|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 23 2019 07:25 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2019 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 02:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's a non-sequitur?
The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support.
[quote]
done^ For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. This is what I mean by not reconciling. I'm saying that a clear media bias is manipulating the voting public with the intention to lead them to your conclusion with that specific poll and narrative, despite the contradictions I've pointed out in this exchange and previously (and more will come). That Warren is "fine" is also the narrative being driven by the same corrupt forces she's supposed to be challenging, and that should be troubling, if not disqualifying. (EDIT2: Obama should have taught any of us that lived through his campaign/admin that). I understand that bad people want Bernie to fail and that they use Warren to subdue legitimate, full-throttle revolution by placating the masses by massaging them into accepting conditional changes that still fundamentally make us live under the foot of the ultra-wealthy class. I fully recognize that. But she still actively pushes the idea of "The ultra rich are too rich and they are conning people into turning against each other rather than fighting the actual ultra-rich overlords that are ruining society". I don't accept your idea that she isn't a net positive on the path to chipping away at our overlord's powers. You are welcome to believe that. On September 23 2019 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's a non-sequitur?
The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support.
[quote]
done^ For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. In order to sell a narrative and knowing people rarely read past headlines most people didn't notice only 12% of Warrens supporters in that poll are sure they will be voting for her. Meaning 88% of that support isn't. I am not committed to voting for any candidate either. If I was asked if I was sure I would vote for Bernie, who I currently 99% sure I will vote for, I would say no. Too much could happen and expecting people to be sure 5 months from a primary is silly. On September 23 2019 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's a non-sequitur?
The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support.
[quote]
done^ For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. I'd mention you're not a passive international observer in this (iirc) you could be campaigning for the better candidate without a wand. EDIT: + Show Spoiler + As an aside and without being able to see the actual data (like what percentage/size of the sample said they caucused for Sanders?) I think Sanders getting less of his supporters than Warren is probably indicative of some sampling error compared to who will actually be at the caucuses.
Also Obama was 3rd and Sanders down by 30% at this point in their campaigns so we might not want to rely too heavily on that poll as much more than a snapshot of a trend that seems to have secured her a spot in the top tier of candidates. I wouldn't say I am campaigning for anyone right now. I should be, but I'm not. I intend to start. Not really sure what else to say other than I failed myself in that way. I am just pointing out that the fact that it looks like Warren will likely overtake Biden, after 2016 giving us freaking Clinton, I am pleased with this direction, even if it isn't what I wish it was. I feel better. It seems like when we have these conversations, it is that you aren't able to be happy about something other than the ideal. And while I realize people are actively dying as a result of income/wealth inequality, I am for some reason relieved at an improvement while still realizing it isn't good enough. Innocent people die every year as an indirect result of the rich consolidating power, and more of those people would die under Warren than Bernie. But watching the world go in a worse rather than better direction has been so nauseating that even the prospect of mild relief is enough to give me chills of optimism. I want better than Warren and being truthful, Bernie does not go nearly far enough for what I genuinely would do if I was supreme ruler of Earth. Oligarchs even being allowed freedom isn't remotely tolerable to me. They need to be imprisoned, not just taxed. Oligarchs have actual blood on their hands. On September 23 2019 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's a non-sequitur?
The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support.
[quote]
done^ For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. EDIT: + Show Spoiler + As an aside and without being able to see the actual data (like what percentage/size of the sample said they caucused for Sanders?) I think Sanders getting less of his supporters than Warren is probably indicative of some sampling error compared to who will actually be at the caucuses.
Also Obama was 3rd and Sanders down by 30% at this point in their campaigns so we might not want to rely too heavily on that poll as much more than a snapshot of a trend that seems to have secured her a spot in the top tier of candidates. I'm by no means saying Sanders is down and out, but given the fact that he's already a well known candidate and the fact that Warren is continuing to grow rapidly, its not looking good for Bernie OR Biden. Don't you think it's more probable that someone that does things like vote for increasing Trump's military budget (even if she just thought it politically expedient) is just giving the kind of lip service Obama did that got us 0 accountability for banksters, Bush, or Obama's bombs/bombing and culminated in Michelle literally embracing Bush and people like Kristol and Nicole Wallace being rehabilitated to the point they are regularly on MSNBC (Wallace with her own show)? Obama's major "progressive" accomplishment was passing what was a rehash of Nixon's healthcare plan. Warren should only be acceptable to those refusing the necessity of the kind of revolutionary changes Bernie at least broaches. Not just for some political ideal but for the survival of our species and some semblance of a society we'd want to live in. A refusal that basically boils down to a liberal version of climate denial and/or disregard for people outside their immediate circle of empathy. I know people always assume the worst tone so I say this humbly but doesn't that feel naive/malicious to you? You see Obamacare and think of Nixon, I think of protections for pre-existing conditions. We just look at the world in a different way and that's ok. I enjoy hearing your views on things, but I don't look at us disagreeing as something to fix. I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong. That's kinda the point, it's not okay, it's terrifying to me. You consider yourself and others would probably presume you to be left/far-left. But your view has been so distorted that what was seen as an insufficient idea of a corrupt right-wing bigot for Democrats 50 years ago, is now "protections for pre-existing conditions"/a progressive accomplishment. It assures me that should Bernie not win, 50 years from now (once the consequences of climate change are really kicking in), they'll be ostensibly left people thinking passing Trump era policy will be satisfactory because his opponent will be some sort of Leopold II/Immortan Joe type figure and they'll be others arguing that not supporting the Trump like candidate doesn't solve anything. Whether people realize it or not I think the reason it doesn't scare them into being more proactive is a combination of apathy, fatalism, and/or the feeling they'll be fine through it all. Nathan J Robinson is pretty left, and he says maybe Warren/Sanders should make a VP pact that whoever loses the first primaries should agree to be the other’s VP.
He and Kline are a lot more confident she's not deceitful than I can muster. I'd also put him in the "confident they'll be fine regardless" group that finds them interchangeable.
As for which should drop out it should be Warren hands down if winning is the priority. He's clearly got the stronger base and grassroots. Just look at the donor map
![[image loading]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/08/02/us/politics/donor-map/donor-map-superJumbo.png?quality=90&auto=webp)
NYT accompanying reporting on Sanders huge lead
+ Show Spoiler +Bernie Sanders has a huge lead. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is not dominating in the polls, but he is in a class of his own when it comes to picking up individual donors. Mr. Sanders had an estimated 746,000 donors through the end of June — far more than the No. 2 candidate, Ms. Warren, who had an estimated 421,000 donors. Mr. Sanders entered the race in a strong position to raise money, having built an enormous network of online donors when he ran for president in 2016. In 44 states, Mr. Sanders had more individual donors than any other candidate. The six states where he was not No. 1 are the home states of other candidate. www.nytimes.com
Obviously outdated since he's reported more than 250,000 new donors since then.
|
On September 23 2019 02:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2019 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. didn't we have this conversation 2 days ago? Not voting Democrat and giving Trump another 4 years of making things worse doesn't solve anything. Cutting off the nose to spite the face That's a non-sequitur? The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support. On September 22 2019 23:14 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. I don't know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? done^ For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. This is what I mean by not reconciling. I'm saying that a clear media bias is manipulating the voting public with the intention to lead them to your conclusion with that specific poll and narrative, despite the contradictions I've pointed out in this exchange and previously (and more will come). That Warren is "fine" is also the narrative being driven by the same corrupt forces she's supposed to be challenging, and that should be troubling, if not disqualifying. (EDIT2: Obama should have taught any of us that lived through his campaign/admin that). I understand that bad people want Bernie to fail and that they use Warren to subdue legitimate, full-throttle revolution by placating the masses by massaging them into accepting conditional changes that still fundamentally make us live under the foot of the ultra-wealthy class. I fully recognize that. But she still actively pushes the idea of "The ultra rich are too rich and they are conning people into turning against each other rather than fighting the actual ultra-rich overlords that are ruining society". I don't accept your idea that she isn't a net positive on the path to chipping away at our overlord's powers. You are welcome to believe that. Show nested quote +On September 23 2019 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. didn't we have this conversation 2 days ago? Not voting Democrat and giving Trump another 4 years of making things worse doesn't solve anything. Cutting off the nose to spite the face That's a non-sequitur? The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support. On September 22 2019 23:14 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. I don't know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? done^ For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. In order to sell a narrative and knowing people rarely read past headlines most people didn't notice only 12% of Warrens supporters in that poll are sure they will be voting for her. Meaning 88% of that support isn't. I am not committed to voting for any candidate either. If I was asked if I was sure I would vote for Bernie, who I currently 99% sure I will vote for, I would say no. Too much could happen and expecting people to be sure 5 months from a primary is silly. Show nested quote +On September 23 2019 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. didn't we have this conversation 2 days ago? Not voting Democrat and giving Trump another 4 years of making things worse doesn't solve anything. Cutting off the nose to spite the face That's a non-sequitur? The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support. On September 22 2019 23:14 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. I don't know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? done^ For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. I'd mention you're not a passive international observer in this (iirc) you could be campaigning for the better candidate without a wand. EDIT: + Show Spoiler + As an aside and without being able to see the actual data (like what percentage/size of the sample said they caucused for Sanders?) I think Sanders getting less of his supporters than Warren is probably indicative of some sampling error compared to who will actually be at the caucuses.
Also Obama was 3rd and Sanders down by 30% at this point in their campaigns so we might not want to rely too heavily on that poll as much more than a snapshot of a trend that seems to have secured her a spot in the top tier of candidates. I wouldn't say I am campaigning for anyone right now. I should be, but I'm not. I intend to start. Not really sure what else to say other than I failed myself in that way. I am just pointing out that the fact that it looks like Warren will likely overtake Biden, after 2016 giving us freaking Clinton, I am pleased with this direction, even if it isn't what I wish it was. I feel better. It seems like when we have these conversations, it is that you aren't able to be happy about something other than the ideal. And while I realize people are actively dying as a result of income/wealth inequality, I am for some reason relieved at an improvement while still realizing it isn't good enough. Innocent people die every year as an indirect result of the rich consolidating power, and more of those people would die under Warren than Bernie. But watching the world go in a worse rather than better direction has been so nauseating that even the prospect of mild relief is enough to give me chills of optimism. I want better than Warren and being truthful, Bernie does not go nearly far enough for what I genuinely would do if I was supreme ruler of Earth. Oligarchs even being allowed freedom isn't remotely tolerable to me. They need to be imprisoned, not just taxed. Oligarchs have actual blood on their hands. Show nested quote +On September 23 2019 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. didn't we have this conversation 2 days ago? Not voting Democrat and giving Trump another 4 years of making things worse doesn't solve anything. Cutting off the nose to spite the face That's a non-sequitur? The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support. On September 22 2019 23:14 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. I don't know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? done^ For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. EDIT: + Show Spoiler + As an aside and without being able to see the actual data (like what percentage/size of the sample said they caucused for Sanders?) I think Sanders getting less of his supporters than Warren is probably indicative of some sampling error compared to who will actually be at the caucuses.
Also Obama was 3rd and Sanders down by 30% at this point in their campaigns so we might not want to rely too heavily on that poll as much more than a snapshot of a trend that seems to have secured her a spot in the top tier of candidates. I'm by no means saying Sanders is down and out, but given the fact that he's already a well known candidate and the fact that Warren is continuing to grow rapidly, its not looking good for Bernie OR Biden.
Warren is better then biden but far worse then sanders. I am not sure she is a net positive for the cause that you mention and i can see her beeing even an obstacle in a similar way as obama was.
If revolutionairy changes are needed like GH says (and which i also do believe) then you need a revolutionairy candidate. You dont want a candidate who has the right image but who ends up changing not all that much. That will lead to another disapointment for a large part of the voters and a subsequent loss for the cause as a whole in every election after. In such a way she would be a danger for the cause.
Though i have to admit i am also not sure that sanders is the right candidate,his support and movement seem less strong then 4 years ago. He also is a somewhat easy target with his outspoken opinion.
Warren would be the 2nd women who runs against trump,she is very different from hillary.
It probably is heresy to say but maybe trump has some sort of advantage when running against female candidates (probably every man has,society is still not 100% equal).
You could think women would be a weak point for trump, beeing such an outspoken "macho" man. But its his whole personna and style,its just him and the people expect it from him. He sort of is invincible to the backlash from beeing rude and a bit of a bully (which most man would face when acting like he does against women or in general).
Then there is biden,maybe for the cause of fighting the overlords it would actually be best if biden wins the nomination (i am thinking long term here). Biden would give the progressive (and for a large part young) base not what they want. They will be more angry and more motivated to make a change next time and then maybe a bernie type candidate could win.
Warren for me is a bit in the middle (which probably is why she seems like an acceptable choice for many people). And a "bit in the middle" imo is the worst in a time like this with heavy polarization. Its a sensible point of vieuw but not one that can win an election in time like this. She is not fully convincing for the progressives nor for the conservatives in the party and i dont think she can win from such a position.
But noone can beat trump i think. The only one who could is michelle obama
|
On September 23 2019 10:14 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2019 02:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. didn't we have this conversation 2 days ago? Not voting Democrat and giving Trump another 4 years of making things worse doesn't solve anything. Cutting off the nose to spite the face That's a non-sequitur? The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support. On September 22 2019 23:14 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. I don't know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? done^ For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. This is what I mean by not reconciling. I'm saying that a clear media bias is manipulating the voting public with the intention to lead them to your conclusion with that specific poll and narrative, despite the contradictions I've pointed out in this exchange and previously (and more will come). That Warren is "fine" is also the narrative being driven by the same corrupt forces she's supposed to be challenging, and that should be troubling, if not disqualifying. (EDIT2: Obama should have taught any of us that lived through his campaign/admin that). I understand that bad people want Bernie to fail and that they use Warren to subdue legitimate, full-throttle revolution by placating the masses by massaging them into accepting conditional changes that still fundamentally make us live under the foot of the ultra-wealthy class. I fully recognize that. But she still actively pushes the idea of "The ultra rich are too rich and they are conning people into turning against each other rather than fighting the actual ultra-rich overlords that are ruining society". I don't accept your idea that she isn't a net positive on the path to chipping away at our overlord's powers. You are welcome to believe that. On September 23 2019 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. didn't we have this conversation 2 days ago? Not voting Democrat and giving Trump another 4 years of making things worse doesn't solve anything. Cutting off the nose to spite the face That's a non-sequitur? The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support. On September 22 2019 23:14 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. I don't know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? done^ For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. In order to sell a narrative and knowing people rarely read past headlines most people didn't notice only 12% of Warrens supporters in that poll are sure they will be voting for her. Meaning 88% of that support isn't. I am not committed to voting for any candidate either. If I was asked if I was sure I would vote for Bernie, who I currently 99% sure I will vote for, I would say no. Too much could happen and expecting people to be sure 5 months from a primary is silly. On September 23 2019 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. didn't we have this conversation 2 days ago? Not voting Democrat and giving Trump another 4 years of making things worse doesn't solve anything. Cutting off the nose to spite the face That's a non-sequitur? The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support. On September 22 2019 23:14 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. I don't know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? done^ For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. I'd mention you're not a passive international observer in this (iirc) you could be campaigning for the better candidate without a wand. EDIT: + Show Spoiler + As an aside and without being able to see the actual data (like what percentage/size of the sample said they caucused for Sanders?) I think Sanders getting less of his supporters than Warren is probably indicative of some sampling error compared to who will actually be at the caucuses.
Also Obama was 3rd and Sanders down by 30% at this point in their campaigns so we might not want to rely too heavily on that poll as much more than a snapshot of a trend that seems to have secured her a spot in the top tier of candidates. I wouldn't say I am campaigning for anyone right now. I should be, but I'm not. I intend to start. Not really sure what else to say other than I failed myself in that way. I am just pointing out that the fact that it looks like Warren will likely overtake Biden, after 2016 giving us freaking Clinton, I am pleased with this direction, even if it isn't what I wish it was. I feel better. It seems like when we have these conversations, it is that you aren't able to be happy about something other than the ideal. And while I realize people are actively dying as a result of income/wealth inequality, I am for some reason relieved at an improvement while still realizing it isn't good enough. Innocent people die every year as an indirect result of the rich consolidating power, and more of those people would die under Warren than Bernie. But watching the world go in a worse rather than better direction has been so nauseating that even the prospect of mild relief is enough to give me chills of optimism. I want better than Warren and being truthful, Bernie does not go nearly far enough for what I genuinely would do if I was supreme ruler of Earth. Oligarchs even being allowed freedom isn't remotely tolerable to me. They need to be imprisoned, not just taxed. Oligarchs have actual blood on their hands. On September 23 2019 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2019 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2019 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. didn't we have this conversation 2 days ago? Not voting Democrat and giving Trump another 4 years of making things worse doesn't solve anything. Cutting off the nose to spite the face That's a non-sequitur? The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support. On September 22 2019 23:14 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. I don't know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? done^ For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. EDIT: + Show Spoiler + As an aside and without being able to see the actual data (like what percentage/size of the sample said they caucused for Sanders?) I think Sanders getting less of his supporters than Warren is probably indicative of some sampling error compared to who will actually be at the caucuses.
Also Obama was 3rd and Sanders down by 30% at this point in their campaigns so we might not want to rely too heavily on that poll as much more than a snapshot of a trend that seems to have secured her a spot in the top tier of candidates. I'm by no means saying Sanders is down and out, but given the fact that he's already a well known candidate and the fact that Warren is continuing to grow rapidly, its not looking good for Bernie OR Biden. Warren is better then biden but far worse then sanders. I am not sure she is a net positive for the cause that you mention and i can see her beeing even an obstacle in a similar way as obama was. If revolutionairy changes are needed like GH says (and which i also do believe) then you need a revolutionairy candidate. You dont want a candidate who has the right image but who ends up changing not all that much. That will lead to another disapointment for a large part of the voters and a subsequent loss for the cause as a whole in every election after. In such a way she would be a danger for the cause. Though i have to admit i am also not sure that sanders is the right candidate,his support and movement seem less strong then 4 years ago. He also is a somewhat easy target with his outspoken opinion. Warren would be the 2nd women who runs against trump,she is very different from hillary. It probably is heresy to say but maybe trump has some sort of advantage when running against female candidates (probably every man has,society is still not 100% equal). You could think women would be a weak point for trump, beeing such an outspoken "macho" man. But its his whole personna and style,its just him and the people expect it from him. He sort of is invincible to the backlash from beeing rude and a bit of a bully (which most man would face when acting like he does against women or in general). Then there is biden,maybe for the cause of fighting the overlords it would actually be best if biden wins the nomination (i am thinking long term here). Biden would give the progressive (and for a large part young) base not what they want. They will be more angry and more motivated to make a change next time and then maybe a bernie type candidate could win. Warren for me is a bit in the middle (which probably is why she seems like an acceptable choice for many people). And a "bit in the middle" imo is the worst in a time like this with heavy polarization. Its a sensible point of vieuw but not one that can win an election in time like this. She is not fully convincing for the progressives nor for the conservatives in the party and i dont think she can win from such a position. But noone can beat trump i think. The only one who could is michelle obama
Biden would be the worst choice. He'd evoke more of a "who fucking cares" that Hillary did, which is risky. One would hope it wouldn't matter, and that all of them would beat Trump anyway, but the amount of that sentiment was also non-0 last election too.
With Biden as president, 2024 would be protect the incumbent if he chose again. 2028 would be the next time an actual progressive candidate would have a chance, but given the US's shit political memory I'm not trusting enough to think that the Republicans would get punished 3 elections in a row for having a president as shit as Trump is.
Trump is no way unbeatable as long as he's taken seriously by the electorate. Last election he wasn't, after his term he should.
|
United States43195 Posts
On September 23 2019 08:03 Taelshin wrote:
My standards are there was no strike.
Per his description of events the strike was only avoided by the last minute intervention of another person who explained to him that weapons are dangerous. That had there been no intervention he would have done the strike. You don’t get to call yourself a pacifist if someone stops you going to war.
|
On September 23 2019 06:53 Taelshin wrote:
You answered your own question Kwark, He cancelled the strike. That makes me happy, That should make you happy, In fact I think everyone should be happy, The USA didn't incinerate another 150 people on that given day, HAZAAA.
... Should I remind you this?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/19/us-drone-strike-deaths-afghanistan-pine-nut-workers
Should you really be happy? The madman decides on (without thinking), then cancels (with other people thinking) in the same day? It's just frightening.
|
Until something bad actually happens, I have a hard time pretending Trump is causing military conflict. He causes a lot of relationship conflict and economic conflict, but nothing military yet.
|
United States43195 Posts
On September 24 2019 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:
Until something bad actually happens, I have a hard time pretending Trump is causing military conflict. He causes a lot of relationship conflict and economic conflict, but nothing military yet.
Bad as in what? Full war? Because the buildup in the Persian Gulf is entirely due to his policy of antagonism.
|
On September 24 2019 02:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2019 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:
Until something bad actually happens, I have a hard time pretending Trump is causing military conflict. He causes a lot of relationship conflict and economic conflict, but nothing military yet. Bad as in what? Full war? Because the buildup in the Persian Gulf is entirely due to his policy of antagonism.
Right, when someone dies, I'll say he is doing bad military stuff. But tensions being high don't really mean anything until they mean something. A bunch of diplomats sweating doesn't really bother me until someone is actually harmed. We may be inching closer and closer to something bad, but based on what I know about the Cuban missile crisis, that doesn't necessarily mean it will be badly.
Trump essentially uses antagonism to cheat out minor concessions to make himself look good. It hasn't worked yet, but it also hasn't killed anyone yet. Unless I am being an idiot and forgetting something. We've still been bombing lots of innocent people etc but as I understand, no one is dying yet with the whole Iran nonsense.
|
United States43195 Posts
On September 24 2019 02:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2019 02:50 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2019 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:
Until something bad actually happens, I have a hard time pretending Trump is causing military conflict. He causes a lot of relationship conflict and economic conflict, but nothing military yet. Bad as in what? Full war? Because the buildup in the Persian Gulf is entirely due to his policy of antagonism. Right, when someone dies, I'll say he is doing bad military stuff. But tensions being high don't really mean anything until they mean something. A bunch of diplomats sweating doesn't really bother me until someone is actually harmed. We may be inching closer and closer to something bad, but based on what I know about the Cuban missile crisis, that doesn't necessarily mean it will be badly. Trump essentially uses antagonism to cheat out minor concessions to make himself look good. It hasn't worked yet, but it also hasn't killed anyone yet. Unless I am being an idiot and forgetting something. We've still been bombing lots of innocent people etc but as I understand, no one is dying yet with the whole Iran nonsense.
Yemen is partially Iran sponsored but we have no leverage with them because opened with breaking the sanction coalition and unilaterally imposing sanctions without China. There’s nothing to threaten if they don’t play ball because Trump already took his ball and went home. Contributing to the military buildup of SA is also directly linked to Iranian undermining of SA. He’s actively destabilizing the region and a lot of people are dying as a result.
|
On September 24 2019 02:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2019 02:50 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2019 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:
Until something bad actually happens, I have a hard time pretending Drumpf is causing military conflict. He causes a lot of relationship conflict and economic conflict, but nothing military yet. Bad as in what? Full war? Because the buildup in the Persian Gulf is entirely due to his policy of antagonism. Right, when someone dies, .
What do you mean when?, ya'll should really start exploring international news outlets.
The US reneged on a deal Iran was compliant with, enforced crippling sanctions without support, but since its the US who can say no. The Europeans tried to byass that and failed Iran still got fucked and is continuing to get fucked to level that is crippling them because there isnt enough trade outside the dollar. .
Instead of the sanctions getting Iran to bend to their will the US now has cornered them into poking the Saudi's through the Houthi's and the people of Yemen are dying and will continue to die at an accelerated rate for nothing more than the fact that they are Shi'a's.
You could blame Iran aswell, they arent saints here, but you drive someone into a corner where there are having less and less to lose, they will swipe. Meanwhile the Saudi's are categorically evil but they buy your weapons so its all ok while the desperate country trying to get leverage anyway it can is the evil one . The fallacy's make your head spin really. Every person that has died in that region since the deal was reneged on can be traced back to the US pulling the deal.
|
On September 24 2019 03:53 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2019 02:57 Mohdoo wrote:On September 24 2019 02:50 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2019 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:
Until something bad actually happens, I have a hard time pretending Drumpf is causing military conflict. He causes a lot of relationship conflict and economic conflict, but nothing military yet. Bad as in what? Full war? Because the buildup in the Persian Gulf is entirely due to his policy of antagonism. Right, when someone dies, . What do you mean when?, ya'll should really start exploring international news outlets. The US reneged on a deal Iran was compliant with, enforced crippling sanctions without support, but since its the US who can say no. The Europeans tried to byass that and failed Iran still got fucked and is continuing to get fucked to level that is crippling them because there isnt enough trade outside the dollar. . Instead of the sanctions getting Iran to bend to their will the US now has cornered them into poking the Saudi's through the Houthi's and the people of Yemen are dying and will continue to die at an accelerated rate for nothing more than the fact that they are Shi'a's. You could blame Iran aswell, they arent saints here, but you drive someone into a corner where there are having less and less to lose, they will swipe. Meanwhile the Saudi's are categorically evil but they buy your weapons so its all ok while the desperate country trying to get leverage anyway it can is the evil one . The fallacy's make your head spin really. Everything person that has died in that region since the deal was reneged on can be traced back to the US pulling the deal.
That makes more sense and so I think it is reasonable to say that blood is on Trump's hands.
|
|
|
They want to keep it lax so they don't get calls for being unfair. The convention isn't until July if next year so plenty of time to widdle it down to top 2. Plus it's better for the DNC press wise if there are more people as it's more coverage and it makes more headlines.
|
Considering like 30% of the Democratic primary electorate is undecided, I don't think a 3% cutoff is too low. Especially given the potential for no one getting a delegate majority. Consider that right now in 2015 none of Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich were polling above 6%, yet they ended up with a collective 30% of the delegates (proportionally much more before they withdrew) and ~50% of the votes.
|
On September 24 2019 05:48 semantics wrote:They want to keep it lax so they don't get calls for being unfair. The convention isn't until July if next year so plenty of time to widdle it down to top 2. Plus it's better for the DNC press wise if there are more people as it's more coverage and it makes more headlines.
The funny thing is that they ended up with an opportunity to tip the scale in favor of Biden in all this. Most people are in an "anyone but Biden" camp except for Biden supporters. The people who don't currently support Biden never will. The Buttigieg/Harris/Yang/etc folks will not be gravitating towards Biden after they drop out.
|
The debates don't cut a canadiate off from running. Only the canadiate themselves can do that.
|
On September 24 2019 07:22 semantics wrote:
The debates don't cut a canadiate off from running. Only the canadiate themselves can do that.
True, but exclusion from debates is a as close to a snapped neck a campaign can receive. So long as we don't end up with 5+ names for the actual primary, I'll be satisfied.
What I don't want is a bunch of dumbfucks with no chance of winning using their shitty primary campaign to make a case why they should get a cabinet position.
|
Beto as press secretary would be pretty great lol
|
Beto back in Texas would be better.
|
I fear that ship has sailed, but yes, speaking seriously, he ought to go the way of Hickenlooper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
