All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[kidfresh512]

Impeachment Trial.....will it....

1. Have no witnesses, no documents, and end in acquittal?
2. Have witnesses and/or documents and still end in acquittal?
3. Have witnesses and documents and end in conviction?

Predictions, anyone?

WSJ is reporting GOP do not have the votes to block witnesses right now.

[numberthirty]

Why bring up Biden at all?

I was comparing the kit glove treatment of Sanders with the shellacking Kerry got. Kerry... Kerry is not Biden, #30.

Pretty simple, actually...

You are bringing up an example of what you see as someone getting pretty light criticism while ignoring others getting away with far worse at the time.

It's making an "Apple"/"Apple" comparison while you are trying to make an "Apple"/"Orange" comparison.

So...

That's probably the reason. Most folks can actually remember what was happening at the time. A time when Sanders was easily one of the most reasonable voices in the discussion.

That said, I can understand why folks would want to ignore that reality to attack Sanders.

[numberthirty]

your agenda is transparent. we attack Biden for the same reason that you attack Sanders. it's pathetic that you're attempting to claim the higher ground.

Actually, I didn't "Attack..." Biden.

I used his speech as an example of what anyone who was around at the time could tell you that a lot of "Moderate Democrats..." sounded like. Biden being a really obvious example of that they sounded a lot like Tucker Carlson sounds these days.

Once you internalize that reality?

It's easy to see why Sanders' far more reasonable approach at the time isn't actually the issue some seem to want to make it into.

[numberthirty]

Impeachment Trial.....will it....

1. Have no witnesses, no documents, and end in acquittal?
2. Have witnesses and/or documents and still end in acquittal?
3. Have witnesses and documents and end in conviction?

Predictions, anyone?

One guy's take...

Time spent on predictions would be better spent on other things.

[aja_christopher]

One guy's take...

Time spent on predictions would be better spent on other things.

Says the individual who would rather spend more time attacking Biden (Beto, Kamala, Hillary, Bill, Obama, Biden and the Democratic party as a whole) than attacking the Republicans who prevented many of these individuals from passing comprehensive health care legislation, environmental and civil rights protections, and many other policies that Sanders promotes but can only dream about due to Republican obstruction in Congress.

With that in mind -- of course that's your take.

Instead of criticizing the only thing that is preventing your "progressive" politics from taking root, you spend your time shooting yourself in the foot by not speaking out -- and voting against -- those who are standing directly in the way of the progress you claim to want to see.

[numberthirty]

Says the individual who would rather spend more time attacking Biden (Beto, Kamala, Hillary, Bill, and the Democratic party as a whole) than attacking the Republicans who prevented many of these individuals from passing comprehensive health care legislation, environmental and civil rights protections, and many other policies that Sanders promotes but can only dream about due to Republican obstruction in Congress.

With that in mind -- of course that's your take.

Instead of criticizing the only thing that is preventing your "progressive" politics from taking root, you spend your time shooting yourself in the foot by not speaking out -- and voting against -- those who are standing directly in the way of the progress you claim to want to see.

While I'm sure I have said this before almost exactly...

There is exactly "No" point to doing what is in blue. The Republican Party is bought and paid for, and has been for quite a while. No criticism or "Attack..." will cause them to question what they are doing.

With that reality in mind, supporting where I want to see things go makes the most sense.

Edit:

Never mind that you aren't really attacking Biden if you point out that what came out of his own mouth sounds like something Tucker Carlson would say today.

You are pointing out actual reality.

[aja_christopher]

While I'm sure I have said this before almost exactly...

There is exactly "No" point to doing what is in blue. The Republican Party is bought and paid for, and has been for quite a while. No criticism or "Attack..." will cause them to question what they are doing.

With that reality in mind, supporting where I want to see things go makes the most sense.

Yeah, it really seems to have worked out well for you last election.

If repeating what doesn't work -- instead of supporting what has worked in the past with regards to business regulation, health care, civil rights, etc -- is what makes sense to you, then that explains a lot.

I notice you haven't answered any of the questions asked either -- much easier to just keep attacking "Democrats" and pretending wishful thinking is what wins votes and passes legislation through Congress.

Unless, of course, you'd like to give a few examples of progressives (like Sanders) that have won election and re-election in recent history?

[Tami]

WSJ is reporting GOP do not have the votes to block witnesses right now.

I only heard about it after my post. I hope it stays that way and witnesses are called, then I'll have more incentive to watch.

[numberthirty]

Yeah, it really seems to have worked out well for you last election.

If repeating what doesn't work -- instead of supporting what has worked in the past with regards to business regulation, health care, civil rights, etc -- is what makes sense to you, then that explains a lot.

I notice you haven't answered any of the questions asked either -- much easier to just keep attacking "Democrats" and pretending wishful thinking is what wins votes and passes legislation through Congress.

Unless, of course, you'd like to give a few examples of progressives (like Sanders) that have won election and re-election in recent history?

While I'm not really going to, one could just as easily say "Give An Example Of A 'Moderate' Democrat Who Has Beat Donald Trump..."

Never mind beat him in a reelection bid where some of what folks said would happen(that Trump would run the economy into the ditch as soon as he took office...) has not come to pass(obvious potential "Out" for that Trump could do so before the General Election...)

I won't really do it because there just isn't much of a point in doing so.

Talking about potential weak spots that Democrats should be taking more seriously because not doing so last time out cost them an election?

That makes more sense.

[aja_christopher]

While I'm not really going to

You're not going to because you can't -- it's that simple. Everything you said after that was just another attempt to attack the Democratic party.

2016 was only one election -- using that as a crutch to try to back up your arguments regarding progressives and moderate Democrats doesn't work on anyone who understands that both Democrats and Republicans don't win every election, regardless.

And that progressives have done so badly in the modern era to the point where many don't even want to remember Carter's presidency.

You're trying to promote a losing strategy in place of one that has won plenty of elections, both local and national.

Don't expect anyone with any understanding of politics to agree with that approach.

[numberthirty]

You're not going to because you can't -- it's that simple. Everything you said after that was just another attempt to attack the Democratic party.

2016 was only one election -- using that as a crutch to try to back up your arguments regarding progressives and moderate Democrats doesn't work on anyone who understands that both Democrats and Republicans don't win every election, regardless.

And that progressives have done so badly in the modern era to the point where many don't even want to remember Carter's presidency.

You're trying to promote a losing strategy in place of one that has won plenty of elections, both local and national.

Don't expect anyone with any understanding of politics to agree with that approach.

Which lost Congress and the Presidency in 2016. In the fall, it will be going up against the same guy(who, as of right now, hasn't face planted...)

While there is a scenario where it could work out, ignoring the other possibility to bring up that it has won elections in the past seems like a bad idea.

[aja_christopher]

Which lost Congress and the Presidency in 2016. In the fall, it will be going up against the same guy(who, as of right now, hasn't face planted...)

While there is a scenario where it could work out, ignoring the other possibility to bring up that it has won elections in the past seems like a bad idea.

No one is arguing that moderate Democrats (and Republicans) don't occasionally lose elections: what is being asked is how many progressives win in comparison.

The fact that you -- and many others -- won't even answer that proves that you know better than to even try to do so.

If you could be honest and just admit that moderate Democrats statistically do far better in elections than progressives and then go on to point out -- based on factual data -- why Sanders is different and has a better chance than those who came before him, then we could have an honest conversation about why it would make more sense to support Sanders than Biden going into the general election.

Instead we continually get diversions, distractions, slander, and outright lies regarding past elections, to the point where you'll even ignore the fact that it was moderate Democrats who won most of the elections in 2018, all so that you can promote a candidate who got beat by millions of votes in the primaries and couldn't even make it to the general election in the same year that you keep bringing up as being the end-all be-all of political contests.

If anything, the evidence shows that "moderate" Democrats -- like Hillary -- who try to appeal to a "progressive" base tend to lose general elections, and that Biden is smart to let Sanders do his thing, while Biden goes with what led to landslide victories for Obama during both 2008 and 2012, as well as what worked for moderates in the landslide Democratic midterm victories of 2018.

Don't try to argue why Biden will lose when moderates have a solid record to stand on -- explain why Sanders will win when progressives don't.

[numberthirty]

No one is arguing that moderate Democrats (and Republicans) don't occasionally lose elections: what is being asked is how many progressives win in comparison.

The fact that you -- and many others -- won't even answer that proves that you know better than to even try to do so.

If you could be honest and just admit that moderates do far better in elections than Democrats and then go on to point out -- based on factual data -- why Sanders is different and has a better chance than those who came before them, then we could have an honest conversation about why it would make more sense to support Sanders than Biden going into the general election.

Instead we continually get diversions, distractions, slander, and outright lies regarding past elections, to the point where you'll even ignore the fact that it was moderate Democrats who won most of the elections in 2018, all so that you can promote a candidate who got beat by millions of votes in the primaries and couldn't even make it to the general election in the same year that you keep bringing up as being the end-all be-all of political contests.

If anything, the evidence shows that "moderate" Democrats who try to appeal to a "progressive" base tend to lose general elections, and that Biden is smart to let Sanders do his thing, while Biden goes with what worked for Obama during both 2008 and 2012.

To put it simply...

That Sanders/Warren have the current position that they have in the nomination points to something.

To turn a blind eye to that to roll the dice on that a more "Moderate" approach will bring their supporters to the voting booth no matter what the platform of this potential "Moderate" nominee is?

It feels like that is an unsound strategy. You are counting on what worked a decade ago working out more than a decade later.

As for "A Candidate Who Got Beat..."?

Again, has Biden won the nomination of The Democratic Party previously?

If the answer to that question is "No...", you should be able to ask yourself two things...

- First, why am I counting this against Sanders when I have not counted it against Biden?

- Second, how did he do compared to Sanders when they both lost?

[aja_christopher]

To put it simply...

That Sanders/Warren have the current position that they have in the nomination points to something.

To turn a blind eye to that to roll the dice on that a more "Moderate" approach will bring their supporters to the voting booth no matter what the platform of this potential "Moderate" nominee is?

It feels like that is an unsound strategy. You are counting on what worked a decade ago working out more than a decade later.

As for "A Candidate Who Got Beat..."?

Again, has Biden won the nomination of The Democratic Party previously?

If the answer to that question is "No...", you should be able to ask yourself two things...

- First, why am I counting this against Sanders when I have not counted it against Biden?

- Second, how did he do compared to Sanders when they both lost?

I see absolutely nothing in that post that explains why Sanders will win when progressives rarely if ever win election and re-election in the modern era.

[Theleviathan]

I only heard about it after my post. I hope it stays that way and witnesses are called, then I'll have more incentive to watch.

Same, it's hard to get invested until something unexpected happens.