We spoke earlier about why people (in this case, me) have some animus with Bernie's base. It's this. It isnt Russian trolls. It's the attitude that if they dont win, the "game is rigged".
Edit: (CNN has already agreed to have a town hall on Monday with Bernie Sanders. I've read several news articles on CNN's webpage about his candidacy - but let's not let facts get in the way of a conspiracy theory)
Most amusing part of the video is the clip from Fox News where they try to get someone crazy sounding to defend Sanders in order to make Socialism sound bad...
Can we *please* not rehash 2016?
Final Edit - I went to CNN's politics page. On a lark, searched for "Kamala" "Harris" "Bernie" and "Sanders" (not using the webpage's search tool. Just a ctrl + f search) - Kamala Harris isnt mentioned anywhere on the page. Sanders' name is on 6 separate articles there.
That's probably as many as Jussie Smollett is on their main page, for heaven's sake! /sarcasm
So there is going to be a new election in NC for the seat at the center of the biggest ACTUAL election fraud in modern history. New election?? So one side is caught red-handed making absentee ballots disappear into thin air, where there is a SIGNED CHECK from the candidate Harris paying the man in charge of the scam, and his own son is now on the record saying he ignored what was obviously going on and his punishment is that......he gets a do-over?? There is no hope. If you are caught cheating in sports, you forfeit to your opponent. I suppose it's too much to ask for the same with something that actually matters. This is horseshit. The Democrats should seat their candidate post-haste, and let the chips fall where they may.
I swear. We spoke earlier about why people (in this case, me) have some animus with Bernie's base. It's this. It isnt Russian trolls. It's the attitude that if they dont win, the "game is rigged".
There is so much evidence that the game was rigged against Bernie i'm not sure how it's deniable. The communications were made public and people resigned over it (to get a job with the Clintons of course). I know alot of Bernie folks and its true a non insignificant minority of his base either didn't vote or voted Trump in protest, but their frustration is valid and it's probably not gonna be better this time what with the media going all in on Kamala already. I know these aren't the same exact things but the attitude that the game is rigged is definitely justified.
I mean, the only reason there is any proof at all about how badly the game is rigged behind the scenes is because of a security breach and an information leak. There would be no proof otherwise. I'm positive their internal security has gone up. If they decide to rig things again, who will ever know and who will ever be able to prove it?
I'm still not convinced that the situation regarding the DNC and Sanders was anything more than a mild bias in favor of Clinton due to her longstanding position within the party, but for the purposes of the 2020 election, I do not see the same thing happening in any case. Sanders is still popular among Democrats despite the fallout (for a lot of folks, he was our 2nd-best option), and I'm guessing a fair number of people in the DNC regret Clinton's nomination, if only in retrospect, and if only for strictly political reasons ("We could have had our 2nd-best option instead of our absolute worst").
Besides, if I legit rigged a primary and the loser came back for the next nomination after my candidate lost the general election, I wouldn't be stupid enough to try pulling the same tricks again. Even if you think the worst of the DNC's motives, repeating a losing strategy wouldn't make sense.
I think Bernie's my favorite here, at least for now, but I'm not sure I'd mind if Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, or Tulsi Gabbard got the nomination. I'd be ticked off if there was legit manipulation, of course--Bernie's a good choice, and it's not like he has a whole lot of weaknesses as a candidate.
Last I heard, a Fox news poll found that he was the most respected politician in the country.
Whether or not it was rigged against Bernie in 2016, you would be naive to not worry about fake news and misinformation in the age that got Trump elected. It is a clear tactic of Trump and the Republican party, possibly with assistance of Russian bots (maybe that's why Trump meets alone with Putin), to divide and conquer Democracts.
----_----
"To my Republican colleagues: When the president attacked the independence of the Justice Department by intervening in a case in which he is implicated, you did not speak out. When he attacked the press as the enemy of the people, you again were silent. When he targeted the judiciary, labeling judges and decisions he didn’t like as illegitimate, we heard not a word. And now he comes for Congress, the first branch of government, seeking to strip it of its greatest power, that of the purse.
Many of you have acknowledged your deep misgivings about the president in quiet conversations over the past two years. You have bemoaned his lack of decency, character and integrity. You have deplored his fundamental inability to tell the truth. But for reasons that are all too easy to comprehend, you have chosen to keep your misgivings and your rising alarm private.**
That must end. The time for silent disagreement is over. You must speak out." - Adam Schiff
I mean, the only reason there is any proof at all about how badly the game is rigged behind the scenes is because of a security breach and an information leak. There would be no proof otherwise. I'm positive their internal security has gone up. If they decide to rig things again, who will ever know and who will ever be able to prove it?
Omnipotent DNC has already rigged the primaries in February of 2019 because of some vague assumption about their improved internal security. I suppose this will be used as proof of why Tulsi Gabbard doesn't win, despite the fact that she has about 1% support among Democratic voters. You know, the people who actually matter and participate in Democratic primaries.
"Bernie is crazy to think we can afford to do X" Where X is any social program. Followed by "He is modelling his solutions around what Venezuela tried, and look where they are now." Followed by "America will never be a Socialist Country. Now let's build that wall."
And the idiots in the centre will eat it up and go "You know, it hasn't been that bad with Trump, lets stick with the devil we know, get him impeached since we're voting blue everywhere else and let Pence take over."
And that's it. Game over. From where I am sitting (on the outside) Trump will win against Sanders or Warren and still has a fighting chance against Harris. It doesn't matter how well a politician is liked or their voting record, it is how the other side can change the perception of that person for 6-8 months.
There is so much evidence that the game was rigged against Bernie i'm not sure how it's deniable. The communications were made public and people resigned over it (to get a job with the Clintons of course). I know alot of Bernie folks and its true a non insignificant minority of his base either didn't vote or voted Trump in protest, but their frustration is valid and it's probably not gonna be better this time what with the media going all in on Kamala already. I know these aren't the same exact things but the attitude that the game is rigged is definitely justified.
It's not justified, because there's nothing to be rigged yet. Pretending that because one (of MANY networks, which are not officially affiliated with the DNC) seems to support a particular candidate is not rigging in any way, form or shape.
Also, given the absolutely sparse data, it's laughably absurd. Bernie's been an official candidate for... what, 3 days now - and someone's supposed to apologize for him not having a sum total larger political coverage that someone who announced several weeks ago? Give me a break.
The tweet was already demonstrated to be false earlier. Bernie is trending more on CNN than Kamala Harris at the moment.
It's a bit ironic. I know plenty of people who either were pro-bernie or were at least pretty okay with him have become #neverbernie because of his base's scorched earth policy when it comes to winning. He's probably goint to lose the primary because his base thinks the game is rigged, rather than because it is actually rigged.
"Bernie is crazy to think we can afford to do X" Where X is any social program. Followed by "He is modelling his solutions around what Venezuela tried, and look where they are now." Followed by "America will never be a Socialist Country. Now let's build that wall."
And the idiots in the centre will eat it up and go "You know, it hasn't been that bad with Trump, lets stick with the devil we know, get him impeached since we're voting blue everywhere else and let Pence take over."
And that's it. Game over. From where I am sitting (on the outside) Trump will win against Sanders or Warren and still has a fighting chance against Harris. It doesn't matter how well a politician is liked or their voting record, it is how the other side can change the perception of that person for 6-8 months.
But it DOES matter how well a politician is liked (It SHOULD matter what their voting record is, but few people are willing to dig through the morass for that info).
How well a politician is liked, how fired up their base is, dictates how well their "team" comes and votes for them.
Had their been no shenanigans with the DNC primary, had the southern states voted for Bernie in the primaries, we would have been 2 years into a President Sanders by now. Polls always showed him as MORE likely to defeat Trump than Clinton.
Instead, in a sense, the Democratic party was split and that demoralized people into not voting.
"Bernie is crazy to think we can afford to do X" Where X is any social program. Followed by "He is modelling his solutions around what Venezuela tried, and look where they are now." Followed by "America will never be a Socialist Country. Now let's build that wall."
And the idiots in the centre will eat it up and go "You know, it hasn't been that bad with Trump, lets stick with the devil we know, get him impeached since we're voting blue everywhere else and let Pence take over."
And that's it. Game over. From where I am sitting (on the outside) Trump will win against Sanders or Warren and still has a fighting chance against Harris. It doesn't matter how well a politician is liked or their voting record, it is how the other side can change the perception of that person for 6-8 months.
But it DOES matter how well a politician is liked (It SHOULD matter what their voting record is, but few people are willing to dig through the morass for that info).
How well a politician is liked, how fired up their base is, dictates how well their "team" comes and votes for them.
Had their been no shenanigans with the DNC primary, had the southern states voted for Bernie in the primaries, we would have been 2 years into a President Sanders by now. Polls always showed him as MORE likely to defeat Trump than Clinton.
Instead, in a sense, the Democratic party was split and that demoralized people into not voting.
Bernie should have thought about the southern primaries about 18 months before he entered the race. The simple fact is he didn't put in the work down there, and Clinton racked up wins in proportional races that in some States were literally 80/20 in her favor. But I have been over this about a half dozen times already, and I'm sick of rehashing it every time this comes up. Bernie lost because he entered the race on a whim about a year later than he should have, and tried to ride a zeitgeist rather than having an actual infrastructure in place to win. By the time the so-called DNC "shenanigans" took place, the race had been mathematically over for weeks. It was over the night he lost the Ohio primary, no matter how much certain sections of online left-wing media liked to pretend otherwise. And even before that, he was pretty much dead in the water in regards to actual delegate counts. The much criticized super-delegates never came into play. It seemed like he was close because there was only two candidates, but Clinton was only ever in danger for a brief period after New Hampshire, in much the same way that Obama was only momentarily halted in '08 when Hillary made a brief comeback after he won Iowa. The math never added up, and anyone who was paying attention to the actual races and how they proportioned delegates knew this months before everyone else seemed to catch on. I fully expect the same crowd who can't do basic math to say the same thing about whatever "establishment" candidate is racing toward an inevitable finishing line this time. We don't even have a clue who it will be yet and it's already been decided that is what has happened, literally more than a YEAR before we can possibly have any idea about it.
Bernie should have thought about the southern primaries about 18 months before he entered the race. The simple fact is he didn't put in the work down there, and Clinton racked up wins in proportional races that in some States were literally 80/20 in her favor. But I have been over this about a half dozen times already, and I'm sick of rehashing it every time this comes up. Bernie lost because he entered the race on a whim about a year later than he should have, and tried to ride a zeitgeist rather than having an actual infrastructure in place to win. By the time the so-called DNC "shenanigans" took place, the race had been mathematically over for weeks. It was over the night he lost the Ohio primary, no matter how much certain sections of online left-wing media liked to pretend otherwise. And even before that, he was pretty much dead in the water in regards to actual delegate counts. The much criticized super-delegates never came into play. It seemed like he was close because there was only two candidates, but Clinton was only ever in danger for a brief period after New Hampshire, in much the same way that Obama was only momentarily halted in '08 when Hillary made a brief comeback after he won Iowa. The math never added up, and anyone who was paying attention to the actual races and how they proportioned delegates knew this months before everyone else seemed to catch on. I fully expect the same crowd who can't do basic math to say the same thing about whatever "establishment" candidate is racing toward an inevitable finishing line this time. We don't even have a clue who it will be yet and it's already been decided that is what has happened, literally more than a YEAR before we can possibly have any idea about it.
Pretty much this. Clinton won rather overwhelming by popular vote and delegate counts. The opposition tries to say that super delegates depressed voters turning out for Bernie, but that's impossible to prove. What isnt impossible is that the people who voted, selected Clinton by every available metric.
Also - lost in all of this, is how much closer the 2008 primary was than the 2016 primary. Seriously - Clinton actually won more of the popular vote than Obama did during that entire primary. He won more delegates, and ended up winning the nomination. Rather than taking their ball and going home, the party rallied around him.
If my memory is correct, the super delegates were originally split more towards Clinton than Obama, but eventually went to Obama once the writing was on the wall (Dispelling the idea that the superdelegates play some kind of rigged spoiler role. They dont. They're fairly meaningless),
It's a testament to the horrendous coverage of Presidential politics. No actual issues are discussed 90% of the time. It's all horse-race nonsense, but in most cases it isn't even the PERTINENT horse-race nonsense. The media is 1000% invested in pretending that the races are always close, that every primary night and state means the same thing. In TV Land, every single day is a tie basketball game with 30 seconds to go in the 4th quarter, and that is rarely ever the case. It was ONCE, and they utterly blew it when FOX News prematurely called Florida for Bush (the decision was literally made by his COUSIN) and every other network followed suit. It's been basically downhill from that moment onward.
Bernie should have thought about the southern primaries about 18 months before he entered the race. The simple fact is he didn't put in the work down there, and Clinton racked up wins in proportional races that in some States were literally 80/20 in her favor. But I have been over this about a half dozen times already, and I'm sick of rehashing it every time this comes up. Bernie lost because he entered the race on a whim about a year later than he should have, and tried to ride a zeitgeist rather than having an actual infrastructure in place to win. By the time the so-called DNC "shenanigans" took place, the race had been mathematically over for weeks. It was over the night he lost the Ohio primary, no matter how much certain sections of online left-wing media liked to pretend otherwise. And even before that, he was pretty much dead in the water in regards to actual delegate counts. The much criticized super-delegates never came into play. It seemed like he was close because there was only two candidates, but Clinton was only ever in danger for a brief period after New Hampshire, in much the same way that Obama was only momentarily halted in '08 when Hillary made a brief comeback after he won Iowa. The math never added up, and anyone who was paying attention to the actual races and how they proportioned delegates knew this months before everyone else seemed to catch on. I fully expect the same crowd who can't do basic math to say the same thing about whatever "establishment" candidate is racing toward an inevitable finishing line this time. We don't even have a clue who it will be yet and it's already been decided that is what has happened, literally more than a YEAR before we can possibly have any idea about it.
Pretty much this. Clinton won rather overwhelming by popular vote and delegate counts. The opposition tries to say that super delegates depressed voters turning out for Bernie, but that's impossible to prove. What isnt impossible is that the people who voted, selected Clinton by every available metric.
Also - lost in all of this, is how much closer the 2008 primary was than the 2016 primary. Seriously - Clinton actually won more of the popular vote than Obama did during that entire primary. He won more delegates, and ended up winning the nomination. Rather than taking their ball and going home, the party rallied around him.
If my memory is correct, the super delegates were originally split more towards Clinton than Obama, but eventually went to Obama once the writing was on the wall (Dispelling the idea that the superdelegates play some kind of rigged spoiler role. They dont. They're fairly meaningless),
Exactly! The Democratic Party completely ignored the fact that Hillary was so unlikable that Obama came out of nowhere and beat her 8 years before. They went 'all in' on her in 2016 and lost. That's on them. I've said before and I mean it, if Bernie had won rhe primary I'd have pissed my vote away on the Libertarian. It's not that I like Bernie by any means, it's that I didn't hate him like I did Hillary and I really didn't care for Trump and his wall bullshit...
Bernie should have thought about the southern primaries about 18 months before he entered the race. The simple fact is he didn't put in the work down there, and Clinton racked up wins in proportional races that in some States were literally 80/20 in her favor. But I have been over this about a half dozen times already, and I'm sick of rehashing it every time this comes up. Bernie lost because he entered the race on a whim about a year later than he should have, and tried to ride a zeitgeist rather than having an actual infrastructure in place to win. By the time the so-called DNC "shenanigans" took place, the race had been mathematically over for weeks. It was over the night he lost the Ohio primary, no matter how much certain sections of online left-wing media liked to pretend otherwise. And even before that, he was pretty much dead in the water in regards to actual delegate counts. The much criticized super-delegates never came into play. It seemed like he was close because there was only two candidates, but Clinton was only ever in danger for a brief period after New Hampshire, in much the same way that Obama was only momentarily halted in '08 when Hillary made a brief comeback after he won Iowa. The math never added up, and anyone who was paying attention to the actual races and how they proportioned delegates knew this months before everyone else seemed to catch on. I fully expect the same crowd who can't do basic math to say the same thing about whatever "establishment" candidate is racing toward an inevitable finishing line this time. We don't even have a clue who it will be yet and it's already been decided that is what has happened, literally more than a YEAR before we can possibly have any idea about it.
Pretty much this. Clinton won rather overwhelming by popular vote and delegate counts. The opposition tries to say that super delegates depressed voters turning out for Bernie, but that's impossible to prove. What isnt impossible is that the people who voted, selected Clinton by every available metric.
Also - lost in all of this, is how much closer the 2008 primary was than the 2016 primary. Seriously - Clinton actually won more of the popular vote than Obama did during that entire primary. He won more delegates, and ended up winning the nomination. Rather than taking their ball and going home, the party rallied around him.
If my memory is correct, the super delegates were originally split more towards Clinton than Obama, but eventually went to Obama once the writing was on the wall (Dispelling the idea that the superdelegates play some kind of rigged spoiler role. They dont. They're fairly meaningless),
Exactly! The Democratic Party completely ignored the fact that Hillary was so unlikable that Obama came out of nowhere and beat her 8 years before. They went 'all in' on her in 2016 and lost. That's on them. I've said before and I mean it, if Bernie had won rhe primary I'd have pissed my vote away on the Libertarian. It's not that I like Bernie by any means, it's that I didn't hate him like I did Hillary and I really didn't care for Trump and his wall bullshit...
Can someone explain to me why Hillary is "unlikable" and Donald Trump is never, under ANY circumstances referred to by this adjective?? I mean, I already know the answer, but I wish we'd at least be honest about it. The definition of likable is:
pleasant, friendly, and easy to like
Which I think any sentient human being can agree does NOT apply to the man in any way, shape or form. Yet the term "unlikable" is never mentioned near his name.
In 2016, general election voters wanted change - that was Bernie or Trump. Bernie was already eliminated from the Dem ticket before they held a primary in the state with the most American people - California.
The primary was rigged. Watch Farenheit 11/9 and see a sequence where several states Hillary lost like Michigan (iirc) pledge votes in the primary for Hillary over Bernie.
But anyway in spite of the rigged primary, Hillary won the popular vote so plenty people that supported Bernie voted for her not that it mattered because the electoral college was rigged against her.
What's this mean for 2020? Well it's a new election. We'll see how it goes. Dismissing Bernie is a mistake he's the most popular politician in America.
In 2016, general election voters wanted change - that was Bernie or Trump. Bernie was already eliminated from the Dem ticket before they held a primary in the state with the most American people - California.
The primary was rigged. Watch Farenheit 11/9 and see a sequence where several states Hillary lost like Michigan (iirc) pledge votes in the primary for Hillary over Bernie.
Under the agreed upon rules of the Democratic primary in 2016, it was possible to mathematically eliminate a candidate before California weighed in. That isnt "rigging". It's the order in which the states went in. Clinton still won California. You cannot reasonably prove she would have lost if California held its primary earlier.
Do I think the way we order our states in primaries is stupid? Completely yes. Iowa does *not* reflect the nation as a whole, nor does it remotely reflect the Democratic primary constituency (Which is 40% people of color, and like 60% women. Two groups that Bernie lost HARD in 2016 - and which cannot be explained away as "rigging").
They should all go at close to the same time. Split them up by time zone, I dont care.
The DNC played favortism. It hurt the Democratic brand. This did not cost Sanders the primary. He lost it because Clinton won the popular vote by 10+ points. Full Stop. End of story.
Exactly! The Democratic Party completely ignored the fact that Hillary was so unlikable that Obama came out of nowhere and beat her 8 years before. They went 'all in' on her in 2016 and lost. That's on them. I've said before and I mean it, if Bernie had won rhe primary I'd have pissed my vote away on the Libertarian. It's not that I like Bernie by any means, it's that I didn't hate him like I did Hillary and I really didn't care for Trump and his wall bullshit...
I'm completely fine with this point. I think the hate for Hillary is misguided and a product of 25 years of right-wing smearing, but I accept that people didnt like her. We can own that - but it wasnt some cabal of influential politicians in some back room conspiring to take the election that Sanders rightfully won away from him.
(Edit - to make a frank point here, I also worry that this is a contrivance of conservatives in general. I understand that Hillary Clinton was someone that many conservatives could never support. I've seen a lot of never Trumpers say something like "The only way I'll vote for Trump again is if the Democrats nominate someone crazy, like Warren". Over time, they continually amend the list of "crazy" democrats to include almost anyone "I'll only vote for Trump if the Democrats nominate someone "crazy" like Warren! Or Harris! Or Booker!" etc - until you only have one or two names out of 20 that are "passable". It feels like those Republicans are just telling themselves they'll only vote for Trump "if forced' to abnegate their sense of responsibility for voting for Trump).
When Sanders probably loses (and I say that only because in a field of 20+ candidates, you take the field over everyone - including Harris, Biden and Sanders) - I am seriously worried his constituency will find a way to claim that the whole thing was rigged against them, even if it isnt.
I'm sick of this concern trolling from people who have no stake whatsoever in the Democratic nominating process. You won't find me sitting around telling Republican voters how they should choose their candidate. They ended up with the inevitable result of what the previous 30 years produced. But was I sitting around yelling at them to come to their senses and nominate Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz instead?? No, because I'm not a Republican and I don't take part in their primary process. In the same way I don't show up to the local Elks lodge on meeting nights.
The only two choices that are "acceptable" to non-Democrats seem to be Bernie Sanders, who ISN'T EVEN A DEMOCRAT, yet is given the opportunity to run as one anyway, and Tulsi frickin' Gabbard, who has about as much support as your neighbor's parakeet, and as much of a chance of winning. Wow, that's a hell of a list we have to choose from according to everyone who either can't be bothered or doesn't agree with us enough to participate. Where was this chorus telling Republicans who was "acceptable" to the holy and sacred middle of the road independent voter?? Nowhere to be found is the answer. Because only Democrats are expected to placate this nonsense. We'll choose who we want. Either participate and join the party or go sit in a corner and watch like we all do when the other side is picking their guy. For the love of god, South Carolina is seriously considering CANCELLING their primary altogether if Trump has a challenger. But by all means, Democrats should continue to let people who would as soon see a Democrat win as walk around with rusty nails in their shoe decide who we should nominate, with the never-ending threat of "you'll force me to vote for Trump again". Enough already.
I'm sick of this concern trolling from people who have no stake whatsoever in the Democratic nominating process. You won't find me sitting around telling Republican voters how they should choose their candidate.
Considering how insane the 2016 Republican primary was, maybe you should! If there was ever an argument for some kind of ranked-choice voting system to replace our stupid plurality-wins system, that was it.
Cripes: can we imagine for a second if Trump's pussy-grabbing advocacy tape became public during the primary?? I tell you, that tape being saved for a would-be 'October surprise' is actually the biggest screw-up of the entire 2016 election.
As for Bernie: please everyone, spare me the crocodile tears. He ran a quixotic campaign that was never going to win. And wonder of wonders, the establishment has a bias toward establishment candidates! Who aren't avowed socialists! Imagine!
Bernie isn't an avowed socialist. Don't buy Trump's bullcrap. Democratic socialist != to socialist. Democratic socialist like in Sweden, France, Denmark, etc not rat-eating venezuela.
Bernie might have won, as you see people on both sides of the aisle like him. People that instead voted for Trump over Hillary. And plenty of regular Democrats liked him too. As for being a Democrat, today's Democrats are basically republicans from the 1980s. Corporatists. Centrists. Right wing leaning. so yeah Bernie is on the left of Democrats. So what. He caucuses with the Democrats.
I'm sick of this concern trolling from people who have no stake whatsoever in the Democratic nominating process. ...
The only two choices that are "acceptable" to non-Democrats seem to be Bernie Sanders, who ISN'T EVEN A DEMOCRAT, yet is given the opportunity to run as one anyway, and Tulsi frickin' Gabbard, who has about as much support as your neighbor's parakeet, and as much of a chance of winning...with the never-ending threat of "you'll force me to vote for Trump again". Enough already.
I don't know why you are upset about this. Gabbard and Bernie have support on all sides of the aisle. Maybe we could use some votes that voted red last time. What's wrong with them to Democrats? I'd say give Gabbard a chance. She's Hawaiian. HAWAIIAN. They have a pretty great culture over there. Haha And she's anti-war and a veteran. She's not bad really, what's wrong with her besides .. what? Lack of support from mainstream media? So what.
What's wrong with Bernie? He's got massive grassroots support. He had small donations from all 50 states within one hour of his announcement. What's wrong with universal healthcare? What's wrong with addressing economic inequality and climate change.
With Trump there's a always a tweet of something that directly contradicts his position today (ie obama unconstitutional power grab order on immigration then Trump does that exact thing.)
With Bernie it's like the opposite. Going back 30 years there's a quote of him being on the right side of whatever mistake we made - like being against the Iraq war and not de-regulating banks before the crash etc.
Anyway, centrist dems are always saying we need to support the candidate. Y'all better be prepared to fall in line the same way Hillary supporters demanded Bernie supporters fall in line once Bernie is the nominee. Will they do that?? Haha doubt.
Comments
Indeed and that could have made an interesting conversation. Bregman's position is that he wants higher tax rates everywhere so that there is not the same opportunity to move to a low tax location, but I accept that would not be easy to implement.
So, is there a vet process or something? How does a nationality that doesn't use "tribes" measure it? Do I need to go to Scotland and get their permisson before I can call myself "Scottish"? Or is Native American somehow more special?
Culture.
Ever been to a powwow? No? You probably aren’t indigenous.
Is your mother or father part of a tribe or band? No? You probably aren’t indigenous.
Does the Canadian government single out your homelessness problem and give you $638M to address it and your response is “that’s not enough.” You probably are indigenous.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/liberals-urban-housing-homelessness-1.5026830
Now that last one is tongue and cheek as the indigenous Canadians do have a greater housing crisis than the rest of us, and homelessness is rampant. Any efforts to help is more than welcome, just don’t turn around and say it isn’t enough. I really want to go back twenty years and calculate how much indigenous groups have received from the federal government as no amount of money seems to be helping them. It’s like their spinning their wheels and the government of the day is just throwing money at them saying “look we’re helping!” Without really doing anything but paying off the bureaucracy that they’ve created to address the problem... but I digress!
There is nothing wrong with saying, I have an ancestry that contains Cherokee. That is much different than saying I am Cherokee.
https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1462808207464/1462808233170 <here’s Canada’s process
Also Scotland won’t pay for your secondary education, but a indigenous band will (from money given by the federal government).
Indigenous people also don’t have to pay sales tax in Ontario. There are other benefits that a band gives people of Indian Status but those are the two big ones here.
So, does this mean we lower the percentage to qualify as Native American, so people we normally consider Native American still count? Or do we set the percentage at the same level as we'd expect from another group ("you have to be at least 50% Japanese to be an ethnically Japanese person"). Because the latter would mean Native Americans would be basically extinct. Most folks in Eurasia have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA, and we consider Neanderthals to be extinct.
I actually don't know. I knew Native Americans were a very tiny minority in the U.S., but until this controversy came up, I didn't realize how little Native American DNA is actually in the average Native American. There are actually non-Neanderthals who are more Neanderthal than the Cherokee chief is Cherokee.
Naturally, belonging to a specific cultural tribe would be a factor of the people you know, rather than your DNA. I'm referring to how we'd define the ethnicity, specifically.
Maybe we just shouldn't bother trying to pin down an inherently amorphous concept. It's not like "ethnicity" is anything more than an arbitrary group of allele frequencies.
I've checked both "Native American" and "White European" when presented with the question. I never check "White", because that's not a race and an incredibly stupid general term.
North Carolina will hold new elections in the 9th due to the alleged fraud.
And
Roger Stone is now banned from doing any interviews after his little instagram stunt where he thought the target was a Celtic Cross. Judge didn’t buy it, but is giving him a second and last chance. I give him about 10 days before he is behind bars for violating the gag order.
Ohhh good. Have we come to the part of the primary where Bernie gets to claim the system is rigged because of CNN's broadcast schedule?
I swear. We spoke earlier about why people (in this case, me) have some animus with Bernie's base. It's this. It isnt Russian trolls. It's the attitude that if they dont win, the "game is rigged".
Edit: (CNN has already agreed to have a town hall on Monday with Bernie Sanders. I've read several news articles on CNN's webpage about his candidacy - but let's not let facts get in the way of a conspiracy theory)
Double edit: Found a video segment where they discuss Bernie Sanders's fundraising. (It's longer than 1 minute)
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/02/20/ip-bernie-sanders.cnn/video/playlists/inside-politics-highlights/
Most amusing part of the video is the clip from Fox News where they try to get someone crazy sounding to defend Sanders in order to make Socialism sound bad...
Can we *please* not rehash 2016?
Final Edit - I went to CNN's politics page. On a lark, searched for "Kamala" "Harris" "Bernie" and "Sanders" (not using the webpage's search tool. Just a ctrl + f search) - Kamala Harris isnt mentioned anywhere on the page. Sanders' name is on 6 separate articles there.
That's probably as many as Jussie Smollett is on their main page, for heaven's sake! /sarcasm
There is so much evidence that the game was rigged against Bernie i'm not sure how it's deniable. The communications were made public and people resigned over it (to get a job with the Clintons of course). I know alot of Bernie folks and its true a non insignificant minority of his base either didn't vote or voted Trump in protest, but their frustration is valid and it's probably not gonna be better this time what with the media going all in on Kamala already. I know these aren't the same exact things but the attitude that the game is rigged is definitely justified.
Besides, if I legit rigged a primary and the loser came back for the next nomination after my candidate lost the general election, I wouldn't be stupid enough to try pulling the same tricks again. Even if you think the worst of the DNC's motives, repeating a losing strategy wouldn't make sense.
I think Bernie's my favorite here, at least for now, but I'm not sure I'd mind if Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, or Tulsi Gabbard got the nomination. I'd be ticked off if there was legit manipulation, of course--Bernie's a good choice, and it's not like he has a whole lot of weaknesses as a candidate.
Last I heard, a Fox news poll found that he was the most respected politician in the country.
----_----
"To my Republican colleagues: When the president attacked the independence of the Justice Department by intervening in a case in which he is implicated, you did not speak out. When he attacked the press as the enemy of the people, you again were silent. When he targeted the judiciary, labeling judges and decisions he didn’t like as illegitimate, we heard not a word. And now he comes for Congress, the first branch of government, seeking to strip it of its greatest power, that of the purse.
Many of you have acknowledged your deep misgivings about the president in quiet conversations over the past two years. You have bemoaned his lack of decency, character and integrity. You have deplored his fundamental inability to tell the truth. But for reasons that are all too easy to comprehend, you have chosen to keep your misgivings and your rising alarm private.**
That must end. The time for silent disagreement is over. You must speak out." - Adam Schiff
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/adam-schiff-an-open-letter-to-my-republican-colleagues/2019/02/21/9d411414-3605-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.adf60bffb393
OR his Republican colleagues can continue to cower and enable the destruction of American democracy and our slide towards authoritarianism.
Omnipotent DNC has already rigged the primaries in February of 2019 because of some vague assumption about their improved internal security. I suppose this will be used as proof of why Tulsi Gabbard doesn't win, despite the fact that she has about 1% support among Democratic voters. You know, the people who actually matter and participate in Democratic primaries.
"Bernie is crazy to think we can afford to do X" Where X is any social program. Followed by "He is modelling his solutions around what Venezuela tried, and look where they are now." Followed by "America will never be a Socialist Country. Now let's build that wall."
And the idiots in the centre will eat it up and go "You know, it hasn't been that bad with Trump, lets stick with the devil we know, get him impeached since we're voting blue everywhere else and let Pence take over."
And that's it. Game over. From where I am sitting (on the outside) Trump will win against Sanders or Warren and still has a fighting chance against Harris. It doesn't matter how well a politician is liked or their voting record, it is how the other side can change the perception of that person for 6-8 months.
It's not justified, because there's nothing to be rigged yet. Pretending that because one (of MANY networks, which are not officially affiliated with the DNC) seems to support a particular candidate is not rigging in any way, form or shape.
Also, given the absolutely sparse data, it's laughably absurd. Bernie's been an official candidate for... what, 3 days now - and someone's supposed to apologize for him not having a sum total larger political coverage that someone who announced several weeks ago? Give me a break.
The tweet was already demonstrated to be false earlier. Bernie is trending more on CNN than Kamala Harris at the moment.
It's a bit ironic. I know plenty of people who either were pro-bernie or were at least pretty okay with him have become #neverbernie because of his base's scorched earth policy when it comes to winning. He's probably goint to lose the primary because his base thinks the game is rigged, rather than because it is actually rigged.
But it DOES matter how well a politician is liked (It SHOULD matter what their voting record is, but few people are willing to dig through the morass for that info).
How well a politician is liked, how fired up their base is, dictates how well their "team" comes and votes for them.
Had their been no shenanigans with the DNC primary, had the southern states voted for Bernie in the primaries, we would have been 2 years into a President Sanders by now. Polls always showed him as MORE likely to defeat Trump than Clinton.
Instead, in a sense, the Democratic party was split and that demoralized people into not voting.
Bernie should have thought about the southern primaries about 18 months before he entered the race. The simple fact is he didn't put in the work down there, and Clinton racked up wins in proportional races that in some States were literally 80/20 in her favor. But I have been over this about a half dozen times already, and I'm sick of rehashing it every time this comes up. Bernie lost because he entered the race on a whim about a year later than he should have, and tried to ride a zeitgeist rather than having an actual infrastructure in place to win. By the time the so-called DNC "shenanigans" took place, the race had been mathematically over for weeks. It was over the night he lost the Ohio primary, no matter how much certain sections of online left-wing media liked to pretend otherwise. And even before that, he was pretty much dead in the water in regards to actual delegate counts. The much criticized super-delegates never came into play. It seemed like he was close because there was only two candidates, but Clinton was only ever in danger for a brief period after New Hampshire, in much the same way that Obama was only momentarily halted in '08 when Hillary made a brief comeback after he won Iowa. The math never added up, and anyone who was paying attention to the actual races and how they proportioned delegates knew this months before everyone else seemed to catch on. I fully expect the same crowd who can't do basic math to say the same thing about whatever "establishment" candidate is racing toward an inevitable finishing line this time. We don't even have a clue who it will be yet and it's already been decided that is what has happened, literally more than a YEAR before we can possibly have any idea about it.
Pretty much this. Clinton won rather overwhelming by popular vote and delegate counts. The opposition tries to say that super delegates depressed voters turning out for Bernie, but that's impossible to prove. What isnt impossible is that the people who voted, selected Clinton by every available metric.
Also - lost in all of this, is how much closer the 2008 primary was than the 2016 primary. Seriously - Clinton actually won more of the popular vote than Obama did during that entire primary. He won more delegates, and ended up winning the nomination. Rather than taking their ball and going home, the party rallied around him.
If my memory is correct, the super delegates were originally split more towards Clinton than Obama, but eventually went to Obama once the writing was on the wall (Dispelling the idea that the superdelegates play some kind of rigged spoiler role. They dont. They're fairly meaningless),
Exactly! The Democratic Party completely ignored the fact that Hillary was so unlikable that Obama came out of nowhere and beat her 8 years before. They went 'all in' on her in 2016 and lost. That's on them. I've said before and I mean it, if Bernie had won rhe primary I'd have pissed my vote away on the Libertarian. It's not that I like Bernie by any means, it's that I didn't hate him like I did Hillary and I really didn't care for Trump and his wall bullshit...
Can someone explain to me why Hillary is "unlikable" and Donald Trump is never, under ANY circumstances referred to by this adjective?? I mean, I already know the answer, but I wish we'd at least be honest about it. The definition of likable is:
pleasant, friendly, and easy to like
Which I think any sentient human being can agree does NOT apply to the man in any way, shape or form. Yet the term "unlikable" is never mentioned near his name.
The primary was rigged. Watch Farenheit 11/9 and see a sequence where several states Hillary lost like Michigan (iirc) pledge votes in the primary for Hillary over Bernie.
But anyway in spite of the rigged primary, Hillary won the popular vote so plenty people that supported Bernie voted for her not that it mattered because the electoral college was rigged against her.
What's this mean for 2020? Well it's a new election. We'll see how it goes. Dismissing Bernie is a mistake he's the most popular politician in America.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/10/10/senator-approval-ratings-morning-consult/1590329002/
Under the agreed upon rules of the Democratic primary in 2016, it was possible to mathematically eliminate a candidate before California weighed in. That isnt "rigging". It's the order in which the states went in. Clinton still won California. You cannot reasonably prove she would have lost if California held its primary earlier.
Do I think the way we order our states in primaries is stupid? Completely yes. Iowa does *not* reflect the nation as a whole, nor does it remotely reflect the Democratic primary constituency (Which is 40% people of color, and like 60% women. Two groups that Bernie lost HARD in 2016 - and which cannot be explained away as "rigging").
They should all go at close to the same time. Split them up by time zone, I dont care.
The DNC played favortism. It hurt the Democratic brand. This did not cost Sanders the primary. He lost it because Clinton won the popular vote by 10+ points. Full Stop. End of story.
I'm completely fine with this point. I think the hate for Hillary is misguided and a product of 25 years of right-wing smearing, but I accept that people didnt like her. We can own that - but it wasnt some cabal of influential politicians in some back room conspiring to take the election that Sanders rightfully won away from him.
(Edit - to make a frank point here, I also worry that this is a contrivance of conservatives in general. I understand that Hillary Clinton was someone that many conservatives could never support. I've seen a lot of never Trumpers say something like "The only way I'll vote for Trump again is if the Democrats nominate someone crazy, like Warren". Over time, they continually amend the list of "crazy" democrats to include almost anyone "I'll only vote for Trump if the Democrats nominate someone "crazy" like Warren! Or Harris! Or Booker!" etc - until you only have one or two names out of 20 that are "passable". It feels like those Republicans are just telling themselves they'll only vote for Trump "if forced' to abnegate their sense of responsibility for voting for Trump).
When Sanders probably loses (and I say that only because in a field of 20+ candidates, you take the field over everyone - including Harris, Biden and Sanders) - I am seriously worried his constituency will find a way to claim that the whole thing was rigged against them, even if it isnt.
The only two choices that are "acceptable" to non-Democrats seem to be Bernie Sanders, who ISN'T EVEN A DEMOCRAT, yet is given the opportunity to run as one anyway, and Tulsi frickin' Gabbard, who has about as much support as your neighbor's parakeet, and as much of a chance of winning. Wow, that's a hell of a list we have to choose from according to everyone who either can't be bothered or doesn't agree with us enough to participate. Where was this chorus telling Republicans who was "acceptable" to the holy and sacred middle of the road independent voter?? Nowhere to be found is the answer. Because only Democrats are expected to placate this nonsense. We'll choose who we want. Either participate and join the party or go sit in a corner and watch like we all do when the other side is picking their guy. For the love of god, South Carolina is seriously considering CANCELLING their primary altogether if Trump has a challenger. But by all means, Democrats should continue to let people who would as soon see a Democrat win as walk around with rusty nails in their shoe decide who we should nominate, with the never-ending threat of "you'll force me to vote for Trump again". Enough already.
Bernie isn't an avowed socialist. Don't buy Trump's bullcrap. Democratic socialist != to socialist. Democratic socialist like in Sweden, France, Denmark, etc not rat-eating venezuela.
Bernie might have won, as you see people on both sides of the aisle like him. People that instead voted for Trump over Hillary. And plenty of regular Democrats liked him too. As for being a Democrat, today's Democrats are basically republicans from the 1980s. Corporatists. Centrists. Right wing leaning. so yeah Bernie is on the left of Democrats. So what. He caucuses with the Democrats.
I don't know why you are upset about this. Gabbard and Bernie have support on all sides of the aisle. Maybe we could use some votes that voted red last time. What's wrong with them to Democrats? I'd say give Gabbard a chance. She's Hawaiian. HAWAIIAN. They have a pretty great culture over there. Haha And she's anti-war and a veteran. She's not bad really, what's wrong with her besides .. what? Lack of support from mainstream media? So what.
What's wrong with Bernie? He's got massive grassroots support. He had small donations from all 50 states within one hour of his announcement. What's wrong with universal healthcare? What's wrong with addressing economic inequality and climate change.
With Trump there's a always a tweet of something that directly contradicts his position today (ie obama unconstitutional power grab order on immigration then Trump does that exact thing.)
With Bernie it's like the opposite. Going back 30 years there's a quote of him being on the right side of whatever mistake we made - like being against the Iraq war and not de-regulating banks before the crash etc.
https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-donations-2020-states-election-1335509
Anyway, centrist dems are always saying we need to support the candidate. Y'all better be prepared to fall in line the same way Hillary supporters demanded Bernie supporters fall in line once Bernie is the nominee. Will they do that?? Haha doubt.