US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

[Jace, Extat]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

See, you say you don't punch babies, and then three hours later you're out here attacking Beto.  Doesn't fit.

To be fair, I'm aiming for the enablist parent figures who keep giving these assholes participation trophies. 

I'm half expecting to see Revolution Accomplished banners all over the place when Bernie loses by slightly less EC votes than Clinton did.

[Freshwater Spartan]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

Been thinking about this the past few days.  I don't think Warren really "unites" the party, although that framework isn't necessarily the best anyway.  Castro would be a good choice.  But I lean towards thinking he should pick a woman - not saying he has to but that's where my thought process go - and I keep on coming back to the Tammys.  Duckworth or Baldwin, either would be great picks.  Electorally, I know she just got in and I don't know too much about her so just throwing it out there, but maybe Whitmer in Michigan?

Whitmer is not a bad pick but not exactly an electric speaker. See her Democratic response to the State of Union. And we just got her after eight years of Snyder.

I don't get the Stacy Arahams love. Smart lady but hasn't won anything.  Ideally you want a women who is moderate from a swing state to balance out Sanders and to placate the losers of the primary. I agree with others no Senators unless the governor is a democrat.

Of course this is assuming he has a majority of delegates. If he doesn't then he will need to pick Warren or Buttigeig or God help us Biden.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

To be fair, I'm aiming for the enablist parent figures who keep giving these assholes participation trophies. 

I'm half expecting to see Revolution Accomplished banners all over the place when Bernie loses by slightly less EC votes than Clinton did.

I'll give you a head's up. I'll even spare you the obligatory head joke here.

If Sanders loses it will be down to the broken system which is the EC (which it objectively is), and ofc it will be down to the internal saboteurs within the DNC, who would rather not win the GE, remain in power of running the Democratic party instead (a certain pat leech gave you a sneak peek into that one).

And of course most of all, it will be Hillary's fault.

[Zorral]

Again, explain why it is a win-win to have a multi billionaire who has vast real estate, banking and financial interests at heart to be POTUS? Or go up against another just like him, except he's Jewish?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bloomberg-killed-the-best-chance-at-justice-for-the-911-attacks?

Quote

 

...Bloomberg at first backed trying the 9/11 conspirators in the city. But the NYPD and the big real estate developers central to Bloomberg’s vision of New York as a “luxury brand” viewed the trial as a national-security version of a Not-In-My-Backyard concern—all as a broader backlash to Barack Obama’s handling of the war on terror was brewing. By January 2010, Bloomberg reversed himself, and his opposition doomed the trial....

.... “and it pulled the rug out from under Obama and Holder’s conviction that the 9/11 trials needed to be held in federal court on federal soil, just as [international terrorism cases] had always been prior to 9/11.”....

. . . . The New York Times reported that Bloomberg got “an earful” of opposition to the trial when he attended an annual gathering of the Real Estate Board of New York; its president warned “it would destroy the economy in Lower Manhattan.” Jane Mayer of The New Yorker noted that “companies with downtown real-estate interests had been lobbying to stop the trial.” The chairwoman of the downtown-Manhattan community board wrote an op-ed opposing having the trial “in the midst of a dense residential and office neighborhood.. . . 

 

 

[butterbumps!]

10 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

don't get the Stacy Arahams love. Smart lady but hasn't won anything.  Ideally you want a women who is moderate from a swing state to balance out Sanders and to placate the losers of the primary. I agree with others no Senators unless the governor is a democrat.

 

The interesting thing about her loss, though, is that it’s marred by voter suppression fuckery.   I’m not sure if the outright cheating alone robbed her of the election.  But it is a very concrete example of corruption and system rigging that is entirely on brand for Sanders and the progressives at large, as well as a cause she immediately devoted herself to fight against.    It’s a cause progressives (and liberals and moderates) should be outraged by and fighting against.   

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

The interesting thing about her loss, though, is that it’s marred by voter suppression fuckery.   I’m not sure if the outright cheating alone robbed her of the election.  But it is a very concrete example of corruption and system rigging that is entirely on brand for Sanders and the progressives at large, as well as a cause she immediately devoted herself to fight against.    As progressives should be outraged by and fighting against.   

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Spoiler

ZZZZZZZER!

If you can't beat voter suppression what the fuck use are you to the Democratic party?

[James Arryn]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Well, yes, that's Bernie for you. Is anyone here going to be surprised by this?

There are several different things here:

- The election. As a socialist politician, Sanders has over the years been ambiguous over things happening under Castro or Chavez. Of course. And yes, that will cost him votes, probably Florida (though don't Cuban-Americans already vote Republican anyway?), and possibly the election. That's precisely why I thought Warren would be a better candidate, since she comes without that kind of bagagge.

- The ideology. As I said before, ideology and regime can be distinct. Right-wing politicians don't get slammed for the way their ideology played out in places like Chile, or don't get asked to own the terrible consequences of unfettered capitalism. Point out that even terrible socialist regimes sought to provide quality education or healthcare and suddenly you're a monster. Blah. I guess Bernie should stick with Norway, but the media won't let him do that (Anderson Cooper is a case in point here, one should also think about his role in this).

- The video (the one you linked). Have you watched it? I tried hard to find a moment where Bernie clearly praises Castro's revolution and didn't actually find one. He mentions the fact he didn't know anything about politics at the time. And then his exact words are: "I always had a rebelious streak. [...] But I remember [...] being very excited when Fidel Castro made the revolution in Cuba. I was a kid and I remember reading that. It seemed right and appropriate that poor people were rising against rather ugly rich people."
Then he explains that both JFK and Nixon sought to destroy the Cuban revolution... And that's before the public knew for certain that Castro was going to be an autocrat/dictator, or even that Castro'd turn Cuba into a vassal state of the Soviet Union.
He also spends a lot of time speaking about race in the 1960s (the video doesn't seem that focused on Cuba).
And his recent comments are worse, but in the same vein. He condemns the persecution of political dissenders (calls Castro a "murdering dictator") but also points out that the Cuban regime did some good things, which is factually correct, as anyone who knows anything about Cuba can attest. And he's also correct that this is why a majority of Cubans kept supporting Castro even after it was clear that he was a dictator (what a monster he is for actually understanding that left-wing dictators can be popular...).

So I think there are two things to take out of this. i) Bernie is coherent, honest, and obviously understands the nature of the Cuban revolution far better than anyone slamming him for his remarks. By that I mean that it's one thing to condemn dictators, but it helps knowing the hows and the whys of them taking (or keeping) power. ii) This kind of honesty and subtlety is indeed very likely to get Trump reelected.

Now if I may... If Bernie does get the nomination, I think Democrats (/liberals) should be ready to defend this kind of position. At the very least they should try to understand where Bernie was coming from in the 1960s, and then through most of his political career up to this point. It would have been easier to defend Warren, for sure. But if Bernie gets the nomination, Democrats will have to understand what it means to be an anti-capitalist revolutionary and why they can't just throw Bernie under the bus now.
Tough sell, I know. But if Bernie gets the nomination, the election will be about more than Trump. And perhaps it's the worst moment to have this kind of national discussion about what capitalism and socialism really are. But it seems that's how things are turning out...
 

The thing about the Dulles Dance is that when you are a minor player and some foreign superpower like the US has decided to fund assassinations, coups, propaganda, invasions etc. to topple you, you Autocrat or you die...at which point they can point and go ‘see, Autocrat!’ 

[Maithanet]

Viewing candidates as winners or losers based entirely on one race, while ignoring all other factors that go into whether you win or lose (most notably, how difficult that particular seat is to win) is extremely myopic.  Was Barack Obama a loser because he lost his 2000 House race to Bobby Rush? Is Ned Lamont winning Connecticut by 3 points really more impressive than Abrams losing Georgia by 1?

Whatever.  I grow tired of your trolling. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

If Sanders - or anyone else - asks Abrams to be the VP, she will undoubtedly accept.  She'd be stupid not to, as would any other ambitious politician.  No one blames the VP for losing candidacies, it's all upside.

Still have no idea what Sanders is thinking about in this regard though.  I like how @Tywin et al. has identified Abrams and Castro as "probably" being the VP choices though - regardless of nominee.  Can't help but think of this:

 

Lol. Assuming Sanders wants someone that can stay on his message, the pool is small and those two could do it while also addressing the of diversity. Sure there are other options, but those two names will be floated loudly.

I just checked two random betting sites and Abrams was tied as the favorite on both. Castro isn’t doing as well as I expected, but he’s still one of the top names. Not sure why one of the sites gave HRC 16-1 odds. That’s just stupid.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Viewing candidates as winners or losers based entirely on one race, while ignoring all other factors that go into whether you win or lose (most notably, how difficult that particular seat is to win) is extremely myopic.  Was Barack Obama a loser because he lost his 2000 House race to Bobby Rush? Is Ned Lamont winning Connecticut by 3 points really more impressive than Abrams losing Georgia by 1?

Whatever.  I grow tired of your trolling. 

In 2000, yes Barack Obama was a loser. Was he supposed to be the Veep for Kerry off the back of that loss?

Coming close doesn't mean anything in our political system. My first, second, third, fourth, and fifth concern with a Democratic candidate is whether they can win.

What, exactly, has Stacey Abrams done to show she's a winner? Besides losing real nicely?

[Maithanet]

Just now, Jace, Basilissa said:

What, exactly, has Stacey Abrams done to show she's a winner? Besides losing real nicely?

She got 1.92 million Georgians to vote for her, fully 68% more than any other Democrat ever had. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I just checked two random betting sites and Abrams was tied as the favorite on both. Castro isn’t doing as well as I expected, but he’s still one of the top names.

Well if you're basing it on betting sites, I'm sold!  

28 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

The interesting thing about her loss, though, is that it’s marred by voter suppression fuckery.

Yeah, I agree, this is unique for Abrams among "losers."  Her loss pisses people off, especially women, when you get informed about it.

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

At least here in Michigan a lot of 'rank and file' Democrats are worried about Sanders being the nominee. I know a few members of the Democratic Party here (local candidates, delegates to the convention etc.) and they are worried not only about him losing in Michigan but also say the House.

I presume such sentiments are probably common among the 'elite', i.e, people who are full-time party members across the nation. Whether or not this translates to jitteriness among the electorate is something to be considered. I'm not sure how much the general voting public takes its cues from the elites anymore.

Best get your jitters out now and be ready to bring everyone back in the fold come July. I wish I knew how sentiment in the Republican side was early 2016.

[Kalbear]

Seems appropriate

 

[Jace, Extat]

15 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

She got 1.92 million Georgians to vote for her, fully 68% more than any other Democrat ever had. 

And she couldn't win! Is she gonna magically carry the state in 2020 when Trump is on the ticket to bring out the red necks and purple legs?

Yeah, let's throw away a valuable position that could help secure a state we've won in living memory just because Stacy Abrams is an inspiration! Fuck you Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania! We don't want nothing to do with states that matter strategically and aren't held in a deathgrip by the enemy!

This is not trolling what I'm doing right now. I understand I blur the lines on occasion. This is me being, yet again, shocked stupid by the way a lot of liberals are so enthusiastic about making things harder.

[Maithanet]

The idea that you can identify "winners" and "losers" in politics based on a single race is stupid.  It is akin to saying that Trent Dilfer is a better quarterback than Dan Marino.  Lots of candidates seem like "winners" right up until they don't.  Likewise plenty of candidates lose elections and then go on to become Presidents, Senators and Governors.  The only candidates in the current primary who have never lost a race are Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren, and how much good is all their "winning" doing for them?

[ThinkerX]

46 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

To be fair, I'm aiming for the enablist parent figures who keep giving these assholes participation trophies. 

I'm half expecting to see Revolution Accomplished banners all over the place when Bernie loses by slightly less EC votes than Clinton did.

External circumstances will dictate the next presidents options regardless of the victor.

Climate Change, or at least its consequences, will be come undeniable.

Likewise, oil depletion (we shot past 'peak oil' around the tail end of the Bush II years.)  Monumental effort is going into masking just how dire this situation is, but...gas lines and travel restrictions are at least possible in the next few years regardless. 

 

Trump is utterly incapable of dealing with either issue, and his 'pretend it's not happening' position will blowup in his face.

Sanders might grasp the severity of these issues, but probably won't have the time (one term president) to initiate solutions apart from pilot projects and stopgap measures.  

The president who wins in 2024 may well literally be the person who determines if the US survives the next several decades as a viable country.

 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

9 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

External circumstances will dictate the next presidents options regardless of the victor.

Climate Change, or at least its consequences, will be come undeniable.

Likewise, oil depletion (we shot past 'peak oil' around the tail end of the Bush II years.)  Monumental effort is going into masking just how dire this situation is, but...gas lines and travel restrictions are at least possible in the next few years regardless. 

 

Trump is utterly incapable of dealing with either issue, and his 'pretend it's not happening' position will blowup in his face. 

Sanders might grasp the severity of these issues, but probably won't have the time (one term president) to initiate solutions apart from pilot projects and stopgap measures.   

The president who wins in 2024 may well literally be the person who determines if the US survives the next several decades as a viable country. 

 

 

So you are putting the future of your Nation into the capable hands of Chuck Norris then?

[Lollygag]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Well, yes, that's Bernie for you. Is anyone here going to be surprised by this?

Here? Not as much though some in the earlier part of the last thread seem to be under the impression that all of Bernie's bad stuff is already common knowledge. For the general public, this is very new which means whoever spins it first and best has the advantage.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

There are several different things here:

- The election. As a socialist politician, Sanders has over the years been ambiguous over things happening under Castro or Chavez. Of course. And yes, that will cost him votes, probably Florida (though don't Cuban-Americans already vote Republican anyway?), and possibly the election. That's precisely why I thought Warren would be a better candidate, since she comes without that kind of bagagge.

- The ideology. As I said before, ideology and regime can be distinct. Right-wing politicians don't get slammed for the way their ideology played out in places like Chile, or don't get asked to own the terrible consequences of unfettered capitalism. Point out that even terrible socialist regimes sought to provide quality education or healthcare and suddenly you're a monster. Blah. I guess Bernie should stick with Norway, but the media won't let him do that (Anderson Cooper is a case in point here, one should also think about his role in this).

- The video (the one you linked). Have you watched it? I tried hard to find a moment where Bernie clearly praises Castro's revolution and didn't actually find one. He mentions the fact he didn't know anything about politics at the time. And then his exact words are: "I always had a rebelious streak. [...] But I remember [...] being very excited when Fidel Castro made the revolution in Cuba. I was a kid and I remember reading that. It seemed right and appropriate that poor people were rising against rather ugly rich people."
Then he explains that both JFK and Nixon sought to destroy the Cuban revolution... And that's before the public knew for certain that Castro was going to be an autocrat/dictator, or even that Castro'd turn Cuba into a vassal state of the Soviet Union.
He also spends a lot of time speaking about race in the 1960s (the video doesn't seem that focused on Cuba).
And his recent comments are worse, but in the same vein. He condemns the persecution of political dissenders (calls Castro a "murdering dictator") but also points out that the Cuban regime did some good things, which is factually correct, as anyone who knows anything about Cuba can attest. And he's also correct that this is why a majority of Cubans kept supporting Castro even after it was clear that he was a dictator (what a monster he is for actually understanding that left-wing dictators can be popular...).

So I think there are two things to take out of this. i) Bernie is coherent, honest, and obviously understands the nature of the Cuban revolution far better than anyone slamming him for his remarks. By that I mean that it's one thing to condemn dictators, but it helps knowing the hows and the whys of them taking (or keeping) power. ii) This kind of honesty and subtlety is indeed very likely to get Trump reelected.

Now if I may... If Bernie does get the nomination, I think Democrats (/liberals) should be ready to defend this kind of position. At the very least they should try to understand where Bernie was coming from in the 1960s, and then through most of his political career up to this point. It would have been easier to defend Warren, for sure. But if Bernie gets the nomination, Democrats will have to understand what it means to be an anti-capitalist revolutionary and why they can't just throw Bernie under the bus now.
Tough sell, I know. But if Bernie gets the nomination, the election will be about more than Trump. And perhaps it's the worst moment to have this kind of national discussion about what capitalism and socialism really are. But it seems that's how things are turning out...

This all sounds quite reasonable. I just don't expect much of that from an election and especially not one against the Trump party. Bold 2: It's tough to say this when Castro made sure there were no free elections and so many people decided they rather risk dying in the ocean rather than to stay there.

I did watch the video. But all I saw was it hacked up showing only the worst part with an ominous voice-over, some not-so-subtle devil/evil imagery, with some of the worst facts and images about Castro and Cuba with some doomsday scenario slapped on it. It will work. Bernie never tried to define himself or damage control this stuff for the past 5 years so the Republicans will define him. They're better at this stuff.

The Republicans don't need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, or even be right. They need to only plant the seed of doubt, to dampen enthusiasm so they're not knocking on doors or donating. Maybe even keep people from voting in disgust or opting for a third party. For the disengaged voter, he makes token moves to the middle (tree planting for climate change, etc) to make himself look like the safer, moderate choice. Democrats will campaign on Trump's awful climate record, but he'll give disengaged voters a reason to say, "but what about his trees?" If they succeed in painting Bernie as another devil (he's making it easy), then Trump wins the devil you know battle.

The problem with praising dictators on the scale of Bernie's is that it's kinda like saying Ted Bundy was a smart, charming and charismatic guy. Technically true, but unless you're just explaining how he got some of his victims, it comes off as minimizing what he did. Trump gets the same treatment with his authoritarian love affairs. I get what you're saying and even agree, but it's just how people tend to view that stuff so Bernie has an uphill battle here.

[Jace, Extat]

14 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The idea that you can identify "winners" and "losers" in politics based on a single race is stupid.  It is akin to saying that Trent Dilfer is a better quarterback than Dan Marino.  Lots of candidates seem like "winners" right up until they don't.  Likewise plenty of candidates lose elections and then go on to become Presidents, Senators and Governors.  The only candidates in the current primary who have never lost a race are Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren, and how much good is all their "winning" doing for them?

Did she lose her highest profile race? Has she won anything remotely comparable? 

Identifying winners and losers based off of their performances is... how you identify winners and losers.

It's not my fault that she has State Senate victory and U.S. Senate loss as her resume. Here's an idea, when she wins an election in which more than a few thousand people vote and comes from a state that isn't a lost cause maybe then she can be on the short list for VEEP! Until that happens she can just buy the fucking nomination like everyone else or go away for a training montage that will leave the audience in tears before the big comeback.