All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[numberthirty]

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.

There are other female minority candidates that would not be have the obvious issues that Harris does. Personally, she is right around "Dead Last..." on the list of women I would consider.

You want a good VP attacker? That's the priority? You call Lori Lightfoot. Better at the strengths. None of the weaknesses.

...


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."

While I don't want to mistake what you mean here, I see "Look, Progressives Don't Tell The Truth..."

Take card check. Politely, do you have a counter to that article's take on card check? That members of a union here asked the union to pull a Biden endorsement based on his past treatment of unions?

https://inthesetimes.com/uploads/IBE...Leadership.pdf

As for that he's not "Bought"?

Explain going to bat for credit card companies while his son was getting a check from them. In detail, explain where he has an out.

That's what it would take for me to even consider the idea.

Sure, he's not the worst of that. Doesn't change what he is and has done.

[Malvolio]

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 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.




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.



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."



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.

Not going to happen. The Democratic Party will not have a ticket with two people both over 70 years old. Even Bernie Sanders knows this.

[numberthirty]

...

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.

Before they went on to lose in the General...

As for "Made To Look Like The Absolute Worst...", that's more what you are asserting than anything that is actually happening.

That said, you have no way of discounting that winning the primary is not exactly a solid indicator for a candidate's chances in the General. Which is fine. Just let it be that the candidate who get the nomination is who you'll be running.

Accounting for recent history, anything past that is counting chickens before they have hatched when you should be focused on other things.

[JackDaw]

Not going to happen. The Democratic Party will not have a ticket with two people both over 70 years old. Even Bernie Sanders knows this.

On BBC site some speculation is that she is interested in receiving a post in future admin..say control of Treasury which she can exert influence. Perhaps that is more likely?

Isn’t it fair to say that she’s more closely aligned across a whole range of policies with Sanders, rather than Biden? (Medicare is just one example, not the only example.)

If that’s true then supporting Biden would either look like personal pique at Sanders (unlikely given her character) OR she thinks Biden is more likely to win and giving support early will gain her something she wants (more likely).

[numberthirty]

On BBC site some speculation is that she is interested in receiving a post in future admin..say control of Treasury which she can exert influence. Perhaps that is more likely?

Isn’t it fair to say that she’s more closely aligned across a whole range of policies with Sanders, rather than Biden? (Medicare is just one example, not the only example.)

If that’s true then supporting Biden would either look like personal pique at Sanders (unlikely given her character) OR she thinks Biden is more likely to win and giving support early will gain her something she wants (more likely).

In Blue...

While I guess that would be a great development, what Biden has actually done in the past show where he is at when it comes to actually going up against "The Man". Knowing that, I would tend to doubt he would put Warren in that position. Not impossible, just not likely based on his past(never mind what he is running on this time out...)

In Green...

Yeah, id say that's a fair thing to say.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Before they went on to lose in the General...

Everyone loses, and I outlined why they lost under reasonable circumstances.

As for "Made To Look Like The Absolute Worst...", that's more what you are asserting than anything that is actually happening.

Tell me again what presidential nominations and congress seats leftists won compared to everyone else.

That said, you have no way of discounting that winning the primary is not exactly a solid indicator for a candidate's chances in the General. Which is fine. Just let it be that the candidate who get the nomination is who you'll be running.

Sure I do, if you honestly consider winning elections as definitive proof of whether politicians are successful you should be deeply concerned more over the left's losses than the Democrats. I'm using your standards here.

Accounting for recent history, anything past that is counting chickens before they have hatched when you should be focused on other things.

In recent history the Justice Democrats lost 33 - 7 and Sanders lost '16 and heading toward losing in '20. How this is proof they're better at winning elections than Democrats you'll have to explain to me how you got to that conclusion.

Edit: Forgot to mention, you're ignoring the fact that the Democrats won the presidency twice. How do you explain those as losses for the Democrats?

[numberthirty]

Name the these Democrats that won the Presidency twice, and tell me just how likely you think it is that we can repeat the exact races that they won in no matter who the nominee is in this fall's General.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Name the these Democrats that won the Presidency twice, and tell me just how likely you think it is that we can repeat the exact races that they won in no matter who the nominee is in this fall's General.

You've never heard of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? Why do you hold up these impossible standards that, supposedly, your own politicians can't touch the coat tails on? Why couldn't we have had President Bernie Sanders in '16, or a Blue wave made entirely from Justice Democrats in '18?

[numberthirty]

Sure I do, if you honestly consider winning elections as definitive proof of whether politicians are successful you should be deeply concerned more over the left's losses than the Democrats. I'm using your standards here.

Since you are not, I still have to believe that you have no way of discounting that a primary win is a less than solid indicator. You seemingly have reasons why you think that they lost, but nothing other than that.

The loss is still an indicator that a primary win is right around a "Maybe?" when it comes to your chances of winning a General(obviously applies to both parties)

[Tazirai]

Nah. I hate Mike Bloomberg. And I don’t care who he endorses. I also didn’t care when Joe Rogan did it. Why? Because they are both equally awful. The only difference is Mike Bloomberg was in a position of power to actually enact his awful agenda. Joe Rogan just whines about transgender people from his studio and invites on horrible “leftist” trolls.

But I understand why both wanted to play up their endorsements—it was a way to build their coalition. I don’t fault Biden or Sanders for that too terribly much. Though I do think we do need to do a better job of sidelining guys like them.

That said, if Bloomberg wants to continue to get under Trump’s skin and throw money at ads to take him down, I’m all for it. At least that is better than Rogan saying days later that “maybe we’re better off with Trump.” The kind of privilege you have to have to make that statement.

By the by, I have watched Kyle’s stuff. Believe it or not, Tazirai, I actually was a VERY progressive person in my early college years and watched TYT and Secular Talk (pun-intended) religiously. I kind of woke up to the vitriol of it and how it was coloring my view of people I loved and respected. And it was also distorting my view of what was actually possible with political realities. Kyle wasn’t as bad as Jimmy Dore, but he said if you were in a safe state, like New York, California, or Pennsylvania (oops) to go ahead and vote third party if you felt better about it.

I hear ya. I can see how you got there.
Kyle to me is far superior to Jimmy on all levels. The problem I see is that people get triggered( not you) by how emphatic and strong progressives tend to be. We actually welcome the fight, but MOST moderates don't relish the fight for progress, they settle for incrementalism. The Incrementalism that gives us morons like Trump, and corruption of power in the Democratic party, and Republic party.

[numberthirty]

You've never heard of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? Why do you hold up these impossible standards that, supposedly, your own politicians can't touch the coat tails on? Why couldn't we have had President Bernie Sanders in '16, or a Blue wave made entirely from Justice Democrats in '18?

Sure. That doesn't mean that was who you were talking about.

Again, tell me how likely it is that you can duplicate the exact conditions of the races they won in come this fall?

[Steel Inquisitor]

Since you are not, I still have to believe that you have no way of discounting that a primary win is a less than solid indicator. You seemingly have reasons why you think that they lost, but nothing other than that.

The loss is still an indicator that a primary win is right around a "Maybe?" when it comes to your chances of winning a General(obviously applies to both parties)

Why do you think leftists can't win primaries? Why haven't we had a socialist president or majority congress?

[numberthirty]

Why do you think leftists can't win primaries? Why haven't we had a socialist president or majority congress?

Again, this has nothing to do with a primary win being an indicator that is "Good" or "Not Good" when it comes to a politician's chance at winning a General.

[Tazirai]

I don't recall threatening to 'not vote Bernie' over Rogan. I said it was a terrible look for Bernie to broadcast his endorsement, though, and that seems to've largely been the position taken by most people here. Same about Bloomberg: if he wants to help, great, but he's shitty and most of us would never vote for him. Trading an incompetent racist rich white guy for a dangerously competent racist rich white guy one was never a good idea. We can thank Warren for her help ending him.

Sanders absolutely should never have embraced a guy known for transphobia and racism, though, and not broadcasted the endorsement of a guy who compared black people to apes. Guess we saw how that worked out for him with the votes of of black people across the country.

Agree and disagree. Because not all Blacks voted for Biden, at least give Bernie some credit. Just say OLDER blacks and you'd be correct. All blacks is hella wrong, last time I checked I was one.

Bloomberg spoke at the 2016 DNC.

The position of the Democratic party is that he is a great man the voters should listen to.

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/123028...tic-convention

Democrats like power as much as the GOP. They are corrupt, but not nearly as much as the GOP. The Democratic party can be salvaged, but moderates gotta be reduced in number.

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.

Fair Take, and I agree Warren will not endorse Bernie, she burned that bridge.

The Democrats being hypocritical over this would be an angle to mine, except you're whitewashing Rogan and ignoring your own and Sanders own hypocrisy on this subject. This isn't about whether those two are bad people, they are, it's take a cheap shot at the Democrats.

Rogan did this, why are you defending him? He's not progressive, he's Libertarian.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...an-endorsement



Did Rogan's mythical voters show up or did Sanders boost Rogan for nothing?



Maybe he will, but he'll have a better chance at winning then Bernie Sanders. He's not going to randomly praise Stalin in the middle of a presidential debate.



You don't need to bookmark anything, you're just admitting where you'e always stood with the party.

There's a reason I barely respond to you. Didn't you want me to not do that? Anyway, I'm not defending Rogan, never did. I'm calling out the hypocrisy of the Democrats. Because they LOVE money. Do you think if Joe Rogan was tossing millions at them they'd try to slam him? Please. Democrats care about power, and Bloomberg gives them that even with all his and Bidens racial issues.

[Tazirai]

Not going to happen. The Democratic Party will not have a ticket with two people both over 70 years old. Even Bernie Sanders knows this.

Agreed.


In Other news, Biden Broads are out attacking a black woman over Doctor King, this is not a good look for him, he needs to start reigning his supporters in.

Nina Turner vs. Hilary Rosen: "How Dare You, As A White Woman" Tell Me How To Interpret MLK Jr.

Rosen told Turner, a black woman, that Martin Luther King Jr. never said to be concerned about white moderates, he said to be worried about the "silence of white moderates.

"Don't tell me about Martin Luther King Jr. Are you kidding me?" Turner said.

Turner told Rosen not to tell what King meant and explained that the "white moderates" passage was about those who are bystanders that are okay with not changing the status quo.

"What Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about, he said it is the point that the white moderate wants things to be comfortable instead of focusing in on the bigger threat is not necessarily the white KKK member but more the white moderate that is more comfortable with keeping things the same," Turner said.

Rosen, a white woman, responded by telling Turner not to use MLK against Biden, going as far as to say she does not "have the standing" to do such a thing.

Not a good look for Biden, His Broads and bros are gonna act like this... Might turn some folks away.