-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Bernie Sanders is the best candidate internationally (BadEmpanada)
- Thread starter Deleted member 82
- Start date
About 40-45% of Americans basically never vote, not even in POTUS election years. The slightly more than half that do are generally more engaged, obviously, and would have some idea who Sanders is.
Step One: Investigate the Trump admin, find the receipts for crimes.
Step Two: During Step One get the dirt on several U.S. Senators, follow up.
Step Three: Prosecute said Senators along with Trump.
Step Four: Convict said Senators and Trump.
Step Five: Remove SCOTUS judges on grounds that the Senate that seated them was illegitimate based on multiple Republicans having committed crime/treason while in office.
I wouldn't be entirely surprised that if a Dem wins the Russian gov't. drops all their compromat on Trump and co., as it'll have zero future value, but immediately after a Dem election would be a big shit bomb to mire the U.S. gov't. in sorting through it for the next 12-24 months, buying Putin continued flexibility for the time.
If Sanders chose Tulsi as his VP I'd seriously question his sanity and fitness for office.
Sanders already said he doesn't like any Republicans as his VP nominee.
Tulsi is the worst candidate in the field, and adding her as a VP nom when she mostly caters to faux Progressives and right wingers is probably not a good idea for the most Progressive candidate in modern history.
I believe that Bernie isnt the absolute best, but at this point and time hes the best we'll likely get. Im happy with that, baby steps is all we can expect for most Americans.
And you're being absolutely ridiculous about the worst candidate in the field and faux-progressives. Please I'm not a child, a snark is not a point.
Tulsi is the worst candidate in the field, and adding her as a VP nom when she mostly caters to faux Progressives and right wingers is probably not a good idea for the most Progressive candidate in modern history.
Dutch here. While I'd find his position on the Palestinian issue refreshing, I do wonder whether his tendency for isolationism wouldn't just open additional vacuums for China or Putin to step into. After Trump's tendency to intentionally piss off every ally the US has gathered in a century, it'd probably be nice for his successor to at least make a start to try and to start the process of repairing some of the US' soft power, as hard as that's gonna be.
Warren's my personal favorite, though if she can't win I might settle for Biden's heartland appeal argument. I have my reservations about Sanders' electability when forced onto a stage that isn't Vermont or the Democratic primaries.
He WAS one of the weakest candidates. Most of the things that worked against Hillary (Dems already holding the White House for two terms, Benghazi/Emailgate, Comey's letter, FaintGate, sexism, her having been a target of the Republican smear machine for 30 years) in 2016 had more to do with her than with her opponent and it's not unlikely that a Jeb!, Rubio or Kasich would have done better than Trump and actually gotten the popular vote since they'd have been able to take advantage of much of Clinton's weaknesses without being weighed down by Trump's loathsomeness, ignorance and impulsiveness. Even with all those factors, the Republican tilt of the Electoral College and Russian meddling, Trump barely managed to win. Romney, who lost in 2012 had a bigger vote count than Trump. It's easy to say "be careful what you wish for" in hindsight, but they weren't wrong when they qualified him as the candidate who'd have the hardest time winning.
She probably would be a Republican if having an R next to your name didn't count as an automatic loss in Hawaii.
Warren's my personal favorite, though if she can't win I might settle for Biden's heartland appeal argument. I have my reservations about Sanders' electability when forced onto a stage that isn't Vermont or the Democratic primaries.
He WAS one of the weakest candidates. Most of the things that worked against Hillary (Dems already holding the White House for two terms, Benghazi/Emailgate, Comey's letter, FaintGate, sexism, her having been a target of the Republican smear machine for 30 years) in 2016 had more to do with her than with her opponent and it's not unlikely that a Jeb!, Rubio or Kasich would have done better than Trump and actually gotten the popular vote since they'd have been able to take advantage of much of Clinton's weaknesses without being weighed down by Trump's loathsomeness, ignorance and impulsiveness. Even with all those factors, the Republican tilt of the Electoral College and Russian meddling, Trump barely managed to win. Romney, who lost in 2012 had a bigger vote count than Trump. It's easy to say "be careful what you wish for" in hindsight, but they weren't wrong when they qualified him as the candidate who'd have the hardest time winning.
She probably would be a Republican if having an R next to your name didn't count as an automatic loss in Hawaii.
Last edited:
To be honest, most of those accounts are created for the sole purpose of (attempting to) flame people and get banned. Once they're banned, they usually take it back to whatever echo chamber they actively participate in and use it as "evidence" of how crazy and stupid it is here. To them, the ban is insignificant and irrelevant, and they are "owning the libs".
So you'd trade U.S. commercial imperialism for overt expansion by Russia and Turkey and the protection of dictators like Assad?
Because those are Gabbard's foreign policy icons. The people who actually kill the opposition.
I would trade American imperialism for no American imperialism.
I have no say on how a nation direct itself other than mine. Countries have a right to self determination without the inference of foreign power.
I'm more afraid of America than any other country in the world.
Commercial imperialism !!! Commercial ?
How many people did Russia kill thesee last decades in war ? How many for Turkey ? How many did US kill ? My grand parent knew the German, I know the american.
US. Are. The. Baddies.
And stop about protecting other. Stop the bullshit !! You are protecting Yemen right now or before ? No . The Palestinians ? How are the Iraqi protected ?
Stop the imperialism, full stop. I'm against yours.
"Policy Icons" How smeary of you, how Clinton of you. Be serious or don't talk.
She defended Assad when it was proven he used chemical weapons on his own people. He's killed about 400,000 of them as of 2018, and she has actively tried to shield him and ensure he stays in power.
How many people have Russia killed in Georgia and Ukraine?
How many Kurds just got rolled over by Erdogan?
The U.S. are an oppressor nation in much of foreign policy. That is absolutely true. But somehow you're out here propping up the one person in the race who thinks the problem with the U.S. is that it stops others from doing the same.
She supports and takes support from anti-semites. Her trip to Syria several years back was paid for by an anti-semitic group. She is an overt islamaphobe and floated policy similar to Trump's "watch list countries" ban.
She also reliably votes to support expansion of the U.S. military budget.
So lets see...
Bigger military.
Not looking to have "regime change" wars.
Friendly with Putin and Assad.
Wants to stop "Islamic Terror".
Sounds like we'd still be carpet bombing the middle east quite a bit.
Meanwhile Sanders' most likely VP pick would be Warren who:
Shortly after getting into office vocalized support for de-authorization of war in Iraq.
Authored a Nuclear No First Use policy introduced as legislation, to commit the U.S. to not being the first to use a nuke in a conflict again.
Wants to halt nuclear arsenal expansion and massively curtail international arms sales.
I could go on but Peace Action, an organization opposed to nuclear proliferation, an end to foreign conflict, reduction in U.S. military spending, and an end to foreign arms sales, scores the major candidates in this cycle.
Gabbard voted with them 51% of the time. Warren 88%. Sanders 84%.
Don't fall for the anti-war message, its all talk because she thinks there is an opening to differentiate herself politically. Its a pretty obvious con. No real advocate for peace and reduced interventionism would reliably vote for expansion of the military industrial complex and until she ran this time around continually supported further military action in the ME with one notable exception (Syria).
Sorel I think Tulsi distills what Drek is hinting at in a short and sweet message courtesy of Virgil Texas from Chapo Trap House.
OP
OP
Here's a very recent segment from The Majority Report about electability, to give some content to my response. I highly suggest you watch it, as I myself found it pretty enlightening:
I'm sorry if this comes off as a bit flippant, but I genuinely cannot fathom how one could have Biden over Bernie as a second choice when their first choice is Warren. There might be significant differences between Warren and Sanders if you look closely, but Sanders is still her closest analogue, ideologically speaking. To paraphrase Sam Seder in the above clip, Biden and Bernie are completely different beasts. Now, people who hesitate between Bernie and Biden, or Warren and Biden do exist, don't get me wrong, but as Sam said, those types of voters tend to be low-information voters, who don't vote based on ideological lanes like many people here (including you I assume), but on hearsay or inertia or misconceptions. Sam gives the example of someone who literally thought that Biden was more progressive than Bernie based simply on the fact that Biden was Obama's VP. Likewise, the (supposed) smears of socialism and communism targeted at Bernie don't seem to matter much because people simply hear him talk about supporting workers with a clear message that's easy-to-understand and appealing to many voters regardless of political alignment.
I really, really don't buy the electability argument, especially in this election. All the candidates are flawed from a purely political standpoint, and nobody here touches the political facility of an Obama. Warren is struggling a bit in the polls already, Bernie's physical health is a concern, and Biden's mental health is degrading. Nobody knows for sure who is more electable, though we obviously all have our opinions. The safest bet you can make is that those who already struggle in the primary - like Klobuchar for instance - would be very unlikely to stand a chance in the GE. But the truth is that, no matter if it's Biden, Bernie or Warren, chances are the battle against Trump will be hard-fought, and potentially lost. None of these people ensure a definite win or a definite loss. Vote for what you know - ideas, programs -, not for what you think might happen maybe.
[EDIT] Also, for a minute I forgot the topic of my own thread lol: this isn't about who is electable, but who you think would be best for the rest of the world.
Last edited:
Actually statistics posted here last week showed that followers of every other candidate would support the winning democrat. Bernie's supporters are the only ones that by far won't support a Democrat other than him. This means he has succeeded at capturing the voter base outside of the usual democrats.
Defending American Imperialism because without it, it'll 'leave a vacuum' for the scurry Russians and the Chinese..
You hate to see it.
You hate to see it.
User banned (3 days): Trolling
Hes actually the greatest candidate in the history of the world and probably the greatest person to ever exist. He may even be Jesus in all reality, I mean he is Jewish....
this is... a very weird stance to take, given basically everything he's ever said or done regarding israel
like, there's a very strong case to be made that sanders is the most pro-palestinian candidate from one of the two major parties in a very long time, if not ever
Yup. Bernie is the best choice for anyone who cares about the conflict. Again, as an Israeli, the only one I can see making any positive difference is Bernie. Especially if, god forbids, Bibi manages to get a win in the upcoming elections. Another moderate democrat will not be enough to make Bibi walk back the huge strides he has made toward the most radical right in the last couple of years.
That's great to hear but presidents never did anything in the past even if they are against Israel policies.
He's right on just about every issue. I wished he was harder on gun control, I'd ban them personally, but I'll take 19/20 issues and hopefully if the people demand it or somebody like Beto Orourke leads on it more will be done.
Today I was enjoying his filibuster mega 8.5 hour speech on wealth inequality. Funny that it was made in Dec 2010 and every bit as relevant today as it was then.
Today I was enjoying his filibuster mega 8.5 hour speech on wealth inequality. Funny that it was made in Dec 2010 and every bit as relevant today as it was then.
What, accusing him of anti-Semitism, and using his Brexit stance change from the previous election to the current one as a wedge issue?
Never raise taxes, especially on the wealthy = actual death sentence for millions without health insurance
I agree with raising taxes. A majority of Americans are selfish and don't care what happens to anyone else as long as it isn't them. Saying you are raising taxes will lose an election for Dems
GAF was also one of the top referrers ro Bernie Sanders' website, along with Clinton's.
I don't think that really addresses what that poster was talking about. The actual GAF politics community, and the people most active in OT politics threads, were virulently anti-Sanders and that carried over to this place.
It's the definition of a silent majority type situation. You don't even have to go back a week on here to see threads with over 1k posts where that phenomenon plays out on here.
Which president's ever been against Israel policies? Got any examples?
I fear that Bernie may be an isolationist. From all the shit that the US has stirred around the world for decades, the truth is I don't want anyone Russia or China to fill the void left behind.
That and I thought Obama wasn't a complete sellout too.
Didn't some Democrats went behind Obama back to have Netanyahu on stage somewhere
I have to look it up but i remember people going behind his back to because he wasn't a complete sellout
I think there was tension between Obama and Netanyahu
I merely said Warren't my personal favorite. My second choice in terms of policy would probably not be Biden, but I do believe he'd have a higher chance of beating Trump than all the other candidates including, yes, Warren. (despite him not being on the Obama tier as a candidate)
I think one main difference between Biden and Sanders is that Biden's been part of a general election race twice and a lot of things that lessen his appeal like his foot-in-mouth tendencies or general handsiness with people are things that have been known for years, even by low info voters and if they didn't make an impact when he was part of Obama's ticket, they're unlikely to sway those people this time around.
Sanders has never faced the full wrath of the Republican media machine before (in fact, they're being rather silent about him right now) and when it starts dragging stuff up from his past, there's a lot more room for his numbers to start swaying. I guess what I'm saying is that Biden touching someone's hair in a weird way is unlikely to turn heads or move headlines at this point so it's unlikely to be a centerpiece of the Republican narrative about him, but we don't know how the news cycle would react if the Murdoch machine starts pushing Sanders' old theories about sexual repression and breast cancer into the mainstream and keeping them there for a week or so.
Show me the receipts
There's a world between; But guys I already heard a million time all you're saying and I think its ridiculous.
Do you need me to give a URL for Peace Action? If so its PeaceAction.org. Real curveball, sure. They have links to her voting history.
As for her relationship with Assad, anti-semites, and her islamaphobia, like, look anywhere?
You'd previously responded to me with the line "Be serious or don't talk." I'd suggest you go learn what the hell you're even talking about.
You're the one invoking this organisation, I have never heard of it, why this one should be the standard ?
Its always the same smear, it's tiresome, even Bernie has been accused of anti-semitism, show me where tulsi is anti-semite and I might acquiesce.
I trust tulsi on her foreign policy agenda, that's it.
if biden is the nom there will be some Hunter/Ukraine "bombshell" in november that will secure the election for trump. i would bet my life on it. trump and his team didn't do ALL that bs last year for nothing. biden is a losing candidate in this situation.
The reason the Comey letter was so devastating was because it originated from a 3rd party who was supposedly above the conventional partisan fray, giving additional credibility. The Biden-investigation was SUPPOSED to have a similar impact because Zylinsky as a non-partisan head of state was supposed to have announced it during a televised interview on a US cable network. That approach, which all the BS from last year was leading up to, was ruined because the whistleblower aired the story before the interview could take place. At this point, with the cat out of the bag and the GOP on the path to acquit Trump for his shenanigans, any new "Hunter"-bombshells will probably immediately be seen as Trump being up to his usual tricks.
It's still A vulnerability to some degree, but Hunter's a private citizen who (unlike Ivanka and Jared) will assuredly not have a place in a new administration so it's unlikely to reach Comey-like levels of impact.