U.S. Uncut reports:
A Super PAC headed by a longtime Clinton operative is spending $1 million to hire online trolls to “correct” Bernie Sanders’ supporters on social media.
Correct The Record (CTR), which is operated by Clinton attack dog and new owner of Blue Nation Review David Brock, launched a new initiative this week called “Barrier Breakers 2016” for the purpose of debating supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders — or “Bernie Bros,” as they’re referred to in Correct the Record’s press official release — on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and other social media platforms.
The “Barrier Breakers” will also publicly thank Hillary Clinton’s superdelegates and fans for supporting her campaign. The paid trolls are professional communicators, coming from public relations and media backgrounds.
“The task force staff’s backgrounds are as diverse as the community they will be engaging with and include former reporters, bloggers, public affairs specialists, designers, Ready for Hillary alumni, and Hillary super fans who have led groups similar to those with which the task force will organize,” CTR stated.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by b0ru on Friday April 22 2016, @12:36PM
When I read these articles, I can't tell if it's the plot of a new sitcom or a weekly summary of US political affairs...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @02:39PM
It's the new hit reality TV show, The Candidate.
Will Ted Cruz make it to the next round? Yesterday, we watched our R candidates finally deal with the North Carolina bathroom law. The Donald surprised everybody, and Cruz promptly put his foot so far in his mouth that he now looks like a klein bottle.
Today we're asking the audience what they think. Ms. Jenner?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @12:41PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfninEKVIAA8vhp.jpg [twimg.com]
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Friday April 22 2016, @01:06PM
If it's not a solution, at least looking at a lovely young lady is a pleasant distraction.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @01:36PM
https://twitter.com/nanavisitor [twitter.com]
https://twitter.com/NanaVisitor/status/718854790042628096 [twitter.com]
How ironic.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday April 22 2016, @01:21PM
Possibly even if it's the actors too, come to that...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday April 22 2016, @01:37PM
Oh great, a man willing to fabricate evidence to start a war and a religious nutbag.
Definitely haven't had enough of those lately.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday April 22 2016, @02:31PM
Oh great, a man willing to fabricate evidence to start a war and a religious nutbag.
Well, Kira's religion was provably true, and which episode had Sisko fabricating evidence to start a war? It's been a long time since I've seen DS9.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Friday April 22 2016, @02:46PM
"In the Pale Moonlight"
DS9, Episode 6x19
Production number: 40510-543
First aired: 15 April 1998
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday April 22 2016, @05:45PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-YyL7X4CWw [youtube.com]
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday April 23 2016, @01:46PM
Thanks. They're all on my server, will have to watch that today.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday April 22 2016, @05:18PM
Well I voted for Darmok [kshmusings.com].
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday April 22 2016, @08:07PM
My sig tells you my preference for the general election, but if they don't run a candidate I'll vote for Cthulu, because why support the lesser evil?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 22 2016, @12:42PM
So, what exactly is the going rate to troll Sanders supporters? I mean I wouldn't mind getting a little bit of compensation for something that's fun to begin with.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Friday April 22 2016, @03:17PM
Unfortunately, the trolling activity will be outsourced to China, which has an outstanding tradition in the field, and a rate of 0.50$/reply to trolling post (yes, they used to pay for the trolling post, then they discovered that paying for the reply is more evil, and they went for it).
The only problem with this is the spelling, which Chinese cannot mess up enough compared to the average 'Murican.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday April 22 2016, @06:48PM
In Soviet China, the Troll trolls you!
(Seriously, you get what you pay for! Do not let this happen to you or your organization! A-Team Online Reputation Remediation Professionals can offer you the very best in Trolls, sockpuppets, astroturf, and twitter followers, all of whom are competent native English speakers and familiar with all Internet memes. Call to day for Pricing! 1-800-WEA-RGOOD. This is not a paid advertisement. No warranty, expressed, implied, or tacitly suggested. Your mileage may vary. Success rates for incorrigible assholes are often negative. UC Davis need not apply. )
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 22 2016, @04:15PM
We Sandersites are voting for him because we want to do this peacefully and bloodlessly. You shit on us enough, you tell the modern FDR to go to hell, and we can do this the 1789 way too, if that's what you want so badly. Don't mistake a desire for lack of bloodshed for weakness; as it is said "The wise fear three things: a night without a moon, the sea in a storm, and the anger of a gentle man."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @05:21PM
The 1789 way—so you're threatening a constitutional convention. I doubt you have the clout to pull it off.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @06:52PM
She may not have the clout as a pseudo-anonymous Soylentil.
However, more and more of us are watching the "lizard people" (no, I don't actually think there are lizard people from the Draco constellation hidden between the 3rd and 4th dimensions) dismantle this country piece by piece. Full disclaimer: Sanders supporter here, and I've decided that if I don't get Sanders in the general election, I may never be a Trump "supporter," but damn it, I do not vote for lizard people. I for one welcome our alien toupee overlords! They're going to make the 3rd dimension great again!
If the Rs don't want Trump, then it needs to be Kasich. I'll still abstain, mind you, but the polling data says that Kasich is the only R that can beat Clinton. Now, you're probably thinking, hold on AC, that same polling data says Trump can't beat Clinton, either. And isn't Trump a lizard person?
Well, I once read an article about Trump that sounded like a supervillian origin story. The reason Trump is running (assuming he's not a lizard person and part of the Clinton coronation) is because the lizard people pissed him off. Half of what he says is made out of whole cloth, and the other half is only half true, but I don't care. I don't need to carry my birth certificate around with me if nature calls while I'm in Trump Tower. I can leave it in the lockbox at home. And he seems just as pissed at the lizard people as I am.
Can Trump win the general election? That's up in the air as far as I can tell. A few weeks ago I would have just spouted off the poll numbers that show him losing to both Sanders and Clinton. And even though I sort of liked him, I was just waiting for him to come out of the closet as an Apache attack copter. My how things change. An honest senator from Vermont with unshakable principals is simply not prepared to fight the lizard people. He didn't understand what you're up against when you challenge the lizard people. An MLK Jr caption that made its way though the series of tubes last week sums it up. Sanders was active in the civil rights movement. Now a Goldwater Girl is the civil rights candidate, and much I'm sure to his amazement--this happens to everybody who gets in the sights of the SJWs however--Sanders is now the old white guy from Vermont who's shunned by black "leaders." (Wake up, folks with darker skin! The matrix has you! But that's a rant for another time.)
GP is right on. We want to work as much as possible within the system to do this peaceably and bloodlessly. Fortunately, we have a few different kinds of ballot boxes to try before we move on to the final box. (And it's not the ammo box. It's more like the throngs of hungry, broken, unemployed, scared, and near homeless and actual homeless box. And over a long enough time scale, even though the results aren't always pretty, this box practically opens itself when a civilization reaches the breaking point.) We're trying to use the primary ballot box so that maybe we can have an honest Trump vs. Sanders general election. The lizard people control that box. If somehow Trump or Sanders wind up in the general election, we'll use the general election ballot box. Finally, we will ask our local representatives in our state governments get out the big guns of the ballot boxes: an Article 5 Convention.
(If you're wondering, the lizard people have already destroyed the classic soap box and used mass hypnosis to make the jury box invisible to the people. Am I sure I don't actually believe in lizard people from Draco? Meh.)
So far since 1789, an Article 5 Convention has never happened because each and every time one is about to happen, congress pulls their heads out of the asses and listens to the people. The last thing a congress critter wants is to be shown up by a bunch of pesky Several States.
The desire to end alcohol prohibition nearly resulted in an Article 5 Convention. At the last minute, Congress ratified an amendment repealing it.
See any similarities here? Except this time it's not just one issue. Descheduling cannabis or shutting down the DEA entirely would be a good first step. It's not going to fix the underlying problem. This time, we're up on the internet using the ultimate weapon we have against the lizard people: informed discussion. Why do you think the lizard people want to shut down the internet so badly? They broke our soap box, so we built a new one (stronger, better, faster, we have the technology! etc). Now they're trying to break it again. There are no "free speech" zones on the internet. There may be hugboxes like Twitter and Reddit or whatever, but there will always be sites like Soylent, because we wish it.
This time, we've had a chance to really educate ourselves. First-past-the-post is a terrible, mathematically flawed system. What does the lizard people controlled media wring their hands about and stir shit up about? The electoral college of all fucking things. The most meaningless, stupid, pedestrian, "maybe was a good idea before the telegraph existed but not anymore" part of how our political process works.
Those are just two issues among many more. Congress is going to have a very busy time staving off the Article 5 Convention this time.
I have no idea how credible this source is, but, well, my code is almost done "compiling!" Here is a good start [newsmax.com] (skimmed it and seems accurate enough) if you're interested in educating yourself about how close we really are coming to having an historic and unprecedented Article 5 Convention.
(I suppose depending on how you view it, unprecedented at least since 1789, but technically it was the Articles of Confederation that allowed the Constitutional Convention iirc. I've heard arguments that the Articles of Confederation are technically still in effect, but these are people who think uttering the magick words "citizen of $state" instead of "u.s. citizen" when describing themselves somehow causes the lizard people to double check the rule book and admit this is a valid loophole that prevents you from needing to pay taxes. I'm not certain real life works that way.)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @08:27PM
Sanders is one of the Lizard people's minions. He's one of the ((chosen tribe)), just like Marx was, and 80% of the heads of the Bolshevik revolution were (during which 12 to 20 million Christians were killed, starved to death, or worked to death in the gulag). Merkel is one of their minions too, a "former" communist.
You're on the right track need to learn more about the echoes of ((socialism)).
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 22 2016, @10:30PM
No he isn't you stupid motherfucker. You would not recognize the guy if he slapped you across your fat idiot face and left a huge red handprint on it. Nor do you understand, or know the first thing about, his actual policies. Go crawl back under whatever rock you came from and die, will you?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday April 23 2016, @03:28AM
GP here. Eh, fair enough. I just want things to go back to how they were 7-ish years ago. There were Apache attack copters here and there, but they had no political voice. Now they do. I'm certain our friendly neighborhood Apache attack copter here means no harm unlike many of the Apache attack copters I've come across.
I'd like to always say I admire your exuberance! You've made me ruin many a keyboard by snorting tea all over the place with your cutting honesty! I'm certain we're posting from two different parallel realities. This is how things are going in the mirror universe.
I remember the Top Gear incident. It was interesting. When I drove truck, I never felt any particular threat when I went through the South. They're good people down there by and large, and boy howdy do they know how to fix up breakfast! Then again, I never did anything to provoke them.... At that time in my life, it also wasn't apparent to me how well my woman suit turned out....
I just saw a photograph of a genderfuck lumberjack. I honestly have no idea whether I should laugh because it's clearly a reference to the Monty Python skit or if I should cry because this is the perception of my demographic today. No, not even the lumberjack who's ok. My demographic is now perceived as some guy with man boobs in a BSDM outfit. I imagine this is how people with darker skin feel when confronted with "bix nood."
I guess in total fairness, I may be a lizard person. My woman suit turned out quite well. I liked it when the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival kept the womyn-born-womyn happy. I liked it before ciswomen with short hair had to worry about being violently assaulted after being mistaken as one of my demographic. You've said you don't fit that description so maybe the bathroom police haven't been an issue for you. And who am I kidding? I get turned away from the men's room and insist on using it anyway! So yes, I sexually identify as a human being instead of a lizard person, but I guess I cannot deny that under my woman suit (even though I don't think I can take it off at this point; it seems to have merged with my own lizard physiology... never thought I'd have a fully functional mammalian body part but that's probably TMI) I am a lizard person.
Or something.
We're not electing a dictator. I'm making a compromise. Trump is a modern day P. T. Barnum. Of course I wouldn't recognize his policies. I read what's on his website. I've listened to some of what he has to say. I don't think he has any policies. The Apache attack copters seem to like him, but I imagine that Cruz may find a new source of supporters from that demographic.
But I mean, hey, if I don't have to reveal my lizard person birth certificate to take a piss if I ever find myself in Trump Tower, that's good enough for me. Nobody cares in Trump Tower if I actually have a cloaca under the woman suit. It's interesting to think about. I may even feel safe using the women's room at Trump Tower since I won't have to worry about any womyn-born-womyn hunnies requesting to have me violently ejected by a white knight (or Apache attack copter) who's three times my size taken seriously. All this because I'm not a mammal and cannot gestate my young inside my body. That's why I use the men's room no matter how many men it makes uncomfortable. I'm safer there. I've said before, I'm a small, tiny person. I have small hands like Trump! If a womyn-born-womyn asked an Apache attack copter or white knight to drag me through a public place by my bra, what would I do? Be humiliated. Make a suicide attempt from the sheer emotional trauma I guess. Everybody has dreams where they're inexplicably naked in public. Dreams can't hurt me, but white knights and Apache attack copters can. I am what I am. Biology is messy. I can handle another scar or two. I couldn't handle getting another scar or two that way. Trump openly questions the narrative of the man in the dress who just wants to go into the women's room to swing his dick around. I fundamentally do not trust Clinton and never will, not on this matter, not on any matter. Clinton is a lizard person through and through and not a human sympathizer like me.
...once I had a dream that I had learned Dutch German and was almost ready to be initiated into an Amish community not far from here. I'd stay with the Yoders at first, then if during Rumspringa I found a young man and things took off, I'd be able to start a family of my own. However, they ultimately did not let me in because I'm a lizard person/trans woman/whatever...
(My being a lizard person is a metaphor, people. I mean to express how deeply I've been othered, mostly by cisgendered women, feminists, MRAs, and Protestants in particular. However, I also can't stop being serious about Clinton being a lizard person! From the Draco constellation! From their hiding place between the 3rd and 4th dimension! Eh, make of it what you will. I'm clearly using the lizard people thing in two directly contradictory ways.)
Naturally, if Trump gets into the general election, I'll be taking a deeper look. Right now, Trump's made a believer out of me. I've no intention to send him money like I did Sanders, and I already used my vote on Sanders. The candidates are all saying what they think will get them the most votes (except for Sanders, naturally, which is why I wish him to win). Trump is no exception there. Where Trump is an exception is that he has gambled that saying that Trump Tower has no bathroom police will get him more votes than it will lose to lyin' klein bottle-shaped Ted.
I continue to wish to vote for Sanders again. A+++++. Would definitely vote again. If the R team picks anybody other than Trump, meh, whatever then. I'll continue throwing the Libertarians a participation vote or just abstain all together.
(Mods, as always, mod as appropriate. Never be afraid to mod me to -1. This UID has plenty of karma to burn. This is Soylent, not a hugbox. Disclaimer: Let the logs show I did not mod GP up. I do feel the way I posted as AC, however. Mod GP down if you want. I'm not exactly trying to go for top score here. I already hit top score on this UID a few times. I'd like to think in the beginning at least, I earned it.)
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday April 23 2016, @03:40AM
BSDM
I swear that was BDSM when I hit preview! I blame the lizard people! It's a conspiracy! Either that or I did too much LDS in the sixties... easy as pie.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 23 2016, @04:29AM
...are you SERIOUSLY going to base your fucking vote on "Well the guy's an utter madman but my pwecious fee-fees won't be hurt if I have to take a leak in his corporate complex?"
Fuck, I hate, hate, HATE how the cynical right wing uses this bathroom bill bullshit to stir up the base and keep it distracted from their real crimes. If you're gonna waste a vote, write in for Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination (which I suspect he will not; Clinton has bought and paid for her presidency). Don't you fucking DARE give ANY GOP candidate a vote, ever, anywhere. They are a bunch of theocratic whackaloons, and yes I am including Trump in this if for no other reason than that he seems to think he himself is God.
I fucking hate Hillary, but if she steals the nomination she has my vote if only so that someone like Cruz or Kasich can't place Supreme Court nominees. Please, please, think of the larger picture here! A bad SCOTUS pick can poison the nation for decades on end!
And forget the stupid TERFs; they're the Westboro Baptist Church of feminism. Nearly all of us are completely trans-inclusive, and the ones I consider my peers are also supportive of *male* victims of gendered violence, because holy shit do men get some awful things done to them, sometimes even by women. Please stop comparing all feminists, and especially me, to the ridiculous "spell it with a Y" cultural and historical illiterates.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday April 23 2016, @05:09AM
...are you SERIOUSLY going to base your fucking vote on "Well the guy's an utter madman but my pwecious fee-fees won't be hurt if I have to take a leak in his corporate complex?"
Yep. Seriously. I don't think you understand what it's like to have an Apache attack copter swoop down on you. I swear those fucking things have cloaking devices. I've said before I'm also considering buying a firearm and getting a concealed carry permit. These people are a fucking *lethal threat* to me, and they're even more of a fucking *lethal threat* to people I care about. I have no intention of scraping the brains of somebody I care about from the wall of a female restroom because they just weren't passing well that day. They can arrest me for 3rd degree murder of an Apache attack copter before I let that happen. They can charge me with 1st degree murder for all I care. I just wish my state were open carry so the Apache attack copters might think twice about roughing up and using potentially lethal force again somebody I care about who's using the women's room.
I can't tell you how worried fucking sick I get every time somebody I care about that I'm concerned isn't passing well on that day needs to use the restroom. I feel it in the pit of my stomach.
However, I will think about this some more. Maybe I'll just write in lizard people. Maybe I'll write in Sanders.
And yeah, the TERFs are all over the place here in the mirror universe, say sorry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @10:54PM
Which politicians aren't lizards or in the control of them?
Btw, Merkel seems currently hell bent on making Germany a 3rd world theocratic hellhole.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday April 22 2016, @08:49PM
It may not matter. If that lying, deceitful, whorish cunt Hillary gets the nomination..... I vote for Kasich.
There's nothing complicated about it. Bernie Sanders is a cross-over hit, where Hillary only works for die hard Democrats and people wanting a vagina in the Oval Office just so we can say we have a vagina running it and things improved simply because of that. (Which, if we were just going for vagina for the sake of vagina, why the fuck not Elizabeth Warren? She's better than every candidate combined and multiplied)
I've been reading some political articles (against my better judgement) that rightly complain that Bernie may ruin the chance to have Democrats win. Precisely because of what he has been saying about Hillary (all of it correct) not being suitable for Presidency because of her corrupt and whorish ways. The articles were referencing people such as myself, that while we may vote for Bernie, we are not Democrats, and we will not vote for Hillary.
Why? This race is NOT Democrats vs Republicans. It's Progressives vs Establishment.
Establishment: Hillary, Marco, Cruz, Kasich
Anti-Establishment: Bernie, Trump
Now Trump is a complete wild card, especially with the reports of him "acting and projecting a persona" to gain the nomination with promises of a more moderate Donald when in office. He may turn out to be establishment... or he may set fires to it. Completely depends on his mood and what his personal agenda is.
I can't in good conscience vote for Trump. That leaves me with Kasich out of all of the candidates that seems remotely sane... and not Hillary. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination do not assume that all Bernie supporters will move to Hillary, or that Bernie could ever persuade me to do so.
Kasich has no chances of winning at all, and I don't even want him as President. So I may end up forgoing voting in this election at all. Whatever happens, never, ever, ever, ever will I support that lying, deceitful, utter waste of human skin that is Hillary Clinton.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @05:21PM
So, you "Sandersites" want to impose socialism on the rest of us at gunpoint if you can't try to impose it any other way?
Where have I heard [wikipedia.org] that [wikipedia.org] idea [wikipedia.org] before?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @06:40PM
So, you "Sandersites" want to impose socialism on the rest of us at gunpoint if you can't try to impose it any other way?
You say that like it would be bad thing, you blatant Hillary Troll-for-hire! You should at least be grateful that someone cares about you so much that they will use whatever means are necessary to save you from yourself.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday April 22 2016, @06:40PM
I would guess they'd start with representative government.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 22 2016, @09:54PM
Representative government would give them a loss in the Presidential election and maybe a quarter of the congressional seats up for grabs. Minorities don't get to run things in a representative government.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @10:06PM
How can a "representative government" claim ownership of the free people it was created by? I ask this both for the future Bern universe and for the United States' present one.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 22 2016, @07:21PM
You would love to peg us all as naive statist morons with a fascist streak. I know, I get it; YOU work like that internally so you think EVERYONE does.
What we Sandersites want is not radical; it is simply to invest our tax dollars in America, the United States, We The People, as opposed to multinational corporations who've purchased their own legislators, judges, and executives.
If you knew anything about his plans, which you of course do not, you'd see that they are far closer to capitalism than the oligarchic cronyism we have today that attempts to usurp this word for itself. See, what we've got now is actually very, very bad for capitalism; we have a system in which losses are socialized to the masses and profits are capitalized to the elite. Further, we are approaching an era in which the value of human work is asymptotically approaching zero; labor and capital are becoming decoupled.
Where the guns and violence come in is if nothing is done to fix this situation. Hungry, desperate, despairing people become violent. I suggest the elite avail themselves of Sanders' plans simply as "guillotine insurance," if they haven't got the morals to see why it's the right thing to do both by the people and by the definition of capitalism anyway (which they don't).
tl;dr: corner and animal, don't be surprised if it rips your jugular out.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @10:03PM
The question of moronic naivete aside, anyone advocating for use of the state as a mechanism to bring about change is a statist. Bern and his supporters (along with HRC, Trump, etc.) is happy to use force on people to get their way, so long as they think it wrapped in a veneer of legitimacy - they're all statists along with their supporters.
However, how many free people does it take to legitimize slavery? Obviously not just one, as that's referred to as kidnapping. So... two? Two hundred? Two million? What is the threshold for turning kidnapping into something legitimate? Note the key foundation here is "free people", those who delegated their authority as individuals to a government - and that something not already possessed cannot be delegated to another.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 22 2016, @10:24PM
Well, AC, we've gotten to the point where "let the free market sort it out!" isn't gonna solve this, because we tried that, and all that happened is that we're now ruled by a few people at the head of this actually not very free at all market who have bought themselves a government. So "state vs. private" is a false dichotomy at this point.
There are some patterns that simply repeat, no matter what. Positive feedback loops. Power goes to power, wealth to wealth, privilege to privilege. THIS is why our founding fathers made it a point to say the proverbial tree of liberty needs regular watering with the literal blood of tyrants; whether government or private, tyranny is tyranny.
At this point, what you decry as a "statist" solution is our only chance. The greedheads sure as hell aren't going to relinquish any of their power or money voluntarily. We somehow let it get past the threshold where violence is inevitable if this isn't fixed.
Like I said, guillotine insurance. Despite the internal (and in Runaway's case, external and audible) sneering at the young and the poor that's happening here, there are a fuckton more of us than y'all think, and some of us are very resourceful. Don't push us too far.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @10:52PM
You do seem to like your misnomers. What "free market"? There hasn't been freedom in the USA since at least the mid-1800s, and likely even earlier. The same goes for the "state vs private" misdirection. I, as a free, self-owning individual, don't give a toss what other people do so long as they don't try to bend me to their will via force. The false dichotomy here is "force via the state versus force via private companies" - it's all criminal force!
The root of the issue is: criminal behavior. This criminal behavior is use of force against another that, if done by a random/unaffiliated individual would be considered a crime. Throw your neighbor in a cage for ingesting any given substance - criminal. Steal half your neighbor's possessions - criminal. Kill someone while not in reasonable fear of loss of life or limb from the person you killed - criminal. Yet these things and more are the very criminal activities being contested for control over by Bern, Trump, The Witch, and the rest. Voting in criminals who promise to act criminally will not solve the overwhelming crime problem.
While I'm sure we have a ways to go to common ground, I will note that there still remains one more bloodless path to freedom: withdraw of consent and non-participation. The overwhelming vast majority of the US fedgov budget originates from personal income taxes; it is possible to peacefully starve the beast. (Not that I truly expect people to be left unmolested were they to do this, but then the ones initiating force would be the state and its minions.)
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 22 2016, @11:59PM
Fool. You try that and tens of millions of people will goddamn die, followed by utter collapse, followed by the biggest bastards in the nation kludging together a 21st century feudal dystopia. But that's a small price to pay to be "right," isn't it?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 23 2016, @12:36AM
This is already almost certain to happen. With the fedgov's encouragement of swelling the dependant ranks while punishing productive workers, there are likely to be 10 million people starved to death with almost no way to avoid it. Best cancel the cable and cellphone and fill up your pantry and garden shed for your family and anyone else you can afford to care about.
The USA is already in the middle of the beginning of economic collapse, as well as the beginning of political and social collapse. Already, right now, as a direct consequence of trampling on freedom since the 1800s.
Too late. This has already happened. Serfs paid ~25% to their lords - most non-entry-level workers pay 50% or more right now.
You can't scare me with your "boogedy boogedy, freedom is scary!" We haven't had freedom in over a century, and we're now staring slavery's endgame in the face - and it sucks. If you want to rally around a new slave master that's your business, but you really should acknowledge what you're doing. Lots of people want to be slave masters, or at least have "their boy" at the top. I can't say that strikes me as a noble endeavor.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 23 2016, @12:53AM
I'm not getting through to you, am I? It may be my fault for being inarticulate, but it seems like you don't want to listen.
Of the candidates running, Sanders is actually the most libertarian in the true sense of the word. Why? Because at bottom people are slaves to their basic needs. Sanders' plan proposes to release more people than any other candidates' does from that kind of animal dependency; think about how many ideas, how much real, useful work, is lost due to people fearing to work on new concepts because of being stuck at a dead-end job or worse. In fact, even the radical universal basic income would lead to this, *if* properly combined with post-scarcity technology.
The big problem here is, as I said upthread, that labor and capital are becoming uncoupled, and the value of labor is dropping toward zero at an alarming rate. It just no longer makes sense to judge someone's worth this way any longer. It's going to take at least a generation, but if we start the shift to post-scarcity economics NOW, BEFORE all the awful shit you're predicting happens, we can avoid the worst of it.
THAT is why I support Sanders: it's more because of what he represents and the fact that he can spark generational change in a way none of the other candidates can or, indeed, wish to.
This will happen one way or another. Maybe I'm just weak but I'd prefer not to be drowning in blood before it does.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 23 2016, @01:46AM
No, you're getting through alright. "Bernie is the least evil." I've already wasted years of my life supporting the lesser of multiple evils. Having had more than my fill of republican-party corruption, and thousands upon thousands of problems left unaddressed, I found myself looking for the root issue. I suspect you may not like my primary conclusion, nor the mortal-realm component of it, but it appears to be absolutely true in spite of its level of popularity: the legitimate authority of a government built by delegation of powers from free individuals [soylentnews.org] cannot exceed the authority possessed by a single such individual [soylentnews.org] .
How Bernie can bring about his master plan without threatening free people with death from government guns is a trick I'd like to see. (If he were to do so via completely voluntaryist means, I'd likely be using my meager resources to support him.) However, as examples I'd linked to earlier show, history is filled with millions of victims killed by the forceful imposition of collectivism of the socialist flavor. I don't care how big a bribe I'm offered - I will not become party to mass murder. I'm also inclined to kill would-be murderers in defense of their intended victims.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 23 2016, @02:21AM
Here's a novel idea: listen to him and learn what he's saying. He's by far the least violent of the lot of them; and as to why he calls his policies "socialism," I am completely mystified as to that, since he sounds like an Eisenhower Republican to me.
You're committing the Nirvana Fallacy here. Besides which, he's so far from evil I don't think you're justified in referring to him as "least of all evils" except in the most pedantic possible way, i.e., "we have a huge collection of deadly viruses here, and also there's this sponge cake, ugh, the lesser of all evils, that cake is."
It sounds to me like you don't actually want to engage with reality; you'd rather wank to your fearmongering. Congratulations; the GOP is glad to have supporters like you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Saturday April 23 2016, @01:15AM
A fool I be too. I'm actively starving the beast myself, and I strongly support reforms to put a check box on my taxes that states, "None of this money can be used for war, its associated industries, or anything related to the U.S Military".
That's one point he made that was actually correct, otherwise I'm with you. At some point here, when we have been pushed too far, we are left with only that option. Peaceful non-violent complete lack of participation either through voting, taxes, or servicing any of their needs. So if somebody comes to me asking for technical help, or even to dig a ditch, I'm going to evaluate where my contributions are going towards. If it goes towards the 62 people possessing over 90% of our wealth... well then I'm on strike.
Millions of people dying? Possibly, but that's not going to make me budge and start paying taxes, since I'm right on the ground with those millions starving with them. I'm done with that bullshit and in full revolt mode. Fuck the establishment, fuck the government, and in no way will I continue to cooperate with them. Why would I? These are the same bastards cutting the legs of the Food Stamps and social programs that are keeping people above water.
If they can't keep one out of every four children in this great country from starving each day, then I'm no longer giving them any fucking money. That's abject failure to accomplish their goals, and I don't pay for services not rendered.
This Bernie Sanders movement is our last chance, and undoubtedly my last hope. After this I'm continuing my efforts to evacuate my family from the U.S to South America. Devlux seems to make a living and mentioned helping businesses and private individuals get to Ecuador. Sounds like a plan.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @09:50PM
the modern FDR? Sanders wants to put citizens of Japanese descent into internment camps? Sanders wants to ignore the courts when they make a ruling he doesn't like?
Comparing him to FDR is an insult, as FDR was an authoritarian.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 22 2016, @09:56PM
No, you can't. You're a rather small minority.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 22 2016, @10:16PM
You really think so? :)
And thanks for admitting this boils down to "might makes right." I was wondering when one of you "hurr I'm a temporarily-embarrassed millionaire!" types would let that slip, if only unintentionally.
We're not as small a group as you think. And a hell of a lot of us are a hell of a lot smarter at using certain technologies that will prove...useful...in our endeavors than you think, too. Underestimate the young at your peril.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 23 2016, @03:19AM
The young are fucking idiots. Always have been, always will be. They lack experience and wisdom yet spout off like they know dick anyway.
As to might makes right, welcome to representative government. You didn't know that any form of democracy is by definition oppression of the minority by the majority?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 23 2016, @04:21AM
That is why we have a representative republic, you creaky old bastard. You're of a mind with the slaveholder caste; for YOU of all people to be bitching about this is hilarious; don't like it that the tide's finally turning, eh? Too bad; suck it up, as much worse will happen to you in hell.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 23 2016, @10:24AM
Turning my ass. Children have always been and voted foolishly. This time around they've fallen sway to the creed of avarice is all. Don't want to earn your living? No problem! Bernie will steal what you want from others and just give it to you!
And I'm not bitching. I'm mocking. To bitch I'd need to be worried. To be worried Sanders would need a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 23 2016, @06:28PM
You ought to be a lot more worried than you are, Flighty Buzzard. We're trying to do this the peaceful way and people like you are shitting all over it. You and your kind don't really *deserve* the peaceful way but some of us have actual morals and refuse to sink to your level until there's no other alternative.
Do you *want* to be sent to Hell already medium-rare? Then keep this up. Let's see you buy your way out of the flames.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 24 2016, @10:24AM
Try it, sweety, please. Your side holds pretty much the entire anti-gun lobby while mine holds the gun collectors.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 24 2016, @07:24PM
See, this is exactly what I mean :) What on God's green earth makes you think we're going to do this with guns, of all things? You idiots won't even know what hit you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 24 2016, @08:15PM
FTFY
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 24 2016, @08:51PM
Speaking of guns, put that tiny thing back in your pants before it gets stuck between a couple of zipper teeth.
I have news for you, Buzzard: You Are Not A Temporarily-Embarrassed Member Of The Elite.
They are *laughing* at you. Why? Because you're falling right into their divide and conquer trap. You and I ought to be on the same side, because believe me, boy, BOTH of us are "economic niggers" to them. The term "useful idiot" was originally coined to describe naive Communist weirdos in the US, but I can think of no better expression for you at this point. And the worst thing is, you're carrying water for them for worse-than-free.
Once more: you are not going to "hang with the big boys" by proving your loyalty to them. They don't understand that concept. They will never "give you your due" because there *is* no due in their eyes. To them, you are another peasant, and a hilariously gullible and manipulable one at that. You will meet the same hideous fate that the people you rag on, like me, will.
So that's the end game for you: spend what remains of your life poor, stupid, and shitting on people worse off than you, only to be exterminated by the very conditions the people you're sucking up to bring about, just like us. And then comes your afterlife, which is going to be very unpleasant if the way you act now indicates your long-term behavior.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 23 2016, @06:37PM
Also? I notice that a lot of people who were fools as young adults are STILL fools as older ones. I can only imagine what you must have been like in your 20s; probably even dumber than you are now, though possibly with the saving grace that you COULD have had a change of what-passes-for-your-heart back then, whereas now the thing's basically a vascularized coprolith...in any case, your opinion of yourself is much too high, and I'll always be around to knock you off that undeserved pedestal of yours whenever necessary :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday April 22 2016, @04:28PM
Have any astroturfers visited Soylent News yet, do you think? I mean, that'd be an accomplishment of sorts, wouldn't it?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @05:17PM
Look carefully at the summaries. You'll notice that a lot of them mention Microsoft gratuitously in stories that aren't really about Microsoft. You'll also notice a lot of stories that are about Microsoft doing things that are absolutely trivial and banal.
Look carefully at the comments. You'll notice people slipping mentions of Microsoft into discussions that weren't about Microsoft at all. Microsoft pays posters for each time Microsoft's name appears.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @06:16PM
I see what you did there.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by stormreaver on Friday April 22 2016, @12:54PM
So Hillary's campaign has reached a point of desperation where even less of the positives said about her are believable. When the super PAC's get involved with a candidate, nothing positive said about that candidate is valid (even it it's true, which is the worst part).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 22 2016, @01:04PM
I wouldn't call this desperation, this is the new grassroots. Developers pay homeless to wear "Pro development" T-shirts and pack out city planning meetings, internet reputation companies make millions a year (probably billions as an industry) manipulating social media for individuals and organizations. Why wouldn't a political candidate turn some of their cash resources toward modern advertising methods? You might call them negligent if they didn't.
Sure, it's despicable, deceptive, and low... but, this is politics we're talking about - and who's the most stereotypical politician in the race? (Actually, I'd give that dubious honor to Rubio, but Hillary is a close second.)
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Funny) by zoefff on Friday April 22 2016, @01:18PM
Developers wear "Pro development" T-shirts and pack out city planning meetings
FTFY [debanked.com] ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @05:23PM
LOL @ Stallman outdoors. Obvious Photoshop is obvious.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday April 22 2016, @01:36PM
This of course isn't grassroots at all, and is typically referred to as "astroturfing" i.e. faking grassroots, and it's a major area of expertise for PR companies. Sometimes it's also part of "online reputation management".
As far as the Clinton campaign goes, the discovery that they were paying people to post pro-Clinton and/or anti-Sanders messages would be entirely unsurprising to me. Indeed, I've all but confirmed that one RL acquaintance is one of the people being paid, since shortly after the campaign began he immediately started posting every pro-Clinton meme he could find to every social medium we have online contact in, no matter how asinine or how easily demonstrated to be flat wrong, and seeing as how he's been unemployed for years I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted some extra cash on hand.
And my guess is that Clinton is not alone in doing this.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 22 2016, @03:14PM
With a significant chunk of the population "cord cut" and not listening to the major networks (directly, at least), you'd expect them to try to bring their message as directly to the voters as they can (including phone banking, etc.)
Politics is a slimy game, I'd really like to get Transparency into the discussion as a point of serious value, I think it's the only way to clean things up - if only a little.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @03:19PM
Transparency is definitely a necessary component to reforming politics, but it won't be sufficient.
We need to explicitly acknowledge that while money is speech it is a whole lot more than just speech and we need to regulate all that other stuff.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Friday April 22 2016, @02:53PM
Desperation is an odd way to describe someone with a projected 90% chance of winning the primary even without superdelegates, according to 538's poll analyses.
She was my least favorite democratic candidate, but she's far from desperate.
And in spite of being the least popular nationally, polls project her totally wrecking Trump, and beating Cruz handily.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday April 22 2016, @04:22PM
Clinton isn't the least popular candidate nationally. Not that she's favorable, you understand, but there are some real duds out there: Trump is viewed at 63% unfavorable, 30% favorable. Cruz comes in at 53% unfavorable, 33% favorable. Clinton is about where Cruz is: 56% unfavorable, 38% favorable. The candidates with the best spread have very little chance of winning at this point: Sanders has 49% favorable, 40% unfavorable. Kasich 38% unfavorable, 37% favorable.
A lot of ink has already been spilled on the fact that the primary process seems to have somehow managed to select party nominees that solid majorities of the country view unfavorably. Despite the jokes, that's actually pretty unusual: For example, both John McCain and Barack Obama had more supporters than detractors in 2008 in the polls leading up to that election. So the likely Trump-Clinton race will be actually a battle of who is hated less, not who is liked more.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday April 22 2016, @05:11PM
I meant among democrats, but yes, you've said a true thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @05:12PM
Found one!
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday April 22 2016, @06:06PM
Wouldn't that be nice. To get paid for smug, consdescending replies on the internet?
I'd wager the people getting paid are a lot more polite than me.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday April 22 2016, @03:12PM
TBH, President Trump is sounding better and better every day.
And I'm being serious here, Cruz is a dangerous nut bag and so is Clinton. Trump is also a dangerous nut bag, but I doubt very much he has the organizational skills to cause much trouble. And he's the only other candidate to turn down the Super PAC money.
Plus with Trump both Democrats and Republicans will be fighting against his nutty policies whereas with the other options only one party or the other will be.
OTOH, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are both worthy of consideration. I just hope the disaffected can settle on one or the other and we can get a President from a 3rd or 4th party. That hasn't happened in a very, very long time.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday April 23 2016, @12:02AM
Well since I took the time and aggravation to get the election commission to use cross-streets for my address (my privacy maintained), I'm going to vote for somebody. If somebody from those parties is running, that's where I'm voting.
I'm truly Bernie-Sanders-Or-Bust here, and I don't think I'm alone in this. Many Bernie supporters are going to leave the Democratic party to vote elsewhere simply because they were only Democratic long enough to elect Sanders. If I can make a protest vote with the Green or Independent party, then that is what I will do.
Voting for Hillary will never happen. She's worse than Trump.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday April 23 2016, @12:30AM
That's pretty much my feeling on the matter. If you look at Jill Stein's page she has a ton in common with Bernie. Unfortunately, her odds of winning are basically nil unless all of the Bernie supporters gang up on Hillary and Whomever the GOP nominates. Which if it's not Trump, there's a lot of Trump supporters that are just as unhappy with the GOP establishment as we are with the Democratic establishment.
Gary Johnson is a much better candidate than the GOP has run in recent years. I think the last decent candidate they ran was Bob Dole.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @12:55PM
1. He's pro guns
2. He's a Scandanavian-style socialist that general election voters won't support
3. He's... this is last week's bullet list.
(Score: 3, Informative) by meustrus on Friday April 22 2016, @02:25PM
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/national-polls-suggest-that-bernie-sanders-may-be-more-electable-than-hillary-clinton/ [dailycaller.com]
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/the_electability_argument_is_bogus_why_bernie_sanders_isnt_the_second_coming_of_george_mcgovern/ [salon.com]
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday April 22 2016, @05:31PM
A flaming bag of dog shit is likely more electable than Hillary provided it has a D or R after it on the ballot so that isn't saying much. Personally I would love to have Sanders v. Cruz or even a Sanders v. Trump candidacy as they would offer more of a stark choice, especially Sanders v. Cruz, but I will be voting 3rd party anyway.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Friday April 22 2016, @08:18PM
I think we need a total brawl: Sanders v. Trump v. Clinton v. Cruz. THAT would be awesome.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday April 22 2016, @09:45PM
What I fear most is Clinton v. Trump, because we could very easily get a lot of independents and moderate Democrats voting for Trump. He could sweep the country fighting against such a political elite. We've already seen him crush all the elite candidates on the right. And I hate to say it, but a lot of Sanders supporters will be very, very upset with Hillary after such a primary battle.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 22 2016, @01:03PM
So, in essence Hillary has to tie a porkchop around her neck so the dog will play with her? Yes, we did know that already.
The DNC is going to find that rigging the game for Hillary and the Establishment will be a pyrrhic victory.
Trump and Bernie supporters have their differences, but there's quite a lot of overlap, too. If there was a way to resolve the differences and craft a common platform, there would instantly be a real third party in the US that would probably win a great deal of Independents. Anyway, the ranks of the Independents are gaining rapidly thanks to the game-rigging that the RNC and DNC have been doing, if reports are any indication of general sentiment.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SanityCheck on Friday April 22 2016, @01:18PM
I agree with the above. The differences of the two sides are vast, but they wrap around on the issues relating to current state of politics, and the resulting state of the country. If both Trump and Sanders get screwed by their respective parties, a third leg in the race of combined ticket would beat the other two into oblivion.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 22 2016, @06:11PM
I'll throw out a some places of agreement between Trump and Sanders supporters that I have observed: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is anathema to everyone. Congress and the two parties are equally corrupt and beholden to the same corrupting masters. Wall Street is out of control. The system is absolutely rigged against the vast majority of Americans. The media are a sham, corrupt, and fully controlled by the corrupt elite. The American middle class is in danger of disappearing. Our freedoms are under threat from the government and corporate elites.
There are many more that could be added, but those are off the top of my head.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday April 23 2016, @12:19AM
You nailed all the important ones :)
This election is Establishment vs Hope & Change
Hillary can never, ever rid herself of her Establishment status. She's proudly a supporter of Wall Street and takes their money, and is responsible in part for the deregulation of Wall Street that lead to our recent Great Depression. Cruz is literally the Establishment. I think only Marco was considered to be more so, and even then it was in a robotic way like he was programmed.
The overlap between Sanders and Trump supporters is most likely smack right in the middle of the various religious debates. If you don't mind somebody being gay, or that the dude peeing in the stall next to you had their dick sewn on, you're probably supporting Sanders. If you hate the Muslims, Mexicans, Blacks, Asians, etc. and are afraid to go to the bathroom because of somebody, you probably love supporting Trump :)
Which are you? Disaffected and disillusioned Democrat, or the disaffected and disillusioned Republican? Either way, those votes are not going to Hillary or Cruz.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Demose on Friday April 22 2016, @01:54PM
There are a lot of Sanders supporters that are threatening to vote for Trump if Clinton is elected so what you're describing may not be all that outlandish. Most Sanders and Trump supporters are independents who have been brought out of the wood work to see campaign reform, I believe this could unite them into one camp albeit temporarily. Once campaign reform is pushed through the party would likely falter and die, but if reform is pushed through there could be a lot more third parties with a real chance at winning elections and/or influencing policy. This play would require focus on the long game though and I'm not sure there are a lot of voters with kind of patience.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday April 22 2016, @02:54PM
This is exactly what we need. A coalition that is willing to put down the other differences for 4 years -- agree to let that stuff be for a while -- and fix the electoral system in America so that we can free and fair elections. Once that is accomplished then go back to bickering about everything else.
What is really disgusting is how two private businesses, the GOP and DNC, has intertwined themselves into the electoral process to such an extent that they control it. If a private business was spewing toxic waste into the environment, they would find themselves regulated and sanctioned. This is exactly what needs to happen the GOP and DNC.
(Score: 2) by Demose on Friday April 22 2016, @03:34PM
I guess we should get planning then.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @03:16PM
> Most Sanders and Trump supporters are independents who have been brought out of the wood work to see campaign reform,
Not in the slightest. Most Trump supporters are disaffected whites who have been left behind by the institutional power in the GOP - it took them decades to wake up and realize that pandering to their social conservatism was just a way to distract them while they were being systematically economically disenfranchised. Trump talks about the system being rigged not because he's for campaign reform but as part of his narrative of institutional power holding him down just like its held down his base. But his base don't care about campaign reform so much as they care about getting back what they lost. They are much more likely to blame their loss on foreigners -- witness Trump's central campaign promise is about building a wall to keep the foreigners out, not about reforming washington.
Meanwhile campaign reform is Sanders's central message. He talks about trade reform too, but only as it relates to trade deals being captured to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor because washington is captured by the wealthy.
(Score: 2) by Demose on Friday April 22 2016, @03:37PM
I just have one question, would you work with them to fix our system despite their motivations?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @04:02PM
Sure. But you've missed the point of my post, they don't care. By and large they are focused on other issues. Their support for campaign finance reform is lukewarm at best, its too wonky and abstracted from the issues that motivate them to support Trump. Voting for Trump because you think he supports campaign finance reform is like voting for him because you think he supports transgender rights. He's not opposed, but at best its just opportunism not principle.
(Score: 2) by Demose on Friday April 22 2016, @04:31PM
I understand what you're saying. I'm having trouble bringing to fore the arguments for why campaign reform helps them. I'll do some more research on their views and what common ground we might have and make a journal entry in a couple of days. Hopefully I can convince everyone to work together and myself that it's possible to bring them into the fold.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 22 2016, @05:52PM
It would be handy to have an alert so we can check back to see what you come up with. It's a useful exercise. Maybe ultimately we find out that it's impossible for Americans to work together any more and reach consensus for the future direction of the country, but there's a chance we could find common ground enough to move forward.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 22 2016, @05:50PM
The hardest part for me about working with Trump supporters is the xenophobia/racism. My wife is Korean, my circle of friends runs the gamut of all possible religions, ethnicities, and national origins (not planned that way, just a function of living in Brooklyn), so hating people who aren't white male Christians doesn't resonate with me. There are aspects of what Trump supporters decry with immigration that do get more traction with me, such as bringing in H1-B's to replace trained, skilled Americans (whatever their background, religion, etc). Maybe that's the basis for Sanders supporters to see their way clear to work with Sanders supporters.
I don't know what the equivalent hesitation would be for Trump's native supporters travelling in the other direction. Maybe other Soylentils with more insight on that can comment.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday April 22 2016, @08:15PM
Honestly, they new damn well what they were doing for most of that time. It's just that we've hit the point where it's not just the Democrats treating them with condescension, the GOP is doing it as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @11:28PM
I see Trump and Sanders as symptoms of the same problem.
Huge staggering sums of money spent to have kang or kodos win.
People are tired of the 'we vs they' narrative. Each side making promises to curb stomp the other side. Then doing nothing but stonewalling and being in general ineffective. Take Obama for example. He took what was basically a presidency that could have been one of the great ones. He instead pretty much first day excludes 'the other side'. They saw it for what it was and acted accordingly to the intended slight it was. He never recovered from that. Anything he did after that was confirmation bias that he did not want to work with them.
Trump and Sanders are both talking about the same thing. Wages in America have stagnated thru the use of our laws. They only disagree on the method to accomplish it. One is wanting to 'undo the bad deals' that lead to the problem and hope magically the probs go away. The other wants to double down on even more laws and hope magically that will not just cause the money to flee to another country.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday April 22 2016, @03:17PM
I'm a Bernie supporter and the longer this goes on the more palatable Trump has been looking. But, then again, I'd vote for the re-animated corpse of Nixon before I voted for HRC. She's like Nixon, but with fewer scruples and less charisma.
The only thing that really matters coming out of this election is getting the money out of politics. We're unlikely to see much traction any anything else until the campaign finances are cleaned up. Trump and Sanders are the only ones that turned down Super PAC money and they're they only ones that don't have a direct advantage from Super PAC money.
Most of the crazy things that Trump has said are things that aren't going to be acceptable to the establishment GOP anymore than they're acceptable to the Democrats.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @03:33PM
Its going to take an act of Congress to change campaign finance. If you don't vote for Clinton at least be sure to vote down ballot for congressional candidates that are more friendly to campaign finance reform. [thinkprogress.org] Not all of them want to be glorified telemarketers spending 30+ hours a week, every week, sucking up to rich assholes.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 22 2016, @06:05PM
Respectfully, it does no good to presuppose we must work through an institution as fundamentally corrupt and compromised as Congress is. There is not even a valid political reason to do so. Congress has a 4% approval rating. In past societies with those kind of ratings the governments were literally beheaded. That may yet happen here, too. But we can safely elide Congress as part of the process.
There is another mechanism in the Constitution, which is good, because Americans still do feel warm and fuzzy about that. A Constitutional Convention can be called by 2/3rds of the States [wikipedia.org]. That's dubious, too, from a corruption and regulatory capture perspective, because many of the same parties buying off Congress have also bought off state legislatures, particularly those from large states like New York, California, Florida, Texas, etc. But since we only need 2/3rds of the states, that means we have 17 we can decide to not bother with. That leaves plenty like New Hampshire, Idaho, etc. whose people really, really hate the federal government.
As such, I think that approach is a better one to try, because without a similar organizing principle it will be very difficult if not impossible for people to get past the partisan memes the Establishment has worked so hard to nurture and use to divide them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday April 23 2016, @12:35AM
I tend to agree with that.
But, we can have change. Here in WA we have a top 2 primary system where there are no safe districts. Some districts are always Democratic or Republican, but the only way to be "safe" is to respond to the will of the people as somebody slightly more moderate can get enough votes out of the middle third to win the election.
Same goes for districting, bipartisan and non-partisan districting commisions make it hard for the party that wins to maintain a permanent majority by minimizing the opposition.
The only thing that we really need is to fix our campaign finances. We had a measure on the ballot a while back for labeling foods as GMOs at the grocery store and a group of interested corporations engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to prevent people from knowing where the money was coming from.
There's no reason why other states can't do something similar.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday April 22 2016, @08:09PM
Absolutely. Even if we elect a President that's interested in finance reform, we're going to have to pressure the hell out of the senators and congressmen to put something on the President's desk that addresses the problem in a positive way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Friday April 22 2016, @02:28PM
What kills me is this notion that Hilary is so much more "electable" than Bernie (never mind we heard the same about her vs Obama). While some independents are probably too conservative to warm up to Sanders, his sincerity and most of all his populist ideals actually should appeal to quite a few of them. Among the ones I know this actually seems to be the case.
On the other hand my basic impression as far as independents go (if not for basically all non-Democrats and then some) is that they simply can't stand anything about Hilary.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 22 2016, @05:40PM
I have been reading polls for months now where when the RNC pulls shenanigans on behalf of its cronies, about 1/3 of Trump supporters have said they'd rather vote for Bernie Sanders than an RNC stooge. The same thing has been said in the same proportions by Sanders supporters, who have said they'd rather vote for Trump than Hillary. That's the basis for my belief that there is enough overlap for a third party to work with.
I predict that when the dust has settled from this election, the rolls of registered Republicans and Democrats will have shrunk dramatically. Independents already outnumber both. Anyone left in the RNC or DNC after November will be the dead-enders that the rest of us can pretty reliably consign to striped pajamas, 3 hots & a cot.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @11:33PM
A lot of the people voting for Hillary in the primaries are extremely ignorant and don't bother to do any research on her or her opponents whatsoever. Many genuinely believe she wants to help them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @04:17PM
Bernie with a trump VP I would get behind.
(Score: 1) by stretch611 on Friday April 22 2016, @10:32PM
Disclosure: I hope Bernie wins. I'm an independent leaning towards dems. And I know our politicians are the best that money can buy. (and they get bought far too much.)
As a Bernie supporter, I see the writing on the wall... without a miracle, Bernie will not have a chance for the the nomination. He must have a reason.
My theory as to why he is still in the race.. (which may be completely wrong, but I can hope....)
He is out there fighting to become president. Not democratic party nominee... but president.
Every primary election gets him more publicity and he still rallies lots of supporters. He still makes news even if the odds are against him mathematically for the nomination.
Sadly a large portion of the US voting base are idiots. But most that have a minimal interest in politics will realize that Bernie is running for the Democratic party nomination... even though in his current seat in the Senate, he is identified as an Independent.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both have one thing in common... In spite of the fact they are winning delegates, they both bring with them a large amount of people saying "anyone but them;" even from within their respective parties... and a lot of them.
Now here is Bernie... Still in the news... Getting support... and Losing the Democratic nomination. What does he do... Run for president. People that like him vote for him... People that hate Trump/Clinton also vote for him. Not a guarantee... but a chance to be the first independent to make it in a very long time
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @01:08PM
As long as everything is out in the open and above-board then this is OK. And by out in the open I mean that the people doing this work don't try to astro-turf it. No sock-puppet accounts - one account per person on each social media service, they use the same account name across services and they clearly identify the account as being paid to promote the clinton narrative.
As long as they play it straight then they absolutely have the right to promote whatever viewpoint they want and people have the right and the ability to judge what they say and know why they are saying it.
Given that the very first words of their press release is a complaint about "anonymous attacks" it would be the height of hypocrisy if they didn't keep it above board.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday April 22 2016, @02:01PM
I hope they do it out in the open : ) There are probably so many more trolls who would love to have a go at these paid "trolls".
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Friday April 22 2016, @02:31PM
As long as everything is out in the open and above-board
The whole point of this is that it ISN'T out in the open and above-board!
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @02:40PM
Citation needed.
Seriously. That's the spin put on it by the linked article, an article on a website that makes it very clear that they have a specific anti-clinton narrative that they are pushing and thus need to be read skeptically, just as these 'correct the record' types should be read skeptically. But they offer no proof and the press release that they've linked to at least implies otherwise.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 22 2016, @04:12PM
If you have to hire people to post for you, it's axiomatically not a grass-roots movement.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @04:31PM
Neither the press release, nor even the heavily spun TFA said it was grass-roots.
That's all you.
You've got this bad habit of grasping at any argument in order to justify your predetermined conclusions.
One argument gets debunked you just pull out another one. You are like a little mini-hillary, just changing your tune to fit the circumstances.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 22 2016, @06:11PM
As long as everything is out in the open and above-board then this is OK. And by out in the open I mean that the people doing this work don't try to astro-turf it.
You were the one who said it wasn't astroturfing. Grassroots <--> Astroturfing. In this context, if it's not one it's the other. But I'm sure that instead of actually admitting words have meaning you'll just continue to launch personal attacks against me for vaguely-specified reasons.
You've got this bad habit of grasping at any argument in order to justify your predetermined conclusions.
Fuck off. No I don't.
One argument gets debunked you just pull out another one.
Funny, that has totally not happened in this thread. Try again.
You're the same AC I was arguing with yesterday, aren't you? How about you get yourself a damn login, Mr. I-Criticize-You-For-Your-History-But-Haha-I-Don't-Have-One.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @06:26PM
> You were the one who said it wasn't astroturfing.
No. I said as long as it does not become astro-turfing then it is OK. It is right there in the words you quoted.
It is so weird that you read me saying that if they do something that would be bad and turned it into that's what they plan to do.
Its like you've predetermined that they are doing scummy things and assumed I was defending them doing scummy things.
> You're the same AC I was arguing with yesterday, aren't you?
Why would you think that? Is it because that AC also accused you of changing your arguments to fit the same conclusion each time too?
I assure you that I have not previously accused you of doing that.
> How about you get yourself a damn login
waah!
How about you start posting AC?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 25 2016, @01:42PM
You're the same AC I was arguing with yesterday, aren't you?
Why would you think that?
Because they also started whining about my posting history with much the same tone you did.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 22 2016, @02:37PM
The new euphemism for "rewriting history". The one thing you can be sure of is, if Hillary says it, then it's false. When is her birthday? If millions of us wish her a stroke for her birthday, it might happen. Whatever gods there may be could be listening. Let's try it, people!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday April 22 2016, @03:39PM
My mind can't comprehend how anyone could spend $1m on ... social media.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @03:54PM
How are you still posting?
If $1M is beyond your comprehension then facebook's 320 BILLION dollar valuation should have literally exploded your head like the movie Trancers.