Jump to content

US Politics: Money, Money, Money Makes the World Go Round


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The moment someone expresses any sympathies with authoritarians, I'm on high alert.

This this this, Sanders has a long history of excusing authoritarians who he is ideologically aligned with.

7 minutes ago, lancerman said:

If you honestly think he is authoritarian or in any way close to it, that’s kind of a non starter for him sorry. We are too far apart to agree. 

Read this and tell me he wasn't making excuses for dictators he liked in the 80s. 

 

Quote

Sanders had a hunch that Cubans actually appreciated living in a one-party state. “The people we met had an almost religious affection for [Fidel Castro]. The revolution there is far deep and more profound than I understood it to be. It really is a revolution in terms of values.” It was a conclusion he had come to long before visiting the country. Years earlier Sanders said something similar during a press conference: “You know, not to say Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect—they are certainly not—but just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people does not mean to say the people in these nations feel the same.”

There is, of course, a mechanism to measure the levels of popular content amongst the campesinos. Perhaps it’s too much to expect a democratic socialist to be familiar with the free election, a democratic nicety the Cuban government hasn’t availed itself of during its almost 60 years in power.

Quote

What “made sense” to Sanders was the Sandinistas’ war against La Prensa, a daily newspaper whose vigorous opposition to the Somoza dictatorship quickly transformed into vigorous opposition of the dictatorship that replaced it. When challenged on the Sandinistas’ incessant censorship, Sanders had a disturbing stock answer: Nicaragua was at war with counterrevolutionary forces, funded by the United States, and wartime occasionally necessitated undemocratic measures.

Quote

Sanders has long claimed to be a “democratic socialist”—the type of lefty who loves Sweden, but is offended by the totalitarian socialism that dominated during the Cold War—but he has long employed the tepid language of “imperfection” when discussing the criminal failures of undemocratic socialism. Totalitarians with unfriendly politics are correctly met with derision and thundering demands for extradition and prosecution. So Sanders succinctly described the Chilean murderer, torturer, and destroyer of democracy Augusto Pinochet as a “mass murderer, torturer, and destroyer of democracy.” And Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos is rightly tagged as a “crook and murderer.”

Perhaps at this point I don’t need to point out that Fidel Castro is likewise a crook and a murderer. Or that Sandinista strongman Daniel Ortega, while achieving none of the milestones Bernie Sanders once claimed he had achieved, stole enormous amounts of money from the Nicaraguan people and was, to name just one example, behind the infamous bombing at La Penca which killed seven people (including three journalists).

Trumps love of authoritarians we rightly condemn I don't see why a love of authoritarian regime painted red is any better. And yes he gives tepid denials but it's pretty clear he has a huge blind spot for these issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I also see a Sanders victory as another form of defeat. He'll try to enact some of these promises, I don't doubt he's a true believer, but with a likely Republican senate he'll have to turn to EOs that will get struck down by the courts and the economy has been on the edge of collapse for years now. Won't it be great to have Paul Ryan promise to make the economy better in 2024 and win by a landslide?

He was ALWAYS against Trump, dontcha know?

Biggest thing that could help Bernie in getting his agenda passed is if we have another 2008 style crash in the next several months.  Biggest blow to a leftist agenda would be a financial meltdown a year or so into his presidency.

Whether or not Bernie would actually run again considering his age I don't know, but a second Bernie term or just a different Democrat running in 2024 is likely to have far less enthusiasm than in 2020 (Trump wouldn't be there and Bernie's populism will have disappointed).  Also, the dirty little secret about Trump is that he had a huge under performance in the popular vote (granted this under performance probably wouldn't of changed the electoral college) and the next Republican candidate will probably fare better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Yes he did.

Well I think that if it were a straight popular vote I would be a lot less worried he polls decently against Trump, but once you get into state polls he does worse. Running up the score in California won't help, Hillary herself got more votes.  I don't think he can win middle America and  it also worries me his base are the young and nonvoters, two of the the most unreliable voting blocks. That combined with the torrent of anti socialist anti communist propaganda the Republicans will unleash combined with Bernie's favorable statements of the same will sink him with old but reliable voters who are primed to hate these things. 

 

Notice I didn't say his polices are too far left, it;s everything else about him and even there he won't make some simple changes. He could turn medicare for all from an unpopular one to a popular one by taking out the line banning private insurance. It wouldn't cost the government any more money or anything but he won't and people who equate health insurance with healthcare, will hear the true statement, Bernie wants to make your health insurance illegal, and think that means they won't get healthcare. 

From your linked article, a couple of things stood out to me:

"Sanders declined to speak to The Washington Post for this report. But his history of steering a course between his socialist philosophy and his desire to win — as well as his record of creating surprising alliances — suggest that a President Sanders would be less radical than some of his rhetoric may imply." Hm, what a monster.

"Some members were acolytes of a political philosopher named Murray Bookchin, an anarchist who lived in Burlington and was a pioneer in the U.S. ecology movement. Bookchin saw Sanders as an accommodator — far too willing to work within the existing system." How very...pragmatic and slightly left of center of him.

The one bit of this very long article that touches on the flag outrage: "The mayor hung a Soviet flag in his office (to honor Burlington’s sister city in Russia), but “our slogan was to out-Republican the Republicans,” Franco said. “When you’re a socialist, you had to plow the streets and keep the taxes down or you’re going to be out on your ear. People were shocked by the number of voters who were for Reagan and Bernie.” Huh. Solidarity with the working class of another country. 

And all this to say is that after his entrance into politics nearly forty years ago, he is more invested in improving this country by looking elsewhere and saying, "If those countries can have it, our citizens can too." 

I'm not going to pretend his views are universally accepted, or even have potential to be come November. The biggest problem for Sanders is likely that he represents a view that has been slowly been getting choked out of the American way of life since the Reagan era. The biggest potential boon for Sanders is the same thing. That he's representing the party of FDR, that Americans have been trickled upon just long enough that they're ready to get out of this ideological scarcity of riches that the elite hoard more closely than ever and yet is somehow good for the working American. 

And just to your last point: Bernie's stance on removing private insurance companies is essential for his plan to be affordable. He believes that so long as profit motivated insurance companies exist, that the cost of healthcare can't come down to anything reasonable. A big part of his plan to pay for M4A is to reduce the greatly inflated prices created by profiteering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Biggest thing that could help Bernie in getting his agenda passed is if we have another 2008 style crash in the next several months.  Biggest blow to a leftist agenda would be a financial meltdown a year or so into his presidency.

Whether or not Bernie would actually run again considering his age I don't know, but a second Bernie term or just a different Democrat running in 2024 is liking to have far less enthusiasm than in 2020 (Trump wouldn't be there and Bernie's populism will have disappointed).  Also, the dirty little secret about Trump is that he had a huge under performance in the popular vote (granted this under performance probably wouldn't of changed the electoral college) and the next Republican candidate will probably fare better.

And if history is any indicator, whether its Sanders or another Dem, the chances of the meltdown happening toward the end of the year or catching up to the new President early next year, seem most likely. I do think the economy has been positioned on the edge of a cliff, and even when it happened last time during the end of Bush's term, a lot of people put that on Obama. You know, the man who saved our country. If Bernie loses in November, I imagine the financial implosion will happen early into Trump's next term, and that's worse in my opinion, because we won't have someone in office who gives a shit about us. That is precisely when the right's goals of cutting social security, medicare (as it currently is), gutting education, and potentially repealing Obamacare will finally happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Darzin said:

This this this, Sanders has a long history of excusing authoritarians who he is ideologically aligned with.

Read this and tell me he wasn't making excuses for dictators he liked in the 80s. 

 

Trumps love of authoritarians we rightly condemn I don't see why a love of authoritarian regime painted red is any better. And yes he gives tepid denials but it's pretty clear he has a huge blind spot for these issues. 

The link about the dictators he liked in the 80s is ridiculous, taking shots at him for calling for the abolition if the CIA, ooh, puts him in the same in American class of traitor as JFK (said as much in 1962).  

@Jace, Basilissas , and others - I think Sanders is the best chance to get Trump out of office.  I can understand that others disagree.  Yes, would be way better if there was as much support for someone younger with the same platform.  Who, right now, has a better chance of getting Trump out of office?  Who's going to turn out more votes where they matter?  Only half being an asshole when I say 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'.  

No. Stop.

Sanders supporters don't get to invoke that phrase after the last five years.

I'm happy to suck it up and fall in line, but Sanders and his ilk are not the reasonable ones who are taking one for the team. Please don't suggest otherwise or I may become unpleasant in the face of such... underdevoped narratives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lancerman

1.  The point is he was "willing" to back her when she was almost certainly going to lose the nomination, and unwilling to back her when he was getting very old for the office and backing her would have given her a very good chance of gaining the nomination.  Sounds like a bunch of political bullshit to me, but ymmv.

2.  Again, my point is if Bernie stepped aside months earlier than now.  And, yes, considering she had the "surge" you yourself acknowledged, that suggests she could have been quite valuable if Bernie did what he could to put his supporters behind her - as opposed to his supporters and surrogates knee-capping her candidacy.  It's also certainly not "stupid" to pass on your political legacy to a well-qualified "good friend" with aligned preferences when you're 78 and running for president.  One could argue that's the most rational thing to do - unless you're just in it for the attention and ambition.

3.  LOL at age not factoring in this cycle.  And yes, she would be a substantially fresher face than Sanders.  Denying that is denying reality.

4.  If you don't understand the fundamental difference of identifying yourself as a democratic-socialist over a 40 year political career and simply being attacked as a socialist by the GOP machine, you're either lying to yourself or do not understand the basics of political campaigns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Maybe you are not wrong, who cares, like  really, how is sanders waving a finger to some journalist, such a big deal, dont you think, that maybe you are building a mountain out of a grain of sand? Maybe cuz your supposed "skeletons" on bernie's closet, arent real, so you have to give sooo much time on something so little. 

It wasn't waving a finger. This is what I originally said. It was one piece of many. Links have been provided. They're real.

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/156454-us-politics-money-money-money-makes-the-world-go-round/&do=findComment&comment=8485911

My biggest problem is the forum thinking it's apparently :dunno: but if Trump did the exact same thing the reaction would be very different.

Links have been provided. They're real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

 

What did Al Gore's loss mean for Dems in 2000?  The end of the world?

 

First, Al Gore wasnt the first of his kind running for anything. Second, it did actually mean running on climate change as an issue was dealt a blow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

He looked like he wanted to line Chris Matthews up in front of a firing squad.  

He wanted to shoot Matthews himself, but alas, he lost his glasses thus couldn't see his target anymore.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, lancerman said:

If you honestly think he is authoritarian or in any way close to it, that’s kind of a non starter for him sorry. We are too far apart to agree. 

A lot of authoritarians go into office as non-authoritarians. It's worse when their agenda is to consolidate power in the federal government. I'm not tolerant of any sympathies from anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Huh. Solidarity with the working class of another country. 

I think it's a bit more then that, Soviet flag was not just another countries flag like it or not the flag itself is just so ideological, and to quote the great poet @Jace, Basilissa hanging it in your office when you are a forty year old elected official is "some real dumb shit" at that age and position you should damn well know better. But ultimately it's not us Bernie has to convince, we're going to vote for whoever the Democrats put up whether it;s  Bernie Sanders Mike Bloomberg or an epileptic toad; it's the sixty year old machinist in Michigan that needs convincing and  I doubt he's going to read those two paragraphs of context, that's not a knock on you it's a knock on the American voter who won't be able to see the bigger picture that even if Bernie has some flaws Trump is a clear and present danger. But well No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

I have to think if Bernie loses the same way Clinton did, then we have evidence something bigger at play (than policy stances) is impacting these outcomes. Bernie's movement will "die" if he loses because this is his last shot. Other progressives will step into his place tho, and just like the safe, moderate choice losing in 2016 didn't kill that view, moving to the left won't die either.

It should have been his last shot in '16.  Probably the same for Biden.  They should have spent the last 4 years working to build a coalition for their views and ideas and put someone to the front of said group and backed them to the hilt.  If it was about the movement and the good that it's supposed to bring about, particularly in Sanders's case, he could have done that.  Instead, he's running out of feels like pure hubris and maybe a tinge of revenge...

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Actually, yes, it may well suggest that Biden or Warren or any other candidate could have won while Bernie didn't because of the unique and identifiable weaknesses Bernie has that literally every other candidate does not.  As for Bernie stepping aside for Warren, no, I don't think it would have been "idiotic."  If you're good friends with another candidate, your policies essentially align, she has quite a bit of buzz, and you're a 78-year-old retread that has the socialist label sewed on as a scarlet letter, I'd say it'd be the pretty classy and prudent thing to do to put the support of this movement you've built behind a candidate like Warren.  Obviously it's been too late to do so for months now, so it's moot, but that definitely wouldn't have been idiotic.

Yup. Again, this is hubris, rather than common sense and actual belief in his own message.  If he truly believed in in, not himself, he'd trust someone better suited to enact it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Seriously? Fuck off. All this shit is a re-tread of the 2016 primary, except the power brokers in the Democratic party are freaking out even more now that it appears he has a viable path to the nomination, and they're equating Sanders with being a fucking Nazi, which is WAY fucking worse than Sanders hanging a fucking flag in his office.

Nothing you're linking now wasn't already linked during the 2016 primaries, so it's just the media re-hashing all the same talking points they dragged out 4 years ago.

I'm going to make a Sanders-as-boogeyman bingo card, and the next thing I'll put on it is Sanders' crazy rape fantasy essays, that monster! 

And you've not countered any point made on Sanders and are just screeching now. You've not expressed knowledge of any of these in previous posts hence my assumption.

If it's a rehash for you, it's apparently new for many on this thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

First, Al Gore wasnt the first of his kind running for anything. Second, it did actually mean running on climate change as an issue was dealt a blow.

My point was that, despite Al Gore losing election, the Democratic party didn't disappear overnight.  Despite McCain losing in 2008 the GOP was still able to have total control of the US government again.  Claiming that any loss is somehow a deathblow to a specific issue or agenda is absurd.  It didn't mean running on climate change as an issue was dealt a blow, it meant Gore lost.  If Trump beats Klobuchar in November is running as  dem dealt a blow?  Running as a moderate?  Of course not.  

When Clinton lost to Trump, was any of that lost?  You all are attributing all sorts of meaning and to something that isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

And you've not countered any point made on Sanders and are just screeching now. You've not expressed knowledge of any of these in previous posts hence my assumption.

If it's a rehash for you, it's apparently new for many on this thread.

 

Quote

A lot of authoritarians go into office as non-authoritarians. It's worse when their agenda is to consolidate power in the federal government. I'm not tolerant of any sympathies from anyone.

I'm the one screeching?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

My point was that, despite Al Gore losing election, the Democratic party didn't disappear overnight.  Despite McCain losing in 2008 the GOP was still able to have total control of the US government again.  Claiming that any loss is somehow a deathblow to a specific issue or agenda is absurd.  It didn't mean running on climate change as an issue was dealt a blow, it meant Gore lost.  If Trump beats Klobuchar in November is running as  dem dealt a blow?  Running as a moderate?  Of course not.  

When Clinton lost to Trump, was any of that lost?  You all are attributing all sorts of meaning and to something that isn't there.

I didnt say the party disappeared. And that is an especially odd argument given Sanders isn't a democrat. 

What I said is that it will be taken as a sign that progressives cannot win. That m4a cannot win. You can say it is ridiculous, but this is exactly what has happened every time either party has tried something new and failed. The party then overreacts and goes the other way. 

So, yes, if Sanders loses it will be used against all progressives in the future as evidence they cannot win, and centrists will be given more ammo.

And when Clinton lost to trump women running for the potus was given a major blow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Darzin said:

This this this, Sanders has a long history of excusing authoritarians who he is ideologically aligned with.

Read this and tell me he wasn't making excuses for dictators he liked in the 80s. 

 

Trumps love of authoritarians we rightly condemn I don't see why a love of authoritarian regime painted red is any better. And yes he gives tepid denials but it's pretty clear he has a huge blind spot for these issues. 

The only thing tepid here is Bernie's support for authoritarian regimes compared to the default position of US politicians, which is that authoritarians are great as long as they're our authoritarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

And if history is any indicator, whether its Sanders or another Dem, the chances of the meltdown happening toward the end of the year or catching up to the new President early next year, seem most likely. I do think the economy has been positioned on the edge of a cliff, and even when it happened last time during the end of Bush's term, a lot of people put that on Obama. You know, the man who saved our country. If Bernie loses in November, I imagine the financial implosion will happen early into Trump's next term, and that's worse in my opinion, because we won't have someone in office who gives a shit about us. That is precisely when the right's goals of cutting social security, medicare (as it currently is), gutting education, and potentially repealing Obamacare will finally happen.

Trump being in charge during a recession is the stuff of nightmares. That being said I don't see Republicans being about to gut anything during a recession.  That's when people are going to be the most attached to the services Republicans would like to scale back. 

14 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 

@Jace, Basilissas , and others - I think Sanders is the best chance to get Trump out of office.  I can understand that others disagree.  Yes, would be way better if there was as much support for someone younger with the same platform.  Who, right now, has a better chance of getting Trump out of office?  Who's going to turn out more votes where they matter?  Only half being an asshole when I say 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'.  

Yeah, general elect-ability doesn't matter.  The main thing to ask is what the rust belt thinksthinks.  If the Democratic candidate can win MN/MI/PA/WI then they should be able to win the election.  Bernie did win the 2016 primaries in MN/MI/WI so hopefully that indicates he'll do better their than Clinton did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...