Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lykos

US Politics - Term of surrender? Or is it wise to follow the Dumpty?

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Another dynamic with Bernie's candidacy that I think is worth pondering:

We've heard a bit about the phenomenon of to what extent Bernie supporters won't turn out if Bernie is not the nominee.  Partly based on 2016 however fair or unfair that narrative but also partly based on polling out there right now.  

Another angle though is that if Bernie is the nominee to what extent do the establishment Dems support him now that the show is on the other foot?  As many predicted you're starting to see a lot more pushback against Bernie from Dem corners lately, and I suppose this is the natural time for that to happen.  If he wins the nom though how will that continue or not?  

It depends, also, on how many bones the winner throws at the losing side. The classic move is to have a VP of the other faction in order to unite the party. I'll be enthusiastic about Biden about the time he promises not to kick student loan debtors in the balls, again.

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Zorral said:

snip

 

Of course you warned, Big Z.  So did we.   And look how fucked we are.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And I dont believe he is serious about racism because he backs people like Rogan uncritically (and continues to do so now!)

Rogan is not running for anything. Sanders is not "backing" him or endorsing him. You are choosing to over-read these things because you say you don't trust him, which is your prerogative, but it's worth noting that Sanders is believed by a substantial margin to be the most honest candidate:

You are definitely an outlier if in fact you believe he is not generally trustworthy.

I very much hear you about being concerned that Sanders will be a sub-optimal choice for the general election, and that he may be a sub-optimal choice as president. But the objection you're making here is hard to credit.

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Triskele said:

ETA:  I see that the yield curve inverted again and that growth was just 2.1 in the latest report.  

Yeah the slowdown in GDP growth definitely perked my ears yesterday morning.  That's a (even the) key indicator for presidential elections.  Not something you ever want to wish for, but if this keeps up, Trump is fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I linked to it above. You can read Warren's plans yourself if you so choose.

Right. The main problem here is that we're clearly seeing different things.

It seems to me the crushing majority of Warren's concrete measures are in fact economic in nature. Even measures which wouldn't be (judicial ones especially) have economic aspects (which they should) like cash-bail or ending private prisons.
Worse even, and to my own surprise, very few measures are aimed specifically at minorities. Some are, like additional funding for historically Black Colleges or her "plan for entrepreneurs of color" but most are really traditional socialist/socialistic/leftist measures.

What I see is political messaging. The website goes to great lengths to explain how socialist/socialistic measures will help members of minorities.

And of course, this is where Bernie and Warren differ.
To my eyes Bernie is an "old-school socialist" focused on class struggle and the economic dimension of social issues. His strategy is based on the hope that he can gather the support of most working-class Americans. In other words I think he hopes to steal some voters from Trump.
While we're at it, I'll add that Bernie is rather close to a European socialist and is immensely popular in France.
Warren by contrast is closer to a "typical" modern American liberal. She's positioned herself as a champion of minorities and people suffering from discrimination. She even did her best to present herself as a woman of color. Contrary to Bernie I think she focuses on the Democratic electoral base.

Different messaging, different strategies imho.
You said you don't trust Bernie... Well, nor do I trust Warren. They're both professionals at this point and messaging should be taken with a bit of salt whether it looks good or bad.
Bernie's record as a lawmaker is far more worrying than anything he can say or fail to say on cultural issues...
 

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

But it doesn't simply say 'racism sucks, so we can't do anything about it' and move on. It helps some. Not enough, and not finally, but some. 

And all the money redistribution doesn't solve it at all.

From Warren's website I'd say she definitely thinks money redistribution will contribute to solving things... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mudguard Re Roberts:

Quote

Schumer also got a final answer on a matter that observers have been wondering about for months: Should there be a 50-50 vote on witnesses, would Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the Senate trial, break it? The answer was no.

“I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed,” Roberts said in response to a question from Schumer. 

A vote by Roberts would not have been unprecedented: The chief justice in the 1868 trial of President Andrew Johnson was allowed to cast a tie-breaking vote on two procedural motions. But Roberts said he disagreed that he was bound by that precedent.

“I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties,” Roberts said. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2020 at 11:53 PM, DMC said:

Uh, no, that's not at all what I'm saying.  Mobilizing turnout is largely based on activists.  Many activists are employed, one way or another, by the Democratic establishment.  If enthusiasm among "the establishment" is murky for a certain nominee, then that is a weakness for that nominee's electoral prospects.

Says more about the "activists" and the party than it does the candidate, to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Isolated episodes from 200+ years ago is what the Constitution is, amIrite? Why bother interpreting it then?

The Constitution itself provides limited direction.  Case law will at least provide justification, explanation, and the idea that the majority of the Court agreed with the holding offered.  Here there is no text explicitly giving the Chief Justice the power to break ties in an impeachment trial.  There is no opinion of the court explaining its rationale.  Finally, it was the action of Chief Justice Salmon B. Chase alone without the support of other justices.  It doesn’t rise to the level of precedence the way old SCOTUS holdings do.  Stare Decisis doesn’t apply in this context.

To bring this back to ground it doesn’t surprise me in the least that this is Robert’s position.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

 I'll be enthusiastic about Biden about the time he promises not to kick student loan debtors in the balls, again.

QFT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh, Hillary really can't let it go. She's almost as narcissistic as Trump.

And the fact that Bloomberg is gonna be at the next debate surely shows what a farce the whole process is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ran said:

Rogan is not running for anything. Sanders is not "backing" him or endorsing him. You are choosing to over-read these things because you say you don't trust him, which is your prerogative, but it's worth noting that Sanders is believed by a substantial margin to be the most honest candidate:

You are definitely an outlier if in fact you believe he is not generally trustworthy.

I very much hear you about being concerned that Sanders will be a sub-optimal choice for the general election, and that he may be a sub-optimal choice as president. But the objection you're making here is hard to credit.

One can endorse another person without their running. You can endorse their program, their character, their views. 

And the poll that says that Sanders is trustworthy isn't saying that either. Its saying that 26% of people find him the MOST trustworthy of the candidates. 26% also happens to be roughly what his value for his base is in the entire poll, if you bothered to look. The poll doesnt ask who is considered the least honest.

That's largely irrelevant however, as my opinion isn't necessarily wrong because other people disagree. Furthermore I didnt mean I dont trust him in general - I dont trust him when he says he won't renege on what little he has promised or went after for minorities and women and the like. And that is based on his actions. He has a very clear history of backing people uncritically and being relatively thoughtless about these issues, and as @Rippounet pointed out his policy work and actions throughout the years is not good here either. I think he is very honest and consistent about his core ideological goals of isolationism, wealth redistribution and social welfare, and the record demonstrates that too. But I dont trust him at all to follow through on defending trans rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Triskele said:

Of course you warned, Big Z.  So did we.   And look how fucked we are.  

So then what's your problem with me personally here that you sneer and snark that I did so warn when so did others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darryk said:

And the fact that Bloomberg is gonna be at the next debate surely shows what a farce the whole process is.

I hadn't seen that yet -- been kinda ignoring the whole process lately -- impeachment instead, hope vs. knowing better, I suppose.

Bolded -- ay-up Bloomberg bought the DNC just like he bought the news business.  Money talks! Loudest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, the DNC did this after the Warren campaign pushed them to allow Bloomberg in because he was skating through to high poll results in later states without actually facing any scrutiny by being in a debate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Zorral said:

So then what's your problem with me personally here that you sneer and snark that I did so warn when so did others?

Because it's obnoxious, and I know that others have also said so in the past.  Whatever you could say about the US politics threads on this board I would think that what one couldn't say is that it's low-information or asleep about the dangers of Trump, but here you come repeatedly suggesting that it's both.  It's poor etiquette.  If it's not your intention to imply these things it comes across as if it is. 

But to be very clear this I mean this only so far as board style goes, and it is not personal anywhere beyond what I've said above.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an outside observer, I don't understand why more is not made of the most obvious reason not to choose Sanders.

Sanders identifies himself as a socialist. It's irrelevent that he uses 'democratic socialist'. You already know it will be a dirty campaign, and Trump will totally misrepresent the meaning of the word socialist. Even the fact that Trump will attack him for that is less important than the fact that the typical American (as far as I can tell from what I see on tv and the internet) is clueless about what a democratic socialist is and fears and resents the idea of socialism. Fucking communism is what it is! They'll take away my money to give it to bums!

Those irrational fears could easily tip the election in Trump's favor. Forget the fact that the attacks will be idiotic. Idiotic is increasingly the norm in the US.

As for who is more trustworthy, really, who gives a shit? You live in a country that elected Trump! Trustworthy is also irrelevent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any Democrat will be labeled as a socialist. Obama was, and certainly this round of Dems will be too. Would Biden or Warren protesting this label as opposed to Sanders explaining it yield any different results? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Simon Steele said:

Any Democrat will be labeled as a socialist. Obama was, and certainly this round of Dems will be too. Would Biden or Warren protesting this label as opposed to Sanders explaining it yield any different results? 

This is absolutely true, but they still understand the difference between socialist as a slur and a self-identified socialist who truly holds to those policies.

The closest to Bernie is Warren and she's an unapologetic capitalist, but her difference is distinguishing between wall street capitalism and main street capitalism. It's a huge difference that they're aware of despite the slurs they use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

As an outside observer, I don't understand why more is not made of the most obvious reason not to choose Sanders.

Sanders identifies himself as a socialist. It's irrelevent that he uses 'democratic socialist'. You already know it will be a dirty campaign, and Trump will totally misrepresent the meaning of the word socialist. Even the fact that Trump will attack him for that is less important than the fact that the typical American (as far as I can tell from what I see on tv and the internet) is clueless about what a democratic socialist is and fears and resents the idea of socialism. Fucking communism is what it is! They'll take away my money to give it to bums!

Those irrational fears could easily tip the election in Trump's favor. Forget the fact that the attacks will be idiotic. Idiotic is increasingly the norm in the US.

As for who is more trustworthy, really, who gives a shit? You live in a country that elected Trump! Trustworthy is also irrelevent.

Surely the places where socialism is an issue are going to be hard red states anyway, like Texas? I guess Florida is probably quite anti-socialism but you can win the Electoral College without winning Florida.

The swing states:

a) largely have bigger issues on their mind, like healthcare and trade

b) won Obama the election twice despite the Republicans and Fox News labeling him a communist

For deep blue states like New York and California, being a socialist is probably a plus. 

And the younger generations are an increasingly significant voting bloc that isn't particularly bothered by socialism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...