Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fragile Bird

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by Jaxom 1974

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, were the 2016 threads like this one too? :stunned:

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Edited by Kalbear

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm the one screeching?

I haven't told anyone to fuck off in lieu of actual discussion of the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

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.

So clearly the smart strategy for any leftist would have been, advocate for John Delaney or Biden or Bloomberg and let moderates fail, in the meantime secretly plot in some basement until the shortest path dictates we actually support someone advocating leftist causes.

I get everyone is trying to set themselves up to not be disappointed.  What I'll ask now, that I've asked a couple other times, is who's the alternative at this point?  What better course of action is there, at this moment, to beat Trump?  Sanders, Bloomberg,and Biden, all die onstage during the next debate?  

A Sanders loss isn't anymore indicative of an m4a loss than Clinton losing meant that people didn't want better healthcare.  Because no matter what people say about what it meant, the healthcare in this country is still fucked and all of us with shitty care, expensive care, or no insurance know it.

And unless I'm missing something the m4a candidate is the most popular person on either side currently running for president.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

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. 

It will certainly be wielded against the left if that comes to pass. That doesn't mean it will necessarily work. The huge defeat of Goldwater led directly to Regananism. The Goldwater crazies inherited the party.

And the left would be crazy not to seize this chance. They have waited decades. Flinching away from a possible defeat and ceding the field also has a pretty high chance of ensuring decades more of moderate Democratic Presidents.

Definitely see the point about this being a really bad time to try this experiment though. It looks like Sanders is winning this fair and square, however. And it says a lot about the other candidates that they can't beat him.

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


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

But the question isn't asking why vote for Sanders. It is asking what happens when he loses. A core understanding from 2016 was that women cant win, and that has affected candidates this time. If the understanding after Sanders loses is that progressives cant win , what does that mean for the future?

You are missing so very much.  What happened after the 2016 HRC catastrophe?  It galvanized women of every sort across the entire nation.  The infestation win energized the left and brought to the left and progressives a whole lot of voters who stayed home back in November 2015.  At least one candidate this time around understands how essential the hispanic vote is and has hired a great consulting team. Bernie, a so called socialist, won very large over all the others, in a state in which there are organized and union labor groups, many of whom happen to be of hispanic descent -- which btw, I predicted would be the case for Bernie.  And whose members are also to great extent women.

What happens if due to voter repression, supression, crazy-ass suffocating and strangling out all other ads and outreach another billionaire determined to buy  what he can't get legitimately in competition with others?  What happens when the crazy ass government money stimulous that bedbug is allowed to pour out into the economy to keep bailing out big agriculture, etc., and the (frozen, factory grown) chicken and pork comes home to roost and contaminate the water table -- and big crash comes down?  What happens? Do you think intelligent people of all walks of life are not thinking of such things?

It called not giving up and living to fight another day. 

In the meantime, the so-called 'centerist base' of the Dem party is NOT THE BASE and it sure as hell ain't energized. They're clutching pearls, wringing hands and BEING MIGHTY SCARED and, per usual, doing nothing but whine.

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Sanders, Bloomberg,and Biden, all die onstage during the next debate?  

Don't start giving me ideas to start a crash-course in voodoo or something.

12 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

A Sanders loss isn't anymore indicative of an m4a loss than Clinton losing meant that people didn't want better healthcare.

It is when MFA is discernibly unpopular with the general electorate, all other proposals provided by Dem nominees this cycle (or in 2016) are discernibly popular with the general electorate, and Sanders remains the only candidate not willing to compromise on his MFA advocacy.

Share this post


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

You are missing so very much.  What happened after the 2016 HRC catastrophe?  It galvanized women of every sort across the entire nation.  The infestation win energized the left and brought to the left and progressives a whole lot of voters who stayed home back in November 2015.  At least one candidate this time around understands how essential the hispanic vote is and has hired a great consulting team. Bernie, a so called socialist, won very large over all the others, in a state in which there are organized and union labor groups, many of whom happen to be of hispanic descent -- which btw, I predicted would be the case for Bernie.  And whose members are also to great extent women.

What happens if due to voter repression, supression, crazy-ass suffocating and strangling out all other ads and outreach another billionaire determined to buy  what he can't get legitimately in competition with others?  What happens when the crazy ass government money stimulous that bedbug is allowed to pour out into the economy to keep bailing out big agriculture, etc., and the (frozen, factory grown) chicken and pork comes home to roost and contaminate the water table -- and big crash comes down?  What happens? Do you think intelligent people of all walks of life are not thinking of such things?

It called not giving up and living to fight another day. 

In the meantime, the so-called 'centerist base' of the Dem party is NOT THE BASE and it sure as hell ain't energized.

 

All them bitches really helped take back the senate, huh? The one that refused to interview witnesses during impeachment proceedings?

What exactly do you people think Bernard is going to accomplish with a Republican senate? Do you think Mitch McConnel is going to get swept up in the revolution?

 

ETA: Quote, got ninja'd and it wasn't clear who I was raving hysterically at.

Edited by Jace, Basilissa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I haven't told anyone to fuck off in lieu of actual discussion of the topic.

Then give me an actual topic to discuss instead of re-hashing tired anti-Sanders tropes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

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...

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.

I don't agree with the spite/hubris/revenge narrative. I think he feared the party was already pulling back to the center, and honestly, it seems he was right. Even Elizabeth Warren shocked me with her insistence on moving towards the center. Not much we can do about it either way. I don't think it's useful for us to look at candidate motivations cynically. Well, except Bloomberg.;)

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...