Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Only Death Can Pay For Growth


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

"Moderates" play brinkmanship all the fucking time, by literally saying that they're going to vote for the other fucking candidate. 

Ah, you're talking about people who will literally not be part of the Democratic party and are voting either way. Sorry, I entirely misunderstood you to be talking about party members.

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Progressives should just vote for the Democrats, even if those Democrats have made clear that they have no fucking desire to have a substantive discussion of the issues, and that you better vote for us because we will just blame you if we lose? No fucking thanks.

That's not remotely what I said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I mean, in one fucking breath you admit that what I was saying actually happened; that the moderates dropped out and endorsed Biden specifically to stop Sanders from winning the nomination, yet in the same fucking breath say that if that had not have happened, things would have played out exactly the same way anyway. And I'm the fucking illogical one somehow.

Are you...alright?  Yes, of course "in one fucking breathe" I "admitted" two moderates dropped out and endorsed Biden right before Super Tuesday.  Because that's what happened.  That doesn't mean if that didn't happen Sanders would have won, or even fared much better.  It's illogical to suggest Pete and Amy staying in would have changed the outcome of the primary because if that was the case, Pete and/or Amy would have stayed in the primary.  Acting like there's some conspiracy against Sanders is silly.  Politicians run by self interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Week said:

He gets jumped on for the same bullshit that you are continuing here. Anyone who disagrees with a specific argument* about Biden is automagically a Biden-stan to be attacked -- whether they were a supporter of Warren, Bernie, etc. or even a cop in the UK. It's disrespectful to fellow boarders and completely obnoxious. I cannot count on my hands the number of times that Dante, Tywin, DMC etc. etc. repeat that Biden our preference only above Bloomberg, Gabbard, and any other unserious candidate.

*typically because it is breathless, baseless bullshit - which is why a contra response is elicited

I think you need to settle down a bit. People have different opinions than you. I apologized to you before for being a dick, but you've seemed petty since. I didn't call anyone a Biden-stan (I don't know what that is). A poster attacked my reaction to the Biden speech, and in fact was pretty shitty in terms of race and gender, and yet I'm the who is "attacking" a Biden-stan? Go back and look. I just said I didn't care for the video. When the vitriol gets spewed from there, I don't think it's abnormal to think the person is a pro-Biden supporter. Why would I know where that person is from (a cop from the UK, I guess?)? In fact, why is a cop from the UK who doesn't post in this thread, as he said, aware of my commenting patterns in this thread?

To be clear, I was assuming the best of that poster and that they were attacking me because they liked Biden, not that they were attacking me (and generally trying to emasculate me) because they just didn't like me. But it seems it was personal, as the later admitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

Are you...alright?  Yes, of course "in one fucking breathe" I "admitted" two moderates dropped out and endorsed Biden right before Super Tuesday.  Because that's what happened.  That doesn't mean if that didn't happen Sanders would have won, or even fared much better.  It's illogical to suggest Pete and Amy staying in would have changed the outcome of the primary because if that was the case, Pete and/or Amy would have stayed in the primary.  Acting like there's some conspiracy against Sanders is silly.  Politicians run by self interest.

I didn't fucking say that he would have won, I said it wouldn't have fucking played out the same fucking way it did, that it would have decreased Biden's chances, and raised the chances for someone other than Biden or Sanders to win, but that the moderate wing of the party made a deliberate decision that it was better to ensure that Sanders wouldn't win than it was for anyone other than Biden to win the fucking nomination. That is not fucking controversial. The only fucking thing I said was that Sanders would have had a better fucking shot, not that he would have fucking won. 

And how the fuck could you come to any other fucking conclusion than that is was fucking deliberate? The entire fucking party freaked the fuck out after Nevada, and you're telling me they didn't fucking conspire against him? 

I'm not even saying they made the wrong fucking choice, just that there sure as shit was a choice made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I didn't fucking say that he would have won, I said it wouldn't have fucking played out the same fucking way it did, that it would have decreased Biden's chances, and raised the chances for someone other than Biden or Sanders to win, but that the moderate wing of the party made a deliberate decision that it was better to ensure that Sanders wouldn't win than it was for anyone other than Biden to win the fucking nomination. That is not fucking controversial. The only fucking thing I said was that Sanders would have had a better fucking shot, not that he would have fucking won. 

And how the fuck could you come to any other fucking conclusion than that is was fucking deliberate? The entire fucking party freaked the fuck out after Nevada, and you're telling me they didn't fucking conspire against him? 

I'm not even saying they made the wrong fucking choice, just that there sure as shit was a choice made.

I can't see that string of posts you're responding to, but I agree, it's common knowledge that a lot of people in the Democratic party, including Obama, worked to stop Sanders from getting nominated. This board sometimes makes it hard to even want to vote for Biden because as you've noted, if you agree with them (but were once a Sanders supporter), then you're wrong no matter what you post. That's why I like disagreeing. It makes my day sometimes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

I thought it wasn't so great. The man gets so lost in what he's saying.

Whereas I think attacking a man who's overcome a speech disorder (stutter) is not the best look, honestly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, alguien said:

Whereas I think attacking a man who's overcome a speech disorder (stutter) is not the best look, honestly. 

He used to be much better at speaking. Equating his issues with speech with a stutter is disingenuous. He can't keep his thoughts straight. It'd be one thing if he was just a dude, but he wants to be president, no? Maybe some of us would like to be able to follow along with what he's saying and not just blindly cheer when he shoots some shit out about everyone in jail for a "couple of reasons." Those are, "One is, they were victims of abuse, or their kids were — or their mother was. Number two, can’t read. Number three, they don’t have any job skills. They were in a position where they didn’t get a chance." That's a stuttering problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I can't see that string of posts you're responding to, but I agree, it's common knowledge that a lot of people in the Democratic party, including Obama, worked to stop Sanders from getting nominated. This board sometimes makes it hard to even want to vote for Biden because as you've noted, if you agree with them (but were once a Sanders supporter), then you're wrong no matter what you post. That's why I like disagreeing. It makes my day sometimes!

That's what fucking gets me. This shit was fucking reported on. I'm pretty fucking sure I even fucking linked a similar report and said something along the lines of me being glad that Obama had kept his (obvious) influence very quiet, because if he was seen as coming down on Biden's side it would completely fucking alienate Sanders supporters. And if I didn't actually fucking post it here, I damn sure fucking thought to post that, because that was my fear during the entire fucking nominating process because if Obama was seen as having too heavy-handed support of Biden, it would completely fucking alienate Sanders supporters.

I am not making a fucking controversial argument, but somehow everyone fucking acts like I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Simon Steele said:

He used to be much better at speaking. Equating his issues with speech with a stutter is disingenuous. He can't keep his thoughts straight. It'd be one thing if he was just a dude, but he wants to be president, no? Maybe some of us would like to be able to follow along with what he's saying and not just blindly cheer when he shoots some shit out about everyone in jail for a "couple of reasons." Those are, "One is, they were victims of abuse, or their kids were — or their mother was. Number two, can’t read. Number three, they don’t have any job skills. They were in a position where they didn’t get a chance." That's a stuttering problem?

Actually, yes. Stuttering gets measurably worse in stressful, tense moments. 

I had zero trouble following what he was saying in that eulogy and thought it was nice. 

Honestly, from what I've seen of your posts lately, your so blind with Sanders-regret rage, Biden could save children from a burning house and you'd complain that he didn't put out the fire quickly enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

Are you...alright?  Yes, of course "in one fucking breathe" I "admitted" two moderates dropped out and endorsed Biden right before Super Tuesday.  Because that's what happened.  That doesn't mean if that didn't happen Sanders would have won, or even fared much better.  It's illogical to suggest Pete and Amy staying in would have changed the outcome of the primary because if that was the case, Pete and/or Amy would have stayed in the primary.  Acting like there's some conspiracy against Sanders is silly.  Politicians run by self interest.

I haven't followed the discussion super closely so far but at the time I think it was pretty apparent that Pete and Amy dropped out because they thought doing so might help to avoid the outcome of Sanders heading into the convention with a plurality of delegates due to a divided field, making it difficult to deny him the nomination even though he wouldn't have a majority. Now, maybe that outcome would have been avoided even if they had stayed in, but I think the calculation was pretty transparent. They hoped to help a candidate whose ideology more closely matched their own while also currying his favor, so it was in their self interest, but it was also aimed at impacting the outcome of the primary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, alguien said:

Actually, yes. Stuttering gets measurably worse in stressful, tense moments. 

I had zero trouble following what he was saying in that eulogy and thought it was nice. 

Honestly, from what I've seen of your posts lately, your so blind with Sanders-regret rage, Biden could save children from a burning house and you'd complain that he didn't put out the fire quickly enough. 

It has little to do with Sanders and everything to do with Biden and his record. But if you can look past his issues in his record by blaming Sanders, my hat's off to you. Sanders lost. I said it long ago, and I haven't brought him up. He doesn't want to be brought up. If Biden dropped out tomorrow, I truly believe Sanders wouldn't step back in. 

Biden is just a big fucking problem, and whatever helps you ignore the issues being brought up (you're a Sander supporter!!!!!!), cool man.

P.S. If Klobuchar were in his place, I'd run her down too. She's terrible. If Buttigeg or Warren got the nomination? Whatever. I'd live with it. So, I'll say it again, who gives a fuck about Sanders? He's 80, he's done, and leftists realize this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alguien said:

Actually, yes. Stuttering gets measurably worse in stressful, tense moments. 

I had zero trouble following what he was saying in that eulogy and thought it was nice. 

Honestly, from what I've seen of your posts lately, your so blind with Sanders-regret rage, Biden could save children from a burning house and you'd complain that he didn't put out the fire quickly enough. 

I don't agree with a lot of the stuff that Simon posts, and think it can often be needlessly antagonistic, but especially now I can see why he'd be hesitant to support Biden here.

Sanders supporters are apparently Bernie-bros unless proved otherwise around here, but even attempting to prove otherwise gets shut out somehow, and as the turn of this thread has shown, are needlessly antagonized even when agreeing with the purported conventional wisdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't dispute any of it - but I don't understand the argument you're making any more. The Democratic party definitely didn't want Sanders winning the nomination, and they were terrified of not only Sanders winning but him winning with a contested convention where the choices were give in to his plurality or have a massive contest. Both would have been horrible. 

But from a voting perspective, Sanders never really did any better than 30%. It's certainly possible that Sanders could have won had others stayed in and the party that he said was his enemy didn't oppose him heavily, but...they were going to, and again - he never was able to broaden his voting base to get a majority of primary voters consistently. That he did even worse than he did in 2016 should be another telling point. So yes, he could have won if the party didn't get their act together and also never coalesced at any point, but that hasn't been the history of modern politics for like 50 years now. It just doesn't happen, and the reason it doesn't happen is that running a candidate who gets 30% support usually doesn't end well. 

I think the controversy, @The Great Unwashed, is not that this happened. It's that you assume that not doing this would have caused Sanders to win, and the implication that somehow he would have been able to get a majority of votes somehow. It would have been different, and Biden wouldn't have gotten as many delegates - but it's really not clear that Sanders would have gotten particularly more, either. South Carolina really did change the narrative a lot, and we can see from early voting what the numbers were going to be like without dropouts - and they didn't look pretty for Sanders either. I think the thing that we were all surprised about is how actually vaguely competent the DNC ended up being, and how they were able to get Klobuchar and Buttigieg (along with the Clyburn endorsement) to bend the knee so well, but the party actually putting their weight behind a couple of choices shouldn't be particularly weird. 

This was the real key to Obama as well - he worked hard to be the outsider, but he also worked really hard to engineer relationships with party officials and get big endorsements and not be too threatening to the system. Sanders saying outright that he was coming for the Democratic establishment wasn't going to earn him a whole lot of support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Simon Steele said:

It has little to do with Sanders and everything to do with Biden and his record. But if you can look past his issues in his record by blaming Sanders, my hat's off to you. Sanders lost. I said it long ago, and I haven't brought him up. He doesn't want to be brought up. If Biden dropped out tomorrow, I truly believe Sanders wouldn't step back in. 

Biden is just a big fucking problem, and whatever helps you ignore the issues being brought up (you're a Sander supporter!!!!!!), cool man.

I'm OK with Biden's positions on the issues at the moment.

I'm OK that he brought AOC onto his Green initiative, that Sanders has endorsed him. I mean, I voted for Sanders in WA after Warren dropped out. Now that Biden is the guy, I'd be voting for him even if this election wasn't about ejecting an orange facist from the White House. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I haven't followed the discussion super closely so far but at the time I think it was pretty apparent that Pete and Amy dropped out because they thought doing so might help to avoid the outcome of Sanders heading into the convention with a plurality of delegates due to a divided field, making it difficult to deny him the nomination even though he wouldn't have a majority. Now, maybe that outcome would have been avoided even if they had stayed in, but I think the calculation was pretty transparent. They hoped to help a candidate whose ideology more closely matched their own while also currying his favor, so it was in their self interest, but it was also aimed at impacting the outcome of the primary. 

That's pretty much my take too. I think the DNC made a good case that the real danger wasn't Sanders winning the nomination - it was Sanders winning with 30-35% of the vote, especially with so many superdelegates being fairly antagonistic  towards him. What they absolutely did not want was a contested convention, but they also saw a whole lot of voters actively opposed to Sanders. That and a lot of his views on things like Russia and Cuba were pretty scary, but really - the contested convention was the big scare (as it probably should have been). 

If Sanders had been doing better - 40/50% - and had been able to convince Warren supporters to back him, I think we're talking a very different story. I think at that point most establishment falls in line. But that didn't happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I don't agree with a lot of the stuff that Simon posts, and think it can often be needlessly antagonistic, but especially now I can see why he'd be hesitant to support Biden here.

Sanders supporters are apparently Bernie-bros unless proved otherwise around here, but even attempting to prove otherwise gets shut out somehow, and as the turn of this thread has shown, are needlessly antagonized even when agreeing with the purported conventional wisdom.

I mean, I held off in voting for Washington until after Warren dropped out (she was my 1st choice) and ended up voting for Bernie. But he lost in Washington state (which frankly astounded me). 

I don't think everybody who's critical of or disappointed with Biden is a Bernie-bro. I didn't disagree with what you said about the more progressive wing of the party pushing Biden's campaign leftward--from what I've seen, that seems to be working. I just find Simon's posts pretty negative and think it's obvious why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...