All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[numberthirty]

Medicare for All isn't defined by what Sanders wants.

That seemingly has nothing to do with anything, but "Noted..."

[Gray Lensman]

Warren says that candidates are responsible for their online supporters, including those who do threatening, hurtful things.

Not to take Sanders’ side here, but I think that this might be a bit unfair a standard to have. I mean, a Warren supporter committed a mass shooting. No one is saying that is her fault, but the standard she is applying here could be universalized to include that. Maybe she should take the tact of if supporters do the deed “on your behalf”—you are responsible for controlling the messaging and making sure you are clear about what you feel is an acceptable way to get your message out and what isn’t. But...it certainly doesn’t sound like an endorsement of Bernie is coming, at least not without him coming down and condemning the activity that she is talking about.

One or two people, even if they go way over the line, I tend to pin on those people. But when it gets to be large, dare I say, yuuuuge numbers, it's time to look at who they are lining up behind. There's always someone just a short step from being unhinged in every group - sadly that's human nature. But when that starts looking normal for the group you need to start asking more questions,

[Steel Inquisitor]

That seemingly has nothing to do with anything, but "Noted..."

You comment's crux relied on Sanders M4A being the sole definition of M4A. Without it there is no angle to disagree with Warren on it.

[TheDarman]

Tend to doubt that...

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ot-main-street

I don’t know if you saw my earlier post, but I am generally against receiving any more of my “news” from progressive sites. They tend to cherry pick information, provide cover for their preferred candidates, and offer no circumstantial mercy to candidates they don’t favor—if they don’t outright insist that these candidates are horrible people because they don’t support what some cause they like. Dissent isn’t tolerated with any of these sites.

Again, Obama’s presidency looks to be a model of what a Biden Administration would look like. And Obama has numerous policy changes, from DACA to DAPA to shutting down DAPL, to show that progressive pressure is often enough to sway policy in friendly administrations. It’s not full-proof—it hardly ever is—but you’d have a friendly ear in the White House willing to make changes to policy to keep you happier. That’s not something you get with Trump.

But, if you refuse to acknowledge the difference between having Trump in office or Obama, I don’t really know what to tell you.

[TheDarman]

One or two people, even if they go way over the line, I tend to pin on those people. But when it gets to be large, dare I say, yuuuuge numbers, it's time to look at who they are lining up behind. There's always someone just a short step from being unhinged in every group - sadly that's human nature. But when that starts looking normal for the group you need to start asking more questions,

I don’t know why I didn’t really think of that, but that is also a good point.

[numberthirty]

I don’t know if you saw my earlier post, but I am generally against receiving any more of my “news” from progressive sites. They tend to cherry pick information, provide cover for their preferred candidates, and offer no circumstantial mercy to candidates they don’t favor—if they don’t outright insist that these candidates are horrible people because they don’t support what some cause they like. Dissent isn’t tolerated with any of these sites.

Again, Obama’s presidency looks to be a model of what a Biden Administration would look like. And Obama has numerous policy changes, from DACA to DAPA to shutting down DAPL, to show that progressive pressure is often enough to sway policy in friendly administrations. It’s not full-proof—it hardly ever is—but you’d have a friendly ear in the White House willing to make changes to policy to keep you happier. That’s not something you get with Trump.

But, if you refuse to acknowledge the difference between having Trump in office or Obama, I don’t really know what to tell you.

Put simply, Biden is not Obama(and Obama absolutely had his issues when it came to looking out for Jane/John Public...)

As for not getting news if it is a more progressive source, that feels to me like what you are saying about refusing to acknowledge the difference between Obama and Trump in your post.

If you can't look at an article coming from a more progressive slant and still pick out what is fact and what is slant, it feels like you might be looking away from what you don't want to see might actually be the case.

Again, Biden folded on even attempting to push for card check during the Obama administration. The idea that feels like "Nah, I'm Gonna Ignore All Of Those Question Marks And Give This Guy The Benefit Of The Doubt On Not Being Down With 'The Man'..."

Certainly anything but a friendly ear when the pitch was "Card Check Will Be Something We Get To Right Away..." that wound up being "We're Going To Keep Trying On Card Check..."


If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt? Your call.

Just hand waving that this guy probably is what he looks like? That feels like willingly ignoring reality.

Trying to zig to "You Are Unwilling To See The Difference Between Trump And Obama..." doesn't change the reality that Biden probably is what he has actually done(never mind that being different than Trump does not somehow equal that you will not look out for 'The Man' in any realistic scenario...)

[numberthirty]

You comment's crux relied on Sanders M4A being the sole definition of M4A. Without it there is no angle to disagree with Warren on it.

Since Warren had her version of Medicare For All that she would likely be seemingly turning her back on to endorse Biden?

You're just wrong.

[numberthirty]

...

Polling is one part of Sanders flaws. He supported openly Castro in the last debate, comments like that will kill his campaign faster than polling will.

Things that have actually happened -

- 2016 polling not being how things played out.
- Biden's place in Iowa in polling not being how it played out.

If you look at that and are basing your beliefs on how electable someone is based on polling?

The obvious question would be "Really?"

[Steel Inquisitor]

Since Warren had her version of Medicare For All that she would likely be seemingly turning her back on to endorse Biden?

You're just wrong.

You're basing her being "wrong" on her siding with Sanders, it's got nothing to do with what the M4A is.

Sanders isn't entitled to her endorsement, he had to earn it. There's far more going on besides her decision than M4A. Sanders mishandled every opportunity to mend fences after the media bought up his comment on women winning the presidency and elected Warren to do all heavy lifting in healing their relationship in front the cameras and the fact that she's more pragmatic about things because she wants to make progress not be pleased with doing nothing and burning bridges like it's a hobby.

Things that have actually happened -

- 2016 polling not being how things played out.
- Biden's place in Iowa in polling not being how it played out.

If you look at that and are basing your beliefs on how electable someone is based on polling?

The obvious question would be "Really?"

Sanders was the most popular politician after '16.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-senators-poll

Sanders is the most popular senator, with 62 percent approval compared with 31 percent disapproval, according to the poll, while Klobuchar is the third most popular with 58 percent approval and 26 percent disapproval.

I'm not basing my beliefs on those polls, I'm pointing out that his supporters thought his "revolution" was bigger than it really was. They didn't come in either presidential primary, why do you think that is?

For months Biden was polled at being the strongest among Democrats, this has come to pass.

[numberthirty]

You're basing her being "wrong" on her siding with Sanders, it's got nothing to do with what the M4A is.

Sanders isn't entitled to her endorsement, he had to earn it. There's far more going on besides her decision than M4A. Sanders mishandled every opportunity to mend fences after the media bought up his comment on women winning the presidency and elected Warren to do all heavy lifting in healing their relationship in front the cameras and the fact that she's more pragmatic about things because she wants to make progress not be pleased with doing nothing and burning bridges like it's a hobby.

Again, you're simply repeating something that is wrong here. Repeating it won't change the fact that it is wrong.

Medicare For All was a central policy position Warren was running on. Endorsing Biden when he has obviously been running against Medicare For All the entire time will potentially call into question just how dedicated Warren ever was when it came to the policy.

Hopefully, she steers clear of that.

[numberthirty]

...

I'm not basing my beliefs on those polls, I'm pointing out that his supporters thought his "revolution" was bigger than it really was. They didn't come in either presidential primary, why do you think that is?

For months Biden was polled at being the strongest among Democrats, this has come to pass.

If you're basing your belief on who Democrats will nominate and not polls?

That is even more shaky ground.

John Kerry and Al Gore would point to that doing so is less than sound, at best. Never mind that this didn't work out in the last General Election.

[Gray Lensman]

Could be.

On the other hand, that assessment is largely based on polling. Which we should all know is worth what it is. It's certainly not something I would make that statement based on.

One thing that will tell us is how they each perform in states like Michigan and Wisconsin. I don't know about Wisconsin, but the polling in Michigan is trending towards Biden.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Again, you're simply repeating something that is wrong here. Repeating it won't change the fact that it is wrong.

Medicare For All was a central policy position Warren was running on. Endorsing Biden when he has obviously been running against Medicare For All the entire time will potentially call into question just how dedicated Warren ever was when it came to the policy.

You're contorting what Warren will do with a false narrative that she's abandon her progressive ideals to become Biden 2.0. That's not how endorsements or alliances work. You've completely ignored the obvious move Warren would do with this, which is move Biden left on the issue and others and be pragmatic while staying true to the mission. Being for M4A isn't determined by whether she endorses Sanders.

Medicare For All is not a policy written in stone, and it's certainly not a concept Sanders can gatekeeper on.

Hopefully, she steers clear of that.

She will, but that won't stop the narratives against her that you're making against her to divide the Sanders and Warren camps.

If you're basing your belief on who Democrats will nominate and not polls?

That is even more shaky ground.

John Kerry and Al Gore would point to that doing so is less than sound, at best. Never mind that this didn't work out in the last General Election.

It's good that I'm not doing that then, I'm basing on who's winning the primary and that's Biden. Completely ignoring how I bought the fact the online support which Sanders bet all his chips on failed to materialise in the real world.

Al Gore only lost due to the GOP rigging Florida and the Supreme Court backing Bush in a controversial decision that they themselves regret.

Bush was riding high, post 9/11 in 2004, was the incumbent and had a campaign apparatus that was the gold standard for modern Republicans in the 2000+.

They won their presidential primaries and had strong fights in the generals against their Republican opponents, which is more than I can say for the lack of self admitted socialists being in that position. If they're huge failures by your standards, what does that make the politicians in on the left?

Every loss of any Democrats who isn't a leftist is made to appear as though its the absolute worst, while the lefts own failures who don't come near the victories the Democrats got are erased from memory while trying to convince us that they have a superior track record at winning elections.

[Lord Falcon]

On what is in blue, that probably would be the smartest play if Sanders stay even remotely competitive going forward. If you take that Sanders has right around half of the delegates right now, I don't know that I could see just ignoring that reality heading into a General. It seems like you are just asking for trouble.

I am rarely accused of being dumb or unreasonable.

Out of curiosity, how would you feel about Harris? I've heard concerns about Bernie and Warren's age if put alongside Biden's. Harris checks a lot of boxes, would be amazing in the VP attacker role and is a strong team player. She would be the first woman VP and the first Indian VP. But she does have that history as California AG history.

I saw #WarrentoBiden trending on my Twitter; and taking a cursory glance at it... YES, a lot of why people were choosing Biden was specifically because of Bernie Bros. And issue I tried to warn everyone about weeks ago; and people told me "no-one will not vote for him because of mean people on-line." Well... they're wrong. That's EXACTLY why people aren't going to vote for him.

I consider myself pretty good at not allowing spite to dictate important choices. It's my natural disposition to fact-check my own emotions, and I've had the legal training to reinforce this. And I still feel a tug towards Biden because of fucking Bernie Bros.

I never understood why they tried so hard for impeachment, he wasn't going to resign even if they impeached him, and his base wouldn't have cared. It was so much energy for a hollow victory even IF they'd got it.

As someone in favor of good government practices, I can see the argument for making the move, as well as the political optics of showing they felt compelled to do it, to put a marker down in history.

Personally, I think Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff did as well as they possible could. The failure of Republicans to grow a spine against Trump is not the fault of the Dems, and the Dems doing the right thing even when it wouldn't work was meaningful in the long term to me.

Tend to doubt that...

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ot-main-street

I have yet to see a single credible article out of Common Dreams. Admittedly, I haven't looked as thoroughly as I would have liked, having been overwhelmed by all the ways they shamelessly, blindly lean into their progressive biases. At least Huffington Post *used* to be good. FYI, I find Rachel Maddow to be one of the best anchors on television.

Joe managed to be a Senator of limited financial means for decades. He was always a bad fundraiser, and went into Super Tuesday with little money. His centrism may come from some places that may be not the best decision-making centers, but he's not "bought."

The best case for her to just sit the sidelines is simple.

Endorsing Biden when he is not for Medicare For All is going to look like she never believed in it to start with. It could completely kneecap any shot she would have at running on it in the future.

Which is absolutely what she should do.

I agree that Warren ought to not endorse anyone. Not only does this keep her powder dry, but it heightens her value as a VP candidate.

[jetengine]

I'd like to think Warren is Smart enough to realise that at 74/78 she doesnt need the whitehouse