All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[numberthirty]

Tell that to Sanders since he's the one who said it.

If you're so bent on another four years of Trump by being divisive and repeating the mistakes of the past, then so be it.

That said -- again it's telling that you'll go against Sanders so long as it also means you're going against the Democratic party as a whole.

Or...

I'm a guy who can see an obvious reality when it is staring me in the face and polling points to it being the case.

This isn't even anything murky or complicated that we are talking about. HRC was a "Business As Usual..." Democrat who came out of the administration of a "Business As Usual..." Democrat, and couldn't even hold that "Slice" of the pie together.

If any candidate who winds up with the nomination can't see that reality, they are an issue. Sanders or not.

[aja_christopher]

You're the one who keeps invoking his supporters, that's not my problem. Do you think Hillary Clinton or Obama or any other Democrat didn't have shitty people supporting or on their campaign>

No -- you and 30 keep attacking other candidates and the Democratic party and I keep pointing out that divisiveness is where the problem lies.

Even Sanders himself has pointed out that's where the problem lies, so don't try to make it about me or any other individual here.

Or...

I'm a guy who can see an obvious reality when it is staring me in the face and polling points to it being the case.

Yet you refuse to see the "reality" that Sanders lost in the primaries by millions of votes, has yet to even come close to winning a national election, and most likely wouldn't be able to pass his "progressive" legislation through Congress even if he won.

When that changes, you'll have a valid argument, but until then you're just another person trying to pass off fantasy as fact.

[numberthirty]

...


Yet you refuse to see the "reality" that Sanders lost in the primaries by millions of votes, has yet to even come close to winning a national election, and most likely wouldn't be able to pass his "progressive" legislation through Congress even if he won.

When that changes, you'll have a valid argument, but until then you're just another person trying to pass off fantasy as fact.

That applies to Biden being able to win a Democratic Presidential nomination. Never mind Biden being able to win a Presidential election at the top of the ticket.

What I don't see is that same metric being applied to him and not Sanders.

[numberthirty]

There doesn't seem to be many Bernie supporters here. Just curious, what person do all of you like for the Democratic nominee?

Since Sanders and Warren appear to be taking things the most seriously, they would be who I "Like".

That said, anyone except Bloomberg or Gabbard would be someone I could vote for.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

No -- you and 30 keep attacking other candidates and the Democratic party and I keep pointing out that divisiveness is where the problem lies.

Even Sanders himself has pointed out that's where the problem lies, so don't try to make it about me or any other individual here.



Yet you refuse to see the "reality" that Sanders lost in the primaries by millions of votes, has yet to even come close to winning a national election, and most likely wouldn't be able to pass his "progressive" legislation through Congress even if he won.

When that changes, you'll have a valid argument, but until then you're just another person trying to pass off fantasy as fact.

The mistake was nominating Hillary. There’s more evidence Obama voters in the Midwest cost her more than Sanders.

[aja_christopher]

What I don't see is that same metric being applied to him and not Sanders.

Biden isn't the one trying to drag down other candidates and the Democratic party in general.

Whether he will win or lose remains to be seen, but at this point it's clear that since you can't address Sanders lack of success, you instead attack others.

The mistake was nominating Hillary.

Who beat Sanders by millions of votes, so apparently your argument is that democracy is a mistake.

I'd say her mistake was catering to "progressives" like you who still insult her years after the election, losing moderate and independent voters in the process.

None of which changes the fact that even Sanders called his supporters out for their divisiveness and toxic behavior, which is the issue at hand.

At this point I don't expect any better, but don't lie and claim that people are attacking Sanders when most are just repeating what he himself said.

[Mister Mets]

The mistake was nominating Hillary. There’s more evidence Obama voters in the Midwest cost her more than Sanders.

The mistake wasn't in nominating Hillary, but in the establishment getting behind her with such fervor that her opponents were Sanders, a Maryland Governor so inept he was followed by a Republican, a former Republican Senator and a Reagan administration official turned one term Senator.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Biden isn't the one trying to drag down other candidates and the Democratic party in general.

Whether he will win or lose remains to be seen -- regardless, it's not his supporters that have to be called out for their behavior.



Who beat Sanders by millions of votes.

I'd say her mistake was catering to "progressives" like you who still insult her years after the election, losing moderate and independent voters in the process.

None of which changes the fact that even Sanders called his supporters out for their divisiveness and toxic behavior, which is the issue at hand.

At this point I don't expect any better, but don't lie and claim that people are attacking Sanders when most are just repeating what he himself said.

Cool and she lost. And she lost because of how she performed with former Obama voters. And there is no evidence Sanders hurt more than the normal effect of having a primary challenge would.

Btw she didn’t cater to progressives. The person who had to resign from running the DNC because of how she was screwimg over Sanders ended up on her campaign and she had no real progressive policies.

Sorry you got what you wanted and people like me held are nose to attend your party and still wasn’t good enough.

[numberthirty]

Who beat Sanders by millions of votes, so apparently your argument is that democracy is a mistake.

I'd say her mistake was catering to "progressives" like you who still insult her years after the election, losing moderate and independent voters in the process.

None of which changes the fact that even Sanders called his supporters out for their divisiveness and toxic behavior, which is the issue at hand.

At this point I don't expect any better, but don't lie and claim that people are attacking Sanders when most are just repeating what he himself said.

At this point, you've said this a few times.

Anything that points to this being anything like actual reality?

Articles or anything?

As for "Divisiveness..." as an issue -

Look at the polling. Not everyone is on the same page. While I absolutely get not wanting a "Divided..." base, that's just the reality. Different voters with different opinions of what direction things should go in.

If you are going to call that "Divisiveness And Toxic Behavior..." instead of accepting it for the reality that it is, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. You've got to be able to see reality if you intend on addressing it.

[numberthirty]

Cool and she lost. And she lost because of how she performed with former Obama voters. And there is no evidence Sanders hurt more than the normal effect of having a primary challenge would.

Btw she didn’t cater to progressives. The person who had to resign from running the DNC because of how she was screwimg over Sanders ended up on her campaign and she had no real progressive policies.

Sorry you got what you wanted and people like me held are nose to attend your party and still wasn’t good enough.

Exactly.

What realistic scenario is there where you don't even hold the base that should be in your back pocket together and you win?

Never mind "The Blue Wall..."

Save that "Sanders Damaged HRC..." garbage when the entire HRC campaign was based on a bunch of "Straight Up Nonsense..." assumptions.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Exactly.

What realistic scenario is there where you don't even hold the base that should be in your back pocket together and you win?

Never mind "The Blue Wall..."

Save that "Sanders Damaged HRC..." garbage when the entire HRC campaign was based on a bunch of "Straight Up Nonsense..." assumptions.

They can’t accept they were wrong and the people who pointed out flaws in her ended up being right so they need excuses

[aja_christopher]

Cool and she lost.

Sanders lost to her by a lot more.

But here you and 30 are stanning for him, lying about others calling all of his supporters "sexist", and refusing to admit that most people simply won't vote for a progressive agenda, even in a Democratic primary, much less a national election.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Sanders lost by a lot more.

But here you are stanning for him, lying about others calling all of his supporters "sexist", and refusing to admit that most people simply won't vote for a progressive agenda.

And he performed well in states she needed to win. And he had better numbers with the youth needed to turn out. And he's still popular and she's one of the few people who ran in a Presidential election, lost and still has terible favorability numbers. She was uniquely unpopular and she lost. Also a primary and a general are two different things. Trying to conflate the two is misleading.

And I don't need a non progressive to tell me what a progressive agenda is.

[numberthirty]

Sanders lost to her by a lot more.

But here you and 30 are stanning for him, lying about others calling all of his supporters "sexist", and refusing to admit that most people simply won't vote for a progressive agenda, even in a Democratic primary, much less a national election.

Two of the top three possible Democratic nominees are running on that and polling well within the party.

If you think that is a recipe for a loss, your issue is with members of The Democratic Party.

[aja_christopher]

And he performed well in states she needed to win. And he had better numbers with the youth needed to turn out. And he's still popular and she's one of the few people who ran in a Presidential election, lost and still has terible favorability numbers. She was uniquely unpopular and she lost. Also a primary and a general are two different things. Trying to conflate the two is misleading.

And I don't need a non progressive to tell me what a progressive agenda is.

Apparently you need someone to tell you that a candidate who can't even win the Democratic nomination shouldn't be hailed as the second coming.

Which is what most people do whenever they discuss Sanders with you and you avoid by constantly trying to bring up "Bernie Bros" and "Hillary" as if that makes up for you chosen candidates shortcomings and losses.

Moreover, even if Bernie wins, it doesn't justify the divisive rhetoric and behavior of those who support him.

Two of the top three possible Democratic nominees are running on that and polling well within the party.

If you think that is a recipe for a loss, your issue is with members of The Democratic Party.

Talk is cheap -- let's see them win the primaries, win the presidency, and then pass progressive legislation as promised.