Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

......

Take a step back and ask yourself who's supporting a "doomed cause" here. Is it the people who think that capitalism can be fixed, or is it the people who think capitalism must be destroyed? Trump isn't a bug of this system, he's a fucking feature. Replace him and sooner or later someone else will come along, that's already what Bloomberg is trying to do. I'm not 16 anymore dreaming of a glorious revolution for the workers, I'm 36 and dreaming of a revolution to save our species from itself. And from a European perspective nothing can be done until the US takes the lead on this. Not pretending like all the "moderates" do, not paying lip-service to the idea like my own fucking president, but actually taking the lead and getting shit done right now. Anything less than trillions of dollars is a joke at this point.
And you know what? I don't think I care that much if whoever goes there has an authoritarian streak. That might be what it'll take. Maybe the only way the rich and powerful finally shut down the coal plants and factories is if they're all rounded up at gunpoint and taken to the gulags where they will cultivate organic food and make wicker baskets for the masses.

See Jace? That's how you get scary. You start talking about what it takes. I guarantee, when you do that, people start being uncomfortable real fast.

The people supporting a doomed cause are the ones who think that Americans will vote to get rid of capitalism.  

The ones who are on this side of the debate who aren't fighting a doomed cause are the ones saying you win, then you move what you can to the degree that you can.  

Edited by ants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie gave a "hard no" to Bloomberg's funding if he's the nominee.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/sanders-campaign-rejects-bloomberg-s-help-general-election-it-s-n1143296

Quote

Sanders cannot control or dictate what independent groups do in his behalf since campaign finance law prohibits candidates from coordinating strategy with outside groups. But Bloomberg's team has said the mogul would not spend in behalf of a candidate who rejected his help.

"Bernie said he didn't want [Bloomberg's] money, so we're not going to. I don't think it would be prudent to spend on behalf of somebody who didn't want it," Howard Wolfson, a senior adviser to Bloomberg, told NBC News after the debate.

"I think everyone else has said they want the help, including Elizabeth Warren," Wolfson added. "If Elizabeth Warren is the nominee, we will do everything we can to help her. Sanders is the one candidate who said he didn't want the help."

Bloomberg will be bringing in another candidate to take out Trump if Bernie gets the nomination.

Share this post


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

Dude, if you think I wouldn't want an appropriately motivated and vetted Despot, you're wrong. Bernie Sanders just ain't that dude, and if America is going to empower a dictator it won't be one of the guys we'd want.

My bad, I see I still haven't actually answered Kalbear's question.
Why does it matter for the choice to be so clearly defined between right and wrong? It's not an easy question to answer.
I think it has to do with keeping the illusion of free will, and the hope that if we don't get it right, if the choice is clear enough, eventually someone will.
So I guess Bernie ain't that dude, but perhaps his successor will be.
It's foolish if you think defeats set the clock back. But with temperatures rising, that might no longer be true.

Edit: I went into a crazy rant last night, but seriously, we're actually facing a paradigm shift and many old principles will no longer apply. Maybe progressivism was best served by being patient and moderate before (and that's a very debatable assumption in itself tbh), but absent a technological miracle climate change will keep raising the stakes and increase the pressure on the body politic to transform the socio-economic structure.

3 hours ago, ants said:

The ones who are on this side of the debate who aren't fighting a doomed cause are the ones saying you win, then you move what you can to the degree that you can.  

Well your profile says you're Australian so you'll know how it feels to burn alive before most of us. :P

Edited by Rippounet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden really seems like a "put food on their family" kind of guy. If he was president he'd rival George W. for meme-worthy gaffes.

Share this post


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

Bernie gave a "hard no" to Bloomberg's funding if he's the nominee.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/sanders-campaign-rejects-bloomberg-s-help-general-election-it-s-n1143296

Bloomberg will be bringing in another candidate to take out Trump if Bernie gets the nomination.

What an idiot. Sanders gets to keep his purity and in the mean time we lose the House, Senate, Census, redistricting, courts, civil rights, environmental protection and democracy. Someone need to teach Bernie how to play chess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

What an idiot. Sanders gets to keep his purity and in the mean time we lose the House, Senate, Census, redistricting, courts, civil rights, environmental protection and democracy. Someone need to teach Bernie how to play chess.

I doubt it's only about purity. I suspect it's at least equally a strategic assessment that he gains more by staying on-message, maintaining consistency, and avoiding accusations of hypocrisy, than he gains from Bloomberg's financial help. Given how much of his message is in railing against billionaires and oligarchs, accepting funding from a billionaire would be something that could be exploited.

Share this post


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

Nobody cares about consistency. This election is about winning and Sanders would rather fight then win.

I wouldn't look at this as the end all of getting Bloomberg to help out - he could easily ask him to take whatever $ he was going to spend and dump it into tight down ballot races. 

Share this post


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

Yeah, that's entirely bullshit of the highest order.

Your lack of understanding of the last election cycle makes all of your statements now both laughable and useless.

You're an old man in a house fire complaining about flood waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Anybody ever get the feeling that the youth vote is so unreliable because Dems consistently nominate candidates with minimal youth appeal?  

I mean, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton didn't exactly inspire the youth.

Turnout in Nevada and NH was better than 2008, and NH had also passed a law since 2016 making voting in NH more difficult for college students.  

I had a very strong reaction to this initially, so I sat on it to mull over.   I ended up more frustrated.  Not with you but this attitude.

Fuck them and the horse they couldn’t bother to ride to the polls on.

For those without structural barriers to voting who have chosen not to because of candidates’ lack of youth appeal, they are kind of reaping what they’ve sown, and dragging a number of us down with them.   I don’t think this is so much a candidate problem as much as it is a youth problem.   Idk if it’s a failure to understand the cause and effect of how voting is the tool to produce certain outcomes or what, but I’m more frustrated than sympathetic to the choice not to vote due to a lack of sublime inspiration.  Which I say as someone who had Kerry for my inaugural vote.

And as was pointed out, even Obama with ostensibly major youth appeal didn’t get the kind of turnout that’s probably needed now to get Sanders over the finish line.

Edited by butterbumps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ormond said:

I have already pointed out statistics where that show I agree that Simon is projecting his own situation onto others. But I'm sorry, for you to attribute his own situation to "poor life planning" is unwarranted and insulting and I think you should apologize to him. 

“Looks suspiciously at Simon's post and Jace's reply.”

From previous experience of @Jace, Basilissa 's posts, she wasn't actually condemning Simon with this. She was actually trying to show support in her own f***** up way. But she did it in a terrible way where the sarcasm/satire didn't shine through.

Am I right Jace? Or did I misread the situation. If I did let me know. Because then I must needs reply to you directly with a personally insulting post, that may result in my first warning points in over five years. 

(I need to start building a Prison Rep anyways)

Edited by A True Kaniggit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I had a very strong reaction to this initially, so I sat on it to mull over.   I ended up more frustrated.  Not with you but this attitude.

Fuck them and the horse they couldn’t bother to ride to the polls on.

For those without structural barriers to voting who have chosen not to because of candidates’ lack of youth appeal, they are kind of reaping what they’ve sown, and dragging a number of us down with them.   I don’t think this is so much a candidate problem as much as it is a youth problem.   Idk if it’s a failure to understand the cause and effect of how voting is the tool to produce certain outcomes or what, but I’m more frustrated than sympathetic to the choice not to vote due to a lack of sublime inspiration.  Which I say as someone who had Kerry for my inaugural vote.

And as was pointed out, even Obama with ostensibly major youth appeal didn’t get the kind of turnout that’s probably needed now to get Sanders over the finish line.

A few years ago I was talking to a younger cousin of mine, he was 19 at the time. The conversation turned to the upcoming election (I can't remember if it was 2014 or 2016) and I asked him if he was going to vote. He said he wasn't. He said that he figured that since us older folks had screwed up the world, it was up to us to fix it; he wasn't going to get involved.

It was one of the more frustrating experiences I have had.

Share this post


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

A few years ago I was talking to a younger cousin of mine, he was 19 at the time. The conversation turned to the upcoming election (I can't remember if it was 2014 or 2016) and I asked him if he was going to vote. He said he wasn't. He said that he figured that since us older folks had screwed up the world, it was up to us to fix it; he wasn't going to get involved.

It was one of the more frustrating experiences I have had.

“Both sides are the same”.

That’s what I hear most often. 

Mostly from people who only use the phrase as an excuse for their own lazy behavior.

If “both sides are the same”, then the onus isn’t on them to pay attention, do the research, and find out for themselves which is actually worse. 

Edited by A True Kaniggit
Their there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of the Vox piece, we should take its conclusions seriously. But at the same time, in my opinion it isn't destiny. Like I said before, externalities can change the numbers, some opinions are still pliable, a week is a long time in politics.

The worry is making these sort of studies a self-fulfilling destiny. Republicans mostly ignored the polls in 2016 and went out and voted for their canddiate, Democrats should do the same.

Share this post


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

On the topic of the Vox piece, we should take its conclusions seriously. But at the same time, in my opinion it isn't destiny.

It's certainly not destiny.  Opinions will definitely change from now until November, and even with a 40,000 sample, there's still random error.  And yes, there's no reason to go a in hole and cry because of the findings - that's not the intent of Broockman and Kalla posting a quick write-up on Vox.  Sanders still has a decent chance at winning if for no other reason that Trump's approval is very weak for an incumbent and that's unlikely to change.

But, it's concerning, and the main finding - that Sanders will require record turnout from young voters in order to win - is very likely to be the case, and they're one of the least reliable demographic groups.

Share this post


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

A few years ago I was talking to a younger cousin of mine, he was 19 at the time. The conversation turned to the upcoming election (I can't remember if it was 2014 or 2016) and I asked him if he was going to vote. He said he wasn't. He said that he figured that since us older folks had screwed up the world, it was up to us to fix it; he wasn't going to get involved.

It was one of the more frustrating experiences I have had.

It always stuns me when I speak to someone under 30 who doesn’t vote. Two of the four issues that got me into politics, the environment and the national debt, are even worse now and doing nothing is spelling doom for their futures.

Share this post


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

Nobody cares about consistency. This election is about winning and Sanders would rather fight then win.

If you ask Sanders supporters why they choose him over other progressives like Warren, often times you will hear "Bernie's been saying this stuff for 40 years". Yeah to alot of them his conistency matters. Sanders has a machine right now at the grass roots level. He's the only candidate besides Bloomberg who doesn't have a money problem. He doesn't need it. If Bloomberg wants to help he should go all in on the Senate races and spend all his money there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It always stuns me when I speak to someone under 30 who doesn’t vote. Two of the four issues that got me into politics, the environment and the national debt, are even worse now and doing nothing is spelling doom for their futures.

You'd be so surprised how many people don't know a thing about politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DMC said:

But, it's concerning, and the main finding - that Sanders will require record turnout from young voters in order to win - is very likely to be the case, and they're one of the least reliable demographic groups.

Well, yes. But there may be other opportunities including soft support for Trump among the Republican side and the Democrats who would vote for Trump. The other weakness of a national survey is how it plays out in the battleground states although the situation is probably worse than 2016 if Sanders gets a smaller popular vote.

Share this post


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

The other weakness of a national survey is how it plays out in the battleground states although the situation is probably worse than 2016 if Sanders gets a smaller popular vote.

With that type of sample, they probably could have broken it down by battleground states and estimated what it'd take to get to 270 ECs.  The reason they didn't - for the same reason they used a measure that overestimated youth vote - is because they were trying to give Sanders' support as much of the benefit of the doubt as possible - i.e. if the Dem nominee doesn't win the popular vote, they're very unlikely to win the EC.  This is inside baseball, but Brookman & Kalla are guarding against a type 1 error in terms of their statistical analysis.

Share this post


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

×