Previously 'The big ol' 2020 debate', turned Baruch's personal waste bin.

Started by Mr.Obvious, January 27, 2020, 06:37:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

trdsf

Dammit, every time I settle on a first choice, they drop out!

Fortunately I’m a rationalist and a realist, otherwise I might worry that my decision to back a candidate is not merely the kiss of death but actually getting frenched by the Grim Reaper.

That said, I’m sorry, Joe, I will be voting for you in the primaryâ€"and good luck with that.  While I align more ideologically with Bernie, the disaster the Oval Orifice is going to leave behind is going to need executive experience from day one.  Simply put, Biden has the longer and more relevant résumé.  So much is broken that needs to be fixed ASAP, and that’s going to take a united Democratic front.

Bernie can take pride in waking up the liberal and progressive wing of the party after a long dormancy.  His candidacies have reminded us that ‘Democrat’ should not be ‘centrist Republican’, and almost single-handed he’s stopped the rightward drift of political discussion and put the liberal agenda back on the menu.

But one Bernie in the White House this year is impotent without the necessary political infrastructure to enact the agenda.  We don’t need one Bernie in the White House now.  We need thousands on our school boards and city councils, as our county commissioners and judges, in our state houses an all over Congress, over the next several decades.

Taking back our country only starts with the election this fall.  Bernie’s supporters are the ideological shock troops the Democrats have needed for forty years, a counterbalance to the (Im)moral Majority and the teabaggersâ€"except not evil.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Baruch

Same thing happened to me ... first Tulsi, then Buttigieg ... but Tulsi hasn't dropped out.  Just Fauxahontas ;-)  Yes, Biden is less evil than Hillary.  Bernie and Joe are at the top for now, because the other candidates were that much weaker.  Please compare to Trump rallies that are larger than the whole turnout of the Dems, given that his primaries are basically uncontested.  Still hoping Tulsi will run as Independent, get elected, and jail the Clintons and Bidens.  Bernie may be a fraud, but he isn't a crook.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#272
Why does socialism look attractive?  Innumeracy ...

"'Bloomberg Could Have Given Every American $1Million' - Liberal Media Math Exposed In Stunning Interview" ... given $700 million, Bloomberg could have made 700 Americans a millionaire (at one million dollars each).

Of course there is the innumeracy, of just printing money out of nothing.  Today this just means adding an additional zero to the Feds magic spreadsheet.  No trees have to die ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zimbabwe_$100_trillion_2009_Obverse.jpg

Marxist money.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

"NYT RUNS STORY CLAIMING BERNIE IS ACTUALLY AN ASSET OF THE SOVIET UNION, WITH PROOF!!" ... if you think the NYT isn't total shit, coming from the Deep State/Klinton Klan ... they sat on this info for decades until it was opportune ...
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SvZurich

Quote from: Baruch on March 06, 2020, 06:02:10 PM
"NYT RUNS STORY CLAIMING BERNIE IS ACTUALLY AN ASSET OF THE SOVIET UNION, WITH PROOF!!" ... if you think the NYT isn't total shit, coming from the Deep State/Klinton Klan ... they sat on this info for decades until it was opportune ...

All because he was doing a Reagan program as the Mayor of Burlington, Vermont.  One of many sister city promotions to promote understanding and attempt to lower the threat of nuclear war.  It was a Gorbachav/Reagan initiative. 

The way the Washington Post, NY Times, and MSDNC (MSNBC is a DNC front judging by their actions) keep slamming Bernie and promoting wars has really made me question their bias and stop trusting them.
Kimberly (HSBUH) aka Baroness Sylvia endorses the Meadow Party's Bill N' Opus for the 2024 Presidential election! Or a Sanders/Warren ticket.

Hydra009

#275
Quote from: trdsf on March 06, 2020, 12:41:40 AM
Dammit, every time I settle on a first choice, they drop out!
Hopefully, that streak isn't over yet!

QuoteWhile I align more ideologically with Bernie
"...I can't bring myself to vote for him for reasons X, Y, Z."  I hear this all the time from centrist Democrats.

Well, if you favor progressive reforms, and there's a champion of progressive reforms the likes of which we haven't seen for decades and he has a viable shot at the White House - you absolutely should support that candidate with every fiber of your being.

You should be on that like white on rice.  Why?  Because if you aren't going to fight for your values, no one in power will fight for them either.  Why would they?  If you vote for a Medicare-for-some candidate, you're showing that you don't really care about Medicare-for-all and that keeping things more or less the same is just fine by you.

If you can't bring yourself to take the most basic action to support progressive reforms, are you truly ideologically aligned with Bernie?

There has never been a better time to support progressive reforms.  And for once in a long time, we finally get the chance to fight FOR something good, not just against something terrible.  You have to decide if you're in or out, and that decision is going to be made at the ballot box.  And by the way, Medicare-for-all is basically the new gay rights for Democrats - a single, galvanizing issue of critical importance at this time.  Posterity is going to look back at where people stood and judge them harshly.

QuoteSimply put, Biden has the longer and more relevant résumé.
Granted, Bernie has never been Veep, but he's been in politics for the last 40 years.  Longer than Obama.  Longer than Hillary.  Longer than most of the other candidates.  To get a more experienced candidate, you'd need to get a shovel.

QuoteBernie can take pride in waking up the liberal and progressive wing of the party after a long dormancy.  His candidacies have reminded us that ‘Democrat’ should not be ‘centrist Republican’, and almost single-handed he’s stopped the rightward drift of political discussion and put the liberal agenda back on the menu.
That's true, but if that's just going to be rejected by centrist, establishment Democrats and their supporters, then what's the point?  If we just go with a centrist, quasi-Republican agenda instead, what's the point?  What's the point of even calling ourselves Democrats/liberals/progressives if we're not going to support much in the way of reforms anymore?  Do we even have any core values left at that point?

QuoteBut one Bernie in the White House this year is impotent without the necessary political infrastructure to enact the agenda.  We don’t need one Bernie in the White House now.  We need thousands on our school boards and city councils, as our county commissioners and judges, in our state houses an all over Congress, over the next several decades.
Right.  And you know how we get that?  We score a hell of a win and it galvanizes people to follow in Bernie's footsteps.  If Democrats can't back progressives, if progressive reforms go down in flames time and time again, what sort of message do you think is being sent to progressive people looking at running for office and changing things?

QuoteTaking back our country only starts with the election this fall.  Bernie’s supporters are the ideological shock troops the Democrats have needed for forty years, a counterbalance to the (Im)moral Majority and the teabaggersâ€"except not evil.
Exactly.  And alienating the most fervent supporters of actual reform will only hurt the Democratic Party - not just in this election, but in future elections.  Status Quo Joe VS the unhinged mania of Trump.  That's a hell of a choice to present to voters!  If voters see this coming election as a battle of evil vs lesser evil, as they did with Clinton, as they likely will with Biden, we've already lost.  And I dunno about anyone else, but I am sick to death of seeing that Orange Turd on TV.  He needs to be gone yesterday and he needs to go up against a genuine populist who will tear his phony populism to shreds.  He doesn't need 4 more years to spew his bile and swamp DC with his cronies.  Appealing to "centrists" isn't worth that.

Baruch

On the basis of universal criticism, and litmus test politics, there is no politician you could ever vote for.  I had to reject this idea, in the time I was voting, or I would never have voted at all.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

trdsf

Quote from: Hydra009 on March 06, 2020, 08:12:48 PMGranted, Bernie has never been Veep, but he's been in politics for the last 40 years.  Longer than Obama.  Longer than Hillary.  Longer than most of the other candidates.  To get a more experienced candidate, you'd need to get a shovel.
You mean like Biden, who's been an elected official of one sort or another for the last 50 years?

Look.  If Sanders is the nominee, I will happily vote for Sanders in November.  But I have more reasons to be concerned about his health and his ability to get things done than I do about Biden's, and Biden has more executive experience than Sanders.

But ultimately, I don't really care either way as long as the Oval Orifice is defeated this November.  That's my number one priority, over everything else.  That cancer on the body politic needs to be excised, and whether by Biden or by Sanders I don't care.

However.

Being a champion of progressive reforms means fuck-all when you don't have a Congress that's willing to go along.  Yes we need nationalized health care and wealth taxes and all the other things, but do you know what's going to happen if they get proposed and defeated by a Congress that's not as progressive as the president?  We lose out on those things for another generation or so.

What we need to do first is build the progressive infrastructure so that we can get them done in the next 10-15 years, instead of suffering a defeat and losing out for 25-30 years.  One progressive President faced with a centrist (or worse, divided) Congress is going to accomplish nothing.

These are benefits to the country that I personally probably won't live to see.  I don't care.  I want my nieces to see them.  This is about the long-term survival of the country, not about a warning shot across the bow.

I want them actually done, not proposed and then defeated by a Congress more cowardly than the populace.  I don't want an impotent statement about hoping to do them.  This country has been dragged so far to the right over the last 40 years, we have got a lot of repair work and education to do before we can seriously expect to enact the kinds of programs and reforms that are needed.

I am a rationalist.  While I would like the luxury of voting my heart, I vote my brain.  We can either build a national progressive coalition and political infrastructure to make the changes permanent, or we can just engage in political wankery and have every advance we make reversed by the next Republican president.  I choose permanence, and I genuinely believe that permanence is best achieved by evolution rather than revolution.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Baruch

Oh, is it rationalist to irrationally hate someone, who you have never met?  This is a useful tool for leaders to use with their followers however.  Those weird French over there, they are terrible, fear them, hate them, let's make war on them!  When in fact, under different circumstances, one could meet Trump or Obama at a bar and share a beer (old meme).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Three plus days until Bernie and Joe both wrestle naked in chocolate pudding while both claiming the African-American vote! ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

#280
Quote from: trdsf on March 07, 2020, 04:08:38 AM
You mean like Biden, who's been an elected official of one sort or another for the last 50 years?
Apologies, I apparently forgot to add a progressive qualifier to candidate.  (Clearly, I know Sanders isn't the most experienced, since I said that he had more experience than most other candidates)

My intent was to convey that we're never going to get a more experienced progressive candidate, so if he's not experienced enough, nothing's going to be good enough.

QuoteLook.  If Sanders is the nominee, I will happily vote for Sanders in November.
Good.  All the more reason to go with Sanders.  Sanders can appeal to people who might not otherwise vote Democrat and those are the people we'll need to be successful.  If we run a candidate who mostly appeals to centrist Boomer Dems (particularly Redstate boomers, no less), we're effectively shooting ourselves in the foot.

QuoteBut I have more reasons to be concerned about his health and his ability to get things done than I do about Biden's
Do you, though?  Sanders had a heart problem and that got treated.  Biden pretty clearly has a cognitive dysfunction.  It's mystifying to me that after all the concern trolling with Sanders and the years of saying that Trump has lost his marbles, to turn around and give Biden a pass on his health.

And if you mean getting things done by proposing a tepid incrementalist not-really-a-solution to some pretty damn dire problems, then kodos for not fixing much.  Or rather, kudos for aspiring to not fix much.  What an inspiring policy vision!  It's gonna be damn hard to turn out the base with that.

Quote, and Biden has more executive experience than Sanders.
Well, that's true.

QuoteBut ultimately, I don't really care either way as long as the Oval Orifice is defeated this November.  That's my number one priority, over everything else.  That cancer on the body politic needs to be excised, and whether by Biden or by Sanders I don't care.
Now that I fully agree with.  Obviously, we differ greatly on who's capable of doing it.

A lot of this stuff is subjective, but we do know one thing as a fact: Trump has defeated a centrist Democrat before.  Whether that can be generalized is up in the air, and Trump in 2020 is a very different beast than Trump in 2016.  The public is a lot less sympathetic to him, but at the same time, he still has a huge cult following and he's a much more experienced, dangerous adversary complete with known foreign "assistance".  It's going to be a hell of a fight either way, and we desperately need to bring our A game.  And in head-to-head matchups, Bernie tops the charts.  That's another fact.

QuoteBeing a champion of progressive reforms means fuck-all when you don't have a Congress that's willing to go along.  Yes we need nationalized health care and wealth taxes and all the other things, but do you know what's going to happen if they get proposed and defeated by a Congress that's not as progressive as the president?  We lose out on those things for another generation or so.
And we lose out on those things 100% of the time if we DON'T pursue them.  With Sanders, we at least know that stuff is on the agenda and that he's going to fight for them because that's what he believes in.  With Biden, we don't know that.  Any of that.

QuoteWhat we need to do first is build the progressive infrastructure so that we can get them done in the next 10-15 years, instead of suffering a defeat and losing out for 25-30 years.
I'd love to hear how we're supposed to build a progressive infrastructure while simultaneously not giving progressive candidates the time of day and never advancing progressive legislation.

QuoteThese are benefits to the country that I personally probably won't live to see.  I don't care.  I want my nieces to see them.  This is about the long-term survival of the country, not about a warning shot across the bow.
Good.  Me, too.

QuoteI want them actually done, not proposed and then defeated by a Congress more cowardly than the populace.  I don't want an impotent statement about hoping to do them.
You don't know that.

QuoteThis country has been dragged so far to the right over the last 40 years, we have got a lot of repair work and education to do before we can seriously expect to enact the kinds of programs and reforms that are needed.
And how did it get dragged to the right?  One villainous virtue I admit I like in Republicans is that they're not afraid vote their values.  The result: their nominees actually reflect the base.  And then when their guy wins - someone who the talking heads say is far too extreme to win - when he wins, that sweeps a lot of like-minded people into office and they can actually put forth an agenda that suits them.  We can't.  We have to placate so many factions and our position starts so watered down, that it's like storming in the boss's office and asking nicely for a two-cent raise then getting haggled down to washing his car every Saturday for a nickel that he drops in the bucket.  That's how well incrementalism has been working for us so far.

Well, I refuse to accept yet another defeat.  So, before it's too late (though it probably is already to late), I am pleading with people to not vote for the "safe" candidate and instead vote their goddamn values like they should have from the very start.

QuoteI choose permanence, and I genuinely believe that permanence is best achieved by evolution rather than revolution.
Yeah, well, good luck with that.  I guess we'll find out for sure and then we can revisit this discussion in the fullness of time.

Shiranu

One little nitpick...

QuoteThe public is a lot less sympathetic to him [Trump]...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

His approval ratings have actually been on an upward trajectory for awhile now, while his disaporval has dropped as well.

Which to me further states that we cant just repeat 2016 and hope it will end differently, since he is on a positive trajectory. If it didn't work the first time, and people are starting to like him even more, why would it work this time?

"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Hydra009

#282
Good point.



It has somewhat gone up, though it does tend to bottom out from time to time.  Government shutdown, saying that a judge wouldn't try his case impartially because he's mexican, putting kids in cages, that time he almost started WWIII, firing disease outbreak experts not long before a disease outbreak, etc.

But a Democratic candidate says "Yeah!" in a weird way and it's GG for him.  What a time to be alive.

trdsf

My apologies for daring to have a nuanced take on modern American politics, and goals beyond the aspirations of one politician.  And I defy you to assert that a Biden presidency would be the bigoted, moronic kleptocracy currently in operation.  You cannot with any legitimacy say that it would be the same or worse; it may not be what you think is the best, but it would be better.

I just want to ask one question: if the Democratic nominee is Biden rather than Sanders, is getting rid of Trump important enough to you that you'll go out and vote anyway?  If yes, fine, we simply have a difference of opinion on how best to move the nation forward and I'll be happy to debate the matter further if you can back down from your hyperbolic tone.

If no, then we have nothing further to discuss.

Oh, and where that progressive infrastructure's going to come from?  Do what I'm doing: I quite like our current Congresswoman.  I have no objection to her continuing to be my Congresswoman.  She's being primaried from the left this year even though she's already quite progressive... and I'm voting for her challenger because of that.

*sigh*  This is why Bernie supporters have such a bad reputation.  It's such a cult of personality, and it's like arguing with a creationist.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

trdsf

Quote from: Hydra009 on March 07, 2020, 07:09:29 PM
It has somewhat gone up, though it does tend to bottom out from time to time.  Government shutdown, saying that a judge wouldn't try his case impartially because he's mexican, putting kids in cages, that time he almost started WWIII, firing disease outbreak experts not long before a disease outbreak, etc.

But a Democratic candidate says "Yeah!" in a weird way and it's GG for him.  What a time to be alive.
I still can't wrap my brain around how mocking a disable reporter didn't get him blown out of the race.  No other candidate could have survived that -- but then, no other candidate was a media-backed ratings-guaranteed cash cow of a shitshow.  If the Oval Orifice had been held to the same standards as every other candidate, he wouldn't have made it to Iowa.  Instead, it was all "Ha ha, wow, can you believe he said that?  Anyway, about Hillary's emails..."
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan