Do people still care about socialism?
I certainly do. Socialism is a stupid idea. Just because Bernie was likable didn’t mean his policies were realistic or wise.
That said, a mix of capitalism with social programs is, I believe the best bet for economic security and prosperity.
The DNC superdelegate argument is tough because Hillary still won the popular vote.
But Obama beat Romney by 5 million. The greater the difference in the popular vote, the less likely we’ll see flukes in the electoral vote. Hillary appealed to the wrong areas. Sanders had more universal appeal and seems like he would have likely garnered more electoral votes.
I actually meant that she won the popular vote against Sanders in the primaries.
The Sanders what if is a tough question. On the one hand it does seem like he was more liked in the places Clinton ultimately lost. But we have no idea what the discourse would have been like. Hard to imagine a self proclaimed socialist having more universal appeal in the US.
Oh I see. I agree that we don’t know that he would have won. I think people are latching on too much to what I did not actually say, however. I did not say Bernie would have won, though I’m pointing out that he might have had a better shot. The point of my original comment is meant to place more emphasis that the DNC’s system is screwed up and undemocratic and that they damaged their moral standing with their own people in 2016.
I do believe Bernie may have fared better in a primary election with all things being equal aside from the superdelegates. Remember, whoever wins the first four primary elections stands a good chance to win the entire primary race, even if other candidates are more popular in other states. This is because a candidate is seen as having momentum and his/her win seems inevitable, even if it is not necessarily so. Sanders was gaining momentum and nearly caught up to Hillary in terms of elected delegates. However, with the superdelegates making his win appear impossible, he started to slide back, and ultimately could not mathematically win the nomination. I’m merely speculating, but I believe he could have won the nomination had the superdelegate process not made his cause look futile.
Sanders had more universal appeal and seems like he would have likely garnered more electoral votes.
It’s possible, but there’s no way to know how much damage would have been done to his reputation once he was a target of the right. SOCIALIST!!! may have still been an extremely potent attack in 2016.
True. But ultimately, a general election is more of a test of ideological enthusiasm than actual national representation. Democrats outnumber Republicans, and yet general elections tend to be rather evenly split in terms of sheer wins and losses. Romney was a far better Republican candidate than Trump, and I’ll bet you the majority of the nation today would agree with that. Unfortunately, he was unable to turn out the vote. I think even many Republicans think Hillary was a better candidate than The Donald (I sure do; I was actually disappointed for the first time in my life that a Republican won the presidency!). Nevertheless, she was unable to turn out the vote, at least in the key states.
My point is that I believe those who wouldn’t vote for Bernie because of his self-identified socialism probably wouldn’t have turned out for Hillary anyway. I just think he could have gotten Left-leaners out of the woodwork better than Hillary could have.
The DNC superdelegate argument is tough because Hillary still won the popular vote.
He was saying that the fact that the superdelegate system exists is a factor, not just its results.
C’mon, man. You think the party that holds unelected, unpledged, and unaccountable delegates could not select a candidate contrary to the popular will of its constituency, and thus lose the chance of gaining the popular vote in the general election? You think the party that deliberately sabotaged the leading competitors campaign bears no responsibility for the final outcome of the 2016 election? In terms of elected delegates, Bernie and Hillary were pretty close, almost coming in even at one point. Imagine, without the superdelegates counted in the mix and making his campaign look less successful than it actually was, how the momentum might have swayed further in Sanders’ favor. Sure, we’ll never know how it might have turned out. I do know that the DNC shot themselves in the foot by how the whole process was handled, from the institutionalized superdelegate system to the corruption of the 2016 Democrat primaries.
Everybody says ‘Bernie would have won’ or ‘Bernie wouldn’t have won,’ but I won’t really believe either until I see some polling data.
I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump.
While there is no way to prove that he would have won, I feel he easily could have better united the Democrat Party and that his supporters were far more passionate than Clinton’s. Heck, Jeebus here protest voted against Hillary. I doubt there would have been much of that against Bernie, even among Hillary supporters. I’ve no doubt most would have gone ahead and voted for Bernie as their number two pick.
I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likeable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump. The fact that the so-called “Democrat” Party represents something so opposite, the fact that the “people’s party” favors the highest ranking officials over the layman by an astronomical ratio, and the fact that the corruption in the nomination process is so widespread, all indicate to me that that they sealed their own fate by pushing HRC to the front of the line. Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall.
The Republican politicians just about all spinelessly endorsed Trump. Case closed on moral superiority.
While I don’t disagree that it was stupid, I don’t think that necessarily makes them morally inferior alone. Let me give you a personal example: I was the clinical preceptor in my department of the hospital, which basically means on my floor, I was Number 2. The director loved me and thought I was amazing; she promoted me and provided me many opportunities. She also did a whole bunch of stupid stuff that alienated her staff, pissed me off, and set me up for some difficult situations when she decided to leave. I realized that, in order to be a tempering influence for good on my floor, sometimes I would have to tow the line, even when I disagreed with my boss. If I hadn’t played along, I likely would have gotten fired (my predecessor as clinical preceptor had been fired before me for disagreeing too often and too publicly). Now that she’s gone, I’m Number 1, and I am able to make some significant changes/improvements to the department and the hospital as a whole.
Moral of the story: sometimes, to secure your influence, you have to support those in power, even when you vehemently oppose them personally. I am certain that a number of Republicans in Congress loved Trump. Note, however, how many prominent Republcians opposed him. And note how many were not then holding office or not seeking office.
The Democrat primary system is not about a person; it’s the DNC’s system that has been in place since the '80s, is upheld by the elected, and does not represent the evils of a specific individual. It’s a foolish system that runs contrary to the Party’s supposed ideals. Then again, the whole primary system is pretty screwy.
I am not saying Republicans are morally superior, as I, myself, have abandoned the GOP. I’m just saying that you can’t lay it all on that one issue.
The DNC superdelegate argument is tough because Hillary still won the popular vote.
But Obama beat Romney by 5 million. The greater the difference in the popular vote, the less likely we’ll see flukes in the electoral vote. Hillary appealed to the wrong areas. Sanders had more universal appeal and seems like he would have likely garnered more electoral votes.
Nobody ever notices John Larroquette in TSFS.
Ha, I had no idea.
You would if you’d clicked my click-bait!
http://www.thegeektwins.com/2013/08/the-16-most-surprising-star-trek.html?m=1
Now, I suppose it might help if I’d actually labeled it.
So what you’re saying is you haven’t watched Trek since The Next Generation?
I haven’t sen
English heretic!
much of TNG and I’ve hated what I’ve seen.
Trek heretic!
I’ve seen TOS and the first two movies. I like all of that.
Bless you, my son.
I’ve seen lot’s
English heretic!
of TNG
Self-contradictory heretic!
and the first two reboots and did not like that.
I don’t necessarily agree, but this is understandable.
Final ruling: heretic!
Thank you for sharing, Warbler. We’re here for you. Wishing you the best in everything.
I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likeable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump. The fact that the so-called “Democrat” Party represents something so opposite, the fact that the “people’s party” favors the highest ranking officials over the layman by an astronomical ratio, and the fact that the corruption in the nomination process is so widespread, all indicate to me that that they sealed their own fate by pushing HRC to the front of the line. Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall.
http://www.thegeektwins.com/2013/08/the-16-most-surprising-star-trek.html?m=1
ray_afraid said:
ST:TGN
The Generation Next? Heretic! 😉
In all seriousness, I get it. I think people are already a little too negative in anticipation for this show. It could be great!
I wish they hadn’t canonized the stupid explanation for the difference in Klingon appearance as resulting from a virus in ST:ENT. It’s the Klingon Empire, right? What’s wrong with having different species or variations of a species in vast empire?
What a neat thread idea. Anyone still want to play?
I’ll bite!
Place - Wolf 359
Verb ending in ing - interrogating
Proper Noun - Bank of America
Adjective - handsome
Verb - whine
Noun - apartment
Place - Daytona
Verb ending in ing - summoning
Noun - porcelain doll
Verb - adopt
Place - Coruscant
Noun - armpit
Verb ending in ing - shaving
Adverb - jovially
Noun - Wookiee
Person’s Name - W. Thomas Riker
Place - Middle Earth
Noun - basketball
Noun - Calvinball
Verb ending in ing - dying
Heretic!
Why did I feel like I fell for an old trick when I clicked on this thread?
But you really do need a better audio source for Jar Jar’s lines. The one you used is kind of jarring at times. And you really need to replace everything Jar Jar says, not just his main dialog.
How jarring? Jar-jarring?
I’ll get my stuff.
Uh-oh! I feel like some Angelic visitor will come and smite archive.org with a lawsuit for not taking down some pictures!
The fact that you can’t answer it proves that it is in fact the opposite of a silly question.
Oh, well, if you must know, I happen to have a former Fo, now friend (who shall remain nameless), who is very strict about sticking to the OP’s rules. He has programmed the Brain Wave/Internet Post Dissonance Detector (patent pending), a brilliant bit of software that can detect when your post matches what your brain knows. He has uploaded it secretly into the forum code and notifies me every time someone violates the rules of my threads.
Don’t you wish you had such an ally?
^No forum etiquette at all! It’s a good thing you will never be a forum moderator!
You cannot mention the last movie you saw. You cannot bring up a movie that is now three movies old to you. You may only discuss the movie you saw immediately before the last movie you saw. No exceptions! Violators will be swiftly reported!
So how do you plan on policing this?
This is no time for silly questions! 😠
Yes, I know that The Last Crusade is very much a rehash of Raiders, with so many of the same secondary characters, the same evil Nazis, a Judeo-Christian McGuffin, a vehicular chase in the desert, and so forth. Nevertheless, I feel it is both unique enough and pulls off its familiar elements well enough that I can’t help but enjoy it.
I wonder if all the TFA-hating-rehasists among us are consistent enough to also hate TLC.
We should invite them to this thread. I’d love to have the opinions of Alderaan and Mala Strana here.
*pukes*
I too like the idea of bringing Short Round back, but does Jonathan Ke Quan even act anymore? I suppose they could always recast. Might be interesting to go back to Asia, either way, although not sure if it’s a good idea to touch Vietnam or not.
I, too, like the idea of bringing back Short Round. He was a cute kid and a fun sidekick. I thoroughly enjoyed how Indy treated him like an adult, gambling with him, having him drive the getaway car, etc.
I think if we ever do see any Indiana Jones prequels, I’d like to see Wu Han get some air time. He states, “I’ve followed you on many adventures,” and I think I’d like to see at least one of them (even though the OT.com crowd is relentlessly unforgiving of any nods to previous films).
Otherwise, given the timeframe, I could see something involving Berlin or Germany in general. I’ve been saying for awhile it might be fun to do a bit of Nazi zombies but I don’t know if they’ll want to reign it in after the alien backlash.
Cold War Berlin could be interesting. Soviets also experimented with attempted psychic espionage, so that could be interesting (I guess that was part of the intent of the Crystal Skull, though, so maybe that’s too similar). Something related to the nuclear arms race could worthwhile as well, but after nuking the fridge in the last movie and after so many other movies using a disruption of the nuclear balance as a plot device, that too sounds too cliched. Like you say, maybe Vietnam is too much, but perhaps something related to the Space Race might present some opportunities.
The one thing that blows my mind is that it will have been 12 years since KOTCS. That’s only 7 less years than the gap between that and TLC. It’s a real shame they didn’t make at least one in the 90s. That way it wouldn’t quite feel like there’s so much time we’ve missed (and we’d get to see Indy in the 40s).
I couldn’t agree more 😦
