-
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.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
I mean, we aren't going to win back any trunp voters with this type of elitist bullshit. Put that in an ad, and it's basically another deplorables moment, and it will touch a nerve with alot of swing voters too. Noone likes an authoritarian, coastal elitist in large swaths of the country, and especially not in the midwest, and that includes people that do not support Trump.
I just now got to see the head-to-head polls they did with the Dem candidates, and as expected, Bernie was beating them all. But when it came to Bernie v Warren, she was basically even with him. The establishment trying to put up this PROGRESSIVE VS MODERATE angle was the wrong way to go if you wanted to keep Bernie out.
For real. An 80 year old who'd been in the senate forever and makes almost $200k salary has a few million dollars. Oh noes he must be a big corruption!
The
I understand most of this and yes, currently there is a battle within the Democratic party between moderates and leftists to gain the reigns of the party. No disputing that. But I don't think you addressed my point directly about the Rising coverage of these issues. At best you could consider Krystal a progressive but Saagar definitely isn't. The Hill definitely isn't a leftist publication. When you add those factors in, it's not just leftists and moderates arguing about the Democratic party but you have right wing interests doing it too, while NOT addressing same same issues in the Republican party. Believe it or not, they had a primary too. Saagar NEVER goes in what the Republicans are doing and NEVER goes in criticizing the clear shit Fox News spouses because it's a clear conflict or ideology for him. THAT is the problem. So at best you have a channel that will show division along Democrats without ever taking the right wing politicians and media to task. It's problematic.
And you would MOST definitely not see the same action in the GOP . You already had a populist surge in Donald Trump and they did what they always do, shut up and stand behind whoever they need to support no questions asked.
I understand most of this and yes, currently there is a battle within the Democratic party between moderates and leftists to gain the reigns of the party. No disputing that. But I don't think you addressed my point directly about the Rising coverage of these issues. At best you could consider Krystal a progressive but Saagar definitely isn't. The Hill definitely isn't a leftist publication. When you add those factors in, it's not just leftists and moderates arguing about the Democratic party but you have right wing interests doing it too, while NOT addressing same same issues in the Republican party. Believe it or not, they had a primary too. Saagar NEVER goes in what the Republicans are doing and NEVER goes in criticizing the clear shit Fox News spouses because it's a clear conflict or ideology for him. THAT is the problem. So at best you have a channel that will show division along Democrats without ever taking the right wing politicians and media to task. It's problematic.
And you would MOST definitely not see the same action in the GOP . You already had a populist surge in Donald Trump and they did what they always do, shut up and stand behind whoever they need to support no questions asked.
It's funny because the things that he can do the most with (executive action) is foreign policy where he's the best.
Wait, is wooing Trump voters supposed to be a good strategy at this point?
But its right, because the public option doesnt exist in other parts of the world. You dont have public options and private options competing with each other in most cases, you have a public system that is non negotiable and a private supplementary system on top of that for things that go beyond what the public service allows. Which might we say, is the same thing Bernie's bill has. It doesnt eliminate private insurance, it eliminates the current private insurance market which would not be allowed to do the same procedures while raking in money as the public system.
And that's important because it kneecaps the power the private institution with all of its lobbying power, all of its influencing power, all of its adbuy power can accommodate to warp Washington to its own ends. That's literally the entire point of getting rid of private insurance. To destroy the current dystopian monopoly.
Why are you trying to push this "Bernie is rich" narrative so aggressively? He's net worth is around $2 Million after years of work and a very successful book of his own that brought him income.
There's a massive fucking difference between something like that and actual oligarchs like Bloomberg.
It isn't just trump voters. People that don't like Trump aren't going to turn up for that kind of shit in the midwesr. And YES any serious candidate is also trying to appeal to people trump won. Every. Single. One.
This whole conversation started with the absurd notion that both parties are the same because there are rich Democrats.
We just see this differently. Fanaticism is what has led to this neoliberal hell you keep talking about. You blame the center liberals for this when it's the fact that politics is now about dealing with extremes. The media plays a part in this, campaign finance and gerrymandering plays a significant part, and so do the politicians like trump and Bernie. You believe it's due to a lack of will by the Democratic Party and I see it as a lack of looking across the aisle and seeing a partner rather than an enemy. The fact that a good swath of your own political party is viewed as the enemy should tell you something. Your stan is the natural outcome of the rhetoric you believe you are fighting against. But really you have fallen into the hole yourself.
i agree that our current political system is broken. But it's not the neoliberals fault. and the sooner you can stop blaming the people who lean your way but aren't liberal enough, the sooner we can fix it.
It's really impressive that the moderate wing of the party, backed by big business, rich coastal elites and being the established, in-control faction of the party is trying to paint the guy with more individual donors than anyone else as being an out-of-touch elitist.
User banned (1 week): Hostility. Ignoring staff post.
I think we have located Mayor Pete's account everyone. Or it's great performance art, not sure which.
Can any Bernie supporter convince or reassure me about why I shouldn't be absolutely terrified about his chances in a GE? There was talk about Florida on the last page which I agree is 100% lost if he's the nominee, but I'm just about as scared of him losing WI, PA, MI, and maybe even some places Hillary won.
that sounds like a reductive way of saying that the establishment of both parties ultimately serve capital before anything else, which just so happens not only to be a stone cold fact but also one that was carved into history with the blood of millions.
The Democratic party has consistently reached across the aisle for the past 30 years, and every time the Republicans grab that arm, take a step further to the right, and drag the Democratic party with them. Then they let go of that arm, establish a new center and demand the Democrats move again
You are pining for a fantasy and assigning equal blame for an issue which is mostly driven by one side. The Democratic party has abandoned its left-leaning economic policies from days-gone and now the only real disagreements are over social and foreign policy. The Republican party has worn this on its sleeves, has said multiple times they only care about gaining power for their own party and damn the consequences
And you're over here being mad at Democrats for not reaching across the aisle
I understand what you are saying and the first few years of the Obama admin I felt the same. But the way the GOP has acted and became Trump puppets makes me believe we have to fight fire with fire. I doubt there is going to be a mega come together moment when politicians change. In some ways I think they love they way it is. It keeps the status quo going.
The left and right are together on things like military budget, though.
this argument is the mind-killer
like, you can make this argument about literally any policy in literally any state. there is always a conservative argument that can be made against any non-conservative policy, there is always "trump's money" waiting in the wings. if we're making points about political realities, we can't just take the actual facts we have and then toss them all out the window with a "lol nothing matters, trump's money".
like, if everything that's favorable will suddenly become unfavorable just because "trump's money", fucking crown the dude, you can't beat him. he's figured out politics, and apparently the secret is just "run ads, and mysteriously everyone will support what the republicans believe"
Maybe people are saying this because there are literal bankers in here arguing that nominating a racist oligarch from NY with multiple sexual harassment allegations is the best way to defeat a racist oligarch from NY with multiple sexual harassment allegations.
Honestly I would prefer that Bernie not be a millionaire. When my organization runs candidates we require they only accept the average workers wage from their official salary. This is one way to prevent politicians from becoming separate and above the working class:
Sawant Affirms Election Pledge, Accepting Average Worker's Wage
“Every Councilmember faces a choice of who they represent and which world they inhabit. My place is with working people and their struggles. I want to give a voice to workers, trade union members, women, and immigrants. As a Councilmember, I recommit to a fundamentally different political outlook.
www.socialistalternative.org
Nevertheless I think it's pretty obvious there is a qualitative difference between a politician who got rich late in life from selling a book, vs how most politicians get rich: corporate lobbying/consulting, scandalous speaking fees, honorary board positions and so on. If you don't want to accept that, well we're not on the same team politically.
I am not a 100% Bernie supporter, but Bernie is as of now fine in WI/MI in head to heads vs Trump. Needs some work in PA for sure, probably NH too as that was a close one last time between Trump/Clinton. On the plus side, Bernie is looking to be competitive in Arizona and that plus WI + MI would give him the win.
And I too have written off Florida especially if Sanders is the nominee.
If Michael Bloomberg becomes the standard bearer of the Democratic Party, it becomes a hell of a lot harder to say both parties aren't the same.
Class solidarity supersedes all solidarity. Every single one of us on this forum are closer to being homeless on the street than ever being a billionaire, let alone a millionaire, which is not something that can be said about folks that surround themselves with the Bloombergs of the world. Bernie's wealth isn't even comparable. To put it into perspective, think of it this way - a million seconds is roughly 11.5 days. A billion seconds is almost 32 years. And Bloomberg is worth over 60 times that. It is near limitless money that can be used to buy an election, allows for more spending on ads than any other candidate, and it will still barely scratch the outer edge of Bloomberg's net worth.
Sanders has received more individual contributions than any other presidential candidate in the history of the US, and it doesn't come from those who want to perpetuate the status quo while people are literally dying because of it.
I like Bernie but Florida is a state that Bernie cannot win due to his positions on Leftist world leaders and how that rustles feathers with the Cuban-American community in Florida that is staunchly anti-Castro, the anti-communist sentiment is huge.
stupidly supporting ass-hats like Maduro is huge blunder
Turnout wins elections. Bernie's campaign is leading to big early primary turnouts. Polling also show's he's strong with pretty much everything but old white people. And many of your concern states were lost because of dispassionate electorate on the Dem side, and a shitty neglectful campaign run by Clinton. Both mistakes Bernie hasn't and won't make.
Why is this allowed? Yes, I'm a centrist and that shouldn't exclude me being a part of the debate while not being attacked by the more liberal members of this site. I'm reporting your post and I hope a mod will see that posts such as yours have no place in this discussion other than to try and prove your superiority and to make me back down due to personal attacks.
Neoliberal politics is absolutely at the forefront of why our political system is so broken. Years of milquetoast legislation that has nothing to address fundamental issues with systems in the US has led to an ever depressed voter base that has little trust and/or respect for US institutions. They've let the overton window shift increasingly right without fighting back, and that's exactly how we got someone like Trump. They are not the only guilty ones, but when Obama promised major change with majorities in the House and Senate and failed to capitalize on that momentum, specifically because the neoliberal wing was compromising before they got to the table, they lost so much of the faith in the change he promised. The neoliberal wing is a slightly more progressive, right leaning wing of the party.
That's just the degree to fucked our overton window is, and yes, neoliberals are at a lot of fault. Not all by any means, 50 years of Conservative ratfucking and Reaganomics bullshit being sold to the population via propaganda is a huge part of that too, but don't try to absolve the Democratic establishment of years of mishandling their own party and political stances just because they've managed to push some slightly progressive legislation through.
Yeah, no. I think it's an appropriate response to posts asking "What's Bernie Sanders ever done." That's ridiculous.
Bloomberg had nothing to do with how this conversation started (which was originally about how the Democrats are unable to unify as easily as the Republicans can)
this is, once again, completely ridiculous nonsense supported by zero facts or even a sane view of reality. There are practically no extremists in congress. Outside of Bernie and the squad (ugh I don't like that name) who does the right and the media correctly label as being in sort of their own category of being further left than everyone else? And in their supposed extremity, they are only incrementally further left, as there are many other members of congress who support some of the "extreme" changes they are suggesting.
Republicans attack every Democrat ever running for office as a socialist. Obama? Socialist. Pelosi? Socialist. What makes you think they will magically stop seeing us as the enemy? What solutions are they offering to our problems that we should work with them on? How did they help American people when they had two years of control?
They became our enemy because they decided to hate us. And if you think giving in to evil is a good strategy you've already lost. It's clear from your posts in this thread that you know very little about American politics, its history, the ideas that have formed its current state, and the actions and goals of the people in office or running for president. I suggest you take time to read about how we got where we are and evaluate the real impact of what the different factions want to accomplish instead of resorting to blindly screaming at everything you think is wrong with absolutely no evidence to back up your claims or accusations of elitism when someone uses a word you don't know. There is no fantastical unity. It's not coming.
I think the objection people had to the "learn to code" stuff wasn't that they thought coal miners or whatever were literally incapable of acquiring the skills to succeed in a highly competitive technology sector (like Bloomberg does), but that the broad circumstances of their age, education, and location made such pithy sentiments seem insensitive to the large structural challenges a worker would face transitioning to an entirely different career outside their normal skillset. Not to mention that these generalized sentiments were often used as pretext to moralizing and dismissing the suffering of impoverished communities who can't overcome these challenges with the meager resources at their disposal.
Last edited:
It's a good joke, and you keep spewing talking points, not engaging with replies and moving on to new jabs.
Engage with people calling out your ridiculous takes rather than dashing between easily refutable points.
Yeah, but it doesn't. Poor white people consistently vote against their class interests and towards people who share their cultural interests. And similarly millions of people vote for and willingly donate to political figures who will raise taxes on them.
Also political ideology is not identity politics. You're not born a centrist. Ideas are open to debate. The notion that anyone is exempt from criticism because "I'm a centrist" or "I'm a leftist" doesn't hold.
To be fair, its because its largely Krystal's show hence why she gets paid the most. She was the one who set it up and brought Sagaar with her to portray an anti establishment type of narrative the corporate media doesnt tack. It being democratic civil war in an election season makes sense for a majority of the discussion to be about Democrats. Sagaar doesnt force his ideas whatever they may be, and Krystal doesnt let him do that.
Just seeing a conservative populist perspective on a democratic infight is actually pretty illuminating in that Krystal and Sagaar can agree on a lot despite having fundamentally opposing views on certain issues.
Sagaar might not get to talk about the GOP a lot on his own terms, but as a populist, he hates Neocons as well. When he does talk, its like this
That's why i said they would need a populist surge that actually knew what the fuck corporate corruption was and were able to tie it back to why they are suffering in their own lives. Bernie can get a small percentage of those voters to swing, but it would be far more effective if there was a civil war in the party that went against their base instincts and realized that the GOP was screwing them for the same reason the progressive left is fighting the corporate dem wing of the Dem party
Last edited:
First, extreme party politics works for the right because they lack diversity in all aspects so it's easier to push a direction without destroying support. Its the opposite for the dems because what makes the party so appealing also makes it harder to direct.
and, I think it's quite obvious I'm unabashedly in the middle but you may be surprised on the issues we agree on. Take military spending. I agree it's obscene. That money is better spent on paying teachers and improving our schools. There is a middle ground but calling me a Mayor Pete burn account like someone else just did doesn't get us there.
I guess I'm just much less worried about Bernie the reality and more worried about the Bernie that Trump and the media will create. A lot of these swing states have large voting populations that will fall for the attacks and smears we're going to see. Trump will successfully be able to paint Bernie as a "communist" or the "extreme left" in many parts on the Midwest.
I don't have nearly is much faith in these places as a lot of Bernie supporters do.
I don't have nearly is much faith in these places as a lot of Bernie supporters do.
Why won't democrats extend an olive branch to people that have fucked them, are fucking them and admitted that will fuck them in the future?
Such are life's misteries.
Such are life's misteries.
Imo "extreme" politics works for the GOP because their donor base holds extremely right wing views. The alternative extreme left wing politics doesn't work for the DNC because their donor base holds extremely right wing views.
Unless Biden makes a huge comeback, Bernie is the one most likely to win enough delegates to secure a nomination, so either the Democrat party is too fractured to win a GE to begin with, or Bernie's the best aligned to do it. All signs point to him being the one the party wants the most.
- Status