US Politics: To Open or Not To Open, That's the Question

[Week]

35 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Yeah, that was for sure a big victory, even more so because it looked like it was going to be much closer. I don't want to relitigate it, but Bernie won Nevada by the same margin that Biden won S.C. Sure it was a caucus vs a primary, but Nevadans who voted still chose Bernie by something like 40%, don't dismiss it because it doesn't suit your narrative.

There is a difference between supporting someone, and being put in a position where I'm forced to pick between my deeply held beliefs and harm mitigation. I do not support Biden, so I'm not going to carry water for him and defend him to the hilt because he is the party's nominee.

Caucaus vs primary - we've already discussed the undemocratic nature of caucauses ad nauseum - this is not at all a feather in Bernie's cap compared to a win in SC where Biden received more votes than any other candidate up until that date. Nearly 2.5x (256k to 105k) the votes. Biden jumped from fifth to first and never looked back. He has garnered 2.7 million more votes than Sanders.

Bernie won Nevada by 17k. Biden won SC by 150k. To suggest anything near equivalence to support your narrative is absurd.

Again, your lack of nuance is showing. I do not know of a single Biden-stan that regularly posts on this forum (anyone? Bueller?). There are supporters of Bernie, Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, and other Democrats* that have fallen short that don't buy into your narrative. Defending and supporting the nominee from falsehoods (i.e. @Kalbear pointing out Biden's policies supported by the left) is pretty fucking far from "defending him to the hilt."

 

[GrimTuesday]

7 minutes ago, Week said:

Caucaus vs primary - we've already discussed the undemocratic nature of caucauses ad nauseum - this is not at all a feather in Bernie's cap compared to a win in SC where Biden received more votes than any other candidate up until that date. Nearly 2.5x (256k to 105k) the votes. Biden jumped from fifth to first and never looked back. He has garnered 2.7 million more votes than Sanders.

Bernie won Nevada by 17k. Biden won SC by 150k. To suggest anything near equivalence to support your narrative is absurd.

Again, your lack of nuance is showing. I do not know of a single Biden-stan that regularly posts on this forum (anyone? Bueller?). There are supporters of Bernie, Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, and other Democrats* that have fallen short that don't buy into your narrative. Defending and supporting the nominee from falsehoods (i.e. @Kalbear pointing out Biden's policies supported by the left) is pretty fucking far from "defending him to the hilt."

 

People are acting like any criticism of Biden is heresy. Anytime anyone brings up any criticism of Biden people the same people come at us acting like we're somehow supporting Trump. And yeah, we can talk about what biden has on his website, but I'm not going to take him at his word, he has done absolutely nothing for me to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to look at his record, and it is not a god record. You can talk about how he has pass so many bills, then we need to ask how many bill are Bankruptcy Bills, or the Crime Bill, because those are bills that never should have been passed in the first place, and he was one of the leaders on those.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

People are acting like any criticism of Biden is heresy.

Citation needed.

3 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Anytime anyone brings up any criticism of Biden people the same people come at us acting like we're somehow supporting Trump.

Citation needed.

 

[Week]

23 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

*Snip*

So, you concede the points that I refuted. At least your inability or disinterest to respond says as much.

"It is not a god record."

Sit a few plays out, ya drunk.

I am describing the diverse group that is supporting - conditionally, now that he is the presumptive nominee - Biden. Nobody is suggesting that he is perfect - OR EVEN THEIR TOP 3 CHOICE. Again, correcting the record is not carrying water for him. I'm not going to continue to whack-a-mole your whataboutism (Bernie's campaign is not given enough credit >> DNC rigged it >> Biden didn't win by much anyway >> look at votes from 20 years ago >> *stamps foot and whines* he doesn't support M4A (neither does 100% of D senators - which would not even be enough to pass).

Good luck at your continued tilting at wind mills. Someday, you'll get them. If you just *believe* hard enough.

[Kalbear]

So given the latest news about Biden, what should happen next? I honestly don't know. A senate hearing would both be odd and likely not reasonable given that Biden isn't an active senator and hasn't been for 12 years. A house committee meeting also seems odd. It's clearly not something that should be decided in court given the statute of limitations. Perhaps an FBI investigation? I'm honestly not sure what should be done. 

I guess it also depends a lot on how accurate it is from Biden's perspective. If it's accurate and it's just a matter of time until it gets out, like it did with Clinton, should he just fold right now? That would be bad, but it probably is the right thing to do and would at least give the dems some semblance of a chance to move on. Should he openly apologize and work with Reade on a joint statement of agreed to words of what 'actually' happened (even if that's not the case) and do a settlement with her, dependent on her giving a public statement? 

I honestly don't know.

[GrimTuesday]

Just now, Week said:

So, you concede the points that I refuted. At least your inability or disinterest to respond says as much.

"It is not a god record."

Sit a few plays out, ya drunk.

I am describing the diverse group that is supporting - conditionally, now that he is the presumptive nominee - Biden. Nobody is suggesting that he is perfect - OR EVEN THEIR TOP 3 CHOICE. Again, correcting the record is not carrying water for him. I'm not going to continue to whack-a-mole your whataboutism (Bernie's campaign is not given enough credit >> DNC rigged it >> Biden didn't win by much anyway >> look at votes from 20 years ago >> *stamps foot and whines* he doesn't support M4A (neither does 100% of D senators - which would not even be enough to pass). Good luck at your continued tilting at wind mills. Someday, you'll get them. If you just *believe* hard enough.

No, I already said I'm not into relitigating it, because you're right that there is a difference between a caucus and a full primary, which I fucking acknowledged from the off. I'm less concerned about talking about how voters voted because there is nothing we can do about that now, and more interested in examining how the party and the media built a narrative throughout the primary because that is something that we need to examine going forward.

Since you seem to want me to address your points, sure, let's take a look

"Bernie's campaign is not given enough credit"

This is just a fact. The media did everything they could to deny Bernie credit in Iowa focusing instead on Pete, acted like the big take away from NH was that Klobuchar did ok, and just kind of shrugged at Nevada. If any of the centrists had won the contests we would have seen a completely different narrative and they would probably be the nominee right now.

"DNC rigged it"

Never said anyone rigged it, simply stated that a third party did a politics (purposeful grammatical error) and the centrist/establishment lane lined up behind Biden. They didn't change votes, they didn't set up the system to systematically favor Biden, it was just politics.

"Biden didn't win by much anyway"

Never said he didn't win big in SC, or anywhere else. I'm not minimizing Biden's wins, I'm talking about media narratives as they relate to coverage leading up to Super Tuesday.

"look at votes from 20 years ago"

Biden took a lot of very meaningful votes in his time in the senate, some of which he has touted his leadership on and they are part of his record. Why should we not look at this positions in the past to inform how he will act in the future? Seems pretty logical to me.

"*stamps foot and whines* he doesn't support M4A (neither does 100% of D senators - which would not even be enough to pass)."

Haven't brought this up once, because I have made basically the same calculation as you just outlined. Biden does not support M4A, (and it isn't because he doesn't think it will pass), so him trying to ram it through congress would be a halfhearted effort a best. I'm not going to apologize for holding it against him, since as we've seen from this Coronavirus shit our healthcare model is woefully inadequate to handle needs of Americans and that there are people who are dying because they don't have coverage.

Sorry if you find any further typos, I'm getting used to a new keyboard and occasionally miss things in my proofreading.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So given the latest news about Biden, what should happen next? I honestly don't know. A senate hearing would both be odd and likely not reasonable given that Biden isn't an active senator and hasn't been for 12 years. A house committee meeting also seems odd. It's clearly not something that should be decided in court given the statute of limitations. Perhaps an FBI investigation? I'm honestly not sure what should be done. 

I guess it also depends a lot on how accurate it is from Biden's perspective. If it's accurate and it's just a matter of time until it gets out, like it did with Clinton, should he just fold right now? That would be bad, but it probably is the right thing to do and would at least give the dems some semblance of a chance to move on. Should he openly apologize and work with Reade on a joint statement of agreed to words of what 'actually' happened (even if that's not the case) and do a settlement with her, dependent on her giving a public statement? 

I honestly don't know.

Whatever they do, it better happen quickly. 

Like I said in the last thread, it's very possible that this just doesn't break through this election due to the coronavirus and economy. But, if it's shaping up to be a close election, I don't think Biden can stay on as nominee. There's too much of a chance of an October surprise.

ETA: Not to mention, Democrats will be making a very deliberate decision to ignore this allegation. That's a decision that will have long-term consequences.

[GrimTuesday]

14 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Whatever they do, it better happen quickly. 

Like I said in the last thread, it's very possible that this just doesn't break through this election due to the coronavirus and economy. But, if it's shaping up to be a close election, I don't think Biden can stay on as nominee. There's too much of a chance of an October surprise.

ETA: Not to mention, Democrats will be making a very deliberate decision to ignore this allegation. That's a decision that will have long-term consequences.

Honestly I think that we should have a nationwide one day mail in ranked choice primary. Unfortunately as some folks discussed in the last thread, I don't think it is really feasible due to different states having different registration rules as relates to party identification.

I think the next best thing would be to bring together all the factions of the party (and I mean all) and find a nominee that can overlap as much as possible with all groups. I hate to throw out a white man, but I think someone like Sherrod Brown would fit the bill.

[Jace, Extat]

29 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

That's a decision that will have long-term consequences.

Name one. And provide supporting evidence if you please.

[Guest]

Just now, Jace, Basilissa said:

Name one. And provide supporting evidence if you please.

Well golly gee, Jace, I guess I'll just get in line to vote for the Democratic Roy Moore. 

What could possibly go wrong?

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Well golly gee, Jace, I guess I'll just get in line to vote for the Democratic Roy Moore. 

What could possibly go wrong?

It's one allegation. Not fifty.

[Kalbear]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Well golly gee, Jace, I guess I'll just get in line to vote for the Democratic Roy Moore. 

What could possibly go wrong?

That isn't a long-term consequence, however. I don't even understand if that is a realistic consequence. The Dems have long had problems with serial abusers and whatnot, and for the most part Dems have drummed them entirely out of the party. The last one that I know of which existed in any capacity was Ted Kennedy, and as far as I know his existence in the party didn't cause any long-term consequences. 

Put it another way: what consequences are longer than, say, RBG being replaced by another Kavanaugh or Gorsuch? What consequences are longer than abortion bans being upheld throughout the country? Of legalizing restriction of birth control for women? Of legalizing discrimination against women? I don't get this argument at all. There are a lot of reasons to worry about electing someone like Biden (or even nominating him) given the most recent news, but the idea that this has specific long-term consequences?

[Guest]

Just now, Jace, Basilissa said:

It's one allegation. Not fifty.

Oh, you're right. Where do we draw the line for number of allegations so we don't end up becoming like Republicans?

Oh, and it's only one allegation...except for all the other "creepy touching" allegations.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That isn't a long-term consequence, however. I don't even understand if that is a realistic consequence. The Dems have long had problems with serial abusers and whatnot, and for the most part Dems have drummed them entirely out of the party. The last one that I know of which existed in any capacity was Ted Kennedy, and as far as I know his existence in the party didn't cause any long-term consequences. 

Put it another way: what consequences are longer than, say, RBG being replaced by another Kavanaugh or Gorsuch? What consequences are longer than abortion bans being upheld throughout the country? Of legalizing restriction of birth control for women? Of legalizing discrimination against women? I don't get this argument at all. There are a lot of reasons to worry about electing someone like Biden (or even nominating him) given the most recent news, but the idea that this has specific long-term consequences?

These are all good questions.

And I'm sure lots of Republicans asked themselves those same types of questions on their way to eventually nominating Trump.

Maybe there simply are no scruples in politics. But if that's the case, I won't be made to feel guilty for deciding not to play.

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Oh, you're right. Where do we draw the line for number of allegations so we don't end up becoming like Republicans?

 

Republicans who are constantly rewarded by voters with only brief, commercial-like, interruptions for actual governance by Democrats?

Yes, please.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Republicans who are constantly rewarded by voters with only brief, commercial-like, interruptions for actual governance by Democrats?

Yes, please.

Republicans. Who have formed a death cult behind their dear leader.

No thanks.

ETA: And I like how you ignored all the other "oh, those aren't real allegations" allegations.

[Kalbear]

It is remarkable that so many of the actual political machinations and ways of things working are now 'immoral' - and only one side does that.

• Major funding for politicians? IMMORAL (for dems)
• Allegations of sexual assault? IMMORAL (for dems)
• voting records based on consensus at the time? IMMORAL (for dems)

The left is a bunch of Kantians. Especially the progressives. 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It is remarkable that so many of the actual political machinations and ways of things working are now 'immoral' - and only one side does that.

• Major funding for politicians? IMMORAL (for dems)
• Allegations of sexual assault? IMMORAL (for dems)
• voting records based on consensus at the time? IMMORAL (for dems)

The left is a bunch of Kantians. Especially the progressives. 

 

What would you like people like me to do? I refuse to adopt a "win-at-all-costs" mentality, because that's why we are where we're at. I'm not going to participate in a race to the bottom, because there's always an appeal to the greater evil.

Democrats should pick a better candidate next time.

[GrimTuesday]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That isn't a long-term consequence, however. I don't even understand if that is a realistic consequence. The Dems have long had problems with serial abusers and whatnot, and for the most part Dems have drummed them entirely out of the party. The last one that I know of which existed in any capacity was Ted Kennedy, and as far as I know his existence in the party didn't cause any long-term consequences. 

Put it another way: what consequences are longer than, say, RBG being replaced by another Kavanaugh or Gorsuch? What consequences are longer than abortion bans being upheld throughout the country? Of legalizing restriction of birth control for women? Of legalizing discrimination against women? I don't get this argument at all. There are a lot of reasons to worry about electing someone like Biden (or even nominating him) given the most recent news, but the idea that this has specific long-term consequences?

Honestly I don't think that replacing Biden on the ballot is a risky move so long as it is not Bernie they put on there. If they are able to find a compromise I actually think that it would go a long way to mollifying the left and potentially giving people someone to actually be excited for. I think that bringing back some of the folks who left the race early who never really go the chance to make an Impact due to the crowded field and including some folks who may not have run in the first place.Of course, I have a horrible feeling that would end up with Coumo as the Nominee, but hey at least he doesn't have any sexual harassment allegations against him (as far as I know).

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It is remarkable that so many of the actual political machinations and ways of things working are now 'immoral' - and only one side does that.

• Major funding for politicians? IMMORAL (for dems)
• Allegations of sexual assault? IMMORAL (for dems)
• voting records based on consensus at the time? IMMORAL (for dems)

The left is a bunch of Kantians. Especially the progressives. 

 

Biden is not the guy you ride or die with right now. Biden is extremely open to attacks and frankly not a lot of people are particularly excited about him.

[Fury Resurrected]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

What would you like people like me to do? I refuse to adopt a "win-at-all-costs" mentality, because that's why we are where we're at. I'm not going to participate in a race to the bottom, because there's always an appeal to the greater evil.

Democrats should pick a better candidate next time.

While I agree with the sentiment, I really don’t think history has borne out that Democrats care. Not voting for them gives a consequence of losing if they pick a shitty candidate- but they’ve shown a number of times now that’s an acceptable risk. I don’t know the solution to this.