What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Democrats need to wake up! Update: And near the last second, THEY HAVE (1 Viewer)

fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I think you are right if the Presidential nominee gets to choose his or her running mate.  But @KiddLattimer specified that the ticket would be from a "split convention."  In that scenario, the nominee might have to team up with one of the other candidates with a bunch of delegates just to get the nomination in the first place.
Click to expand...
Sorry to disappoint all the political junkies who pray every night that they will one day get to see a brokered convention, but such a scenario would be an absolute disaster for the party. Can't find the link, but I think it was Ed Kilgore who wrote a piece in 2016 explaining how such a convention would actually work from a logistical point of view. Basically, it would take what has traditionally been a four-day infomercial and turn it into a divisive spectacle with no one really in charge and inevitable bruised feelings once a winner was declared.

What that means is this: Once a plurality leader emerges, there will be tremendous pressure for everyone to get on board with that person. Let's say you're a moderate who's incredibly skeptical of Bernie's chances. In what might otherwise be a 50/50 election, you think Bernie only has a 35% chance to win. But if you support a contested convention, with the goal of wresting the nomination away from him and giving it to Biden or Bloomberg, you're going to royally tick off all the Bernie supporters, and ensure that the eventual nominee's chances are way south of 35%.

Trump 2016 offers a perfect example. Lots of GOP power brokers assumed he was a goner. But they also recognized he was still their best bet relative to some cockamamie plot to unbind the delegates and engineer a Ted Cruz nomination. And they were right.

What's more, such a scenario is even less likely this year, when the entire party recognizes that the country faces an existential threat in Trump (even moreso than in 2016, when Trump was seen as a sure loser). The pressure to unify well in advance of the convention will be overwhelming.

 
timschochet said:
Then there’s the behavior of the Bernie supporters in 2016- 15-20% of them voted for Trump. Wilson calls them arsonists and I think that’s pretty accurate. Many others just stayed home. Some of the celebrities stated publicly that there would be no difference between Trump and Hillary- that includes Susan Sarandon who said that loudly outside of the convention to every tv camera she could find. Wonder if she still feels that way? 
Click to expand...
Some important context here is that Sanders supporters voted for Hillary at the same rate Hillary supporters voted for Obama in 2008. In an election decided by 70k votes it’s easy to pin the loss on a number of groups, but Sanders supporters were not especially sore losers.

 
zftcg said:
Not weighing into the "socialism" semantic debate, but one of my biggest pet peeves is people who complain about "I could care less". Hey, schmedrick, you're not actually confused when you hear that, because there is literally only one meaning to that phrase, and everyone knows it. You're just being super-pedantic in order to try to show off your supposed intelligence.

The point of language isn't to slavishly follow rules. The point is to be understood. Unless someone's language is confusing, I don't wanna hear any complaints about it.

[OK, rant over. Back to our regularly scheduled discussion.]
Click to expand...


I reckon this is going to make you hate me but I have to disagree on this one. Of course I know what a person means when they say "I could care less." But its like nails on a chalkboard to me because it doesn't make any sense. They are literally saying something that is the opposite of what they are trying to convey.

Unless the person is a good friend, I won't correct them. But its very grating to hear someone say something that is nonsensical. 

 
zftcg said:
Sorry to disappoint all the political junkies who pray every night that they will one day get to see a brokered convention, but such a scenario would be an absolute disaster for the party. Can't find the link, but I think it was Ed Kilgore who wrote a piece in 2016 explaining how such a convention would actually work from a logistical point of view. Basically, it would take what has traditionally been a four-day infomercial and turn it into a divisive spectacle with no one really in charge and inevitable bruised feelings once a winner was declared.

What that means is this: Once a plurality leader emerges, there will be tremendous pressure for everyone to get on board with that person. Let's say you're a moderate who's incredibly skeptical of Bernie's chances. In what might otherwise be a 50/50 election, you think Bernie only has a 35% chance to win. But if you support a contested convention, with the goal of wresting the nomination away from him and giving it to Biden or Bloomberg, you're going to royally tick off all the Bernie supporters, and ensure that the eventual nominee's chances are way south of 35%.

Trump 2016 offers a perfect example. Lots of GOP power brokers assumed he was a goner. But they also recognized he was still their best bet relative to some cockamamie plot to unbind the delegates and engineer a Ted Cruz nomination. And they were right.

What's more, such a scenario is even less likely this year, when the entire party recognizes that the country faces an existential threat in Trump (even moreso than in 2016, when Trump was seen as a sure loser). The pressure to unify well in advance of the convention will be overwhelming.
Click to expand...
I'm not completely convinced.  Hillary's 4 day infomercial was slickly produced, professional quality, had some engaging speakers, and nobody cared.  I think people would actually watch a contested convention.  I don't know for sure that eyeballs = votes, but I'm not entirely convinced that having a genuinely interesting convention with an outcome in doubt would doom the party.

 
whoknew said:
I reckon this is going to make you hate me but I have to disagree on this one. Of course I know what a person means when they say "I could care less." But its like nails on a chalkboard to me because it doesn't make any sense. They are literally saying something that is the opposite of what they are trying to convey.
Click to expand...
Is it like that for you every time someone is sarcastic?   That's no way to live. 

 
whoknew said:
I reckon this is going to make you hate me but I have to disagree on this one. Of course I know what a person means when they say "I could care less." But its like nails on a chalkboard to me because it doesn't make any sense. They are literally saying something that is the opposite of what they are trying to convey.

Unless the person is a good friend, I won't correct them. But its very grating to hear someone say something that is nonsensical. 
Click to expand...
Nah, I don't hate you. It's not the belief that bothers me, it's the smarmy way people always explain it, like "I'm going to let you in on a little secret that only I know." Did you ever have one of those math teachers (and they were always math teachers) who would say, "Can you go to the bathroom? I sure hope you are capable of doing so. The question is may you?" It's the exact same tone.

BTW, if it bothers you so much, just think of it as sarcasm. Does it bother you if someone says, "Fat chance"? Because that also means the exact opposite of what it sounds like. 

OK, rant really over this time.

 
BladeRunner said:
Try "Doesn't Work".

That's funny that you imply that's ALL that Sanders wants to do.  Socialists don't stop until they have all of your money.  
Click to expand...
I'm not implying anything I'm just trying to understand your point of view.  I agree with the views that Bernie espouses.  You seem to think that there's also un underlying unstated agenda to "democratic socialists" that they don't speak openly about it.  I don't have a secret unstated agenda, I just want single payer health care and government subsidized child care and stuff like that.  If calling myself a democratic socialist implies I want something else, I want to use a different term that is more appropriate.  What is that term?

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I'm not implying anything I'm just trying to understand your point of view.  I agree with the views that Bernie espouses.  You seem to think that there's also un underlying unstated agenda to "democratic socialists" that they don't speak openly about it.  I don't have a secret unstated agenda, I just want single payer health care and government subsidized child care and stuff like that.  If calling myself a democratic socialist implies I want something else, I want to use a different term that is more appropriate.  What is that term?
Click to expand...
Again, Democratic Socialism is not a thing.  🙄

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I'm not implying anything I'm just trying to understand your point of view.  I agree with the views that Bernie espouses.  You seem to think that there's also un underlying unstated agenda to "democratic socialists" that they don't speak openly about it.  I don't have a secret unstated agenda, I just want single payer health care and government subsidized child care and stuff like that.  If calling myself a democratic socialist implies I want something else, I want to use a different term that is more appropriate.  What is that term?
Click to expand...
Compassionate capitalist?

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I'm not implying anything I'm just trying to understand your point of view.  I agree with the views that Bernie espouses.  You seem to think that there's also un underlying unstated agenda to "democratic socialists" that they don't speak openly about it.  I don't have a secret unstated agenda, I just want single payer health care and government subsidized child care and stuff like that.  If calling myself a democratic socialist implies I want something else, I want to use a different term that is more appropriate.  What is that term?
Click to expand...
"Social Democracy" is not to be confused with "Democratic Socialism." I think you want the first one.

You might also want the Nordic model.

 
BladeRunner said:
That's exactly what's being proposed in theory!

😁
Click to expand...
No, it's not.  Weren't you the one getting upset by hyperbole?

When it comes to military spending I often hear that it creates jobs as a justification.  Why do think the government providing daycare services for working families, expanding our education system, or guaranteeing healthcare to all citizens would not do the same?  

The Republicans' own healthcare study showed universal healthcare would save us money.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
parasaurolophus said:
Democratic socialism and socialism both call for public ownership of the means of production. 

Socialism does not call for an authoritarian form of government. Communism does. 

Telling people that democratic socialism and socialism are very different is basically is misleading. Especially when the most common resources to look up the terms and the website for the DSOA basically list the definitions as almost identical. 

The better explanation or counter argument to people bringing up venezuela or ussr would be to point out how those countries dont have collective ownership, not to say that socialism and democratic socialism are very different. 
Click to expand...
Am I to assume then that you reject Bernie referring to himself as any type of socialist as well as reject the label when applied to the proposals of Bernie, Liz, AOC etc?  :oldunsure:  
Click to expand...
Bump....it seems like we're already down the "it's a transcript / not a transcript" rabbit hole with others in this thread, but you seem even keeled...just wanted to see if you agreed and we're on the same page here.  In your opinion, is it appropriate that Bernie is even labeling himself as he is given the definitions of the words.  FWIW, I agree that it's not appropriate as it's not really socialism is defined.

 
The Commish said:
Bump....it seems like we're already down the "it's a transcript / not a transcript" rabbit hole with others in this thread, but you seem even keeled...just wanted to see if you agreed and we're on the same page here.  In your opinion, is it appropriate that Bernie is even labeling himself as he is given the definitions of the words.  FWIW, I agree that it's not appropriate as it's not really socialism is defined.
Click to expand...
I apologize, i missed your post somehow. 

I reject it as a criticism for everybody that doesnt refer to themself as a socialist. 

But for Bernie, AOC, and Tlaib they declare it. They are adults. They know the darn well the meaning of the word there is a reason they picked it and have doubled down on it. 

AOC and Tlaib are even card carrying members of DSA. 

But if we want to get more specific i reject it as a criticism of things like medicare for all, food stamps, and minimum wages(to a point)

I do not reject it as a criticism of things like you dont make a billion dollars, you take a billion dollars...so lets wealth tax the heck out of you. 

 
Looks like many Democrats are in fact waking up. 

Klobuchar is surging. Bloomberg has picked up heavy black support. Things are starting to happen. 

 
timschochet said:
Looks like many Democrats are in fact waking up. 

Klobuchar is surging. Bloomberg has picked up heavy black support. Things are starting to happen. 
Click to expand...
In the end this will remind me of when the college all-stars used to play the Super Bowl champion. 

 
JohnnyU said:
In the end this will remind me of when the college all-stars used to play the Super Bowl champion. 
Click to expand...
At the moment each of those all-stars are beating your Super Bowl champion nationally by an average of 8-9 points, and this comes after what was arguably Trump’s best week as President. Not good news for the “champion”. 

 
timschochet said:
At the moment each of those all-stars are beating your Super Bowl champion nationally by an average of 8-9 points, and this comes after what was arguably Trump’s best week as President. Not good news for the “champion”. 
Click to expand...
Hope is a wonderful thing.  I'm glad to see you have that.

 
timschochet said:
At the moment each of those all-stars are beating your Super Bowl champion nationally by an average of 8-9 points, and this comes after what was arguably Trump’s best week as President. Not good news for the “champion”. 
Click to expand...
You've declared about 8 candidates the future president already.  Not sure any of them even have a chance.  

 
JohnnyU said:
In the end this will remind me of when the college all-stars used to play the Super Bowl champion. 
Click to expand...
The economy is doing well and the President should have an approval rating at over 60% but he is such a vindictive, nasty, mean, narcissist jerk his high water mark is about 49%. He just can’t shut up and get out his own way. Man, he survived the impeachment trial, he basically won. Just move on, talk about the good things that you have accomplished. 

I will never forget an elderly religious woman I visited with at a nursing home a couple years ago who was very pro-life who said she just couldn’t vote for Trump. “She said I vote the person not the policy”

 
Cutting the EPA by 25% during a period of dangerous climate change, cutting the CDC during a pandemic, taking money from Medicare, cutting public education and still expanding the national debt unless impossible economic growth happens.This should write itself for Democrats, but they don’t seem to have a grasp on what to do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus said:
The Commish said:
Bump....it seems like we're already down the "it's a transcript / not a transcript" rabbit hole with others in this thread, but you seem even keeled...just wanted to see if you agreed and we're on the same page here.  In your opinion, is it appropriate that Bernie is even labeling himself as he is given the definitions of the words.  FWIW, I agree that it's not appropriate as it's not really socialism is defined.
Click to expand...
I apologize, i missed your post somehow. 

I reject it as a criticism for everybody that doesnt refer to themself as a socialist. 

But for Bernie, AOC, and Tlaib they declare it. They are adults. They know the darn well the meaning of the word there is a reason they picked it and have doubled down on it. 

AOC and Tlaib are even card carrying members of DSA. 

But if we want to get more specific i reject it as a criticism of things like medicare for all, food stamps, and minimum wages(to a point)

I do not reject it as a criticism of things like you dont make a billion dollars, you take a billion dollars...so lets wealth tax the heck out of you. 
Click to expand...
Fair enough....this is the rub you will continually run into.  I can't speak specifically to anyone other than Bernie though, but he's defined the term outside your stricter definitions.  I'm good with your definition, but you're going to have huge issues in communication here if you don't also push back on him identifying himself as such if the distinction isn't consistent.  I tend to agree with you over all these issues.  His proposals around M4A, food stamps, expanding public education etc AREN'T socialist.  It's probably best to make that clear in each post as well.  My :2cents:  

 
Ilov80s said:
Cutting the EPA by 25% during a period of dangerous climate change, cutting the CDC during a pandemic, taking money from Medicare, cutting public education and still expanding the national debt unless impossible economic growth happens.This should write itself for Democrats, but they don’t seem to have a grasp on what to do.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

They are terrible at politics.....I don't know how that's possible.

 
JohnnyU said:
Where did that math get you in 2016?
Click to expand...
Here’s a bit of math for you regarding 2016 and today: there are 20,000 less registered Republicans in New Hampshire than in 2016. This follows a pattern in  nearly every other state: as Trump’s hold on the party increases, the overall number of Republicans shrink. Not a good sign for November. 

 
timschochet said:
The party is still shrinking. Sorry about that but it’s your fault. You chose Trump. Now you’ll have to live with being irrelevant for decades. 
Click to expand...
Irrelevant? I wake up each day thankful for being alive. I don’t let politics consume my life like you do. And by the way, before you predict the demise of the Republican party, you may want to reflect on the train wreck going on with your party. You even started a thread about it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Fair enough....this is the rub you will continually run into.  I can't speak specifically to anyone other than Bernie though, but he's defined the term outside your stricter definitions.  I'm good with your definition, but you're going to have huge issues in communication here if you don't also push back on him identifying himself as such if the distinction isn't consistent.  I tend to agree with you over all these issues.  His proposals around M4A, food stamps, expanding public education etc AREN'T socialist.  It's probably best to make that clear in each post as well.  My :2cents:  
Click to expand...
Damage control and talking out of both sides of his mouth. 

It isnt like Bernie is so unique that he needs his own newly defined label. I am waiting for people to start branding him as a democratic social independent. Well except on tuesdays when he is just a democrat. 

He picked democratic socialist for a reason. He tweets support for pretty much every labor union dispute that is active. I actually stopped following him on twitter because i got sick of seeing the we stand with joe bob's custodial workers and wont poop in any toilets they service until ownership agrees to give them a fair share of the profits! tweets

Not saying that labor union support makes somebody a socialist, but his super passionate pleas about pretty much every union ever and his loathing of the uber wealthy to me show his true colors and make his choice of labeling ring true not the post criticism redefining i am seeing. 

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
You've declared about 8 candidates the future president already.  Not sure any of them even have a chance.  
Click to expand...
The democrats have decided that they will use the baseball strategy of sending out a starting pitcher but after just an inning or so they will rotate in relievers swapping back and forth from left wingers to centrists to keep them and everything else fresh.   

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Democrats need to wake the hell up
6 7 8
Replies
397
Views
9K
John123
J
Jackstraw
Republicans will demand cuts to SS and medicare or crash the economy
2
Replies
93
Views
3K
The Commish
The Commish
timschochet
Democrats behaving stupidly again…
2 3
Replies
119
Views
3K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top