Vader

I have really great memories playing Skyward Sword when it came out my junior year of college, but that was generally a really fun year for me so my memory could be somewhat skewed by that.

I think primary elections are tough because often the candidates are searching for things to distinguish themselves from their opponents, when in reality they probably worked as allies on most issues. Bernie giving a floor speech in favor of Clinton's healthcare bill doesn't necessarily mean he was a super essential part of that process (though he could have been, I honestly haven't looked into it much because I just generally find these little spats during the horserace super uninteresting. It'll all be water on the bridge when the primary ends anyways, just look at the crap she and Bill gave Obama and now they're all apparently best friends.) Yeah, most of her critiques of Sanders have been misguided and weak, mostly because the strongest pro-Clinton/anti-Sanders arguments are pragmatic rather than ideological, and pragmatism is like, the least sexy thing to any party base (especially in a year when anti-establishment sentiment is so strong).

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/how-hillary-clinton-won-the-battle-for-the-black-205650975.html (For whenever we're able to talk about substance rather than needing to address condescension, that links to an article that I thought did a good job of explaining Hillary's success in SC and with Black voters more broadly. The meat of the article appear when you click "read more")

Yeah, I think that's a fair critique. My support for Clinton is a combination of my knowledge of the political process, my examination of her current policy proposals, my general sense of the telos of her career, and my gut feeling on how she will be once elected. When I look at a presidential candidate I look for two things (1) how capable are they of performing their job, which for me includes an attitude of thoughtfulness and intellectual curiosity about the wide range of things that a President has to deal with (2) an ideological telos that has veered in the direction of favoring peace and the common good, even if I take issue with some of their individual decisions or compromises For me, Hillary clearly wins on the first count. On the second, I think there can be some reasoned debate. I would argue that she has overall shown to be good on that count as well, which is why I support her, but why I also don't begrudge people who are suspicious. On the other hand, Sanders has mostly been inarguably good on the second count, but on the first one has arguably come short Clinton is certainly far from infallible, and again I begrudge no one for supporting Sanders for the reasons Twig and others have pointed out.

(I'm also against locking this thread. I think this is something we can calmly work out amongst ourselves) I agree that it is a difficult balance, but it is one a leader of any type must find. you're not going to get anywhere unless you are able to please (or at least placate) groups that are able to make up a governing majority. Welcome to democracy. As for corporate tax breaks, I'm not sure the specific policy you are referring to, but chances are I am less economically protectionist than you. I tend to think unimpeded trade with other nations is usually a net positive for both american workers and the world at large, provided of course that environmental and worker's rights concerns are addressed in trade treaties. As for the "brought to heel comment" Clinton made about "super predators" back in the 90s, yeah that really wasn't cool. I'll also point out that we were in the midst of a rising levels of violent crime during that time and this was something that was alarming to many americans, including many Black americans. Still, many of the anti-crime measures ended up unfairly targeting communities of color and in that light her comments come across as particularly egregious. I will also note that she has apologized for the way she spoke at that time, and has also put forward a more comprehensive plan for criminal justice reform than Sanders has up to this point. Again, maybe you don't believe that she'll follow through, and I'm not saying that you need to. I'm simply saying, again, that it is reasonable for intelligent people to support Clinton on the merits, something I will note that you still have failed to acknowledge, even as I have acknowledged the ability for intelligent people to support Sanders. What's at issue here for me is whether you can support your candidate of choice without being insulting and condescending to everyone who disagrees with you.

I guess I would argue that in positions of political leadership, advocacy must always be tempered by flexibility and realism. As an elected official its your job to represent the interests that put you there, and in Clinton's case that will certainly include interests like unions, members of the LGBT community, women's rights advocates, etc It will also include some corporate interests and some folks you don't like. This is inevitable in a politician, because a coalition of electors will almost always include some groups that you as a constituent don't believe have your best interests in mind. The question is more of the politician's telos rather than any individual action. To say Clinton isn't an advocate for things like early childhood education, healthcare access, etc, you need to ignore a large part of her resume. This isn't to say she has always acted in the interest of those aims, but I think there is an intelligent argument to make that more often than not, she has. Again, if the compromises she's made seem icky to you, I'm not banning you from supporting Sanders. I'm simply saying that there is an intelligent argument to be made from the Left for Clinton, that's all. I'm not calling anyone dumb for supporting Sanders, and I guess I'm just asking that Sanders supporters extend Clinton supporters the same courtesy.

I think Skyward Sword had a bit less opening bullshit after watching Danielle play a couple hours of Twilight Princess on Twitch the other night, but I could be misremembering.

Below is an article I linked on my facebook a while back that articulates why an intelligent person on the Left might support Hillary Clinton. Look, I'm not saying you are wrong to not trust Clinton. I fully accept why many people would rather support Sanders. Just please acknowledge that those who see things differently aren't dum dums, that's all. It's really not doing you, your cause, or anyone else any favors. https://medium.com/@garrettmeyer/why-i-put-some-ice-on-that-bern-a7741114e812#.5wbnk293q

Any other takers? If not I'll probably just send it to dium.

I guess I still find the notion that only reason someone wouldn't support Sanders is because they are uneducated kind of condescending? But I do appreciate the qualification.

I'm sorry to respond to something so far back, but I need to take some umbrage with your comment about the South being where the country's "dumbest voters" are. Putting regional prejudice aside for a moment (which is obviously at work here), you have the fact that Democratic Party voters in the South are overwhelming African American, where Clinton has a large base of support and where Sanders has struggled to make inroads — even in the Northern states. Yes, African American voters are more favorable to Sanders outside the South, but they still have overwhelmingly supported Clinton (I think the number in Michigan was 70 Clinton 30 Sanders, which was his strongest showing). I'm sure you are a nice person, but I keep seeing this nasty and condescending undercurrent among Sanders supporters, particularly on the internet, that has really ground me down over the course of this election and frankly soured me on him as a candidate (perhaps unfairly). I think Sanders is a man with enormous amount of integrity, but denigrating those who don't vote for him in a Trumpian fashion does his candidacy no favors.

Hey just finished the game. It was a lot of fun! It struck me as a little rough at the beginning (or a little "ruff" as Dog might say), but it really grew on me. A very enjoyable LucasArts style game with beautiful artwork. If you are interested in playing it and don't own it already, I have an extra steam code. First to respond gets it.

Thanks for the props, unimoral. I think the point should be to dream big, but to take progress wherever we can find it. I'm not saying that huge social changes aren't possible, but when they occur successfully there is almost always plenty of training and groundwork that preceded them. An example of this is the enormous progress on LGBTQ rights we've seen in the United States over the last few years. Yes, there is still an enormous amount of work to be done, but we have seen some pretty amazing sea changes in a seemingly short amount of time. Look a little closer, though, and you will see that millions of people have been hard at work at this for decades. It may have seemed to come suddenly for those (like me) who were on the outside for most of that history, but it was in fact won through a series of hard fought battles over many years. Both the benefit and challenge of living in a democracy (or at least a society that aspires to democratic principles) is that government will alway be constrained by public opinion and competing interest groups with often asymmetrical amounts of power. If we can't expect someone to be able to build a coalition of 50% plus one, we need to work to change hearts and mind while pushing for whatever amount of progress we are able to get a strong enough plurality of interests to rally around in the moment. That's why politics is often referred to as "the art of the possible." This doesn't mean we don't work our damndest to push those limits further, but I believe we can both extend the possible while also going as far as we can inside of it.

I put together a video that pretty much reflects how I hear The Rains of Castamere in my head whenever I think of Trump's rise to power.

https://twitter.com/scottbix/status/708679824781516801 A little more context for nazi grandma.

Thanks!

Yeah, I figured as much. Sorry to be pedantic, but I guess if I weren't I probably wouldn't ever post on a web forum

I would be happy to change the title. Only problem: I don't actually know how. Does the OP have the power to change the topic title? If so, how do I do this?

Maybe I have this wrong, but isn't the Alien in Alien female? Rob and Danielle kept referring to her with the "he" pronoun. I guess "Frankie" could be a girl's name... Edit: Never mind. I guess there is a lot of debate about the alien's gender on the internet, and some have concluded they are asexual.

Right, I think I've been outvoted, so no argument here.

It was released last week for backers. Has anyone played it yet? I'm a few hours in and enjoying it so far. It has some general non-english indie game issues with translation and voice acting, but overall the art work is imaginative and the gameplay is a lot of fun.

yeah, that's fair. I wasn't suggesting we talk about Trump in a vacuum, just wanted to avoid this thread becoming a Sanders rally, which it seemed to be turning into for a bit. But I know I'm in the minority, so I'll stop pushing back if people want to take it in that or any other direction.

Many Trump supporters are poor and uneducated white voters who feel disenfranchised by our current system. There is a subset of Sanders supporters who feel similarly, but they tend to blame the billionaire class and corporate elites rather than immigrants and people of color (which I will point out is a more accurate and more healthy target for their anger). As for what Danielle said about people who are going to vote for Sanders in the primary and Trump in the general if Clinton is the nominee... there is a common notion across many cultures that a society can reach a point where it becomes so corrupt, it is better to burn everything to the ground than to try to fix the structures and institutions that already exist. I think that might be what is motivating these Trump voters with a Sanders preference. As a Peruvian American, I am particularly sensitive to how dangerous this ideology of institutional cleansing is. A leftist guerilla group in Peru called Sendero Luminoso held a similar philosophy, and was born among wealthy, light-skinned students and professors at Peruvian universities who felt the best way to help the poor in their society was to start a burn-all revolution, and I use the term "burn" quite literally. They torched parishes, charitable organizations, and the farms of non-compliant peasants — all of whom they saw as tools of Peru's corporate oligarchy. While poor Peruvians were initially supportive of the revolution, they were quickly disillusioned as you can imagine. It began an era where the constitution was revoked and right-wing totalitarianism became the leading political philosophy — quite the opposite of what these revolutionaries wanted. I should point out— Sandero Luminoso was right about the symptoms, even if they were dead wrong on the cure. Peru is a corporate oligarchy, where the divide between rich and poor is far worse than it is even in the united states. I volunteered for several months in a part of the country where poverty was particularly extreme, and also happened to be one of the regions hardest hit by the leftist guerilla group. These guys were princes. In any case, my exposure to this recent history has made me suspicious of movements among affluent leftists who think they know the best way to help the poor. I tend to think it is better to mend and improve existing institutions than to try to burn them all down, and that listening to what marginalized communities want rather than imposing your own agenda on what is best for them is a much better approach, even if it doesn't lead to outcomes you are totally happy with. I think about this a lot when I overhear conversations from some people who express frustration that less than 10% of Black voters in the South backed Sanders. Maybe, just maybe, this is a sign of a failure in Sanders' platform rather than stupidity on the part of these voters. And maybe not. But it's worth listening and paying attention rather than throwing shade. I guess all of this is to say that if you want to support Sanders in the primaries, support him. He seems like an authentic guy with some good ideas. I would also caution people about thinking that voting for Trump is going to help anything. The Republican Party is currently pretty terrible to be sure, but the health of our democracy depends on a robust, reasoned multiparty system. Sacrificing one of the major parties to racist ideologues is one of the worst things that could happen to our political system. An incremental approach to improving society is one worth considering, and I would argue is the approach that is ultimately preferable in most circumstances. Even if the revolution isn't going to come this election cycle, I would really urge everyone to still work to keep pushing that needle in the right direction, even with a somewhat flawed choice like Clinton, rather than surrendering to Trump.

Nah see title and OP