US Politics: Mail and Managers for Mitch

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

My question (what kind of socialism is being promoted) was hacked out and I get a whataboutism response....

 

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Bernie's socialism if you're comparing it to communist dictatorships. Bernie ain't got the guts to lead a Lenin style revolution against the oligarchy.

[The Anti-Targ]

The US-China trade agreement is freakin' insane, at least from an agricultural trade perspective. It's demanding that China imports, over 2 years, $32Bn above the 2017 baseline of imports. I can't see how that is possible. Total US exports of agricultural products to the whole world is about $220Bn, and to China in 2017 it was $29Bn. So almost doubling China imports over the period. It's a practical impossibility for the US export sector to actually find enough product to export that additional amount to China without just shuffling product from one market to another and potentially not achieving any economic gain.

It's appears to be setting China up to fail to meet those targets, and I'm sure both China and the US know this. So I wonder what game both are playing? The US can't realistically sell that amount to China even if China wanted that extra amount. So the number is just there to look impressive, but at the end of 2 years both sides will just shrug and say "oh well, the production was just not there to meet the targets."

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The US-China trade agreement is freakin' insane, at least from an agricultural trade perspective. It's demanding that China imports, over 2 years, $32Bn above the 2017 baseline of imports. I can't see how that is possible. Total US exports of agricultural products to the whole world is about $220Bn, and to China in 2017 it was $29Bn. So almost doubling China imports over the period. It's a practical impossibility for the US export sector to actually find enough product to export that additional amount to China without just shuffling product from one market to another and potentially not achieving any economic gain.

It's appears to be setting China up to fail to meet those targets, and I'm sure both China and the US know this. So I wonder what game both are playing? The US can't realistically sell that amount to China even if China wanted that extra amount. So the number is just there to look impressive, but at the end of 2 years both sides will just shrug and say "oh well, the production was just not there to meet the targets."

Trump gets to announce it, China has text that says "after other commitments" which let it do fuckall, and nothing changes much. Trump doesnt care about actually getting things done and china eases some of the tariffs for basically nothing at all. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Legit bad blood between Sanders and Warren, which it seems like there may now be, seems like a great thing for Trump.  

I think this will largely blow over.  You know what's probabaly not great for Trump?  Lev Parnas.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Trump gets to announce it, China has text that says "after other commitments" which let it do fuckall, and nothing changes much. Trump doesnt care about actually getting things done and china eases some of the tariffs for basically nothing at all. 

This.

Trump wants headlines and wants a big number to spew out to his propagandists in conservative media. He doesn't give a shit if nothing actually happens as long as he thinks it'll get him reelected.

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

I think too that it's not just the Supreme Court though that is an enormous issue as it always is and particularly this cycle.  

But authoritarians tend to get worse after they're re-elected, so we are very likely to see a worse Trump next term.  Think of him thinking he's survived it all and with a SCOTUS more tilted in his direction and Barr nice and settle in and a GOP feeling even more than now that resistance is futile.  

That is why I said that is the "good" scenario. That assumes the democracy continues to limp along and things like the SC still matter. Perhaps Trump dies after election and Pence takes over. Maybe he is just too stupid and old to capitalize on re-election and carve up the country's spoils and serve it to his spawn. 

Our country could easily implode on a Trump re-election. That is one of the bad scenarios.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

Legit bad blood between Sanders and Warren, which it seems like there may now be, seems like a great thing for Trump.  

Sanders and Warren need to shut the fuck up about this shit so the Parnas stuff can play out in the media.

[Altherion]

I wonder whether Sanders or Warren comes out of this with better poll numbers or they both lose standing. Sanders might actually gain a bit here simply because CNN's "moderator" was a bit too obvious about being biased against Sanders.

[polishgenius]

Is it just me or has Warren, in trying to burn Bernie, just set herself on fire? She doesn't seem to be good under pressure in this way.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Is it just me or has Warren, in trying to burn Bernie, just set herself on fire? She doesn't seem to be good under pressure in this way.

I really don't know how this plays out. 

My instinct is that Warren believes that Sanders said something like that, and that it's entirely possible that Sanders said something "like" that - in the context perhaps of expressing the generalized anxiety that a lot of Democratic voters feel about whether we should go "safe" or go "big". I highly doubt, however, that he said anything like a declarative statement that "a woman can't beat Trump".

I think the Politico story about the canvassing talking points is just irresponsible muckraking. You can't convince me in any way that Warren's volunteers don't have extremely similar talking points when voters say they're leaning toward Sanders. To think otherwise is just naive.

I think Warren saw her slipping poll numbers and significant fundraising disadvantages compared to Sanders, and took a calculated risk to get this story out. It remains to be seen whether it pays off. 

It has the potential to pull off Sanders supporters and to hinder his fundraising (and bolster hers), but CNN didn't do Warren any favors by overtly calling Sanders a liar, in the middle of a primary debate no less, over is what is essentially only a "he-said, she-said" argument.

I also think Sanders handled the question very poorly, and should have said something along the lines of "I said X, but unfortunately I think Warren and I had a misunderstanding that I wasn't aware of until a few days ago, but I still apologize for my inartful framing."

[Darryk]

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?

Guy's been on the right side of every issue going all the way back to the civil rights movement, where there are photos of him getting arrested for taking part in a march. He was talking about women's rights and LGBT rights long before it became popular, there's a video of him defending LGBT in the military. There's videos of him protesting the Iraq War, videos of him blasting the amount of money being spent on military, and videos of him ripping into Alan Greenspan for ignoring the decline of America's manufacturing industry (an issue which basically won Trump the election).

I mean, how could anyone hate someone like that? For every great issue in modern American history, there's a video on Youtube of Bernie being on the right side of it.

Now, whether he's electable or not is a different issue. I think he'd do really well against Trump on the debate stage, because Bernie, like Trump, is an outsider, so Trump can't attack him for being one of the elites like he did so effectively against Hillary. Bernie has also been going on about decline of American manufacturing and the outsourcing of jobs long before Trump was.

Bernie has a really good chance in the Rust Belt states, which decided the last election. He'll lose Texas and Florida, he'll win California and New York. The states that hate socialism are generally red states anyway, I think the rest are indifferent on that issue, and could be swayed once they realize that Bernie's brand of "socialism" is no different from what you have in Canada or Scandinavia, countries he frequently refers to as his model. 

People claiming he wants to turn the US into China or Venezuela are being ridiculous. He has a long history of criticizing China, and he even criticized Maduro, which got him a lot of flak from the more far-left elements of his base.

Sure he does shout a lot, but there's a lot to be angry about. I mean the 2008 crisis destroyed the economy and who got arrested for it? The CEOs paid themselves bonuses and went off to play golf while thousands of working people lost their jobs. It's not demagoguery it's just pointing out the fact that Americans live in a rigged economy.

[Lollygag]

7 hours ago, DMC said:

I thought I was pretty clearly being a smartass about the contrast with Trump's own tendencies to support Russia and dictators.

All I saw from the Cooper video is him emphasizing the components of socialism employed by Cuba that Sanders does support - namely education.  Supporting a certain policy of a foreign state is not condoning all the actions of said regime.

Ok, yeah, it's fair to bring up his support of the Sandinistas.  And you're right, the GOP will try to hammer him with it in the general if he's the nominee.  Not sure how much traction it'll get there.  On a substantive level, you could pull up, like, all the officeholding Republicans at the time which backed the Contras who were hardly more morally superior in any way.  On an electoral level, if a voter gives a shit about - or even knows about - our involvement in 1980s Nicaragua, then 99.99% of the time that voter has already made their choice.

Overall, you are talking about Bernie expressing support for aspects of the Castro, Maduro, and Ortega regimes.  And then curiously asking how such support is different from traditional socialism.  The answer is pretty obvious - all three of those regimes are socialist.  Again, I agree it is something that the GOP will try to emphasize in a hypothetical general election, but of all the reasons Bernie is probably going to lose, this is very low on the list.  Frankly, foreign policy is just not that salient with the American electorate right now.  Iran could change that.  Bernie's views on Latin American socialist regimes will not.

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

 

6 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Bernie's socialism if you're comparing it to communist dictatorships. Bernie ain't got the guts to lead a Lenin style revolution against the oligarchy.

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. 

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

“Hack [your] posts”?

Huh?

Explained up page. 

 

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

Adding: the following was just published.

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

 

Quote

Virtually all Americans—Democrats, Republicans and independents—united in support of the hostages and the international call for their freedom. One prominent political figure on the 2020 stage, then almost completely unknown, stood apart by joining a Marxist-Leninist party that not only pledged support for the Iranian theocracy, but also justified the hostage taking by insisting the hostages were all likely CIA agents. Who was that person? It was Bernie Sanders.  

 

 

[Gorn]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

My instinct is that Warren believes that Sanders said something like that, and that it's entirely possible that Sanders said something "like" that - in the context perhaps of expressing the generalized anxiety that a lot of Democratic voters feel about whether we should go "safe" or go "big". I highly doubt, however, that he said anything like a declarative statement that "a woman can't beat Trump".

Yeah, I believe something like this as well. They both appear to be fully convinced they're telling the truth, and I don't think either is straight-up lying. It's easy for something like "it's difficult for a woman to beat Trump" to become "a woman can't beat Trump"  (or the reverse) when recalling a conversation which happened more than a year ago.

Especially since, and I hate to say this, they're both over 70 years old.

[butterbumps!]

3 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?

Paladin of Ice wrote this post that expresses my feelings pretty exactly: 

As have Kalbear and DMC across a wide number of posts.  

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.  I want the country moving left; I do not believe he is the right person to make that happen in an executive role like the one he’s been running for.  Someone called him a demagogue; I think that may be a touch too far, and think it’s more a cult of personality issue.  He’s an inspirational leader, though one with fairly limited appeal.  I want him out there getting people inspired and energized about causes.  But I think beyond that, other people are significantly better equipped, thoughtful, and talented to actually implement a leftward turn, and think he is very capable of doing more harm than good to those causes.

I also find his (and Biden’s) presence in this race to be extremely paternalistic.  They don’t trust these newer faces, largely women and minorities, to win.   Since it’s come up so much in here, the very fact he’s running at all gives me no doubt he’s said what Warren claims he’s said.  Which, to be clear, I don’t care, because I think we’ve all been scared shitless at one point or another over electability in this sexist country after Clinton’s loss.  His statement from 2015 that he was running only because Liz wasn’t was brought up in here to show that he believes a woman can win; what’s his excuse to be running now, when he knew Warren would be running too?   Why not just admit that in general you think a woman can win, but that 2016 has you concerned given the current toxicity?   It’s what everyone’s thinking, or has at least crossed their mind in the last 3 years.  So why doesn’t he take his (sometimes part of the toxic sexism) following and throw it whole heartedly behind his good friend Liz’s candidacy that he would have apparently fully supported in 2015, since he champions woman so damn much?

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Adding: the following was just published.

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

That sounds interesting, but I can't access the article.  It's weird how snooty Daily Beast is about their paywall.  You were founded by friggen Tina Brown, you're not that special!  Anyway, be interested to hear Bernie's thoughts on Iran 1979. 

A quick google of "bernie sanders iran 1979" doesn't give me much (that link is the top result), but I wouldn't be surprised if he expressed criticism of Carter's decision to initiate Operation Eagle Claw.  Cy Vance - Carter's Secretary of State - resigned in protest based on that go order after a failed power struggle within the administration with NSA Brzezinski.  Dunno what "Marxist-Leninist" party Bernie apparently joined.  Wikipedia says he was part of the Liberty Union party for awhile.  That's not a Marxist-Leninist party.  Even if, they really don't like Bernie anymore.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Congratulations everyone, on making me more depressed about the state of the 2020 election than I already was. My only hope is that Democrats return to the fold at the same rate Republicans did when Trump became nominee.

Visceral loathing of a candidate with not much of a rational basis is of course part of what sunk Clinton's candidacy. Not liking a candidate but still voting for him was what got Trump 53% of white women voters. Fingers crossed that whoever becomes the candidate receives the latter blessing but not the former curse.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

Someone called him a demagogue; I think that may be a touch too far, and think it’s more a cult of personality issue.

Yeah I don't think it's fair to draw too direct a correlation between Bernie and, say, Trump.  His supporters may tend to treat him like he's a demagogue, and he does not do anything to discourage it, but his own appeals/rhetoric don't reach that standard for me.  Certainly a vociferous cult of personality though - for instance...

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

His statement from 2015 that he was running only because Liz wasn’t was brought up in here to show that he believes a woman can win; what’s his excuse to be running now, when he knew Warren would be running too?

I'm teaching a class on political sociology this semester.  At the beginning yesterday, I asked the students if anyone watched the Dem debate the previous night and if so what they thought.  One, and (unfortunately) only one hand shot up.  The student resoundingly stated "Elizabeth Warren is a liar!"  In my head I'm laughing my ass off, but I ask him to explain what he means, and boy was that the wrong tack to take. 

The student then goes into, like, a two minute diatribe on how Warren has betrayed Sanders and particularly emphasized how he wished to "step aside" for Warren in 2015.  What a bunch of self-serving horseshit.  You were willing to step aside for Warren when she wasn't running, then four years later were not when she was running?  The mental gymnastics one has to do to believe such an explanation is astounding.  Anyway, the student mentioned seems very engaged overall, I bet he'll get an A in the class.  So, good for young Bernie supporters for at least caring about their college courses!

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

I also find his (and Biden’s) presence in this race to be extremely paternalistic.  They don’t trust these newer faces, largely women and minorities, to win.  Since it’s come up so much in here, the very fact he’s running at all gives me no doubt he’s said what Warren claims he’s said. 

I'm not sure this squares well with facts. Bernie was involved in politics way before Warren, so if anything her running would mean she's the one not trusting he can win. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe he's now ahead of her in the polls... ?
I'm not sure why he would have to justify his run, though of course his 2015 statement is self-serving and hypocritical (he shouldn't have said that).
Sure, one could argue he's old enough to retire, but otoh, as has been said, he's had a lifetime of commitment to progressive causes so I think he can be excused for going for another round now that he's finally got the national attention his commitment deserves.
So long as he knows when to get out...
And while this can be said to have paternalistic undertones, I saw his public endorsement by AOC conversely meaning that he accepted her as his heir (this was a rather common interpretaton of their relationship*). In my eyes, Bernie's running his last campaign before passing the torch to AOC. If he does run in 2024 this accusation (him not trusting newer faces) will be fair**.

But honestly, my TL;DR here is that it's rather weird (and a bit cheap) to somehow accuse Bernie of misogyny because his main rival is a woman...
 

*of course, a cynic could say AOC chose Bernie over Warren precisely because she thinks this is Bernie's last run...
**this doesn't mean that AOC will necessarily run in 2024, or that it is a good idea.

[butterbumps!]

48 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

But honestly, my TL;DR here is that it's rather weird (and a bit cheap) to somehow accuse Bernie of misogyny because his main rival is a woman...

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?     

[Centrist Simon Steele]

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

 

Okay, and you'd be totally fucking wrong. 

So why propose the most costly plan humanly possible to any non-Republican winning by having a separate party? 

First, I'm not "totally fucking wrong" as you put it. 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. 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. I know you're seething as you read this, but the progressives seek to undo the damage of the Democratic party for working and middle class people, not preserve it. But I'll give you this, at least Biden seemed generally aware that we're "getting clobbered" out here.