Split: Sanders impact on Abortion Laws

[ZiprHead]

It depends.

If you lived in a swing state you had to practice 'lesser of two evil' voting. That still makes Biden an evil.

If you don't live in a swing state then there is no reason to vote for that horrible candidate, or a worse candidate like Hillary.

You know what you get if you vote for the lesser of two evils? Less evil.

And saying Biden is evil is just ridiculous.

 

[TomC]

It depends.

If you lived in a swing state you had to practice 'lesser of two evil' voting. That still makes Biden an evil.

If you don't live in a swing state then there is no reason to vote for that horrible candidate, or a worse candidate like Hillary.

You know what you get if you vote for the lesser of two evils? Less evil.

And saying Biden is evil is just ridiculous.

I totally understand why someone is grossed out by yet another old school neo-lib like Biden or Clinton. But not only are they vastly better than someone like Trump, they are more effective than marginalized liberals like Sanders.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

It depends.

If you lived in a swing state you had to practice 'lesser of two evil' voting. That still makes Biden an evil.

If you don't live in a swing state then there is no reason to vote for that horrible candidate, or a worse candidate like Hillary.

You know what you get if you vote for the lesser of two evils? Less evil.

And saying Biden is evil is just ridiculous.

I totally understand why someone is grossed out by yet another old school neo-lib like Biden or Clinton. But not only are they vastly better than someone like Trump, they are more effective than marginalized liberals like Sanders.
Tom

Well, the marginalized liberals would be more effective if people like you weren't out here, you know, marginalizing them.

 

[TomC]

I totally understand why someone is grossed out by yet another old school neo-lib like Biden or Clinton. But not only are they vastly better than someone like Trump, they are more effective than marginalized liberals like Sanders.
Tom

Well, the marginalized liberals would be more effective if people like you weren't out here, you know, marginalizing them.

People like Sanders doesn't need me to marginalize him. He can do that just fine by himself.

And Clinton doesn't need my approval either. In 2008 I despised her. Some of us are capable of using nuanced thinking and changing our minds.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I totally understand why someone is grossed out by yet another old school neo-lib like Biden or Clinton. But not only are they vastly better than someone like Trump, they are more effective than marginalized liberals like Sanders.
Tom

Well, the marginalized liberals would be more effective if people like you weren't out here, you know, marginalizing them.

People like Sanders doesn't need me to marginalize him. He can do that just fine by himself.

And Clinton doesn't need my approval either. In 2008 I despised her. Some of us are capable of using nuanced thinking and changing our minds.
Tom

No, he can't. Because marginalization is an imposed act.

He can say what other marginalized people say, but it takes people like you to do the actual marginalization.

 

[TomC]

People like Sanders doesn't need me to marginalize him. He can do that just fine by himself.

And Clinton doesn't need my approval either. In 2008 I despised her. Some of us are capable of using nuanced thinking and changing our minds.
Tom

No, he can't. Because marginalization is an imposed act.

He can say what other marginalized people say, but it takes people like you to do the actual marginalization.

How did anyone, much less me, marginalize Sanders?
He's got a batch of ideas that aren't strongly supported by the USA electorate over all.
Maybe they're good ideas, I mostly think so. But that doesn't change the fact that he didn't even get enough support from the Democrats to win the nomination. He marginalized himself, with a lot of help from his supporters.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

People like Sanders doesn't need me to marginalize him. He can do that just fine by himself.

And Clinton doesn't need my approval either. In 2008 I despised her. Some of us are capable of using nuanced thinking and changing our minds.
Tom

No, he can't. Because marginalization is an imposed act.

He can say what other marginalized people say, but it takes people like you to do the actual marginalization.

How did anyone, much less me, marginalize Sanders?
He's got a batch of ideas that aren't strongly supported by the USA electorate over all.
Maybe they're good ideas, I mostly think so. But that doesn't change the fact that he didn't even get enough support from the Democrats to win the nomination. He marginalized himself, with a lot of help from his supporters.
Tom

You are quoted, might I remind you, in this very reply chain, marginalizing him. Marginalization happens via the Tinkerbell effect. Saying he is qualitatively marginal is marginalization.

You are making assumptions based on your own biases that the positions he holds are not supported by the population at large.

In fact when asked about all of the things that Sanders wished to accomplish, support for all his positions was high. I'm a lazy bastard, but I'm sure someone else (LD? Lpetrich?) Could probably dig up that but of ancient historical research.

You are the one here actively participating in marginalization activities.

 

[TomC]

How did anyone, much less me, marginalize Sanders?
He's got a batch of ideas that aren't strongly supported by the USA electorate over all.
Maybe they're good ideas, I mostly think so. But that doesn't change the fact that he didn't even get enough support from the Democrats to win the nomination. He marginalized himself, with a lot of help from his supporters.
Tom

You are quoted, might I remind you, in this very reply chain, marginalizing him. Marginalization happens via the Tinkerbell effect. Saying he is qualitatively marginal is marginalization.

In what way is me pointing out the political reality marginalizing Sanders? He is marginalized by his opinions and lack of broad appeal.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

How did anyone, much less me, marginalize Sanders?
He's got a batch of ideas that aren't strongly supported by the USA electorate over all.
Maybe they're good ideas, I mostly think so. But that doesn't change the fact that he didn't even get enough support from the Democrats to win the nomination. He marginalized himself, with a lot of help from his supporters.
Tom

You are quoted, might I remind you, in this very reply chain, marginalizing him. Marginalization happens via the Tinkerbell effect. Saying he is qualitatively marginal is marginalization.

In what way is me pointing out the political reality marginalizing Sanders? He is marginalized by his opinions and lack of broad appeal.
Tom

Opinions can't marginalize people. Opinions don't speak of their own volition. Opinions do not form positions nor communicate them. Opinions ARE the positions. Opinions ARE the communication.

People marginalize people.

You are marginalizing. It's a behavior, and one that can generally only be done by a second party.

 

[TomC]

In what way is me pointing out the political reality marginalizing Sanders? He is marginalized by his opinions and lack of broad appeal.
Tom

Opinions can't marginalize people. Opinions don't speak of their own volition. Opinions do not form positions nor communicate them. Opinions ARE the positions. Opinions ARE the communication.

People marginalize people.

You are marginalizing. It's a behavior, and one that can generally only be done by a second party.

Except that the "second party", marginalizing Sanders, is the American electorate, not me. As I've said, over and over, I like his policy proposals.

But he's never won an election outside Vermont. As a white male liberal, winning an election in tiny, homogenously white liberal, Vermont isn't particularly impressive. Then, he couldn't keep control over a rally, an extremist group ran over him. If he can't manage a rally of supporters, how can he manage The Swamp?

Sorry, but I didn't marginalize Sanders. He is just plain marginal. I'm pointing it out, that's all.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

In what way is me pointing out the political reality marginalizing Sanders? He is marginalized by his opinions and lack of broad appeal.
Tom

Opinions can't marginalize people. Opinions don't speak of their own volition. Opinions do not form positions nor communicate them. Opinions ARE the positions. Opinions ARE the communication.

People marginalize people.

You are marginalizing. It's a behavior, and one that can generally only be done by a second party.

Except that the "second party", marginalizing Sanders, is the American electorate, not me. As I've said, over and over, I like his policy proposals.

But he's never won an election outside Vermont. As a white male liberal, winning an election in tiny, homogenously white liberal, Vermont isn't particularly impressive. Then, he couldn't keep control over a rally, an extremist group ran over him. If he can't manage a rally of supporters, how can he manage The Swamp?

Sorry, but I didn't marginalize Sanders. He is just plain marginal. I'm pointing it out, that's all.
Tom

No. The person doing it right now, immediately, in this thread, is you.

 

[TomC]

Except that the "second party", marginalizing Sanders, is the American electorate, not me. As I've said, over and over, I like his policy proposals.

But he's never won an election outside Vermont. As a white male liberal, winning an election in tiny, homogenously white liberal, Vermont isn't particularly impressive. Then, he couldn't keep control over a rally, an extremist group ran over him. If he can't manage a rally of supporters, how can he manage The Swamp?

Sorry, but I didn't marginalize Sanders. He is just plain marginal. I'm pointing it out, that's all.
Tom

No. The person doing it right now, immediately, in this thread, is you.

How am I doing it?

Expressing the opinion that Sanders is unelectable and ineffective is fact based opinion.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

People like Sanders doesn't need me to marginalize him. He can do that just fine by himself.

No, he can't. Because marginalization is an imposed act.

He can say what other marginalized people say, but it takes people like you to do the actual marginalization.

Well, now, hang on. Let's think about that. If a generic politician (not saying Sanders is an analog) is a one-trick pony, running on only one thing, haven't they deliberately consigned themselves to a margin without any effort from me? There was that candidate in NY whose platform was, "The Rent is Too Damn High." He marginalized himself.

So I think it is valid to ask if a politician chooses a platform, whether they have chosen something with broad appeal. Or even if the platform ideas have broad appeal, but they choose a slogan or soundbite that focuses too narrowly, they can marginalize themselves. Or if they act badly, or if they fail to show up to campaign in person in a certain area.

It sounds like that is what TomC is proposing. That Sanders had a platform expressed in ways that prevented him from gaining broad support. Now, this is not new, right? Sanders has been in politics for 40+ years. In all that time, when he was a member of the Liberty Union Party, an Independent, the Vermont Progressive Party, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, he has not been able to create particularly large coalitions of elected officials and lead them to positions of strength.

He shares many progressive ideas that I also hold - but he is not a leader. He's a gadfly. He's good at that. He's effective at that. He gets movement from that. Progress. But as a leader - he does not create progress. He would be a GREAT addition to a team that does have leadership, where he can promote a push forward. But he has not demonstrated leadership skills, and the progressive wing has suffered from the confluence of his leadership skill gap and his efforts to occupy positions of leadership.

I do not believe he could have gotten anything done as a president based on his (lack of) record as a party leader. I think he would have been fucking fantastic as a gadfly to and cheerleader for Hillary Clinton. He could have ridden her wave to Universal Health Care for all of us. But he wanted to fight for the leadership role and his (my) goals suffered.

My 2¢

 

[TomC]

People like Sanders doesn't need me to marginalize him. He can do that just fine by himself.

No, he can't. Because marginalization is an imposed act.

He can say what other marginalized people say, but it takes people like you to do the actual marginalization.

Well, now, hang on. Let's think about that. If a generic politician (not saying Sanders is an analog) is a one-trick pony, running on only one thing, haven't they deliberately consigned themselves to a margin without any effort from me? There was that candidate in NY whose platform was, "The Rent is Too Damn High." He marginalized himself.

So I think it is valid to ask if a politician chooses a platform, whether they have chosen something with broad appeal. Or even if the platform ideas have broad appeal, but they choose a slogan or soundbite that focuses too narrowly, they can marginalize themselves. Or if they act badly, or if they fail to show up to campaign in person in a certain area.

It sounds like that is what TomC is proposing. That Sanders had a platform expressed in ways that prevented him from gaining broad support. Now, this is not new, right? Sanders has been in politics for 40+ years. In all that time, when he was a member of the Liberty Union Party, an Independent, the Vermont Progressive Party, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, he has not been able to create particularly large coalitions of elected officials and lead them to positions of strength.

He shares many progressive ideas that I also hold - but he is not a leader. He's a gadfly. He's good at that. He's effective at that. He gets movement from that. Progress. But as a leader - he does not create progress. He would be a GREAT addition to a team that does have leadership, where he can promote a push forward. But he has not demonstrated leadership skills, and the progressive wing has suffered from the confluence of his leadership skill gap and his efforts to occupy positions of leadership.

I do not believe he could have gotten anything done as a president based on his (lack of) record as a party leader. I think he would have been fucking fantastic as a gadfly to and cheerleader for Hillary Clinton. He could have ridden her wave to Universal Health Care for all of us. But he wanted to fight for the leadership role and his (my) goals suffered.

My 2¢

You go girl.

You expressed what I've been trying to say very well.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

It depends.

If you lived in a swing state you had to practice 'lesser of two evil' voting. That still makes Biden an evil.

If you don't live in a swing state then there is no reason to vote for that horrible candidate, or a worse candidate like Hillary.

You know what you get if you vote for the lesser of two evils? Less evil.

Not if you live in a non-swing state, you don't. Voting for the lesser evil doesn't reduce by even a smidgen the amount of evil you get.

 

[Jarhyn]

People like Sanders doesn't need me to marginalize him. He can do that just fine by himself.

No, he can't. Because marginalization is an imposed act.

He can say what other marginalized people say, but it takes people like you to do the actual marginalization.

Well, now, hang on. Let's think about that. If a generic politician (not saying Sanders is an analog) is a one-trick pony, running on only one thing, haven't they deliberately consigned themselves to a margin without any effort from me? There was that candidate in NY whose platform was, "The Rent is Too Damn High." He marginalized himself.

So I think it is valid to ask if a politician chooses a platform, whether they have chosen something with broad appeal. Or even if the platform ideas have broad appeal, but they choose a slogan or soundbite that focuses too narrowly, they can marginalize themselves. Or if they act badly, or if they fail to show up to campaign in person in a certain area.

It sounds like that is what TomC is proposing. That Sanders had a platform expressed in ways that prevented him from gaining broad support. Now, this is not new, right? Sanders has been in politics for 40+ years. In all that time, when he was a member of the Liberty Union Party, an Independent, the Vermont Progressive Party, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, he has not been able to create particularly large coalitions of elected officials and lead them to positions of strength.

He shares many progressive ideas that I also hold - but he is not a leader. He's a gadfly. He's good at that. He's effective at that. He gets movement from that. Progress. But as a leader - he does not create progress. He would be a GREAT addition to a team that does have leadership, where he can promote a push forward. But he has not demonstrated leadership skills, and the progressive wing has suffered from the confluence of his leadership skill gap and his efforts to occupy positions of leadership.

I do not believe he could have gotten anything done as a president based on his (lack of) record as a party leader. I think he would have been fucking fantastic as a gadfly to and cheerleader for Hillary Clinton. He could have ridden her wave to Universal Health Care for all of us. But he wanted to fight for the leadership role and his (my) goals suffered.

My 2¢

They have perhaps made marginalization easy, but it doesn't matter if the ball is a million miles from the hole or two millimeters, it still takes an external impulse to put it there, and categorize it as marginal. It's an act of arbitration to place it there, and unless someone explicitly arbitrated themselves as marginal they aren't doing that.

Marginality is the effect of a relationship created by a second party declaration.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you vote for Clinton?
Tom

My political teacher is Noam Chomsky.

So figure it out.

What was his position? (Hint: Lesser of Two Evil voting in swing states)

Is that a "Yes, I voted for Clinton"?
Or a "No, I voted for Trump"?
Tom

You realize there were 4 candidates on the ballot?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It depends.

If you lived in a swing state you had to practice 'lesser of two evil' voting. That still makes Biden an evil.

If you don't live in a swing state then there is no reason to vote for that horrible candidate, or a worse candidate like Hillary.

You know what you get if you vote for the lesser of two evils? Less evil.

And saying Biden is evil is just ridiculous.

I don't think anybody that isn't at least somewhat evil can win high office.

 

[untermensche]

It depends.

If you lived in a swing state you had to practice 'lesser of two evil' voting. That still makes Biden an evil.

If you don't live in a swing state then there is no reason to vote for that horrible candidate, or a worse candidate like Hillary.

You know what you get if you vote for the lesser of two evils? Less evil.

So you would prefer MORE evil?

And saying Biden is evil is just ridiculous.

To those who don't read Chomsky and care about humanity maybe.

 

[TomC]

Is that a "Yes, I voted for Clinton"?
Or a "No, I voted for Trump"?
Tom

You realize there were 4 candidates on the ballot?

Yes.
I also realize that due to our rigged system there were three options.
Clinton, Trump, and "whoever wins". Right up until election night "whoever wins" looked strongly like it would be a Clinton vote.

"Whoever wins" turned out to be Trump votes. Oops, at least for people who wanted to protect RvW. There were the Clinton votes and the Trump votes that determined the EC decision.
Like it or not.
Tom