All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[numberthirty]

Not at all -- you're the one who complains about double standards, so just answer the question.

What's the answer -- what incredibly fundamental errors did Sanders make in his four million vote loss to Hillary?

To put it simply...

I am not pointing to a "Saradon" analog playing any sort of a role in the Democratic Party nomination process.

That being the case?

There's no point in addressing something I have not brought up. It's an "Apple" that has nothing to do with Sarandon's "Orange" that is being discussed.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

I'm grasping what you're saying, I just don't think you're correct.

Did you follow the '16 election? You should know what Sarandon did in that. It's pointless, as you refuse to acknowledge the weakness of the left. You have all the various facets of the left in plain sight but you won't acknowledge them as true inheritors of your ideology since you realise they're failures.

The only actual leftist movement you mentioned was Occupy.

What I'm saying is that there can be no sustained leftist movement in America as long as the Democratic party continues to exist in its current state. It will never get the numbers it needs and its members will not go the distance they need to as long as the Democrats are there to offer the pretense of resistance from a position of power. A position that others against the right-wing don't occupy.

Do you think that if the Democrats were to be completely demolished, that everyone opposed to the GOP would just sit back and let the GOP run wild? No, they'd engage in direct action that the Democrats would never have approved of.

Once people realize they can't count on the Democrat's, that's when a leftist movement capable of defeating the right-wing will take off.

[aja_christopher]

To put it simply...

I am not pointing to a "Saradon" analog playing any sort of a role in the Democratic Party nomination process.

To put it simply, you're dodging the question because it reveals that Sanders is a flawed enough candidate that he lost to Hillary by over four million votes.

Without the involvement of Susan Sarandon, no less -- it was all on him.

Sanders lost to Hillary by millions of votes -- just because you won't admit it doesn't mean everyone doesn't know it because we all saw it happen.

You're better off just admitting the truth instead of continuing to make yourself look completely irrational regarding Sanders.

Take your own advice and ask why he lost by millions of votes to a candidate you criticize almost daily.

[numberthirty]

To put it simply, you're dodging the question because you can't think rationally when it comes to Sanders.

Negative.

The assertion seemed to be(without knowing exactly what someone thought Sarandon's exact role in the 2016 General Election was) that the "Sarandon" angle was in some way anything like "Pivotal".

Which is a rather nonsensical assertion.

Since I have made no such assertion about Sanders, there's no real need to even address the assertion I haven't made. Let alone second guess if what I didn't assert is rational thinking or not.

[shooshoomanjoe]

The incredible AOC has a message for Bernie Bros: Blue no matter who and Democrats’ attempts to stop Sanders are overblown.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

This isn't what that is about. Stop moving the goal post. People can slip through any system, however, it is better to have a system of screening than none at all as it does offer some protection. You said we should have no border or screenings of any sort which is foolhardy. I have provided a very good reason (several interconnected ones at that) showing why we need a border.

There should be no borders. Human movement should not be criminalized.

That does not mean people will be coming around spreading diseases. There will still be organisations set up to help people with immigration.

The difference is that it won't be a hostile experience, the threat of turning people away because they're sick wouldn't exist. Instead they'd be treated like any other citizen.

Your concerns are unwarranted, unless you think people are going to be coming into the country to purposely spread diseases.

[numberthirty]

The incredible AOC has a message for Bernie Bros: Blue no matter who and Democrats’ attempts to stop Sanders are overblown.

Also from that article...

Ocasio-Cortez also discouraged Democrats from using party rules or other mechanisms to block Sanders if he advances. “I don’t think it’s a good idea for people to try to use superdelegate or other kind of subversive policies to deny anybody the nomination because it’s incredibly divisive to do so, and very demoralizing, which is a direct threat in November,” she said, adding, “The moment you start playing games trying to deny whoever is the nominee, we really start to get into dangerous territory in terms of defeating Trump.”

[Celgress]

There should be no borders. Human movement should not be criminalized.

That does not mean people will be coming around spreading diseases. There will still be organisations set up to help people with immigration.

The difference is that it won't be a hostile experience, the threat of turning people away because they're sick wouldn't exist. Instead they'd be treated like any other citizen.

Your concerns are unwarranted, unless you think people are going to be coming into the country to purposely spread diseases.

You are very naive about how the world, violent crime, and contagious illnesses work. I'm done with this. I'm not going to waste any more time or bandwidth on this forum reiterating my case. Have a good day.

[aja_christopher]

Negative.

The assertion seemed to be(without knowing exactly what someone thought Sarandon's exact role in the 2016 General Election was) that the "Sarandon" angle was in some way anything like "Pivotal".

Which is a rather nonsensical assertion.

Since I have made no such assertion about Sanders, there's no real need to even address the assertion I haven't made. Let alone second guess if what I didn't assert is rational thinking or not.

I'm factually asserting that he lost to Hillary by about four million votes, so either he made some incredibly fundamental errors as you say, or he's not as great a candidate as you claim.

Possibly both.

[Celgress]

I'm asserting factually that he lost to Hillary by about four million votes, so either he made some incredibly fundamental errors as you say, or he's not as great a candidate as you claim.

Don't bother certain people with facts (or common sense) their minds are made up.

[aja_christopher]

Don't bother certain people with facts (or common sense) their minds are made up.

At this point I just do it for fun.

[Celgress]

At this point I just do it for fun.

You have more patience than I. I feel as if I've lost about a dozen IQ points reading the last few pages of this thread alone.

[numberthirty]

I'm factually asserting that he lost to Hillary by about four million votes, so either he made some incredibly fundamental errors as you say, or he's not as great a candidate as you claim.

Possibly both.

Since that's not actually what was said, this is worth pointing out once more.

If Susan Sarandon comes up in any way that seems to relate to her being a fundamental piece of HRC's loss in 2016, you have to dismiss a bunch of incredibly fundamental errors that HRC made(not Sanders, which you seem to think was said in that post) to create any sort of an even remotely realistic scenario where Susan Sarandon is something that should even be on the short list of elements that created HRC's 2016 loss. Never mind Susan Sarandon being some sort of fundamental part of where things went wrong that really warrants an in-depth look.

[aja_christopher]

You have more patience than I. I feel as if I've lost about a dozen IQ points reading the last few pages of this thread alone.

Just a way to kill time while Marvel Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission Break is on in the background.

I know better than to expect a broken clock to suddenly start telling the correct time.

Since that's not actually what was said, this is worth pointing out once more.

Of course it's not what you said -- it's what I said: that Sanders must have made fundamental errors if he lost to Hillary by almost four million votes.

And you continue to dodge that fact, because that's what you do.

Sanders can't dodge it though -- and judging from his supporters it remains to be seen if he learned anything from the experience.

[aja_christopher]

"Sanders, Warren go separate ways in closing pitches"


"Bernie Sanders’ surrogates booed Hillary Clinton, lit up members of the Democratic National Committee, and proudly noted that people were “freaking out” that he would win.

Meanwhile, at a canvass launch Saturday, Elizabeth Warren’s campaign was busy putting up placards that read “Unite the Party.”

In the final hours before Iowa’s caucuses, the two leading progressive presidential candidates are making diametrically opposed pitches to voters: Sanders’ campaign is leaning hard into their anti-establishment bonafides, while Warren is selling herself as a candidate who can unify a fractured Democratic Party.

Warren’s message is aimed toward more traditional and mainstream Democrats who have fretted for months about the need to bring the party together; many believe President Trump won the election partly because the party was divided. Sanders’ pitch is pointed at young, infrequent and disillusioned caucus-goers who are exhausted and furious with the status quo, and who think Trump rode to victory on an anti-establishment mood throughout the nation.

To varying degrees, the left-wing rivals’ closing arguments in the first-in-the-nation state represent a departure from form. Sanders and his team have at times sought to make amends with the party leaders he clashed with in 2016, going so far as to ignore bombs thrown at him by establishment figures such as Clinton. Warren rarely talked about party unity until the last few weeks of the race.

But that all changed — and never was it clearer than this weekend. On Sunday, Sanders’ campaign posted a video on Twitter in which he said, “You can tell how good I feel by how nervous the establishment is getting.” He listed various groups that he believes are rattled — the Democratic establishment, Wall Street, drug companies, the fossil fuel industry, and Trump — because “we are their worst nightmare!”

Conversely, Warren’s TV and digital ads feature former Sanders and Clinton voters talking about why they support the Massachusetts senator, who’s been criticized for practicing a divisive brand of politics. “We can’t afford a fractured party in 2020,” one such spot begins with a former Sanders supporter speaking directly to camera.

In a rare change to her stump speech, Warren spoke fondly of other Democratic candidates who have left the race, including Booker and Kamala Harris. “I’ve been building a campaign from the beginning that is not a campaign that’s narrow, not a campaign that says it’s us and nobody else,” she told voters in Cedar Rapids at Coe College. “It’s a campaign that says, ‘come on in’ because we are in this fight together.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...pitches-110412