All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Billy Batson]

Joe Rogan went back to supporting Trump.

Ooops.

No he didn't.

[aja_christopher]

Did John Kerry win in 2004? No. Did Al Gore win in 2000?.

Did Sanders win in 2016? No.

No political party always wins -- but ignoring the "moderate" wins to focus on their losses is not at all objective, especially given the lack of success of progressives on the national stage.

Again, you're more than welcome to believe that a progressive can win and to vote accordingly -- I've never argued against that.

I just asked how Sanders plans to pay for his programs, how he expects to pass them through Congress, and whether progressives (like Sanders) win more than moderates (like Biden) in general elections. With Biden, most of those questions were answered during his successful campaign with Obama.

That those simple questions cause so much consternation amongst Sanders' supporters speaks volumes about his viability as a mainstream candidate.

[Celgress]

....Should all progressives be called SJWs? Or all Republicans racists? Or all Bernie supporters Bros? No, that's when you're in strawman territory. But it's all disingenuous to try and act like these segments don't exist. They do to varying degrees, varying influence, and varying degrees of problematic behavior.

A valid point and an excellent observation.

[The Overlord]

I believe both are apt terms and whether they are a strawman or not depends more on their usage. We have a lot of terms we use to describe a segment of the population whose number we don't know for sure, but whose influence can be felt and recognized in many forms.

Should all progressives be called SJWs? Or all Republicans racists? Or all Bernie supporters Bros? No, that's when you're in strawman territory. But it's all disingenuous to try and act like these segments don't exist. They do to varying degrees, varying influence, and varying degrees of problematic behavior.

But the way this terms are used matters, to use these terms to dismiss what a movement has to say out of hand is a bad faith argument and I see that bad faith argument used here.

[The Overlord]

Did Sanders win in 2016? No.

No political party always wins -- but ignoring the "moderate" wins to focus on their losses is not at all objective, especially given the lack of success of progressives on the national stage.

Again, you're more than welcome to believe that a progressive can win and to vote accordingly -- I've never argued against that.

I just asked how Sanders plans to pay for his programs, how he expects to pass them through Congress, and whether progressives (like Sanders) win more than moderates (like Biden) in general elections. With Biden, most of those questions were answered during his successful campaign with Obama.

That those simple questions cause so much consternation amongst Sanders' supporters speaks volumes about his viability as a mainstream candidate.

Can you prove Sanders would lost to Trump in 2016? No.

Seriously, when is the last time the Dems ran a progressive?

As for the policy question, I gave answer on how I would pay for it and really the US just puts a ton of ears on the credit card? Does anyone ask how those will be paid for? And again, why wouldn't switching to a socialized medicine system not save more money in the long run? It does for Canada.

[Theleviathan]

But the way this terms are used matters, to use these terms to dismiss what a movement has to say out of hand is a bad faith argument and I see that bad faith argument used here.

Sometimes that's valid. But it's just as invalid to pretend they don't exist. We're in a discussion with almost all progressives. I'm an independent with mostly progressive policy positions, but one of the things that bugs me most about the left is that they pretend "SJW"s or "Bernie Bros" don't exist. When it's those obnoxious *****s that are driving some voters straight into the arms of Republicans.

Yeah, Republicans use the terms to be dismissive, but it works (in part) because those groups are real. And REAL annoying.

[Billy Batson]

Smh
DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/20...legates-110083

[aja_christopher]

Can you prove Sanders would lost to Trump in 2016? No.

Seriously, when is the last time the Dems ran a progressive?

And you ignored my question, if Biden loses to Trump, should you rethink your political calculations?

It's neither my job nor my desire to prove that Sanders will lose so stop trying to make this out as an attack on Sanders.

It's on you as a Sanders supporter to show how he can win and how he will enact his policies in Congress.

Nothing said here is going to prove anything regardless which is why these hypothetical arguments are meaningless.

Again, if you want to prove Sanders can win, do it at the ballot box instead of arguing on a message board.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

Or all Republicans racists?

Yes, actually.

[Tami]

Police called in after poster tells residents of flats to speak English

A poster telling residents of a block of flats “we do not tolerate” people speaking languages other than English in the building has been reported to police.

The typewritten poster, bearing the title “Happy Brexit Day”, was reportedly found stuck to fire doors in Winchester Tower in Norwich on Friday morning. The discovery came hours before the UK officially left the European Union at 11pm later that day.

A photo of the poster shared in news reports and on social media revealed that it declared: “We finally have our great country back.”

[The Overlord]

It's neither my job nor my desire to prove that Sanders will lose so stop trying to make this out as an attack on Sanders.

It's on you as a Sanders supporter to show how he can win and how he will enact his policies in Congress.

Nothing said here is going to prove anything regardless which is why these hypothetical arguments are meaningless.

Again, if you want to prove Sanders can win, do it at the ballot box instead of arguing on a message board.

No, but it's on you explain why "Not Trump" in of itself will win this time, if it failed last time .

Not Trump is a weaker conviction than a strong policy program is.

[aja_christopher]

No, but it's on you explain why "Not Trump" in of itself will win this time, if it failed last time.

No it's not.

If you think Sanders is the best candidate to beat Trump, then prove it with votes, not words.

[skyvolt2000]

But the way this terms are used matters, to use these terms to dismiss what a movement has to say out of hand is a bad faith argument and I see that bad faith argument used here.

Maybe if everyone ignored the attention whores of those groups-we can get to the stuff that matters. That has always been the issue.

Folks are going to think Republicans are racist when every single attack SOME of them do target POC or LGBTQ or women. That attacks even more trolls-some of whom are not Republican but take the shot to attack people.

but one of the things that bugs me most about the left is that they pretend "SJW"s or "Bernie Bros" don't exist. When it's those obnoxious *****s that are driving some voters straight into the arms of Republicans.

BINGO.

[Superbat]

Heading into Iowa caucus, Bernie Sanders leads Iowa polls

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/he...ls-77962821916

[jetengine]

If people are so thin skinned that they vote for racists and homophobes then thats their own damn fault