Remember 2016. If the Dem party machine is still using super delegates, I seriously doubt that Bernie will get the nomination.
Bernie lost the primaries in 2016 by more than 3 million votes. Super delegates had nothing to do with that.Remember 2016. If the Dem party machine is still using super delegates, I seriously doubt that Bernie will get the nomination.
It's funny how you seem to always post the exact opposite of reality. After MAGAs (who have come to believe themselves to be a protected class), Bernie supporters are the worst when it comes to identity politics and 'woke.'I saw a Sanders ad the other day where he evoked the moon landing and flashed images of FDR, Truman and Kennedy.
Sanders doesn’t play identity politics. He speaks to all Americans and champions the legacy of the New Deal. There is a place for “left” but not “woke” in his coalition, which is where Rogan comes in.
In a sense, yes. Instead of pursuing actual knowledge, he's more interested in sounding knowledgeable to get praise and money. And he's counting on many of his fans being unable to distinguish between the two.
Oh yeah...wth was Rogan's claim to fame?
Holy crap, that ran until 2014?
To my memory, it was the latter.Yes, but Carolla and Kimmel were long gone by then. I think it was Doug Stanhope and some other douche? Kimmel was never a great fit for that show, but all the others were. ....was it this or Win Ben Stein's Money that was Kimmel's first major gig?
Your reality led to Trump’s election.It's funny how you seem to always post the exact opposite of reality. After MAGAs (who have come to believe themselves to be a protected class), Bernie supporters are the worst when it comes to identity politics and 'woke.'
Anyway, I'm fairly convinced that the reason Republicans love Bernie so much is because they know he can't bring out the votes in the 3 areas that cost the Dems the election in 2016, and they also know that another Dem candidate can get those votes. So you concern troll and spread FUD.
I'm honored that you think I have that much power, but it doesn't explain why you're so intent on recreating the exact same circumstances this election.Your reality led to Trump’s election.
Who among political commentators, right or left, would you say is pursuing actual knowledge?
I’m honored that you think I have that much powerI'm honored that you think I have that much power, but it doesn't explain why you're so intent on recreating the exact same circumstances this election.
I’m honored that you think I have that much power
roflmao <shrug> snipe huntYou alone? No. But you're not alone. You're a member of a movement. And you're all working *real* hard. I know, I know, you're just a long suffering Eisenhower Republican who loves him some Bernie style social democracy/socialism.
Lol
On the conservative side, David Frum and David Brooks would be good starts.
On the left? Matt Yglesias, Ta-Nehisi Coates, even John Oliver...
These are generally people who will point to sound evidence, rely on consistent and well-considered reasoning, admit the limitations of what they know and, crucially, are willing to adapt to new findings rather than cling to ideology at all costs. Shapiro does none of those things.
You see what I'm getting at? Genuine intelligence isn't the sole province of the left, but there's currently a rash of pretenders on the right (Shapiro, Crowder, Peterson, D'Souza et. al.) who use an illusion of intelligence to peddle fundamentally flawed ideas. They're the political equivalent of that friend who overuses long words in an attempt to sound cultured.
So those among the right you think most engaged in the pursuit of knowledge just happen to be its most tepid supporters, while the ones you deride as using an "illusion of intelligence" include a Harvard graduate and a former Harvard professor.
That just seems foolish to me. Anyone can honestly believe that guys like Shapiro and Peterson are dead wrong. But no one can expect to be taken seriously when claiming that they're not real intellectuals.
I think Shapiro is an intellect due to the fact that he graduated law school and has become a successful (if funded by right wing billionaires) internet debater on the right. The problem is he isn't necessarily an intellectual which colloquially has come to mean a thinker who tries to solve problems in the public sphere through research and analysis--which implies acting in good faith.
Because Shapiro is a paid propagandist who doesn't even believe what he's saying half the time, and sometimes flip flops multiple times in a sentence while he's struggling with his propaganda spiel, it's hard to make the case that he's a good faith actor. He literally gets paid to say what he does by right wing billionaires, and sometimes by foreign oligarchs like when he worked with Paul Manafort.
By "not acting in good faith", you're saying he doesn't really believe the positions he claims to?
So those among the right you think most engaged in the pursuit of knowledge just happen to be its most tepid supporters, while the ones you deride as using an "illusion of intelligence" include a Harvard graduate and a former Harvard professor.
That just seems foolish to me. Anyone can honestly believe that guys like Shapiro and Peterson are dead wrong. But no one can expect to be taken seriously when claiming that they're not real intellectuals.
roflmao <shrug> snipe huntKeep stirring that pot bunky.
This sounds more like a criticism of his persona, not his intellect. Shapiro is a pundit. I don’t personally care for his monotone rapid fire delivery, but he occupies the same sphere as a Joy Reid or Janeane Garofalo when she was on Air America or Michael Moore or Al Sharpton. The preacher pundits who sing dogma to their respective choirs.He believes in the greater right wing cause, it doesn't mean he always believes the exact propaganda he's spewing, especially in the cases when he's paid to say it like when right wing Russian oligarchs paid him to spew garbage about 1 side in Ukraine. Some things he says he obviously doesn't personally have a specific dog in the fight because being a paid mercenary.
Other times he lies to his viewers to rile them up. I understand from a left wing perspective this seems like bad faith, since a left winger might value the principle of honesty. Of course if you are a right winger, you might consider that not bad faith since he's furthering the right wing project, and the ends justify the means. Then we will end up devolving into a long metaphysical argument about just exactly what bad faith means subjectively to each individual, perhaps.
Bernie lost the primaries in 2016 by more than 3 million votes. Super delegates had nothing to do with that.
So those among the right you think most engaged in the pursuit of knowledge just happen to be its most tepid supporters, while the ones you deride as using an "illusion of intelligence" include a Harvard graduate and a former Harvard professor.
That just seems foolish to me. Anyone can honestly believe that guys like Shapiro and Peterson are dead wrong. But no one can expect to be taken seriously when claiming that they're not real intellectuals.
This sounds more like a criticism of his persona, not his intellect. Shapiro is a pundit. I don’t personally care for his monotone rapid fire delivery, but he occupies the same sphere as a Joy Reid or Janeane Garofalo when she was on Air America or Michael Moore or Al Sharpton. The preacher pundits who sing dogma to their respective choirs.
I will give Shapiro credit for entering into the lion’s den of his political opponents and meeting their sometimes irrational emotions with well reasoned responses. I also don’t always agree with him, and that’s ok too.