|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
I understand that Bernie surrounds himself with radical surrogates of the same economic stripe as himself. The new congressional progressives have mostly endorsed him. His student chapter at a local college literally has a cutout of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez next to a cut-out of Bernie. Some of the more radical ones might be trouble for him in long term, in what I think is the unlikely event that he wins no majority of delegates prior to convention.
I think his obvious play is to embrace the economic radicalism already on the rise in his party. These plans include free college tuition, a massive increase in government involvement in the health insurance industry, high taxes and particularly high for the very rich, free childcare, and workers being elevated to corporate boards. I know I'm probably missing a few in there.
It's the surrogates that go big on "capitalist oppression and exploitation" that will cost him in states. That line will obviously appeal to millenial and gen-z primary voters, but for older voters, I say it reminds them of revolutionary movements against capitalism that upended prosperous countries. It's hard to say opponents are blowing your Marxist class war rhetoric up to insane levels when your own surrogates talk about socialist movements against capitalist oppression.
Also in this category is the odd double-down on praising Castro. His best play is to distance himself from his youthful dalliance with murderous regimes in the USSR and Cuba. Pointing out Cuba's great literacy programs, despite the whole jailing of dissidents, crime, and poverty, is pretty odd. Doubling down on it on the same week at a town hall "it's unfair to simply say everything is bad" is doubly weird. Maybe you can choose to point out mixed natures, but the audience is left wondering why he chooses to do it at all. This is democratic socialism, and his pitch is that it is enough separated from socialism of the Stalins Castros and Chavezes of the world to. Why even go there to find the nuanced pluses (and bring up the obvious jibes and old school children propaganda
If the previous one and two political missteps are surrogates and Castro, the third is definitely Aipac/Israel. I'm personally of the view that he and his surrogates do a poor job of hiding antisemitism behind anti-Zionism or general critiques of Israel, but my view is not shared by Democrats voting for their candidate so far as I can tell. I will neglect that facet for the time being since it doesn't seem important to this thread. What may matter is Sanders' treatment of AIPAC. It's a big liberal-leaning pro-Israel lobby group in the US. Moderate American Jews, in favor of a 2-state solution, very critical of Trump. Sanders called AIPAC out for giving a platform for bigoted leaders. Hundreds of elected Democrats and the ADL attacked him for it. From Eli Lake
With Bernie Sanders emerging as the front-runner to win his party’s presidential nomination, pro-Israel Americans must grapple with an uncomfortable question: Does the Democratic Party still support the world’s only Jewish state?
What raises the question is next week’s annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. Sanders announced this week that he would not be attending, saying on Twitter: “I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights.”
At Tuesday night’s debate, Sanders clarified that he was speaking about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I’m very proud of being Jewish,” he said. “I actually lived in Israel for some months. But what I happen to believe is that right now, sadly, tragically, in Israel, through Bibi Netanyahu, you have a reactionary racist who is now running that country.”
In other words, Sanders might deign to speak at the country’s largest organization devoted to the U.S.-Israel relationship — but only if it shuns the man Israelis have elected to lead their country for the last 10 years.
This is not to say that Netanyahu is beyond reproach. Last year, he cynically accepted the help of an extremist party that favors ethnic cleansing, providing political legitimacy to what used to be a third rail in Israeli politics. AIPAC, along with most other major Jewish American organizations, denounced his ploy.
If Sanders wished to highlight this ugly episode in a speech to AIPAC, it would be uncomfortable for the audience. If he wanted to make the case against President Donald Trump’s peace plan or defend Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, it would be tense. Instead, by boycotting the conference altogether, Sanders is lending legitimacy to a movement that seeks to make the pro-Israel lobby itself toxic within the Democratic Party.
There is a double standard at work here. In 2016 Sanders said he would work to normalize U.S. relations with Iran, a regime that sponsors terrorists who kill Jews and Americans. In January, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren hosted a conference call with the National Iranian American Council, a group that supports the U.S.-Iran relationship in the same way AIPAC advocates for the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Then there is the Sanders campaign’s embrace of surrogates who support the movement to boycott, divest and sanction Israel itself, something Sanders has said he opposes. The most prominent is Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian-American activist who in December said Israel is built on the idea of Jewish supremacy. (Unsurprisingly, she applauded his decision to skip AIPAC.) Another Sanders surrogate is Representative Ilhan Omar, the Minnesota Democrat who attacked her fellow Democrats last year, saying she “should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support for a foreign country,” meaning Israel.
The list goes on. The Sanders campaign is a magnet for Americans who are hostile to both the Jewish state and those who support it.
All of this puts AIPAC, and the American Jewish community, in a bind. There is no doubt that it’s better for Israel if both major parties support the U.S.-Israel relationship. At the same time, it’s dangerous to pretend one’s adversaries are allies. Sanders has made it clear that he is no friend of Israel.
There will be a temptation for AIPAC to gloss over this episode, especially if Sanders becomes the Democratic nominee. After all, Sanders supports a two-state solution. He lived on an Israeli Kibbutz. He has voted to sanction Iran. At a 2014 town hall, he admirably took on hecklers defending Palestinian terrorists, giving an even-handed response to a question about Israel’s war with Hamas.
That was six years ago. In 2020, on the verge of securing the Democratic presidential nomination, his views seem closer to the protesters in that crowd. In this sense, his decision to skip the AIPAC meeting is clarifying. It’s now time to return the favor. If Sanders wishes to boycott AIPAC, its members should boycott Sanders.
|
Hey, how the fuck do I edit my OP? I want to update the poll to reflect the only remaining candidates.
|
It's the surrogates that go big on "capitalist oppression and exploitation" that will cost him in states. That line will obviously appeal to millenial and gen-z primary voters, but for older voters, I say it reminds them of revolutionary movements against capitalism that upended prosperous countries. It's hard to say opponents are blowing your Marxist class war rhetoric up to insane levels when your own surrogates talk about socialist movements against capitalist oppression.
Also in this category is the odd double-down on praising Castro. His best play is to distance himself from his youthful dalliance with murderous regimes in the USSR and Cuba. Pointing out Cuba's great literacy programs, despite the whole jailing of dissidents, crime, and poverty, is pretty odd. Doubling down on it on the same week at a town hall "it's unfair to simply say everything is bad" is doubly weird. Maybe you can choose to point out mixed natures, but the audience is left wondering why he chooses to do it at all. This is democratic socialism, and his pitch is that it is enough separated from socialism of the Stalins Castros and Chavezes of the world to. Why even go there to find the nuanced pluses (and bring up the obvious jibes and old school children propaganda
Is this some kind of revenge crusade for all the times Trump has been associated with facists and racists? It does not fly for me, especially since there is no mainstream Marxist movement to speak of anywhere in the western world, and there hasn't been one for decades. Sure, you can dig up some minor players and even the occational far-left terrorist, but they come nowhere close their rightwing equivalents.
The real story is that the controversial policies of Sanders is what even most rightwing parties in Europe stand for. "Look to Denmark" he has often said, and they have had a conservative/far right government until recent elections.
|
Right wing parties in Europe don't claim "billionaires shouldn't exist” and don't want to implement taxes similar to the one that existed in France for a while, the tax that motivated Depardieu to get Russian citizenship. I'm aware Sanders did not propose a 75% tax rate, but his rhetoric indicates he's not going to be very business friendly, to put it mildly.
Conservatives prefer gradual evolution over quick revolution, while Sanders proposes a radical change that involves risks conservatives would not accept. You also need to remember that European countries have the infrastructure to provide costly services like healthcare, and that infrastructure was built over decades. Sanders would need to build such infrastructure first and organize a swift transition from one system to another, so if someone wants public healthcare, but doesn't believe Sanders can guarantee to keep his promises, it's reasonable for them to vote for the moderates.
|
On February 28 2020 08:07 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +It's the surrogates that go big on "capitalist oppression and exploitation" that will cost him in states. That line will obviously appeal to millenial and gen-z primary voters, but for older voters, I say it reminds them of revolutionary movements against capitalism that upended prosperous countries. It's hard to say opponents are blowing your Marxist class war rhetoric up to insane levels when your own surrogates talk about socialist movements against capitalist oppression.
Also in this category is the odd double-down on praising Castro. His best play is to distance himself from his youthful dalliance with murderous regimes in the USSR and Cuba. Pointing out Cuba's great literacy programs, despite the whole jailing of dissidents, crime, and poverty, is pretty odd. Doubling down on it on the same week at a town hall "it's unfair to simply say everything is bad" is doubly weird. Maybe you can choose to point out mixed natures, but the audience is left wondering why he chooses to do it at all. This is democratic socialism, and his pitch is that it is enough separated from socialism of the Stalins Castros and Chavezes of the world to. Why even go there to find the nuanced pluses (and bring up the obvious jibes and old school children propaganda Is this some kind of revenge crusade for all the times Trump has been associated with facists and racists? It does not fly for me, especially since there is no mainstream Marxist movement to speak of anywhere in the western world, and there hasn't been one for decades. Sure, you can dig up some minor players and even the occational far-left terrorist, but they come nowhere close their rightwing equivalents. The real story is that the controversial policies of Sanders is what even most rightwing parties in Europe stand for. "Look to Denmark" he has often said, and they have had a conservative/far right government until recent elections.
Later that evening Tim Robbins took the stage and shit on communism so it is a big tent for Bernie supporters.
|
On February 28 2020 08:07 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +It's the surrogates that go big on "capitalist oppression and exploitation" that will cost him in states. That line will obviously appeal to millenial and gen-z primary voters, but for older voters, I say it reminds them of revolutionary movements against capitalism that upended prosperous countries. It's hard to say opponents are blowing your Marxist class war rhetoric up to insane levels when your own surrogates talk about socialist movements against capitalist oppression.
Also in this category is the odd double-down on praising Castro. His best play is to distance himself from his youthful dalliance with murderous regimes in the USSR and Cuba. Pointing out Cuba's great literacy programs, despite the whole jailing of dissidents, crime, and poverty, is pretty odd. Doubling down on it on the same week at a town hall "it's unfair to simply say everything is bad" is doubly weird. Maybe you can choose to point out mixed natures, but the audience is left wondering why he chooses to do it at all. This is democratic socialism, and his pitch is that it is enough separated from socialism of the Stalins Castros and Chavezes of the world to. Why even go there to find the nuanced pluses (and bring up the obvious jibes and old school children propaganda Is this some kind of revenge crusade for all the times Trump has been associated with facists and racists? It does not fly for me, especially since there is no mainstream Marxist movement to speak of anywhere in the western world, and there hasn't been one for decades. Sure, you can dig up some minor players and even the occational far-left terrorist, but they come nowhere close their rightwing equivalents. The real story is that the controversial policies of Sanders is what even most rightwing parties in Europe stand for. "Look to Denmark" he has often said, and they have had a conservative/far right government until recent elections.
I don’t really know why he’s doing it. He is already the most credible on that stage when he says he’s always supported the left-wing policies he currently supports. He has nothing to prove to his supporters or to Democrats in general. He doesn’t have Clinton’s credulity problem when she suddenly switched stances from what she supported in the 90s.He could simply say he regrets his support for Stalinists and Castro, instead of trying to thread the needle with “but Literacy.” In my opinion, it gives too much hope to those wishing for a contested convention and a non-Sanders choice coming out from it. It’s suicidal for the party, but current articles spell out that hope.
We disagree on the European right-left comparison, but that’s probably its own thread. It goes quite long in my neck of the woods just debating whether Sander’s policies can be fairly compared with Scandinavian policies, and what Sent talks about for the speed of the change. And if anybody does that thread after he (likely) becomes the nominee and the media does another round of The Night Socialism Went Mainstream, send me the link.
|
On February 28 2020 08:07 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +It's the surrogates that go big on "capitalist oppression and exploitation" that will cost him in states. That line will obviously appeal to millenial and gen-z primary voters, but for older voters, I say it reminds them of revolutionary movements against capitalism that upended prosperous countries. It's hard to say opponents are blowing your Marxist class war rhetoric up to insane levels when your own surrogates talk about socialist movements against capitalist oppression.
Also in this category is the odd double-down on praising Castro. His best play is to distance himself from his youthful dalliance with murderous regimes in the USSR and Cuba. Pointing out Cuba's great literacy programs, despite the whole jailing of dissidents, crime, and poverty, is pretty odd. Doubling down on it on the same week at a town hall "it's unfair to simply say everything is bad" is doubly weird. Maybe you can choose to point out mixed natures, but the audience is left wondering why he chooses to do it at all. This is democratic socialism, and his pitch is that it is enough separated from socialism of the Stalins Castros and Chavezes of the world to. Why even go there to find the nuanced pluses (and bring up the obvious jibes and old school children propaganda Is this some kind of revenge crusade for all the times Trump has been associated with facists and racists? It does not fly for me, especially since there is no mainstream Marxist movement to speak of anywhere in the western world, and there hasn't been one for decades. Sure, you can dig up some minor players and even the occational far-left terrorist, but they come nowhere close their rightwing equivalents. The real story is that the controversial policies of Sanders is what even most rightwing parties in Europe stand for. "Look to Denmark" he has often said, and they have had a conservative/far right government until recent elections.
The likes of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc. don't have a minimum wage. I'm sure Sanders is all aboard that train....oh wait. I also like the what-aboutism.
|
|
|
Norway28701 Posts
Yeah, we don't have a minimum wage because we have such strong unions that negotiate on behalf of all the workers (non-unionized too) that the 'real minimum wage' is about $20. There are some jobs with private salary negotiation, but normally, that's not even part of a job interview - you are given the pre-negotiated salary all people with your education + years of experience get.
|
On February 28 2020 15:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yeah, we don't have a minimum wage because we have such strong unions that negotiate on behalf of all the workers (non-unionized too) that the 'real minimum wage' is about $20. There are some jobs with private salary negotiation, but normally, that's not even part of a job interview - you are given the pre-negotiated salary all people with your education + years of experience get.
Hey, I PM'd another moderator who has not replied yet. Is there anyway to update the OP? With this poll:
Poll: Who do you support now?Bernie (47) 65% Warren (5) 7% Yang (5) 7% Biden (4) 6% Gabbard (4) 6% Bloomberg (3) 4% Buttigieg (2) 3% Klobuchar (1) 1% Steyer (1) 1% 72 total votes Your vote: Who do you support now? (Vote): Bernie
(Vote): Buttigieg
(Vote): Biden
(Vote): Warren
(Vote): Klobuchar
(Vote): Steyer
(Vote): Gabbard
(Vote): Bloomberg
(Vote): Yang
(Added Yang in to make up for omitting him from the original post even though he is a loser now, I guess people can choose this option is they want to express that they don't support any of the current nominees.)
|
I don’t really know why he’s doing it. He is already the most credible on that stage when he says he’s always supported the left-wing policies he currently supports. He has nothing to prove to his supporters or to Democrats in general. He doesn’t have Clinton’s credulity problem when she suddenly switched stances from what she supported in the 90s.He could simply say he regrets his support for Stalinists and Castro, instead of trying to thread the needle with “but Literacy.” In my opinion, it gives too much hope to those wishing for a contested convention and a non-Sanders choice coming out from it. It’s suicidal for the party, but current articles spell out that hope.
This is 100% spin. Do you seriously think there is any risk that Sanders will support a system similar to that of Castro, Stalin and Mao? Of course the Trump campaign will try to play the "communism" scare card as much as possible, but it should be clear that Sanders looks to Europe.
You should rather argue how his policies will be impossible to implement in the US. Both pharma and Health Insurance industries would lose a lot of money, and would not give in without a fight. The US also wastes a lot of healthcare money on stuff like unnecessary tests and overstaffing high-end hospitals, and cutting down on that won't be popular either. My American colleagues still buy health insurance in Europe, even though it is barely useful. Changing the perception that you can be safe without HI in the US would take centuries, if it is even possible.
|
On February 27 2020 02:09 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Why is Steyer's money so much less effective than Bloomberg's money? Is it just the fact that Bloomberg is already an established name and Steyer was anonymous to the general public? 24% vs 0.2%...
Because let's be honest here, despite what people claim about giving a shit about climate change, the reality is they don't and just want to get into Greta Thunderbird's pants (I mean, why do you think Steyer's running):
![[image loading]](https://tnimage.s3.hicloud.net.tw/photos/2019/AP/20191128/33979eff75704bb7a688499ac95e3f83.jpg)
|
Norway28701 Posts
Thats a downright idiotic post.
|
I couldn't tell whether it was satire or genuinely trying to make some kind of broad "people of this political persuasion are all unattractive and alone" kind of generalization, which as stupid as it sounds is something I've heard. From family no less. The former is probably giving too much credit tho.
|
So, since we are already talking about this:
I am pretty annoyed by this need to always talk about Greta Thunberg. To me, the whole focus onto the person as opposed to the message looks like an attempt to do the thing the right really loves to do. Always talk about people, never talk about issues.
If you dig deep enough, you will always find something about some person that enough people can dislike. And if you only focus on that, you can avoid ever talking about the actual problems, where you might have a harder time defending your positions.
They had a hard time doing this with climate change and the Fridays for Future movement. But now the rightwing climate deniers are always, always focusing on Greta Thunberg so they can do the whole personal mudslinging shit they love to do. And constantly throw out tiny quips at every opportunity to make it less attractive to "be like Greta".
|
I have heard way, way way too much of that puerile kind of shit flinging as I grew up, let's say parts of my family are rather choice individuals. The contrast as I would come to witness actual substantive political discourse is stark. It feels like I'm back in elementary school whenever I hear stuff like that anymore.
|
On February 28 2020 18:17 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +I don’t really know why he’s doing it. He is already the most credible on that stage when he says he’s always supported the left-wing policies he currently supports. He has nothing to prove to his supporters or to Democrats in general. He doesn’t have Clinton’s credulity problem when she suddenly switched stances from what she supported in the 90s.He could simply say he regrets his support for Stalinists and Castro, instead of trying to thread the needle with “but Literacy.” In my opinion, it gives too much hope to those wishing for a contested convention and a non-Sanders choice coming out from it. It’s suicidal for the party, but current articles spell out that hope. This is 100% spin. Do you seriously think there is any risk that Sanders will support a system similar to that of Castro, Stalin and Mao? Of course the Trump campaign will try to play the "communism" scare card as much as possible, but it should be clear that Sanders looks to Europe. You should rather argue how his policies will be impossible to implement in the US. Both pharma and Health Insurance industries would lose a lot of money, and would not give in without a fight. The US also wastes a lot of healthcare money on stuff like unnecessary tests and overstaffing high-end hospitals, and cutting down on that won't be popular either. My American colleagues still buy health insurance in Europe, even though it is barely useful. Changing the perception that you can be safe without HI in the US would take centuries, if it is even possible.
Sanders is the one arguing with you if you go in this direction. The words coming out of his mouth have meaning, even if you choose to ignore them because "there is no mainstream Marxist movement to speak of anywhere in the western world" and I should "rather argue about ..." I've already stated why I think it damages him long term, so you'll have to engage with those arguments if your goal is to persuade instead of ignore. Heck, I'm even grateful if you think his supporters deal with comments praising the fringe benefits of people like Castro and Chinese Communist Leadership by just ignoring them thinking they don't matter. It should be clear that Trump and other primary candidates would need no help from the Sanders campaign in leveling the communism/socialism charge, but all the help he just added this past Sunday and Monday is welcome, I'm sure.
On February 28 2020 19:35 Bourgeois wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2020 02:09 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Why is Steyer's money so much less effective than Bloomberg's money? Is it just the fact that Bloomberg is already an established name and Steyer was anonymous to the general public? 24% vs 0.2%... Because let's be honest here, despite what people claim about giving a shit about climate change, the reality is they don't and just want to get into Greta Thunderbird's pants (I mean, why do you think Steyer's running):
This feels like an attempt at sarcasm in poor taste. A Bloomberg and Steyer ad fight is no excuse to joke about Steyer "[wanting] to get into Greta's [pants]"
There's better ways to forward the point that they're both only affecting to "[give] a shit about climate change."
|
CBC is covering the South Carolina Democrat convention thing. The topic they chose to cover was "what do black people think of Joe Biden". They are doing live interviews and 2 women are sort of "neutral positive" towards Biden. Then they move on to some guy who says "who knows what he'll do? I don't know Joe from a can of paint" LOL. The interviewers were stunned. They cut off the interview immediately.
CBC replays their news in 20 minute segments. In the "replay" of this segment the 2 "neutral-positive" interviews of the women were included and the guy who said "I don't know Joe from a can of paint" got cut from the segment. LOL.
|
I'm not american, but iirc didn't GOP strategist already call Obama socialist/communist etc? The fact that they will probably do it again for Bernie wouldn't be concerning to me really, especially since he already considers himself (democratic)socialist. You could also make the argument that he is social democratic tho, there's definitely a precedent for social democrats with anti-imperialist sympathies, since I'm swedish Palme easily comes to mind. But yeah, I wouldn't be concerned.
|
On February 28 2020 23:39 Muffloe wrote:
I'm not american, but iirc didn't GOP strategist already call Obama socialist/communist etc? The fact that they will probably do it again for Bernie wouldn't be concerning to me really, especially since he already considers himself (democratic)socialist. You could also make the argument that he is social democratic tho, there's definitely a precedent for social democrats with anti-imperialist sympathies, since I'm swedish Palme easily comes to mind. But yeah, I wouldn't be concerned.
The GOP would call Manchin and Biden commie socialists.
But yeah, just means its the same shtick they push every election, so Bernies democratic socialism isn’t really that big of a disadvantage imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
