All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Bernie seems to be pretty explicit about wanting to abolish private insurance.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...-be-eliminated

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-wrong/584731/

That's nice, he has a plan out that you can actually can read that doesn't do that

[The Overlord]

Biden passed the first climate change bill over 20 years ago. Is that not progressive? He got an assault weapon ban passed....is that not progressive?

Bear in mind, it is you guys that are arguing "never". Not about the balance of his record, you're making ass-hat claims you can't back up. Maybe you should tone the purity rhetoric down a couple dozen notches.

Who said never? I didn't. I just think there are big problems with his record, that's all.

Again Harris pasted him on the ''forced busing thing''. If he is such a progressive, shouldn't he admit he made a mistake?

I would respect him if he did that, he could have said ''I was wrong, but that was a long time ago''. Instead, he doubled down on it. You don't think Trump will not bring that up? Its a total weak spot for him, if Harris can paste him on it, you bet Trump can do it.

You want to see her backing the 1994 crime bill (an error, especially in ground level implementation) as cause to presume she is plotting against the left a good chunk of the Congressional Black Caucus is/was complicit.

Now I also notice the medical care reform she poured a lot of effort into as First Lady for little reward is not being mentioned. Why?

The crime bill helped create prison industrial complex, what has she or Bill or Biden done to mitigate that? Saying the Black Caucus supported it, doesn't make it good.

Now you want to say she doesn't credit for her health care initiative, fair enough, I am not going to try to turn her into a cartoon bad guy. But you are going to get more credits or blame for the bills you pass, not the bills you failed to pass. You can blame Republican obstruction for that, but frankly, at this point, the Dems should take that into account, not assume it won't happen next time.

I do not Hillary Clinton, heck I don't hate Joe Biden, but the Third Way ideology they present has failed and needs to be replaced with something better. I wish them all the success in the private sector, but in terms of the public sphere, their day is done and it was a long time coming.

[aja_christopher]

No candidate is perfect -- it's just a question of which strengths and weaknesses you prefer.

One could even argue Harris has done more to take on big banks and inequality in the courts than Sanders has in Congress.

-----
"Sanders had big ideas but little impact on Capitol Hill"

Democrats who worked with the Vermont senator say he contributed to the debate, but rarely forged actual legislation or left a significant imprint on it.

"At the heart of Bernie Sanders’ campaign is a promise to bring about sweeping change. But on some of the top issues at the center of Sanders’ presidential bid — health care, taking on the big banks and corporations, fighting for rights, raising attention to income inequality — the revolution has been slow in the 25 years he’s spent in Congress.

During the Democratic debate in Miami on Wednesday, Sanders and Hillary Clinton each repeatedly turned to the Vermonter’s Senate record. Clinton hit him for voting against the Troubled Asset Relief Program II bailout, arguing that “if everyone had voted as he voted, we would not have saved the auto industry,” and she attacked him for voting against the 2007 immigration reform bill.

“Madam Secretary, I will match my record against yours any day of the week,” Sanders responded, in one of the many moments he brought up his Senate work.

He was on the committee that wrote Obamacare, he said, and he introduced what he called “the most comprehensive climate change legislation in the history of the Senate.”

“I have been criticized a lot for thinking big, for believing we can do great things as a nation,” Sanders said.

Rarely has that thinking translated into actual legislation or left a significant imprint on it, according to Democratic lawmakers and staffers who have worked with him. Several top Democrats say the difference is a complete contrast to another progressive, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has had a much clearer impact on the financial and inequality discussions in just the three years she’s been in the Senate.

As for taking on Wall Street, one of the issues Sanders is most identified with on the campaign trail, former Democratic Rep. Barney Frank said Warren’s done much more to protect the landmark Dodd-Frank financial regulation law in the years since its passage."

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...-record-220508

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Doing something you consider a red line for your support is not the same as "never" being a progressive. Again, this is purity bullshit. Be better than that, have you not seen the road that leads to on the right?

No it's puritly bullshit. Maybe to someone who needs to stretch the line of what progressive is as far as possible so they can be included in it would think it is. But no coddling a bunch of billionaires and millionaires and swearing they will be safe from any real change is so fundamentally against what every progressive believes that it removes you from any claims of it and any ability to credibly claim being deserving of support by those who identify as progressive.

Kamala Harris is someone I consider an imperfect progressive. She's a lot lighter on most of her policies than say a Bernie or Warren is. But I can say that on the whole she is good enough that she could land that support. Someone like Gillibrand or Booker who have been bought and paid for by special interests their entire career and are just now talking about how progressive they are, don't have that credibility. I don't trust them nearly as much, but they've been a lot better recently to the point where I'm warming to them a bit more. You could maybe accept that generally. Most progressives welcome Warren with open arms (and I've been supporting her on here forever) she has flaws in her approach to foreign policy.

If it was about purity tests and disuqualifying people I could easily find faults to do it with either of them. No reserve that for those who do shit that actually is counterintuitive to that. Hickenlooper and Delaney who have been outright critical of it. Biden who pulls little stunts like he pulled last week. Yeah those guys I'm not going to buy into the same way.

[Theleviathan]

Who said never? I didn't. I just think there are big problems with his record, that's all.

Again Harris pasted him on the ''forced busing thing''. If he is such a progressive, shouldn't he admit he made a mistake?

I would respect him if he did that, he could have said ''I was wrong, but that was a long time ago''. Instead, he doubled down on it. You don't think Trump will not bring that up? Its a total weak spot for him, if Harris can paste him on it, you bet Trump can do it.

The other poster said never, you can go look yourself. And when I asked you if it was never you retreated to questioning his record again which wasn't a clear "no".

Two things - I believe he should've admitted a mistake there. I think it was stubborn not to be more conciliatory in that moment. But that relates to my second point - he was in a no win situation there. Kamala is a capable debater and she was a black woman, directly affected by that issue. He simply couldn't attack her back without looking bad. You could see he wanted to in that exchange (public defender vs. prosecutor) but he decided to take an ass kicking. I think his only avenue out was to apologize and he failed that. Fair or not, there is no issue Trump can "paste" him on that he wouldn't be free to paste back. In that moment, on that issue, with that opponent....he had to play defense. He just sucked mightily at it.

I'll say again though - there isn't a person on that stage Trump couldn't paste with something.

[Theleviathan]

Kamala Harris is someone I consider an imperfect progressive. She's a lot lighter on most of her policies than say a Bernie or Warren is. But I can say that on the whole she is good enough that she could land that support. .

And for some her actions/inaction on this issue disqualify her. You set a line on one issue (your definition of "progressive") and disqualified Biden as "never" being progressive. That's a purity test man. Plain and simple.

Purity tests are fucking stupid. Be better than that.

[The Overlord]

The other poster said never, you can go look yourself. And when I asked you if it was never you retreated to questioning his record again which wasn't a clear "no".

Two things - I believe he should've admitted a mistake there. I think it was stubborn not to be more conciliatory in that moment. But that relates to my second point - he was in a no win situation there. Kamala is a capable debater and she was a black woman, directly affected by that issue. He simply couldn't attack her back without looking bad. You could see he wanted to in that exchange (public defender vs. prosecutor) but he decided to take an ass kicking. I think his only avenue out was to apologize and he failed that. Fair or not, there is no issue Trump can "paste" him on that he wouldn't be free to paste back. In that moment, on that issue, with that opponent....he had to play defense. He just sucked mightily at it.

I'll say again though - there isn't a person on that stage Trump couldn't paste with something.

I did not say never, do not apply that to me. If I can focus on the blots on his record, you better believe Trump will. If you think Trump can't paste him on anything, look at his victory over Clinton, he clearly made some of that stuff stick on her. You may not think that fair, but that is what he will do, its what he did last time.

Except there was a way out, he could have admitted that was a mistake and shown himself to be a human being. Doubling down in it seems arrogant and lacks self-reflection, both Harris and Biden would have seemed good if he admitted that was a mistake, instead only Harris looked good.

And we should not underestimate Trump. You have to prepare counters to everything he can throw at you, otherwise you will get buried.

[Theleviathan]

That's nice, he has a plan out that you can actually can read that doesn't do that

So Bernie didn't even read his own website? He raised his hand at the debate too.....so who should I listen to?

I'm sure the electorate will smoothly thread that disjointed needle.....

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Biden passed the first climate change bill over 20 years ago. Is that not progressive? He got an assault weapon ban passed....is that not progressive?

Bear in mind, it is you guys that are arguing "never". Not about the balance of his record, you're making ass-hat claims you can't back up. Maybe you should tone the purity rhetoric down a couple dozen notches.

No you're just making a disengenous argument and then throwing out a few things he's done that could fall under progressive.

-Biden co-sponsered that shitty crime bill that had a huge negative impact on African Americans
-Biden opposed bussing
-He supported the War in Iraq, talked about how much he liked Dick Cheney and how decent he was, he defended George W Bush on Iraq saying "at each pivotal moment he has choosen a course of moderation and deliberation.
-Biden has how many videos out there of him talking down to black people and criticizing the black community?
-Was on record a few months ago mocking "the younger generation" for saying how tough they had it and then saying "I have no empathy for it".
-called the TPP perhaps the most ambitious trade negotiations in the world
-Does not have a strong record on raising taxes.
-As mentioned, was coddling the rich on how he wouldn't funamentally change anything.
-Greenpeace recently ranked him as the 2nd worst on climate change of the Democratic contenders.

That's not an asshat argument. That's you just arguing that because he did a few good things that he deserves to not be criticized for his shitty resume.

[Theleviathan]

I did not say never, do not apply that to me.

Except there was a way out, he could have admitted that was a mistake and shown himself to be a human being. Doubling down in it seems arrogant and lacks self-reflection, both Harris and Biden would have seemed good if he admitted that was a mistake, instead only Harris looked good.

And we should not underestimate Trump. You have to prepare counters to everything he can throw at you, otherwise you will get buried.

I won't apply the never to you, but I did ask twice and you were hardly clear in answering. To me, being able to answer that question is the measure of taking the argument seriously.

It's obvious Biden has a past with some really outstanding progressive moments. And plenty that are very problematic. Acknowledging the mixed bag is all I was after, because it often sounded like you were dismissing that he had any bonafides rather than simply not liking how the mix balances out for your liking. It may sound trivial, but the former means you're at least approaching the discussion with fairness while the latter (as Knight is pounding on about) means you're off the deep end.

[Theleviathan]

That's not an asshat argument. That's you just arguing that because he did a few good things that he deserves to not be criticized for his shitty resume.

Strawman. No one said you couldn't criticize him.

You just can't criticize him as "never" being a progressive without making an asshat argument. You're in control of that if you'd like to walk back your rhetoric to reality.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

So Bernie didn't even read his own website? He raised his hand at the debate too.....so who should I listen to?

I'm sure the electorate will smoothly thread that disjointed needle.....

No it's the way the debate question was framed. They would ask "who here would abolish THEIR private health insurance in favor of a government run plan. IF you're Warren or Sanders who has a plan for a public insurance, then yeah logically you should say yes because you think your own plan would be better than any market plan. And if it is in fact better than any market plan, nobody should have an issue getting moved on to a better plan. Yes ideally if you are formulating such a plan you should want and believe the structure you are setting up is the superior solution in the market and ultimately would lead to that if it's successful.

His plan however explitely says it wouldn't abolish private health insurance.

You have to actually... you know... listen to the wording of the question

[Theleviathan]

You have to actually... you know... listen to the wording of the question

Listening to him just fine:

In an emailed statement to campaign reporters titled "Sanders Calls for No Middle Ground on Medicare for All,":

Let us all be very clear about this. If you support Medicare for All, you have to be willing to end the greed of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. That means boldly transforming our dysfunctional system by ending the use of private health insurance, except to cover non-essential care like cosmetic surgeries. And it means guaranteeing health care to everyone through Medicare with no premiums, no deductibles and no copays. It is imperative that we remain steadfast in our commitment to guarantee health care as a human right and no longer allow private corporations to make billions of dollars in profits off Americans’ health care

This is in response to Harris flopping around on the issue. Private insurance, as the electorate knows it, is absolutely what he would be ending. Playing a game of semantics is silly and even more silly if you're going to argue the electorate would understand that very narrow difference in meaning.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Strawman. No one said you couldn't criticize him.

You just can't criticize him as "never" being a progressive without making an asshat argument. You're in control of that if you'd like to walk back your rhetoric to reality.

No you absolutely can critcize him as never being a progressive if his political career in principle has been antithetical to all the main pillars of the progressive movement.

An asshat argument would be cherry picking a few things someone did that could be defined as progressive and using it to say that said person should be defined as progresisve and then criticize others of purity tests and gatekeeping for not agreeing. So basically what you are doing. He's not a progressive, nobody involved in the current progressive movement views him as a progressive. You yourself and others here deliberately tried to stretch the term as far as possible in a bad faith argument to be able to make said case on this one.

You should look up what a strawman is too. I'm criticizing him as not being a progressive. You countered that by saying I'm using purity tests and then threw out a few good things he did as a counter. I said that was not a sufficient counter for said criticism. So yeah, maybe try not shifting the discussion?

[The Overlord]

I won't apply the never to you, but I did ask twice and you were hardly clear in answering. To me, being able to answer that question is the measure of taking the argument seriously.

It's obvious Biden has a past with some really outstanding progressive moments. And plenty that are very problematic. Acknowledging the mixed bag is all I was after, because it often sounded like you were dismissing that he had any bonafides rather than simply not liking how the mix balances out for your liking. It may sound trivial, but the former means you're at least approaching the discussion with fairness while the latter (as Knight is pounding on about) means you're off the deep end.

But ''what's off the deep end''? What defines that?

Here's the thing, I do not hate Biden as a person, he could perfectly nice in private, I do not care.

What I care about, is who has the most progressive vision moving forward, I think Bernie and Warren did a better job of that then Biden. I don't think Biden is a good choice, its as simple and noncontroversial as that.

You want to sell Biden, there is an easy way to do it, tell why you think his platform is better than that of Warren or Sanders? I have asked that a million times and all get is the round around instead. If no one can provide an answer to that, I think my low opinion of Biden is justified, that he is so lacking substance no one can actually defend his platform? No one has tried to to say why he has the platform, without that, I think I am totally justified in my outlook on him.