US Politics: Biden vs. Trump and Corona, Thunderdome Society at Its Very Best

[Mexal]

9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It was never predicted that Biden wouldn't do well in Iowa, as he was leading in the polls there for most of the run-up to the caucus. He finished a distant 4th. 

This is the type of revisionist thinking that we have to guard against.

You're right. He was polled somewhere in the pack of 4. The largely white moderate population went to Buttegieg instead; caucuses are weird. Still not sure why Biden would ever drop out of the race when his demographics with minorities was so much stronger than everyone else in the moderate lane.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

To be fair, Sanders voted for the 1995 crime bill, after getting some pretty significant amendments passed, iirc.

Yes he did, but his reasons were complicated as explained here:

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11116412/bernie-sanders-mass-incarceration

[Mexal]

3 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Oh come on.

"What does fundraising have to do with winning an election in the U.S.?"

I know for a fact you're not that obtuse.

Kal's point was why would Biden drop out before his best state and referenced Warren staying in until Mass, her projected best state. You talked about fundraising. I dunno, just seems like two completely different arguments.

[Week]

Hope that this is fruitful -- although also recognizing that it will be more hurtful and damaging racism, misogyny, and bigotry trumpeted out.

[Mexal]

8 minutes ago, Pecan said:

You're referring to Hillary as the one with 30 years of poor media attention that is hated?

Yea, my point was simply he's not Hillary and doesn't have the same perception that she has (and isn't a woman). That, to me, makes him a fine option against Trump.

[DMC]

The idea that Biden would ever drop out before SC when he had a clear national lead right before the Iowa caucus is fairly ridiculous.  Biden's fundraising was startlingly weak, yes, but there's plenty of money out there for whomever is the nominee, it doesn't matter anymore.

[Pecan]

14 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Please do ignore the troll. I think there is a reason why they chose a nut as their board name.

Me? What did I do?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm sorry, but you're just really, really wrong on this one. Sanders was the only candidate seriously giving attention to the Standing Rock reservation in 2016, and it was through his campaign this year that I discovered non-profits to donate to in 2020 designed to assist the Native population during the pandemic.

I'm the target demographic you described (white, urban liberal), and I'd likely never have heard of any of that backing any other candidate.

Call me when he has more than empty words for much of anything. His most famous champion all but admitted this.

Promise the world, deliver nothing. Okay

[Larry of the Lawn]

47 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So why wasn't Sanders doing this in 2016? What changed? That was your question about Biden, right? 

I personally think Sanders got better on it, and  did actively care - but it isn't a priority for him, and he hoped that it would help him politically. Which again, is fine - that is what most politicians do. It's entirely reasonable to take Fury's Pov and say that even if Sanders is unlikely he's more likely than others to do something. 

But being skeptical of US politicians doing anything good for Native Americans is and has been for a long time a very winning bet. 

That was meant as a criticism of Ty's statement, who always says that while he believes one thing on a personal level, he's going to support the establishment candidate who doesn't even claim to give a shit instead.  

To your question, it's not like Sanders has been saying "fuck Native Americans" for years and suddenly changed his tune.  Biden has been a corporate advocate against consumers forever.  He's been for austerity over and over again.  He's been more pro-life than Sanders and has probabaly supported way more pro-life candidates than Sanders ever has.

He's not a progressive until he's forced into it by circumstance.  That is very different than Sanders.  I am admittedly too ignorant of his history on Native issues to make an argument that he's more genuine on this than Biden is on student loan debt or violence against women, but as far as I know Sanders has a history of being on the right side of things, where as Biden hasn't.  Gun control is probabaly the only thing that comes close.

You've been very critical of Sanders on racial issues, and I think it's generally a good thing for candidates, especially white candidates, to face that scrutiny, but it seems out of place because he's light years better than everyone else on this stuff forever.  Not saying it doesn't deserve a second look, but jesus fucking christ, Biden is a trainwreck on this stuff.  And he offers a squirt gun to out out a house fire everytime, unless it's $ to feed the war machine, or protections for rich ass corporations.  

[Pecan]

22 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think there a few problems with Sanders. But, that said, Sanders gets into hot water with some on the left because he prefers to talk about universal policies rather than the "race specific" policies that some on the left prefer, having been influenced by things like Critical Race Theory and its progeny, which rejects the idea of universalism or thinks that it is woefully inadequate. Though, while I have some problems with Sanders, many of his universal policies would help out minorities by quite a bit. Except for the case of African American men, it would appear that the biggest determinate of one's income is their parent's income. Also his stance on criminal justice reform, while sold as being universal and not race specific, would be helpful as well. Relatedly, from what I know, he was against mass incarceration and the "get tough on crime approach"  that took hold in the Democratic Party with the so called "New Democrats" in the 1990s and which I think now most of us would say was a disaster, particularly for African American men.

I think most of the leftist contingent of the Dem voting block was squarely in support of Sanders. It was the moderates that were the problem. Or am I misunderstanding your point?

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Call me when he has more than empty words for much of anything. His most famous champion all but admitted this.

Promise the world, deliver nothing. Okay

How about the $600 a week unemployment added on to the fucking relief bill?

 

She was saying that to defend her own willingness to compromise on m4a.  

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Pecan said:

I think most of the leftist contingent of the Dem voting block was squarely in support of Sanders. It was the moderates that were the problem. Or am I misunderstanding you point?

No I don't think that is correct. I think many on left had a problem with Sanders because he was viewed as not sufficiently progressive on race, being mainly concerned with just class issues.

[Kalbear]

28 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Warren vastly outpaced Biden in fundraising throughout the campaign. Apples to oranges.

That might be true, but it largely doesn't matter;  the record has had almost every candidate try and stick it out to their home state in some fashion, funding or no. 

[Pecan]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

No I don't think that is correct. I think many on left had a problem with Sanders because he was viewed as not sufficiently progressive on race, being mainly concerned with just class issues.

That's interesting. I'll assume you're more informed on that than I am. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

That was meant as a criticism of Ty's statement, who always says that while he believes one thing on a personal level, he's going to support the establishment candidate who doesn't even claim to give a shit instead.  

To your question, it's not like Sanders has been saying "fuck Native Americans" for years and suddenly changed his tune.  Biden has been a corporate advocate against consumers forever.  He's been for austerity over and over again.  He's been more pro-life than Sanders and has probabaly supported way more pro-life candidates than Sanders ever has.

That's true, but again - this isn't about Sanders vs. Biden. You keep doing this, and the deflection doesn't really help the criticism. Should I deflect and say that Biden is way better than Trump? That doesn't help answer his problems. 

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 He's not a progressive until he's forced into it by circumstance.  That is very different than Sanders.  I am admittedly too ignorant of his history on Native issues to make an argument that he's more genuine on this than Biden is on student loan debt or violence against women, but as far as I know Sanders has a history of being on the right side of things, where as Biden hasn't.  Gun control is probabaly the only thing that comes close. 

That's kind of a big deal. So is the VAWA stuff. So is his cozying up to socialist dictators. So is his campaign in 2016 that decried women left and right. 

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 You've been very critical of Sanders on racial issues, and I think it's generally a good thing for candidates, especially white candidates, to face that scrutiny, but it seems out of place because he's light years better than everyone else on this stuff forever.  Not saying it doesn't deserve a second look, but jesus fucking christ, Biden is a trainwreck on this stuff.  And he offers a squirt gun to out out a house fire everytime, unless it's $ to feed the war machine, or protections for rich ass corporations.  

I think Sanders is better in some ways for some PoC and incredibly bad in others, and he is not remotely 'light years better' than other candidates and has been forever. There are easily 4 candidates in this cycle that were better, and that's not counting people like, oh, Obama. Again, saying he's better than Biden is entirely missing the criticism. 

[Pecan]

My thoughts on Biden are pretty simple. I think in the debate a few weeks ago he was probably on some sort of amphetamine and as a consequence he was able to come across as alert, articulate, and strong. But what you see the rest of the time is the Biden-in-decline version, which does not inspire confidence. On top of that, there's zero reason for the growing left-wing contingent of the Dem voting block to get excited about him since he's come out squarely against every single progressive policy priority. And so I just don't see how he can possibly win against Trump. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's true, but again - this isn't about Sanders vs. Biden. You keep doing this, and the deflection doesn't really help the criticism. Should I deflect and say that Biden is way better than Trump? That doesn't help answer his problems. 

That's kind of a big deal. So is the VAWA stuff. So is his cozying up to socialist dictators. So is his campaign in 2016 that decried women left and right. 

I think Sanders is better in some ways for some PoC and incredibly bad in others, and he is not remotely 'light years better' than other candidates and has been forever. There are easily 4 candidates in this cycle that were better, and that's not counting people like, oh, Obama. Again, saying he's better than Biden is entirely missing the criticism. 

Fair points.  But Biden's the candidate, not Sanders.  

[Fury Resurrected]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol, I actually believe in quite a lot.

But all I see is failure. Still, one must persist, and dream bigger.

 

 

I'm sure it's not without well meaning, but is it that great outside of your social circle? Do you think as a white liberal activist roaming around the same city as you that I've heard anything more than the usual about the subject because Bernie said something about it.

The hard answer is no, Kay. Wrongly, most people simply do not care, even the ones who demonstrate that they try. It is what it is, but I do respect and appreciate how you've sacrificed on your own end to do the right thing. 

I think you are very wrong about that and not in the position that I am to know you are. Since sanders ran the first time a lot more white people (not just people I actually know but lots of clients as well and not just here but when I’ve traveled) have asked me about this issues than did before, and not just the left leaning ones. Most minority groups do not have the kind of visibility problem that native people have. A significant portion of the population sincerely think we are extinct. Most of the population don’t know a single native person (and I don’t mean white “I’m part native” people). To have anyone with any sort of platform at all talking about the fact we even exist is huge. Like it’s cool for you that you don’t have to imagine that the mere mention you exist and have issues is progress- but that’s cold hard facts for native people and if you ask around Little Earth you won’t find sentiments like yours about it.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Fair points.  But Biden's the candidate, not Sanders.  

The conversation was about Sanders, however.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Kalbear said:

The conversation was about Sanders, however.

If you say so.