All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Gray Lensman]

You packed a lot of nonsense into that paragraph. Like, it's impressive really.

Maybe I'm wrong though.....on what factual basis do you claim there is no love for Biden?

As for the rest of the discussion, it is simply a fact that Biden is blowing away the other candidates among black voters. It's better than two to one in almost every poll. Bernie has a few segments of the black population he is appealing to and the hispanic vote, but from a factual perspective anything other than "the majority of black voters prefer Biden" is delusional. Black voters aren't rejecting Sanders, but they're still embracing Biden first.

Most people forget that the old crime bill isn't the albatross for Biden they want it to be. It had a lot of support at the time, but has proven over time to have been disastrous. It isn't something that was passed with racist intent like some of the proposals/actions coming from Benedict Donald, but something that had severe unintended consequences which need to be addressed as more people start looking towards restorative justice rather than mere punitive justice.

[Tami]

For anyone who likes to read Legal documents: Trial Brief (111 pages) submitted by Schiff and House team in regards to the impeachment of Trump

[Mister Mets]

From what I've noticed, the world is becoming way too fixed on healthy eating. While important, I find leading a life where I eat some junk, but live an active life much better than eating healthy and being forever sedentary.

Everyone needs a little junk food every now and then.

School nutritional policies aren't about what everyone gets now and then, but about what the norm is for the lunch (and sometimes breakfast) kids have for roughly half the days of the year.

There are still serious considerations. Schools have to deal with budgetary restrictions, as well as determining what can be sanitarily produced for hundreds of children at particular schedules, and what they'll actually be willing to eat. The average child will be happier with pizza than with tofu and brocolli in low-sodium soy sauce.

Some people may be disproportionately fixed on healthy eating, but this is more of an upper middle class problem, and schools have to worry about feeding kids from the majority of families that do not have those resources.

Using the black vote to achieve their own political ends is exactly what the Democratic Party has done since the 60s. You really think Joe Biden, a guy who once sang the praises of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, opposed the integration of schools, and hung Anita Hill out to dry during the Clarence Thomas hearings, really gives a damn about black people other than to cynically exploit their vote? Whatever they might be promised during the primary, in the general election, black voters are a captive audience for Democrats and so they have absolutely no incentive to campaign on policies that will actually help you. They only need to make a good enough show of pretending to care in order to appease white swing voters, and since this demographic leans more right on race issues in the era of Trump, they probably won't even have to do that in 2020.

Joe Biden opposed busing. Very few people are advocating for busing now. Even Kamala Harris says she wouldn't mandate it.

The Clarence Thomas hearings were messy as a race issue because a black man was accused.

At the time, his support among African-Americans was seventy percent.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...243-story.html

Question to all voters

What is more important? The messaging or the man/woman?

Do you vote based on proposed policy? Or based on personality? Or based on resume (qualifications, experience, skills, etc.)?

This is a good question.

It does depend on the amount of people running. General elections or primaries with two main candidates are a bit different in that the choices can be starker. You might prefer resumes but if the presidential election were between Mike Pence and Pete Buttigieg, I suspect the Democrats on the board with go with Mayor Pete.

In competitive primaries, for me, it's about policy and personality, after I'm sure that they have the resume. Resumes matter, and it should matter more (It's weird that no mainstream news source has graded the presidential contenders on how well they did their previous jobs), but a lot of competitive primaries are going to have multiple candidates who meet that threshold. The policies I like (center-right) probably do correlate with a personality type that I find appealing.

One major factor would be whether they seem to have the right understanding of the world, and a respect for those on my side. One reason I like Biden is that it seems he thinks people on the center-right are useful.

[Mister Mets]

So much for black voters strongly rejecting Sanders.

"Recent polls indicate that not only has Senator Bernie Sanders risen to a virtual tie with former Vice President Joe Biden in the Democratic presidential race among registered voters nationally, but Sanders has also made headway with African-American voters.

Out of all the candidates vying for the chance to run against the incumbent President Donald Trump in the 2020 election, 20 percent of registered Democrats and independent voters told a Reuters/Ipsos poll they would support Sanders.

Biden came in just behind Sanders with 19 percent, while Senator Elizabeth Warren garnered 9 percent of the poll.

Sanders has also gained more support with African-American voters according to a poll conducted by VICE News and Ipsos.

While 54 percent of African-American voters said they would consider voting for Biden, 56 percent said they would consider voting for Sanders, numbers the poll considers to be a "statistical tie."

Sanders also has a 10 percent lead over Biden among the Hispanic community with Sanders grabbing 47 percent of its support, while Biden has 37 percent.

"Despite frequently being described as a 'socialist' or 'too liberal,' Bernie Sanders has as many, if not more, minority Americans considering voting for him as any other candidates," Ipsos Public Affairs Vice President Chris Jackson told VICE News."

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sand...-polls-1482864

In this context, first choice matters more than whether someone considers voting for a candidate down the line.

While this is a fair question, I really don't want to get into those hypotheticals at this point given the fact that far more pressing matters are at hand right now.

Realistically speaking, I think we both know there's a high chance that even if Democrats gain the trifecta, they'll just spoil it (again) with the same kind of infighting we see here almost daily, which is why I think it's a lot more important to address that directly.

That said, we can cross that bridge if and when we come to it -- for now it's more important to focus on your party's "Grim Reaper" obstructionism as well as their shameless support of an openly dishonest, corrupt, and racist president.

------
"McConnell pledges to be 'Grim Reaper' for progressive policies"

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday vowed to be the "Grim Reaper" for progressive policies if Republicans hold on to the Senate in 2020.

"If I'm still the majority leader in the Senate think of me as the Grim Reaper. None of that stuff is going to pass," McConnell said while speaking to community leaders in Owensboro, Ky.

McConnell noted that if Republicans win back the House or President Trump wins reelection "that takes care of it." But he pledged that even if Republicans lose the White House, he would use his position as majority leader to block progressive proposals like the Green New Deal.

"I guarantee you that if I'm the last man standing and I'm still the majority leader, it ain't happening. I can promise you," McConnell added."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ssive-policies

I get this. However, in order to convince people that it's wrong for McConnell to stand in the way of progressive policies, one should advocate for those policies. Otherwise, "progressive policies" could be a catchword for things some on the left want that would be unpopular on the ballot (eliminating private insurance in favor of medicare for all, guaranteed jobs, racial and gender quotas in the workplace, bans on energy that isn't wind or solar, and yes- open borders)

I'm also posting links to factual articles that show that Biden is heavily favored by African-American voters and that he has the best chance to beat Trump in a general election.

You might not like those "facts" but that doesn't change them, or that you've provided no examples of legislation that Sanders has passed directly in support of the black community or any proof that progressive policies can win national elections.

Let's be real -- if Sanders (or Buttigeig) didn't feel like they needed black support to win the Democratic nomination, they probably wouldn't even bother.

Biden has already been where Sanders is trying to go, and that's why he tends to resonate with more black voters.

Here's the thing: I get it. You support Sanders and feel he's the best candidate for the job.

That doesn't mean that facts should be dismissed just because they don't support your candidate of choice.

How much do you think electability matters with the preference of Biden over Sanders?

If polls showed Sanders leading Trump nationally as much as Biden usually does, or if there was a wider perception that Sanders would be able to increase turnout among non-voters in swing states, would he be doing much better in primary polls?

[aja_christopher]

I get this. However, in order to convince people that it's wrong for McConnell to stand in the way of progressive policies, one should advocate for those policies. Otherwise, "progressive policies" could be a catchword for things some on the left want that would be unpopular on the ballot (eliminating private insurance in favor of medicare for all, guaranteed jobs, racial and gender quotas in the workplace, bans on energy that isn't wind or solar, and yes- open borders)

Honestly, if at this point people are still supporting a party that they know is racist, xenophobic, homophobic, fiscally irresponsible and inherently corrupt, then I don't feel the need to waste time trying to "advocate" that they develop a sense of moral integrity, fiscal responsibility or any real empathy for their fellow Americans, and other human beings in general, as that is something that they have to develop on their own.

Likewise, if they want to invent and/or dwell on potential progressive "horrors" while simultaneously allowing a man like Trump (or Bush) drag our nation into the gutter with policies that increase deficits, start wars, and increase racial and civil injustice and global warming, then so be it.

It's not my responsibility to "advocate" to people that they should base their choices on facts rather than fear, especially since it's usually a waste of breath.

As I said when we first discussed these issues -- most Republican voters won't learn from their mistakes until they start to suffer as well.

With regards to Sanders, all I'll venture is that if he's the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him -- the hypotheticals are irrelevant to me.

[PwrdOn]

I get this. However, in order to convince people that it's wrong for McConnell to stand in the way of progressive policies, one should advocate for those policies. Otherwise, "progressive policies" could be a catchword for things some on the left want that would be unpopular on the ballot (eliminating private insurance in favor of medicare for all, guaranteed jobs, racial and gender quotas in the workplace, bans on energy that isn't wind or solar, and yes- open borders)

How terrifying, we must elect Joe Biden to ensure that no meaningful legislation of any sort gets proposed.

[aja_christopher]

How terrifying, we must elect Joe Biden to ensure that no meaningful legislation of any sort gets proposed.

Just to be clear, I get what you are saying about the Democratic party in general with regards to black voters, who become all the rage around election time yet tend to get lost in the shuffle once it comes time to make actual policy. But it's also important to recognize that many black voters (like myself) and black candidates (like Obama) understand that radical changes often generate an equal amount of (or even more) pushback from the public -- the midterms right after Obama's election give testament to that fact.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't make the effort (in truth, Democrats should have made more of an effort to vote in those midterms), just that we should be aware of what we are dealing with when it comes to the voting public, and that's not just with regards to racial issues, but issues such as health care, college debt, and climate change as well.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see many of Sanders policies enacted if only to see how they might improve our nation as a whole, but in the real world, I'm not willing to tear down moderates like Biden to achieve that because in the real world, it's those moderates who tend to win the elections. If progressives want to transform the Democratic party, the key to doing so is voting progressive candidates into office, not attacking political allies with similar goals.

I just think the real problem at hand is the Republican party, and people like McConnell who do everything in their power to prevent passing any truly transformational progressive legislation through Congress.

[numberthirty]

Most people forget that the old crime bill isn't the albatross for Biden they want it to be. It had a lot of support at the time, but has proven over time to have been disastrous. It isn't something that was passed with racist intent like some of the proposals/actions coming from Benedict Donald, but something that had severe unintended consequences which need to be addressed as more people start looking towards restorative justice rather than mere punitive justice.

Here's the problem with the idea that it isn't an albatross.

It didn't need to be something that huge to play a role in costing HRC the election.

It only needs to cost Biden some of the minority vote in some places before it gets tough for Biden to put a win together.

It would be foolish to have it potentially hurt turnout a second time.

[aja_christopher]

Here's the problem with the idea that it isn't an albatross.

It didn't need to be something that huge to play a role in costing HRC the election.

It only needs to cost Biden some of the minority vote in some places before it gets tough for Biden to put a win together.

It would be foolish to have it potentially hurt turnout a second time.

Not going to let go of that talking point so long as you think it helps Sanders.

Thing is -- it really doesn't.

In many ways the unwavering focus on said "crime" bill speaks volumes about Sanders relationship -- or lack thereof -- with regards to the black community.

------
"Bernie Sanders has dodged criticism for crime bill vote while others have not"

"Sanders has said the bill contained important elements but his past statements show he was more supportive of the law than is commonly assumed."

"As a presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has often defended his vote for a controversial 1994 crime bill as a hold-your-nose compromise that included measures popular within the Democratic Party, such as a ban on assault weapons. As a result, Sanders’ support for the massive anti-crime package hasn’t come under the same level of scrutiny that has at times stuck to other Democratic candidates.

But an NBC News review of his past statements shows that Sanders also backed some of the legislation’s key get-tough-on-crime provisions, which he now says “created a very broken system,” — a part of his public record that may surprise some Sanders supporters.

Sanders was a member of the House of Representatives at the time and said he had strong objections to parts of the bill, mainly its death penalty expansion and lack of investment in crime prevention. And he fought to water down harsher sentencing provisions that came out of legislation then-Delaware Senator Joe Biden championed in the Senate.

But he also declared it to be a good compromise at a time when the nation faced a national crack cocaine epidemic and increasing violent crime, including surging homicide rates.

“On balance, its positive initiatives to control crime outweigh the negatives,” Sanders said in an August 11, 1994 speech on the House floor, according to the congressional record. Eleven days later, Sanders was quoted on the front page of the Burlington Free Press calling it "a step forward for Vermont and for the nation in addressing the horrendous problem with crime and violence.”"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...thers-n1020726

[numberthirty]

Not going to let go of that talking point so long as you think it helps Sanders.

Thing is -- it really doesn't.

In fact, in many ways the unwavering focus on said "crime" bill speaks volumes about Sanders relationship -- or lack thereof -- with regards to the black community.

------
"Bernie Sanders has dodged criticism for crime bill vote while others have not"

"Sanders has said the bill contained important elements but his past statements show he was more supportive of the law than is commonly assumed."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...thers-n1020726

Doesn't matter one bit if it "Helps"/"Hurts" Sanders.

To ignore that issue a second time when it is probably what hurt HRC with younger minority voters is just idiotic.

Barring Trump completely face planting on something before the fall, the Democratic nominee is going to need to just about run the table.

Doing so will be even more difficult if a potential Biden run just ignores the issue.

[aja_christopher]

Doesn't matter one bit if it "Helps"/"Hurts" Sanders.

To ignore that issue a second time when it is probably what hurt HRC with younger minority voters is just idiotic.

Barring Trump completely face planting on something before the fall, the Democratic nominee is going to need to just about run the table.

Doing so will be even more difficult if a potential Biden run just ignores the issue.

No one is ignoring anything -- the issue has already been directly addressed by both Hillary and Biden as well as Sanders, who also voted in favor of it.

But no one should be constantly dwelling on it, either, especially when that does nothing to help either candidate beat the Republicans.

Try talking about what your candidate has done or is going to do for (black) voters instead of just trying to attack other candidates.

[numberthirty]

No one is ignoring anything -- the issue has already been directly addressed by both Hillary and Biden as well as Sanders, who also voted in favor of it.

But no one should be constantly dwelling on it, either, especially when that does nothing to help either candidate beat the Republicans.

Try talking about what your candidate has done or is going to do for (black) voters instead of just trying to attack other candidates.

And the way HRC "Addressed..." it cost her young minority votes that she thought would be in her back pocket.

All I am saying is that being realistic about the odds of a roughly equivalent approach creating a markedly different outcome is not "Constantly Dwelling On It..."

It is simply pointing out that ignoring the obvious issues is a really good way to kneecap your chances in a General Election. Even if it is the approach that some folks seem to favor.

As for "Attack..." -

It is not an "Attack..." if everything you have said is fact.

- HRC Thought She Had It Dealt With.
- It Cost Her Youth Minority Support.
- Biden Does Not Seem To Have Taken A Different Approach.

It's not an "Attack..." It's what he is actually doing.

[aja_christopher]

And the way HRC "Addressed..." it cost her young minority votes that she thought would be in her back pocket.

Sanders voted for the same crime bill got even less black votes than HRC but I don't see you bringing that up as a point of criticism against him.

If you want to create a different outcome, then stop spinning the same broken record as you did in the last election.

No one is "ignoring" anything -- you're just choosing to dwell on the negative with regards to Hillary and Biden, because that's what you do.

Again -- if you want to create a different outcome, then stop attacking "moderates" and start showing proof that your chosen candidate can do better.

[Theleviathan]

Most people forget that the old crime bill isn't the albatross for Biden they want it to be. It had a lot of support at the time, but has proven over time to have been disastrous. It isn't something that was passed with racist intent like some of the proposals/actions coming from Benedict Donald, but something that had severe unintended consequences which need to be addressed as more people start looking towards restorative justice rather than mere punitive justice.

Correct, that bill turned out a disaster but was done genuinely on the behest of, and for the benefit of, black americans.

I know you agree, but this whole issue is weird. How will that legislation hurt Biden in the election? Trump is going to bring up race? None of these Sanders bobos can possibly believe that would work. It's a wedge issue progressives are weaponizing against their own.

And, again, by all polling black voters are heavily favoring Biden.

[numberthirty]

Sanders voted for the same crime bill got even less black votes than HRC but I don't see you bringing that up as a point of criticism against him.

If you want to create a different outcome, then stop spinning the same broken record as you did in the last election.

No one is "ignoring" anything -- you're just choosing to dwell on the negative with regards to Hillary and Biden, because that's what you do.

Again -- if you want to create a different outcome, then stop attacking "moderates" and start showing proof that your chosen candidate can do better.

To put it all in reasonably simple terms...

Recent polling points pretty clearly to that Sanders has the support of young minority voters. He's just got the endorsement of an immigrant rights group that has never endorsed a Presidential nominee. If I am not bringing it up, I am not because nothing even remotely concrete points to that Sanders actually has an issue when it comes to younger minority voters.

No issue, no reason to address said issue because it does not actually exist.

Meanwhile, we know for a fact that HRC had trouble with younger minority voters last time out. Recent polling points to that those same young minority voters are not backing Biden this time out.

It's not "Dwelling..." on anything to take a look at that reality, and point out that it would make sense to address it.