The thing I've been thinking about, when it comes to Sanders and this worry about his heart attack meaning he is going to lose support is, I don't really see that? When Hillary got sick when she was running for the presidency, there were op-eds everywhere talking about "is she healthy enough to become president?" on major news networks. I know this is the primary, but I've seen one so far for Bernie, this one from CNN, and even then, I had to dig for that. And the articles about him directly don't really do the whole "is he healthy enough" thing. So if we are trying to guess political responses, this seems pretty subdued? Like I'm not a big fan of Bernie (he is my third choice in the race) but the worry that other people are gonna reject him for this seems kind of overblown, at least by the MSM response I've seen.
People get very angry about Sanders on this board for some reason.
I think sometimes people are too loose with descriptions that are pretty similar to anti semitic stereotypes, however inadvertently
I really think the claims that the field has adopted Sanders's stuff to a serious degree is seriously overrated. Hes pushed the party away from some neolib garbage but theres a gulf
Do you disagree with the sentiment that the Democratic party is as far left as it's ever been?
I really think the claims that the field has adopted Sanders's stuff to a serious degree is seriously overrated. Hes pushed the party away from some neolib garbage but theres a gulf
Do you disagree with the sentiment that the Democratic party is as far left as it's ever been?
Ever? Idk, but we can say yes for the last 30 or 40 years or so. But its moved from a conservative party to one somewhere around liberal and still substantially to my right.
Furthermore, Sanders is a major factor in that move left. If that leftward lurch appeals to you it seems like a counter productive point to arguments he should step aside.
I really think the claims that the field has adopted Sanders's stuff to a serious degree is seriously overrated. Hes pushed the party away from some neolib garbage but theres a gulf
Do you disagree with the sentiment that the Democratic party is as far left as it's ever been?
Ever? Idk, but we can say yes for the last 30 or 40 years or so. But its moved from a conservative party to one somewhere around liberal and still substantially to my right.
Furthermore, Sanders is a major factor in that move left. If that leftward lurch appeals to you it seems like a counter productive point to arguments he should step aside.
He's not running for party influencer, he's running to fill a specific office that has strenuous requirements, incredible challenges and crucial duties. The degree to which a person has moved the party or hasn't is barely relevant before you consider he's a 78 year old who just had a heart attack.
I really think the claims that the field has adopted Sanders's stuff to a serious degree is seriously overrated. Hes pushed the party away from some neolib garbage but theres a gulf
Do you disagree with the sentiment that the Democratic party is as far left as it's ever been?
Ever? Idk, but we can say yes for the last 30 or 40 years or so. But its moved from a conservative party to one somewhere around liberal and still substantially to my right.
Furthermore, Sanders is a major factor in that move left. If that leftward lurch appeals to you it seems like a counter productive point to arguments he should step aside.
He's not running for party influencer, he's running to fill a specific office that has strenuous requirements, incredible challenges and crucial duties. The degree to which a person has moved the party or hasn't is barely relevant before you consider he's a 78 year old who just had a heart attack.
Your evaluations for Sanders's merits and what you prioritize are not mine, particularly as our goals for the party are basically opposites.
The president calls a lot of shots for the direction of the party. They, to a large degree, set the agenda. I want the Democrats to be more left wing and so voting to give the guy whos pushed the left more power appeals to me.
Sanders has been in national office doing the same thing for almost 30 years and the party wasn't marching to his tune. Claiming that he caused the party's shift leftward over the last few years seems extremely generous.
The party's shifted left because the voters in it have shifted left. Sanders, at best, helped demonstrate that the shift had happened by successfully appealing to it in a high-profile way.
+14
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
The thing I've been thinking about, when it comes to Sanders and this worry about his heart attack meaning he is going to lose support is, I don't really see that? When Hillary got sick when she was running for the presidency, there were op-eds everywhere talking about "is she healthy enough to become president?" on major news networks. I know this is the primary, but I've seen one so far for Bernie, this one from CNN, and even then, I had to dig for that. And the articles about him directly don't really do the whole "is he healthy enough" thing. So if we are trying to guess political responses, this seems pretty subdued? Like I'm not a big fan of Bernie (he is my third choice in the race) but the worry that other people are gonna reject him for this seems kind of overblown, at least by the MSM response I've seen.
People get very angry about Sanders on this board for some reason.
The whole "he shouts and is too angry" thing is honestly some times extremely hmmm
Sanders has been in national office doing the same thing for almost 30 years and the party wasn't marching to his tune. Claiming that he caused the party's shift leftward over the last few years seems extremely generous.
The party's shifted left because the voters in it have shifted left. Sanders, at best, helped demonstrate that the shift had happened by successfully appealing to it in a high-profile way.
I dont follow this reasoning. Yeah, he didnt get much traction under Clinton, for a wide variety of reasons, but his role in pushing left wing policies the last...idk 8 years maybe? Its pretty undeniable.
And obviously he's not the only reason the party has moved.
The thing I've been thinking about, when it comes to Sanders and this worry about his heart attack meaning he is going to lose support is, I don't really see that? When Hillary got sick when she was running for the presidency, there were op-eds everywhere talking about "is she healthy enough to become president?" on major news networks. I know this is the primary, but I've seen one so far for Bernie, this one from CNN, and even then, I had to dig for that. And the articles about him directly don't really do the whole "is he healthy enough" thing. So if we are trying to guess political responses, this seems pretty subdued? Like I'm not a big fan of Bernie (he is my third choice in the race) but the worry that other people are gonna reject him for this seems kind of overblown, at least by the MSM response I've seen.
People get very angry about Sanders on this board for some reason.
The whole "he shouts and is too angry" thing is honestly some times extremely hmmm
This kind of thing is unhelpful.
I'm not accusing anyone or calling anyone out but the angry jewish demagogue is a pretty common stereotyoe and I feel sometimes people are a little loose with their language in this regard.
And Im sure its always with honest intention but still.
Sanders has been in national office doing the same thing for almost 30 years and the party wasn't marching to his tune. Claiming that he caused the party's shift leftward over the last few years seems extremely generous.
The party's shifted left because the voters in it have shifted left. Sanders, at best, helped demonstrate that the shift had happened by successfully appealing to it in a high-profile way.
I dont follow this reasoning. Yeah, he didnt get much traction under Clinton, for a wide variety of reasons, but his role in pushing left wing policies the last...idk 8 years maybe? Its pretty undeniable.
I know it's a forbidden topic but I feel Sanders did help bring the ideals that had been formulating since the 80's. Just he helped to give it a ideal to follow and with the Troll gave it a reason.
Sanders has been in national office doing the same thing for almost 30 years and the party wasn't marching to his tune. Claiming that he caused the party's shift leftward over the last few years seems extremely generous.
The party's shifted left because the voters in it have shifted left. Sanders, at best, helped demonstrate that the shift had happened by successfully appealing to it in a high-profile way.
I dont follow this reasoning. Yeah, he didnt get much traction under Clinton, for a wide variety of reasons, but his role in pushing left wing policies the last...idk 8 years maybe? Its pretty undeniable.
I know it's a forbidden topic but I feel Sanders did help bring the ideals that had been formulating since the 80's. Just he helped to give it a ideal to follow and with the Troll gave it a reason.
Those years in the political wilderness are a big appeal for a lot of people.
The thing I've been thinking about, when it comes to Sanders and this worry about his heart attack meaning he is going to lose support is, I don't really see that? When Hillary got sick when she was running for the presidency, there were op-eds everywhere talking about "is she healthy enough to become president?" on major news networks. I know this is the primary, but I've seen one so far for Bernie, this one from CNN, and even then, I had to dig for that. And the articles about him directly don't really do the whole "is he healthy enough" thing. So if we are trying to guess political responses, this seems pretty subdued? Like I'm not a big fan of Bernie (he is my third choice in the race) but the worry that other people are gonna reject him for this seems kind of overblown, at least by the MSM response I've seen.
There’s another political story that is overshadowing this... if it was Biden who had the heart attack they might care.
Or if that Heart Attack was being impeached.
In a sense, a national heart attack IS being impeached.
And that's what's taking up all the air time, and column inches.
At this point, the Democratic primaries are at best, the third most important story on any given day.
+3
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
It looks like the teacher story Warren has been telling isn't true, or at least she's being deceptive about it. Basically she wasn't fired for being pregnant, she didn't have the proper certifications and while taking the classes decided she would become a lawyer instead.
I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an “emergency certificate,” it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, “I don’t think this is going to work out for me.” I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, “What am I going to do?”
I don't super care except to be a bit disappointed in her. The teacher angle has always been transparently BS (and an attempt to be folksy or relatable I don't buy or care about) but to make it that she was fired for being pregnant is a bit unseemly.
However since she is arguably the front runner will anyone make it an issue?
If true, this is fairly distasteful. Warren’s great at matching her personal story to her policy solutions, but if the personal story isn’t true that can really backfire.
I suppose it’s possible Warren shaded the truth in the earlier interview instead, but barring that this isn’t a great look. Hopefully she clarifies things.
Most of the story fits what we know though. The only part that might be in conflict is whether or not she was fired for being pregnant. I don't see how any of the rest of it really contradicts the narrative. Went to school for not teaching, got an emergency certificate to teach (which is extremely common at least where I live), and then went to pursue a different career.
This story has been floating around for a couple days and I'm only seeing it on tabloids and blogs that use terms like "fauxahontas." Until this shows up on a reputable outlet, I'm going to file this one under bullshit.
You realize that this is a quote straight from a video interview she did in 2007, right? Do you consider it reasonable to label it bullshit as long as no "reputable" outlet posts the interview?
We can argue over whether this is proof that she lied, sure. I lean towards that, but I admit it's possible she just omitted that important fact here. To be honest, I think the most likely explanation is that she figured that being married and pregnant would create too much bullshit to wade through so a different route was preferable, and I don't fault her for that. But there is a big difference between getting fired and choosing to go a different way, even if for understandable reasons.
It looks like the teacher story Warren has been telling isn't true, or at least she's being deceptive about it. Basically she wasn't fired for being pregnant, she didn't have the proper certifications and while taking the classes decided she would become a lawyer instead.
I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an “emergency certificate,” it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, “I don’t think this is going to work out for me.” I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, “What am I going to do?”
I don't super care except to be a bit disappointed in her. The teacher angle has always been transparently BS (and an attempt to be folksy or relatable I don't buy or care about) but to make it that she was fired for being pregnant is a bit unseemly.
However since she is arguably the front runner will anyone make it an issue?
If true, this is fairly distasteful. Warren’s great at matching her personal story to her policy solutions, but if the personal story isn’t true that can really backfire.
I suppose it’s possible Warren shaded the truth in the earlier interview instead, but barring that this isn’t a great look. Hopefully she clarifies things.
Most of the story fits what we know though. The only part that might be in conflict is whether or not she was fired for being pregnant. I don't see how any of the rest of it really contradicts the narrative. Went to school for not teaching, got an emergency certificate to teach (which is extremely common at least where I live), and then went to pursue a different career.
This story has been floating around for a couple days and I'm only seeing it on tabloids and blogs that use terms like "fauxahontas." Until this shows up on a reputable outlet, I'm going to file this one under bullshit.
You realize that this is a quote straight from a video interview she did in 2007, right? Do you consider it reasonable to label it bullshit as long as no "reputable" outlet posts the interview?
We can argue over whether this is proof that she lied, sure. I lean towards that, but I admit it's possible she just omitted that important fact here. To be honest, I think the most likely explanation is that she figured that being married and pregnant would create too much bullshit to wade through so a different route was preferable, and I don't fault her for that. But there is a big difference between getting fired and choosing to go a different way, even if for understandable reasons.
If victims of harassment don't mention that every time, or wait until a later date to tell their story, it doesn't invalidate their story. The attitude that because she didn't say it this previous time it means she's lying now is one of the many ways in which women are not believed when they come forward about discrimination, harassment, or abuse.
The spin is bullshit.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Furthermore, Sanders is a major factor in that move left.
These two statements appear contradictory to me.
I dont think so when you compare where the party was in the 90s and 00s, where it is now, and how far it still is from actual democratic socialism.
You say the claim is seriously overrated (aka don't believe) that "the field" has adopted Sanders' policies. But also that the only reason the field is as far left as it is ... is Sanders.
Furthermore, Sanders is a major factor in that move left.
These two statements appear contradictory to me.
I dont think so when you compare where the party was in the 90s and 00s, where it is now, and how far it still is from actual democratic socialism.
You say the claim is seriously overrated (aka don't believe) that "the field" has adopted Sanders' policies. But also that the only reason the field is as far left as it is ... is Sanders.
How is that not contradictory?
I just explained it? The Democrats have moved from a conservative party to one with some reasonable claims to being progressive and thats in part because of Sanders but theyre still far short of democratic socialism in terms of party median.
I get sanders supporters are personally ok with him still running and would be willing to vote for him still.
But if you think this didn’t sink any chance of him being president you are fooling yourself.
He has zero chance now. So support him if you want but if he wins the primary we have 4 more years of Trump. Like it or not this heart attack makes him unelectable
Voting in line with how you think others will vote relinquishes any power your vote has.
It demonstrably does not
Electability is determined by every person that votes. As a voter, you have an equal say with everyone else.
Yes, but you can’t say that everybody can have their own reasons for voting and then turn around and tell people that their reasons for voting a certain way invalidate their voice.
It’s inconsistent at best.
EDIT: Like, if somebody has concerns that Sanders can’t beat Trump in the general because of his health, they can vote that way. Their voice is no more invalidated for voting that way than the person who votes Sanders because they like his policies and want to vote their preference in the primary even if they’re sure he won’t win.
I get sanders supporters are personally ok with him still running and would be willing to vote for him still.
But if you think this didn’t sink any chance of him being president you are fooling yourself.
He has zero chance now. So support him if you want but if he wins the primary we have 4 more years of Trump. Like it or not this heart attack makes him unelectable
Voting in line with how you think others will vote relinquishes any power your vote has.
It demonstrably does not
Electability is determined by every person that votes. As a voter, you have an equal say with everyone else.
Yes, but you can’t say that everybody can have their own reasons for voting and then turn around and tell people that their reasons for voting a certain way invalidate their voice.
It’s inconsistent at best.
It's better than inconsistent. Certain methods of voting are almost always invalid because they do not express your power to make your own decisions - voting randomly and not voting being examples in most cases. Trying to self-fulfill someone else's prophecy is giving them your voting power - and unlike how you phrased it, that can be a valid choice, but you should be fully informed of what you are actually choosing. In all of these cases, willfully or not, you relinquish your power to others that may have different interests than you. Think for yourself.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Furthermore, Sanders is a major factor in that move left.
These two statements appear contradictory to me.
I dont think so when you compare where the party was in the 90s and 00s, where it is now, and how far it still is from actual democratic socialism.
You say the claim is seriously overrated (aka don't believe) that "the field" has adopted Sanders' policies. But also that the only reason the field is as far left as it is ... is Sanders.
How is that not contradictory?
I just explained it? The Democrats have moved from a conservative party to one with some reasonable claims to being progressive and thats in part because of Sanders but theyre still far short of democratic socialism in terms of party median.
I dont understand the confusion.
To put it simply Tox, Styrofoam is saying that the party has moved left, in major part due to Sanders, but it's nowhere near where he wants it to be.
Imagine Liberal/Left politics like a 0-10 scale.
0 is where the party was before Obama-during the Clinton years.
The party is now at 1, maybe 2. Warren if she gets the nod will probably drag it to 3.
EDIT: Like, if somebody has concerns that Sanders can’t beat Trump in the general because of his health, they can vote that way. Their voice is no more invalidated for voting that way than the person who votes Sanders because they like his policies and want to vote their preference in the primary even if they’re sure he won’t win.
To be clear, I profess profound disagreement with that sentiment per my previous arguments. However, if you continue to have particular doubts about Mr. Sanders' ability to fulfill the duties of the campaign trail and office or wish to preserve his health and safety, by all means incorporate that into your voting decision. Engaging in electoral hearsay - voting because you believe others that do not share your beliefs would otherwise override your vote - is a failure of confidence in your own beliefs reflected in the silencing of your unique voice in the electoral process. Voting is communication. Put your brain into it and take it seriously.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
It looks like the teacher story Warren has been telling isn't true, or at least she's being deceptive about it. Basically she wasn't fired for being pregnant, she didn't have the proper certifications and while taking the classes decided she would become a lawyer instead.
I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an “emergency certificate,” it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, “I don’t think this is going to work out for me.” I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, “What am I going to do?”
I don't super care except to be a bit disappointed in her. The teacher angle has always been transparently BS (and an attempt to be folksy or relatable I don't buy or care about) but to make it that she was fired for being pregnant is a bit unseemly.
However since she is arguably the front runner will anyone make it an issue?
If true, this is fairly distasteful. Warren’s great at matching her personal story to her policy solutions, but if the personal story isn’t true that can really backfire.
I suppose it’s possible Warren shaded the truth in the earlier interview instead, but barring that this isn’t a great look. Hopefully she clarifies things.
Most of the story fits what we know though. The only part that might be in conflict is whether or not she was fired for being pregnant. I don't see how any of the rest of it really contradicts the narrative. Went to school for not teaching, got an emergency certificate to teach (which is extremely common at least where I live), and then went to pursue a different career.
This story has been floating around for a couple days and I'm only seeing it on tabloids and blogs that use terms like "fauxahontas." Until this shows up on a reputable outlet, I'm going to file this one under bullshit.
You realize that this is a quote straight from a video interview she did in 2007, right? Do you consider it reasonable to label it bullshit as long as no "reputable" outlet posts the interview?
We can argue over whether this is proof that she lied, sure. I lean towards that, but I admit it's possible she just omitted that important fact here. To be honest, I think the most likely explanation is that she figured that being married and pregnant would create too much bullshit to wade through so a different route was preferable, and I don't fault her for that. But there is a big difference between getting fired and choosing to go a different way, even if for understandable reasons.
If victims of harassment don't mention that every time, or wait until a later date to tell their story, it doesn't invalidate their story. The attitude that because she didn't say it this previous time it means she's lying now is one of the many ways in which women are not believed when they come forward about discrimination, harassment, or abuse.
The spin is bullshit.
man it's a thing that happened over 40 years ago and also in 2007 basically everyone already believed getting fired for being pregnant was bullshit.
like come on man. don't drag in legitimate issues so that we're all gonna nod and agree that Warren may have been hesitant to reveal the truth in 2007 because of sexism or whatever.
Voting for whoever you want in the primary is fine but I'm making the claim that nominating sanders after this loses 2020.
Unless we have a secret voting coalition of medical professionals who understand the nuance I'm unaware of?
I'm saying it' would be a poor choice to make Sanders the nominee.
Like El Jeffe said, we're each 1/250,000 a kingmaker, and I can't make Sanders the nominee or president any more than my own fraction, if I were to vote for him. If I've learned anything these past few elections, it's that trying to predict what's going to happen at this stage is just going to lead to regret. Better not to hang your hat on something you think is true but actually isn't.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I get sanders supporters are personally ok with him still running and would be willing to vote for him still.
But if you think this didn’t sink any chance of him being president you are fooling yourself.
He has zero chance now. So support him if you want but if he wins the primary we have 4 more years of Trump. Like it or not this heart attack makes him unelectable
Voting in line with how you think others will vote relinquishes any power your vote has.
It demonstrably does not
Electability is determined by every person that votes. As a voter, you have an equal say with everyone else.
Yes, but you can’t say that everybody can have their own reasons for voting and then turn around and tell people that their reasons for voting a certain way invalidate their voice.
It’s inconsistent at best.
It's better than inconsistent. Certain methods of voting are almost always invalid because they do not express your power to make your own decisions - voting randomly and not voting being examples in most cases. Trying to self-fulfill someone else's prophecy is giving them your voting power - and unlike how you phrased it, that can be a valid choice, but you should be fully informed of what you are actually choosing. In all of these cases, willfully or not, you relinquish your power to others that may have different interests than you. Think for yourself.
This almost sounds like an argument for voting third party in the general. In a FPTP world, voting your first preference can directly contribute towards your least desired choice winning.
rahkeesh2000 on
+3
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
If he picks a shitty VP I might reevaluate but there are clear proceedures for what happens if he dies in office and while it would obviously be a blow it doesnt weigh much against, say, winding down American imperialism to any degreee.
By the time he's picking a VP it's too late to reevaluate.
If he picks a shitty VP I might reevaluate but there are clear proceedures for what happens if he dies in office and while it would obviously be a blow it doesnt weigh much against, say, winding down American imperialism to any degreee.
By the time he's picking a VP it's too late to reevaluate.
Happily we can look at the people he's hired to run his campaign and conclude he'd staff the executive branch poorly.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If he picks a shitty VP I might reevaluate but there are clear proceedures for what happens if he dies in office and while it would obviously be a blow it doesnt weigh much against, say, winding down American imperialism to any degreee.
By the time he's picking a VP it's too late to reevaluate.
I get sanders supporters are personally ok with him still running and would be willing to vote for him still.
But if you think this didn’t sink any chance of him being president you are fooling yourself.
He has zero chance now. So support him if you want but if he wins the primary we have 4 more years of Trump. Like it or not this heart attack makes him unelectable
Voting in line with how you think others will vote relinquishes any power your vote has.
It demonstrably does not
Electability is determined by every person that votes. As a voter, you have an equal say with everyone else.
Yes, but you can’t say that everybody can have their own reasons for voting and then turn around and tell people that their reasons for voting a certain way invalidate their voice.
It’s inconsistent at best.
It's better than inconsistent. Certain methods of voting are almost always invalid because they do not express your power to make your own decisions - voting randomly and not voting being examples in most cases. Trying to self-fulfill someone else's prophecy is giving them your voting power - and unlike how you phrased it, that can be a valid choice, but you should be fully informed of what you are actually choosing. In all of these cases, willfully or not, you relinquish your power to others that may have different interests than you. Think for yourself.
This almost sounds like an argument for voting third party in the general. In a FPTP world, voting your first preference can directly contribute towards your least desired choice winning.
That's a different topic not really worth covering in the primary thread, but in any case, letting people enjoy the freedom of their decisions reduces the risk that they'll vote against your interests out of spite and the fear that you're manipulating them. Think about that the next time you encounter a self-proclaimed third party voter.
A primary is where you let your voice be heard. A better place even than the primary is in local elections. Falling in lockstep on day one forever is what republicans do (or used to do), and look what it got them. A party that repeatedly gets into office, sure, but a party that is almost totally divorced from their interests.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If he picks a shitty VP I might reevaluate but there are clear proceedures for what happens if he dies in office and while it would obviously be a blow it doesnt weigh much against, say, winding down American imperialism to any degreee.
By the time he's picking a VP it's too late to reevaluate.
Maybe. He might pick early if this gets legs.
Honestly I think that would hurt him.
Rather, I think announcing a VP pick before there's even been a single primary vote cast should hurt any given candidate, as it implies a feeling somewhere between presumption and desperation. It's a political stunt and frankly I don't see Sanders doing that anyway.
Furthermore, Sanders is a major factor in that move left.
These two statements appear contradictory to me.
I dont think so when you compare where the party was in the 90s and 00s, where it is now, and how far it still is from actual democratic socialism.
You say the claim is seriously overrated (aka don't believe) that "the field" has adopted Sanders' policies. But also that the only reason the field is as far left as it is ... is Sanders.
How is that not contradictory?
I just explained it? The Democrats have moved from a conservative party to one with some reasonable claims to being progressive and thats in part because of Sanders but theyre still far short of democratic socialism in terms of party median.
I dont understand the confusion.
To put it simply Tox, Styrofoam is saying that the party has moved left, in major part due to Sanders, but it's nowhere near where he wants it to be.
Imagine Liberal/Left politics like a 0-10 scale.
0 is where the party was before Obama-during the Clinton years.
The party is now at 1, maybe 2. Warren if she gets the nod will probably drag it to 3.
Sanders is at 5 maybe 7.
Styrofoam is somewhere at 30.
I'm at 4 myself.
No what he said (or at least my read thereof) is 'I don't think the party is taking Sanders seriously' and also 'the party moved left because of Sanders' which, at least to me, at least sound like mutually exclusive statements. How can he pull the party in any given direction if they're not taking him seriously?
Furthermore, Sanders is a major factor in that move left.
These two statements appear contradictory to me.
I dont think so when you compare where the party was in the 90s and 00s, where it is now, and how far it still is from actual democratic socialism.
You say the claim is seriously overrated (aka don't believe) that "the field" has adopted Sanders' policies. But also that the only reason the field is as far left as it is ... is Sanders.
How is that not contradictory?
I just explained it? The Democrats have moved from a conservative party to one with some reasonable claims to being progressive and thats in part because of Sanders but theyre still far short of democratic socialism in terms of party median.
I dont understand the confusion.
To put it simply Tox, Styrofoam is saying that the party has moved left, in major part due to Sanders, but it's nowhere near where he wants it to be.
Imagine Liberal/Left politics like a 0-10 scale.
0 is where the party was before Obama-during the Clinton years.
The party is now at 1, maybe 2. Warren if she gets the nod will probably drag it to 3.
Sanders is at 5 maybe 7.
Styrofoam is somewhere at 30.
I'm at 4 myself.
No what he said (or at least my read thereof) is 'I don't think the party is taking Sanders seriously' and also 'the party moved left because of Sanders' which, at least to me, at least sound like mutually exclusive statements. How can he pull the party in any given direction if they're not taking him seriously?
I don't really agree with the concept but roughly it looks like Sanders is pulling Warren who is pulling the party away from Biden, cuz she's got that one foot in, one foot out thing going on. So I guess you could technically say he's indirectly influencing the party.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If he picks a shitty VP I might reevaluate but there are clear proceedures for what happens if he dies in office and while it would obviously be a blow it doesnt weigh much against, say, winding down American imperialism to any degreee.
By the time he's picking a VP it's too late to reevaluate.
If he picks a shitty VP I might reevaluate but there are clear proceedures for what happens if he dies in office and while it would obviously be a blow it doesnt weigh much against, say, winding down American imperialism to any degreee.
By the time he's picking a VP it's too late to reevaluate.
Maybe. He might pick early if this gets legs.
How do you pick early?
Pick before voting has made you the de-facto nominee.
You could also argue Warren is pulling Sanders to his positions. Neither is purely "left" of the other. Both of them reflect the political realities of the states they represent and of their desire to run for the Presidency on a Democratic Party ticket.
This generally being why they work together well, I imagine.
Furthermore, Sanders is a major factor in that move left.
These two statements appear contradictory to me.
I dont think so when you compare where the party was in the 90s and 00s, where it is now, and how far it still is from actual democratic socialism.
You say the claim is seriously overrated (aka don't believe) that "the field" has adopted Sanders' policies. But also that the only reason the field is as far left as it is ... is Sanders.
How is that not contradictory?
I just explained it? The Democrats have moved from a conservative party to one with some reasonable claims to being progressive and thats in part because of Sanders but theyre still far short of democratic socialism in terms of party median.
I dont understand the confusion.
To put it simply Tox, Styrofoam is saying that the party has moved left, in major part due to Sanders, but it's nowhere near where he wants it to be.
Imagine Liberal/Left politics like a 0-10 scale.
0 is where the party was before Obama-during the Clinton years.
The party is now at 1, maybe 2. Warren if she gets the nod will probably drag it to 3.
Sanders is at 5 maybe 7.
Styrofoam is somewhere at 30.
I'm at 4 myself.
No what he said (or at least my read thereof) is 'I don't think the party is taking Sanders seriously' and also 'the party moved left because of Sanders' which, at least to me, at least sound like mutually exclusive statements. How can he pull the party in any given direction if they're not taking him seriously?
I think what he meant by "I really think the claims that the field has adopted Sanders's stuff to a serious degree is seriously overrated" is less they don't take Sanders seriously, and more "Movement in the direction of Sanders positions is more minor than it seems. Many candidates support expansion of health care, but not Medicare for All. Only some candidates are for backing a strong labor union presence. Not blowing shit up all the time only has Bernie as a supporter. Environmental concerns seem to be limited to Sanders, Warren and Inslee. And don't even get me started on Joe Biden, if I wanted to vote for a Republican, I'd vote for a fucking Republican."
Posts
My track record this primary season is way better than his, for the record.
I think sometimes people are too loose with descriptions that are pretty similar to anti semitic stereotypes, however inadvertently
Do you disagree with the sentiment that the Democratic party is as far left as it's ever been?
Ever? Idk, but we can say yes for the last 30 or 40 years or so. But its moved from a conservative party to one somewhere around liberal and still substantially to my right.
Furthermore, Sanders is a major factor in that move left. If that leftward lurch appeals to you it seems like a counter productive point to arguments he should step aside.
He's not running for party influencer, he's running to fill a specific office that has strenuous requirements, incredible challenges and crucial duties. The degree to which a person has moved the party or hasn't is barely relevant before you consider he's a 78 year old who just had a heart attack.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Your evaluations for Sanders's merits and what you prioritize are not mine, particularly as our goals for the party are basically opposites.
The president calls a lot of shots for the direction of the party. They, to a large degree, set the agenda. I want the Democrats to be more left wing and so voting to give the guy whos pushed the left more power appeals to me.
The party's shifted left because the voters in it have shifted left. Sanders, at best, helped demonstrate that the shift had happened by successfully appealing to it in a high-profile way.
This kind of thing is unhelpful.
I dont follow this reasoning. Yeah, he didnt get much traction under Clinton, for a wide variety of reasons, but his role in pushing left wing policies the last...idk 8 years maybe? Its pretty undeniable.
And obviously he's not the only reason the party has moved.
I'm not accusing anyone or calling anyone out but the angry jewish demagogue is a pretty common stereotyoe and I feel sometimes people are a little loose with their language in this regard.
And Im sure its always with honest intention but still.
I know it's a forbidden topic but I feel Sanders did help bring the ideals that had been formulating since the 80's. Just he helped to give it a ideal to follow and with the Troll gave it a reason.
Those years in the political wilderness are a big appeal for a lot of people.
In a sense, a national heart attack IS being impeached.
And that's what's taking up all the air time, and column inches.
At this point, the Democratic primaries are at best, the third most important story on any given day.
You realize that this is a quote straight from a video interview she did in 2007, right? Do you consider it reasonable to label it bullshit as long as no "reputable" outlet posts the interview?
We can argue over whether this is proof that she lied, sure. I lean towards that, but I admit it's possible she just omitted that important fact here. To be honest, I think the most likely explanation is that she figured that being married and pregnant would create too much bullshit to wade through so a different route was preferable, and I don't fault her for that. But there is a big difference between getting fired and choosing to go a different way, even if for understandable reasons.
If victims of harassment don't mention that every time, or wait until a later date to tell their story, it doesn't invalidate their story. The attitude that because she didn't say it this previous time it means she's lying now is one of the many ways in which women are not believed when they come forward about discrimination, harassment, or abuse.
The spin is bullshit.
These two statements appear contradictory to me.
I dont think so when you compare where the party was in the 90s and 00s, where it is now, and how far it still is from actual democratic socialism.
You say the claim is seriously overrated (aka don't believe) that "the field" has adopted Sanders' policies. But also that the only reason the field is as far left as it is ... is Sanders.
How is that not contradictory?
I just explained it? The Democrats have moved from a conservative party to one with some reasonable claims to being progressive and thats in part because of Sanders but theyre still far short of democratic socialism in terms of party median.
I dont understand the confusion.
Yes, but you can’t say that everybody can have their own reasons for voting and then turn around and tell people that their reasons for voting a certain way invalidate their voice.
It’s inconsistent at best.
EDIT: Like, if somebody has concerns that Sanders can’t beat Trump in the general because of his health, they can vote that way. Their voice is no more invalidated for voting that way than the person who votes Sanders because they like his policies and want to vote their preference in the primary even if they’re sure he won’t win.
It's better than inconsistent. Certain methods of voting are almost always invalid because they do not express your power to make your own decisions - voting randomly and not voting being examples in most cases. Trying to self-fulfill someone else's prophecy is giving them your voting power - and unlike how you phrased it, that can be a valid choice, but you should be fully informed of what you are actually choosing. In all of these cases, willfully or not, you relinquish your power to others that may have different interests than you. Think for yourself.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
To put it simply Tox, Styrofoam is saying that the party has moved left, in major part due to Sanders, but it's nowhere near where he wants it to be.
Imagine Liberal/Left politics like a 0-10 scale.
0 is where the party was before Obama-during the Clinton years.
The party is now at 1, maybe 2. Warren if she gets the nod will probably drag it to 3.
Sanders is at 5 maybe 7.
Styrofoam is somewhere at 30.
I'm at 4 myself.
To be clear, I profess profound disagreement with that sentiment per my previous arguments. However, if you continue to have particular doubts about Mr. Sanders' ability to fulfill the duties of the campaign trail and office or wish to preserve his health and safety, by all means incorporate that into your voting decision. Engaging in electoral hearsay - voting because you believe others that do not share your beliefs would otherwise override your vote - is a failure of confidence in your own beliefs reflected in the silencing of your unique voice in the electoral process. Voting is communication. Put your brain into it and take it seriously.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
man it's a thing that happened over 40 years ago and also in 2007 basically everyone already believed getting fired for being pregnant was bullshit.
like come on man. don't drag in legitimate issues so that we're all gonna nod and agree that Warren may have been hesitant to reveal the truth in 2007 because of sexism or whatever.
Unless we have a secret voting coalition of medical professionals who understand the nuance I'm unaware of?
I'm saying it' would be a poor choice to make Sanders the nominee.
Like El Jeffe said, we're each 1/250,000 a kingmaker, and I can't make Sanders the nominee or president any more than my own fraction, if I were to vote for him. If I've learned anything these past few elections, it's that trying to predict what's going to happen at this stage is just going to lead to regret. Better not to hang your hat on something you think is true but actually isn't.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This almost sounds like an argument for voting third party in the general. In a FPTP world, voting your first preference can directly contribute towards your least desired choice winning.
By the time he's picking a VP it's too late to reevaluate.
Happily we can look at the people he's hired to run his campaign and conclude he'd staff the executive branch poorly.
Maybe. He might pick early if this gets legs.
That's a different topic not really worth covering in the primary thread, but in any case, letting people enjoy the freedom of their decisions reduces the risk that they'll vote against your interests out of spite and the fear that you're manipulating them. Think about that the next time you encounter a self-proclaimed third party voter.
A primary is where you let your voice be heard. A better place even than the primary is in local elections. Falling in lockstep on day one forever is what republicans do (or used to do), and look what it got them. A party that repeatedly gets into office, sure, but a party that is almost totally divorced from their interests.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Honestly I think that would hurt him.
Rather, I think announcing a VP pick before there's even been a single primary vote cast should hurt any given candidate, as it implies a feeling somewhere between presumption and desperation. It's a political stunt and frankly I don't see Sanders doing that anyway.
No what he said (or at least my read thereof) is 'I don't think the party is taking Sanders seriously' and also 'the party moved left because of Sanders' which, at least to me, at least sound like mutually exclusive statements. How can he pull the party in any given direction if they're not taking him seriously?
I don't really agree with the concept but roughly it looks like Sanders is pulling Warren who is pulling the party away from Biden, cuz she's got that one foot in, one foot out thing going on. So I guess you could technically say he's indirectly influencing the party.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
How do you pick early?
Pick before voting has made you the de-facto nominee.
This generally being why they work together well, I imagine.
I think what he meant by "I really think the claims that the field has adopted Sanders's stuff to a serious degree is seriously overrated" is less they don't take Sanders seriously, and more "Movement in the direction of Sanders positions is more minor than it seems. Many candidates support expansion of health care, but not Medicare for All. Only some candidates are for backing a strong labor union presence. Not blowing shit up all the time only has Bernie as a supporter. Environmental concerns seem to be limited to Sanders, Warren and Inslee. And don't even get me started on Joe Biden, if I wanted to vote for a Republican, I'd vote for a fucking Republican."