US Politics: Mail and Managers for Mitch

[Rippounet]

19 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Shit, I definitely didn’t mean to convey that.

Hmmm, one could argue I took your quote out of context.
At any rate, the misogyny thing was aimed at Warren's campaign, not at you.

I think I was just disagreeing with you that Bernie running necessarily means he said anything about Warren not being able to win...
I think he's running because he's enjoying the spotlight and wants to give the presidency another shot,.. Neither Warren's electability (nor Clinton's) was ever that much of a factor imho.

As for his quote... blah, politics imho. He tried to make himself look better than he actually is, 'tis all.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

5 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I don't disagree with what Bernie said in the video and I've no problem with saying socialism isn't 100% bad, but praising regimes like that regardless of the internal politics is odd. That Hillary raised the issue in debate and Cooper felt the need to clarify - I'm not the only one who's confused.

The issue isn't so much his views on socialist or South American regimes (his support of Morales' Bolivia isn't near as controversial ) but authoritarian socialists. He's also has expressed support for USSR socialism but kinda doubt Republicans want to go there. The optics are that Bernie at least looks the other way on authoritarians if they keep the politics that he likes and his position becomes more activist when he does like them. This isn't Canada's or Europe's style of socialism. 

https://thehill.com/policy/international/469951-sanders-says-very-concerned-about-what-appear-to-be-a-coup-in-bolivia

 

That would be the weirdest thing ever. I do have a fundamental misunderstanding of "Bernie's socialism" (is that a unique thing?) but I'm not under the impression he's pushing anything like communist dictatorships. I am under the impression that Bernie's lines in the sand to get his socialist results aren't what he's representing. Typical for politicians, but this is more unsettling than usual and it really contradicts the much prettier socialism that's promoted. 

Explained up page. 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adding: the following was just published.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-iran-took-americans-hostage-bernie-backed-irans-defenders?ref=home

 

 

Lollygag, it's something in the way you communicate that makes your positions very difficult to pinpoint. You seem to say you believe Bernie is in support of fascism, bread lines, etc. But then you say you don't believe he's supporting fascist communist policies. I think you're saying his "lines in the sand" aren't representative of socialism, but that doesn't make sense to me either.

Bernie's socialism is a unique brand of socialism, I suppose, but it's not his brand. It's similar in structure to other European countries. I'd say it's more intense than Canada's brand of socialism, but still, much closer to that than anything communist country.

Bernie's not in support of those countries--as the clip you posted of him upthread somewhere shows. He's not an interventionist, and very often, news outlets pick up his unwillingness to to support moves against other countries as though he's in support of those countries leaders. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

23 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Shit, I definitely didn’t mean to convey that.   I believe both of the following are true: that Sanders believes a woman can be president and that he expressed concern over whether one could be elected in 2020 after the events of 2016.   So I believe he did say what Warren’s claiming he did, either about America’s willingness to elect a woman candidate in 2020 generally or against those who’d be running in particular, perhaps even Liz herself.   

But I don’t think that it’s misogynistic to have those concerns.   I’m also pretty sure all of America has been pretty much worrying along those lines as well.   I don’t really understand why Warren’s camp thought this was something to mobilize ppl against Sanders about bc saying one has concerns about this sexist country electing a woman president isn’t exactly groundbreaking.  

My comment about finding his run to be confirmation of his fear a woman (or perhaps Liz in particular) couldn’t win this  cycle has partially to do with his own words about how he’d have stepped back from running in 2016 if she ran.  Why would he step back then if only to run precisely when he knew she’d be running?     

I lean toward believing what Bernie might have said was interpreted by Warren differently than he meant, but I do believe a kernel of truth is there. Bernie might have said something like he's concerned about a woman's chances in this election, I don't know, but either way, I do think that's representative, as you said, not of misogyny, but definitely a limited view about the world. I put any of the women running up against Trump favorably. 

Your last comment about why is he running now since she is? I have to think he senses a pressure from the movement he spearheaded. Many of them are not supportive of Warren. I don't think this has to do with gender, but a deep held belief that she is a moderate in disguise (from his supporters, not himself). I don't agree with this at all. Her record in the Senate speaks for itself, and I don't care if she was once a Republican. So was I. I just think Bernie is aware that much of his movement might have sat this one out and not rallied behind Warren. I don't know if he's right.

[Mudguard]

10 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

My comment about finding his run to be confirmation of his fear a woman (or perhaps Liz in particular) couldn’t win this  cycle has partially to do with his own words about how he’d have stepped back from running in 2016 if she ran.  Why would he step back then if only to run precisely when he knew she’d be running?     

Sander's statement in 2016 wasn't a promise that he wasn't ever going to run against Warren in future elections.  It just reflected the reality that in 2016, Warren was a rising star in the Democratic Party, while Sander's had a much lower profile.  In 2016, I really wanted Warren to run, and I would have most likely voted for her in the primary over both Sanders and Clinton.  In part, that's because I knew a lot more about Warren at the time than Sanders.  Sanders was considered a fringe member of the Democratic party, and his campaign wasn't taken seriously by the media at the beginning.  If Warren ran in 2016, I think Sander's believed that most of the progressive support would have ended up with Warren.  But she didn't run, and Sanders ended up outperforming expectations, raising his national profile, and establishing a strong base of support.

Sander's is no longer just a joke or fringe candidate.  The situation of Sanders and Warren in 2020 is not the same as it was in 2016.  I don't find it difficult to believe that Sanders was sincere in his 2016 comment because he believed at the time that Warren had a better shot of winning in 2016.  However, Sanders has a real shot at winning the 2020 primary, and he could rationally believe that he has a better shot this year than Warren of winning the primary and beating Trump.  Again, he never promised that he wasn't going to run against Warren.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I lean toward believing what Bernie might have said was interpreted by Warren differently than he meant, but I do believe a kernel of truth is there. Bernie might have said something like he's concerned about a woman's chances in this election, I don't know, but either way, I do think that's representative, as you said, not of misogyny, but definitely a limited view about the world. I put any of the women running up against Trump favorably. 

Your last comment about why is he running now since she is? I have to think he senses a pressure from the movement he spearheaded. Many of them are not supportive of Warren. I don't think this has to do with gender, but a deep held belief that she is a moderate in disguise (from his supporters, not himself). I don't agree with this at all. Her record in the Senate speaks for itself, and I don't care if she was once a Republican. So was I. I just think Bernie is aware that much of his movement might have sat this one out and not rallied behind Warren. I don't know if he's right.

I think this Warren / Sanders thing, while pretty inconsequential as far as elections go or either of then getting the nomination, is a reminder that within people who lean democratic are a bunch of different factions, many of which don't really like each other despite sharing some beliefs/ideas in common.  

And jfc all of the cable news networks have abandonded even the pretense of journalism.  

On another note, anybody watch the Parnas interview? 

[Fez]

6 hours ago, Darryk said:

I don't get why some liberals hate Sanders so much. Believing he's not electable is one thing, but hating him? Is it cause he looks unkempt and shouts really loudly or something?

I don't hate Sanders, but I do dislike him, for two primary reasons:

1) He's much further to the left than me and I think some of his policy ideas would be bad for the country. 

2) I know several people who work for other Democratic senators on the Hill, and they all tell me the same story. Which is that his office is consistently staffed by incompetents who refuse to put in the work necessary to craft actual, workable legislation. The problem is not that the legislation is too far left and therefore wouldn't pass. The problem is that they never do the basic stuff of: identifying the US Codes they want to change, identifying the implementing agencies and describing how the agencies would operate, establishing funding mechanisms, writing everything in legislative text, etc. They never do the work needed to get things done; instead they just talk in the same massive, sweeping language than Sanders himself always does. And I have every reason to assume that a Sanders White House would operate the same way as a Sanders Senate Office does; and, as we've seen with this administration, a dysfunctional White House (ignoring the massive policy differences for a moment) leads to all sorts of avoidable problems. I think Sanders is more interested in rhetoric than governance and I don't like that.

 

There are other issues as well (won't disavow problematic supporters, should step aside for younger candidates, etc.), but those are true of far too many other Democrats as well; so I don't really hold those against him.

[Maithanet]

GAO agrees that the Trump administration broke the law in withholding Ukraine aid.

 

Quote

The Government Accountability Office says the Trump administration broke the law when it withheld US security aid to Ukraine last year that had been appropriated by Congress -- an issue at the center of the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

In a decision issued Thursday, the GAO said that the White House budget office violated the Impoundment Control Act, which says that funds appropriated by Congress cannot be withheld by the White House.

"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA," the GAO said.

 

I'm sure it won't matter, but the GAO is nonpartisan and works for Congress.  Them saying that the administration acted illegally is the kind of thing that in any other administration would be a HUGE deal, like on par with the biggest scandal of the Obama administration.  But instead it's just Thursday and this won't even be the biggest story of the day. 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Bernie opposes billionaires, the others support the continuing direction of the Democratic party--which has been anti-middle and working class for a long time. 

Yes, this seems like a fair and reasonable way to describe warren and her policies and rhetoric towards billionaires. 

[Fez]

One perk of being a billionaire...

That's a way higher salary than I've ever heard a field organizer getting before. If Bloomberg sticks with this, he could end up with an extremely talented campaign apparatus. 

Although if Biden sweeps the first four states I expect Bloomberg to immediately drop out and support him.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

43 minutes ago, Fez said:

One perk of being a billionaire...

That's a way higher salary than I've ever heard a field organizer getting before. If Bloomberg sticks with this, he could end up with an extremely talented campaign apparatus. 

Although if Biden sweeps the first four states I expect Bloomberg to immediately drop out and support him.

Amy only paid me $2,500 per month, which is the typical salary for a FO outside of some of the major markets (NYC, LA, San Fran).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I also mentioned upthread that I think he will end up souring the public on leftist causes if he is in a position like the presidency.

 

3 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

change

I’ve been making the same argument as butterbumps  since 2016, and if you think Bernie will cause change, he will, but not the kind you want. His presidency has failure written all over it, and if he does fail he’ll set back leftists causes for a generation. You’ve been complaining about moderates a lot. Guess what, I’m to the left of communism, and I still think it’s wiser to back a moderate candidate because winning matters more than getting everything you want.

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Guess what, I’m to the left of communism,

Sorry for the OT, but I'm genuinely curious: what's to the left of communism?

 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

So I believe he did say what Warren’s claiming he did, either about America’s willingness to elect a woman candidate in 2020 generally or against those who’d be running in particular, perhaps even Liz herself.   

Yeah.  Considering they are fairly close, there is almost no doubt in my mind Bernie at least intimated privately to her that the one (probably main) reason he wasn't stepping aside this cycle is because he's concerned about the American electorate's willingness to elect a woman.  That definitely does not make Bernie any type of sexist/misogynist.  I may think he's mistaken (or, frankly, using it as an excuse because he was always gonna want to run for his own vanity/ego), but that's a reasonable debate anyone can have - just like me and Kal had that exact same discussion yesterday on this thread.  Definitely doesn't make me or Kal a sexist.

3 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

No candidate is working for honest change apart from "hey, we need to get back to what it was like before Trump." Aside from Bernie (and to some small degree), the status quo is the way to go.

This is easily contradicted is you just glance at the platforms of any of the top candidates (or probably any of the candidates, but I can't keep track of them all).  Each candidate is proposing plenty of changes that "progress" from the status quo or the Obama era.  More importantly, the policy agendas of even the "moderate" candidates are significantly more leftist/progressive than anything we've seen before, including Obama or Hillary 2016.  I guess from a socialist/neo-marxist perspective you could argue only Sanders or Warren are truly trying to upend the establishment in a structural way, but that's a ridiculous standard to place on anyone that's trying to win the electoral college in the United States.  And the policy distinctions between Sanders and Warren are so minuscule it betrays one's own biases/preferences to suggest the former can be described as "progressive" while the latter cannot.

3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

It just reflected the reality that in 2016, Warren was a rising star in the Democratic Party, while Sander's had a much lower profile.  In 2016, I really wanted Warren to run, and I would have most likely voted for her in the primary over both Sanders and Clinton.

While I'm decidedly incredulous that Sanders' claim he would've stepped aside in 2016 is genuine, I do agree that Warren should have run in 2016.  One thing we learned from Obama (and on the other end, Mario Cuomo and Chris Christie) is that it's best to strike while the iron is hot rather than "wait for your turn" when it comes to running for president.  Hell, there's a very compelling argument that Hillary should have took on Dubya in 2004.

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

On another note, anybody watch the Parnas interview? 

Just clips, but watching him I can't help but think of Pentangeli at the Senate hearing in Godfather II.  Let's hope Parnas doesn't somehow have an old-school Sicilian brother!

3 hours ago, Fez said:

Which is that his office is consistently staffed by incompetents who refuse to put in the work necessary to craft actual, workable legislation. The problem is not that the legislation is too far left and therefore wouldn't pass. The problem is that they never do the basic stuff

Yep, I've heard the exact same.  This is the primary reason I not only dislike Bernie as a candidate (as I've detailed on here before), but am seriously concerned with a prospective Sanders administration and how his stewardship could seriously backfire/setback the leftist movement in this country longterm.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

42 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sorry for the OT, but I'm genuinely curious: what's to the left of communism?

 

The end of money and the concept of scarcity.

[DMC]

46 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sorry for the OT, but I'm genuinely curious: what's to the left of communism?

Anarchy?  Or the final stage of Marx's historical materialism (the "higher phase" of communist society)?

[Larry of the Lawn]

57 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sorry for the OT, but I'm genuinely curious: what's to the left of communism?

 

Banks' Culture 

[Fez]

51 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The end of money and the concept of scarcity.

I would've guessed Super Communism.

It's like regular communism, but it's got blackjack and hookers. 

[Prince of the North]

9 minutes ago, Fez said:

I would've guessed Super Communism.

It's like regular communism, but it's got blackjack and hookers. 

Yep, a world in which the House always loses and the hookers always win!

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Anarchy?  Or the final stage of Marx's historical materialism (the "higher phase" of communist society)?

Flashback to poli-sci essay on Stalin’s D&H Materialism. That week was the longest year of my life.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Flashback to poli-sci essay on Stalin’s D&H Materialism. That week was the longest year of my life.

Yikes, my sympathies.