U.S. politics. thread

[Lollygag]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Well it is still not clear to me, what Maduro has to do with this.

The article you cited talked about single payer healthcare. It didn't say anything about socialism in general.

 

 

No, this is the article I cited above. Its title is in the link itself. Are you mistaking my post for the one I was responding to? It sounds like you meant to reply to Varysblackfyre. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/bernie-sanders-venezuela-maduro-1179636

Quote

‘He is not going to be the nominee’: Dems slam Sanders over Maduro stance

The just-announced 2020 contender declines to say whether the socialist Venezuelan dictator should go.

 

By MARC CAPUTO

02/21/2019 06:10 PM EST

Updated 02/21/2019 07:14 PM EST

 

 

 

[Jace, Extat]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And what happens after that? The logical conclusion is that Republicans, once they regain power, continue the expansion with the goal of making elections less fair. We have to win at the ballot box, not rely on gimmicks that will lead to the degradation of the Republic.   

Is it possible to write into a broad ranging legislative expansion of the courts with a hypothetical filibuster proof majority than any future changes would require a constitutional amendment? 

Eta: fucked it up

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/bernie-sanders-venezuela-maduro-1179636\

The pattern starting to emerge is that Bernie is looking like he's holding up socialism as always good regardless of the actual results. In other words, it's starting to look like he's not qualifying the effectiveness of specific plans and policies, but leading with "x proposal is socialism, socialism is always good, thus x must necessarily be good." Saying no to private insurance despite the popularity of keeping it points to this view. If this view of socialism as always best despite the results or public opinion is actually his belief, he has a huge problem. If it's not, he needs to clarify ASAP.

This has nothing to do with Sanders championing socialism at all costs. He merely stated in an interview that he doesn't consider Guaido to be the lawfully elected leader of Venezuela due to concerns about the fairness of the election that was held, and most certainly did not prop up Maduro. He merely cautioned that we should consider past interventions of the U.S. in Latin America and should learn the lessons of those past interventions, work with the U.N. to ensure a fair election and allow the people of Venezuelan to decide.

In fact, this article is entirely tangential to your assertion that Sanders' view on health care is predicated on a worldview that equates socialism with being "always good". You're trying to shoehorn in an argument simply because he happened to make a statement regarding a socialist country, but your argument doesn't fit because the question of Venezuela's preferred economic system is entirely incidental to what the article actually was about.

[OldGimletEye]

15 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

No, this is the article I cited above. Its title is in the link itself. Are you mistaking my post for the one I was responding to? It sounds like you meant to reply to Varysblackfyre. 

htts://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/bernie-sanders-venezuela-maduro-1179636

 

Look, whatever your take on Sander's stance with regard to Maduro is, it really doesn't have much to do with the pros and cons of single payer.

There are things I disagree with Sanders on. But the relevance of Maduro with regard to single payer is right around zero.

[Lollygag]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

This has nothing to do with Sanders championing socialism at all costs. He merely stated in an interview that he doesn't consider Guaido to be the lawfully elected leader of Venezuela due to concerns about the fairness of the election that was held, and most certainly did not prop up Maduro. He merely cautioned that we should consider past interventions of the U.S. in Latin America and should learn the lessons of those past interventions, work with the U.N. to ensure a fair election and allow the people of Venezuelan to decide.

In fact, this article is entirely tangential to your assertion that Sanders' view on health care is predicated on a worldview that equates socialism with being "always good". You're trying to shoehorn in an argument simply because he happened to make a statement regarding a socialist country, but your argument doesn't fit because the question of Venezuela's preferred economic system is entirely incidental to what the article actually was about.

Bolded: And I didn't say it did. I was very clear in that a pattern was starting to emerge and Bernie needs to clarify if this isn't the case.  and that this was politically very problematic. Lots of other Democrats agree with the optics even if you don't. What I actually said:

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

The pattern starting to emerge is that Bernie is looking like he's holding up socialism as always good regardless of the actual results. In other words, it's starting to look like he's not qualifying the effectiveness of specific plans and policies, but leading with "x proposal is socialism, socialism is always good, thus x must necessarily be good." Saying no to private insurance despite the popularity of keeping it points to this view. If this view of socialism as always best despite the results or public opinion is actually his belief, he has a huge problem. If it's not, he needs to clarify ASAP.

I didn't say that it was my "assertion that Sanders' view on health care is predicated on a worldview that equates socialism with being "always good". I'm saying that he's left the door open to that interpretation and if it's not the case, he needs to clarify ASAP.

Please actually read my posts before replying. 

[Lollygag]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Look, whatever your take on Sander's stance with regard to Maduro is, it really doesn't have much to do with the pros and cons of single payer.

There are things I disagree with Sanders on. But the relevance of Maduro with regard to single payer is right around zero.

I wasn't raising the issue of the pros and cons of any aspect of health care. You veered off on that yourself. It's only an example of a rising and serious optics problem that he needs to correct. 

[OldGimletEye]

11 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I wasn't raising the issue of the pros and cons of any aspect of health care. You veered off on that yourself. It's only an example of a rising and serious optics problem that he needs to correct. 

I guess when he condemned Maduro in the article you cited, he should have said "And I really mean it! Seriously!"

Does calling Venezuela's economy a disaster sound like a blind endorsement of socialism no matter what the results are?

[Lollygag]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

I guess when he condemned Maduro in the article you cited, he should have said "And I really mean it! Seriously!"

I'm glad that Democrats at least are aware of the optics issue and take it seriously. Hopefully Bernie will come to see it and straighten it out. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Lollygag said:

I'm glad that Democrats at least are aware of the optics issue and take it seriously. Hopefully Bernie will come to see it and straighten it out. 

Evidently he does need to say, "And I'm serious, and I really mean it!"

[Kalbear]

Considering that from what I've read, Sanders responded to someone asking about sexism in his campaign by attacking the person and ignoring the question (and then his supporters doxxed her) and has not released his tax returns, I'm gonna say that's a big no on the optics issue being taken seriously. 

[Lollygag]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Evidently he does need to say, "And I'm serious, and I really mean it!"

Are you disagreeing with the interpretation and title of the article itself and how Democrats are characterizing his statements? Are you disagreeing that they can be played out as politically-damaging by both primary opponents and Trump? You'd be wrong because it's already happened. 

 

[Fez]

I gotta say, after the footage seeing AOC question Cohen at the House hearing today, I'm significantly more impressed with her than I was. I still think the Green New Deal rollout has been pretty terrible, but she's way sharper and more on the ball than just about every other Democrat on the committee (and since the committee is representative of the caucus, that makes her smarter than most other House Democrats). She got Cohen to reveal new, substantive information (at least new to the public, Mueller and the SNDY may already know it) and setup cause for a whole lot of additional House hearings.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Bolded: And I didn't say it did. I was very clear in that a pattern was starting to emerge and Bernie needs to clarify if this isn't the case.  and that this was politically very problematic. Lots of other Democrats agree with the optics even if you don't. What I actually said:

I didn't say that it was my "assertion that Sanders' view on health care is predicated on a worldview that equates socialism with being "always good". I'm saying that he's left the door open to that interpretation and if it's not the case, he needs to clarify ASAP.

Please actually read my posts before replying. 

Fwiw, I did read your entire post before replying, and my response remains the same: you asserted in regards to Sanders that a "pattern" of behavior is "starting to emerge" and attempted to use an article having nothing whatsoever to do with socialism as evidence of this alleged pattern.

Why should Sanders need to clarify anything when it seems that his alleged behavior is being made up whole cloth, in relation to a news article in which socialism is never even mentioned and which bears only the thinnest of tangential connections to socialism, in that it was an article about Venezuela and Venezuela happens to be a socialist country?

[OldGimletEye]

13 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Are you disagreeing with the interpretation and title of the article itself and how Democrats are characterizing his statements? Are you disagreeing that they can be played out as politically-damaging by both primary opponents and Trump? You'd be wrong because it's already happened. 

 

I'm disagreeing with this:

Quote

The pattern starting to emerge is that Bernie is looking like he's holding up socialism as always good regardless of the actual results. In other words, it's starting to look like he's not qualifying the effectiveness of specific plans and policies, but leading with "x proposal is socialism, socialism is always good, thus x must necessarily be good." Saying no to private insurance despite the popularity of keeping it points to this view. If this view of socialism as always best despite the results or public opinion is actually his belief, he has a huge problem. If it's not, he needs to clarify ASAP.

He called Venezuela's economy a disaster. Said people are leaving because it's a disaster.

I'm not sure what else he is supposed to say about Maduro. But in your mind, that evidently is an endorsement of socialism no matter the results.

I think people are mad at him because he won't commit to saying that Maduro should go. I'm not quite sure what that is about, but I'd suspect it probably has something to do with him being suspicious about US interventionism. And while there is a lot of things I disagree with Sanders on, some if it economic, and some of how he handles issues of race and gender and so forth, that is something I basically agree with him on.

[Lollygag]

14 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Fwiw, I did read your entire post before replying, and my response remains the same: you asserted in regards to Sanders that a "pattern" of behavior is "starting to emerge" and attempted to use an article having nothing whatsoever to do with socialism as evidence of this alleged pattern.

Why should Sanders need to clarify anything when it seems that his alleged behavior is being made up whole cloth, in relation to a news article in which socialism is never even mentioned and which bears only the thinnest of tangential connections to socialism, in that it was an article about Venezuela and Venezuela happens to be a socialist country?

He's being portrayed by members of his own party as to some degree sympathetic with Maduro. Yeah, it's politically a smart move to not to not bother to clarify that. Whether or not you think Maduro has anything to do with socialism, it absolutely will come up. It already has. You haven't read the article if you say "socialism is never even mentioned". 

Quote

Sanders has long had sympathy for leftist governments. Once a self-described socialist — he now uses the term "democratic socialist" — Sanders has spoken favorably in the past about socialist and communist strongmen. Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, Sanders once said, wasn't "perfect" but "totally transformed" the country. And Nicaragua’s leftist leader, Daniel Ortega, was "an impressive guy," Sanders argued.

 

Bolded: when you run for office and you actually mean to win, it's a good idea to clear the record if you feel like you're being mischaracterized rather than allow it to sit and fester and become a weapon for a primary or general opponent. 

[Lollygag]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

I'm disagreeing with this:

He called Venezuela's economy a disaster. Said people are leaving because it's a disaster.

I'm not sure what else he is supposed to say about Maduro. But in your mind, that evidently is an endorsement of socialism no matter the results.

I think people are mad at him because he won't commit to saying that Maduro should go. I'm not quite sure what that is about, but I'd suspect it probably has something to do with him being suspicious about US interventionism. And while there is a lot of things I disagree with Sanders on, some if it economic, and some of how he handles issues of race and gender and so forth, that is something I basically agree with him on.

Bolded 1: If this was my personal view, my position wouldn't be that he should clarify. Quit making stuff up and quit putting words in my mouth. 

Bolded 2: Exactly the reason why my position is that he should clarify. So some people can't project more extreme views on him than what he actually has. 

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

Bolded 1: If this was my personal view, my position wouldn't be that he should clarify. Quit making stuff up and quit putting words in my mouth. 

How did I make up stuff again? Explain that again?

You made a statement that doesn't seem to quite fit with the facts of what he said about Maduro.

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

 Bolded 2: Exactly the reason why my position is that he should clarify. So some people can't project more extreme views on him than what he actually has. 

Hmm. He said that Maduro has been bad for Venezuela, what else needs to be clarified?

[TheKitttenGuard]

It is so great Sanders has to be concern with the optics of Maduro while Trump states how great of a friend he is with Kim Jung Un. Venzuela election were a problem but Egypt's SiSi locked up opponents, got 90%, and got a congtaulatory call from Trump, and Pompeo throwing Democracy in the MidEast under the bus.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Considering that from what I've read, Sanders responded to someone asking about sexism in his campaign by attacking the person and ignoring the question (and then his supporters doxxed her) and is refusing to release his tax returns, I'm gonna say that's a big no on the optics issue being taken seriously. 

Well, it looks like your decision to focus on positive coverage about your candidate and not focusing on negative coverage of other candidates didn't last long.

Pro-tip: it's not doxxing when people are asking questions at a nationally televised town hall and are identified by their hometown paper.

Quote

The night’s second question went to Tara Ebersole, Baltimore County Democratic Party chair and the wife of state Del. Eric Ebersole, who represents Catonsville and Maryland’s 12th legislative district. She asked Sanders to clarify his stance on his health care plan.

I can't say that I'm surprised at your credulity when it comes to negative coverage of Sanders, but I'm surprised at your willingness to quickly get back up on that horse after everything we learned about the 2016 election, and how we also know there is an active and extensive disinformation campaign aimed at Democratic frontrunners in the 2020 primary.

Not to mention, Sanders has pledged to release the past 10 years of his tax returns, in response to a question about them at the CNN town hall. Not sure where you're getting your information, but you might want to check your sources.

[Lollygag]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

How did I make up stuff again? Explain that again?

You made a statement that doesn't seem to quite fit with the facts of what he said about Maduro.

I've spelled that out over and over on this thread. My view =/= acknowledging how others can, will and do view something. Even the Democrats are raising the issue. I'm sorry you can't seem to understand the difference between optics and facts. There's a loooonnnnnnggggggg list of politicians who have lost due to optics when the had the facts right. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Hmm. He said that Maduro has been bad for Venezuela, what else needs to be clarified? 

 

22 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think people are mad at him because he won't commit to saying that Maduro should go. I'm not quite sure what that is about, but I'd suspect it probably has something to do with him being suspicious about US interventionism. 

You accredited an article to me that I didn't post and missed the one I actually did post. You've been using the forum how long? You kept bringing up specifics of health care when that was never my point and I didn't bring it up myself. You're asking me to clarify what I've repeated over and over now. Now you're questioning my question when you just questioned the same thing in the post immediately preceding. You're dancing around the issue of how this will play in a primary or general debate. At this point, I can only conclude that you are having a very, very bad day and are in no condition to be having this sort of discussion or that you're being a complete troll and are disingenuous. 

I'll assume you're having a bad day and aren't up to this. Hope you feel better!