All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Billy Batson]

And that is all he has on her. With Sanders, he'd be calling him a Commie. Crazy Bernie, and then he'd get creative.

He gives the nickname "Crazy" to people when he can't come up better material. Bernie is the only one he's afraid to run up against.

[Kieran_Frost]

I agree with much of this, but I don't think anyone is dropping out. Which is only going to make this uglier and uglier.

Question about dropping out (as it's been a long time, and I wasn't paying too much attention last two times), when do people drop out? Usually? I know a few have already, but does it change election to election based on where they are putting all their eggs in the basket? Or is Super Tuesday where the herd will whittle down to four?

So based on South Carolina, why wouldn't the candidates who've never broken into the top 3 in any of the four states not drop out by now? Or are they holding on to get the VP spot? I know it's a complex question, but would you say the over-ridding reason is a) ego, b) misguided hope things turn around, c) using the opportunity to increase their profile, d) angling for VP

Looking at the 2016 race, obviously it increased Sanders profile. But looking at the others... one of the biggest ones was Martin O'Malley, who I haven't heard of before or since. Same for Lincoln Chaffee. The name Jim Webb is ringing a bell. And looking at it, Hilary picked Tim Kaine as her VP??? So I guess that shoots my fourth option out the window...

Hmm! I must admit that hadn’t occurred to me, but yeah, you’re right, it is! Heh!

YEY! Come though, Carmela Caligula!

Attachment 93924

Failing New York Times at it again!

Genuine question, why is the New York Times bad? One of the few newspapers I've heard of.

[Tami]

I have a hypothical, unlikely as it may be.

If Sanders, for whatever reason (maybe health, who knows), suspends his campaign (drops out) before Super Tuesday, which of the remaining candidates would benefit from it the most? Biden? Warren? Buttegeig? Klobachar? Bloomberg?

[Superbat]

So based on South Carolina, why wouldn't the candidates who've never broken into the top 3 in any of the four states not drop out by now? Or are they holding on to get the VP spot? I know it's a complex question, but would you say the over-ridding reason is a) ego, b) misguided hope things turn around, c) using the opportunity to increase their profile, d) angling for VP

They want a brokered convention.

If Bernie has the most delegates but still less than 1,991, the DNC can give the nomination to someone else.

[numberthirty]

They want a brokered convention.

If Bernie has the most delegates but still less than 1,991, the DNC can give the nomination to someone else.

In addition to this, things are not "Winner Take All..."

If there is a large enough number to split the total by, things stay more competitive.

[The Darknight Detective]

They want a brokered convention.

If Bernie has the most delegates but still less than 1,991, the DNC can give the nomination to someone else.

I agree, but that is so fraught with danger. The supporters of Sanders were angry four years ago, but they would be pitchforks and torches angry if the DNC gave away his nomination. I can't see that turning into a Dem win in November.

[numberthirty]

I agree, but that is so fraught with danger. The supporters of Sanders were angry four years ago, but they would be pitchforks and torches angry if the DNC gave away his nomination. I can't see that turning into a Dem win in November.

Well, it's not exactly like the DNC is known for operating in a really sensible and down to Earth fashion.

[Kieran_Frost]

Moving the goal posts, generalising socialism to be meaningless in an effort to make it look as though any country with socialism is good and the capitalist countries are bad. "Freedom" being a word you want to be linked to the USSR but are too self ware to do this officially so its couched in terms where criticising any Communist country is the same as criticising Scandinavia. Stalin, Mao, Kim ii-Sung, Pol Pot weren't fascists to you? Your examples got defeated by the right wing, that's why socialism isn't stable, despite having long runs of success in places like Brazil. It's not the left has a good track record against the right. It's to bad when in power many of those socialist and Communist governments don't live up to their ideals of "freedom" you claim to adore.

Moving the goals posts, the argument we were having is about special Communist regimes which Sanders was supporting, being the USSR and Castro's Cuba - who have definitive ideologies. Were not discussing stateless Communism since they're irrelevant politically and Sanders isn't openly supporting them.

You know as well as I do how bad it looks to support dictatorships, which is why you're running away and obscuring your original argument and why we're having this conversation. But you can't admit you're wrong so shift the conversation to a general socialism/Communism discussion where the topics aren't so politically sensitive and won't remind people why Communism isn't liked in the West.

Which ignores the context for Sanders running for president in America, as though whatever you think applies to the global definitions matter in an election. Sanders thrives in political arena, not the revolution building one. Signalling that Sanders stands for workers and "the people" isn't a fact, it's propaganda. Except Sanders does reference support for nations like the USSR and Castro's Cuba by himself, with no prodding, if he didn't his adversaries would have less ammunition against him and would have to rely on lies rather than things he says. Why do you think they come into his ind at any stage while running for president, I don't see that going well had he did this in Scandinavia. There is no excuse for that, which you find it difficult to condemn.

You haven't acknowledged him saying those comments might be for Communists who liked Castro, and Stalin, either.

I'm always reminded of the quote by one of the greatest tennis player of all time, proud lesbian and multifaceted activist Martina Navratilova "Whenever people go into politics and they try to say that Communism was a good thing, I say, 'Go ahead and live in a Communist country then, if you think it's so great.' " She defected to America to escape communism.!

2. First off don't call me a "Bernie Bro". I went to a Warren rally last Sunday, I've campaigned in the past for Warren, I plan on voting for Warren on Tuesday.

I could see Steyer and Warren dropping out first.

he will win the biggest states up for grabs on Super Tuesday and have a huge lead AND he'll likely Warren drop out which leaves him as the loan progressive on stage.

Good to know. Interesting. I did not know you were a Warren supporter. Good to know.

To answer a question with a question...
Is that honestly the only two groups you can see winding up with a potential benefit from what you described?

Honestly, yes. Well I suppose "idiots" would be the third, people too stupid to realise how their hate and vile online behaviour is alienating possible support. But other than that, I just don't see what is achieved by being so hostile and nasty on Twitter? Those are literally the only two options I can think of a) secret Trump bot, b) hateful, nasty person who enjoys spreading bile regardless of consequence.

I know there's that myth of "no press is bad press" but it's patently not true, in specific circumstances (#MeToo proved that). So I can't image it's "getting their name out there regardless of how" (purely by reminding people how horrible Sanders supporters are, ergo Sanders gets his name out there). But hey... would love to hear the illusive fourth option...

[numberthirty]

...

Honestly, yes. Well I suppose "idiots" would be the third, people too stupid to realise how their hate and vile online behaviour is alienating possible support. But other than that, I just don't see what is achieved by being so hostile and nasty on Twitter? Those are literally the only two options I can think of a) secret Trump bot, b) hateful, nasty person who enjoys spreading bile regardless of consequence.

I know there's that myth of "no press is bad press" but it's patently not true, in specific circumstances (#MeToo proved that). So I can't image it's "getting their name out there regardless of how" (purely by reminding people how horrible Sanders supporters are, ergo Sanders gets his name out there). But hey... would love to hear the illusive fourth option...

First, I guess "Some Variation Of 'Idiot'..." could be something of a third option. While I don't exactly get being a tune up artist, I guess it's not completely outside of the realm of possibility.

As for the "Actual..." third option -

There's really not a group that could stand to gain something from doing this when you look at it? Really?

[Tami]

He gives the nickname "Crazy" to people when he can't come up better material. Bernie is the only one he's afraid to run up against.

Is that why 'Operation Chaos' was trying to get Republicans to vote for Sanders in SC? Is that why Trump congratulates Sanders on his wins?



Trump, and everyone supporting him, believe that going against Sanders is an easy win for Trump.

[Kieran_Frost]

As for the "Actual..." third option -

There's really not a group that could stand to gain something from doing this when you look at it? Really?

Nope. Still waiting to hear one...

[Billy Batson]

Is that why 'Operation Chaos' was trying to get Republicans to vote for Sanders in SC? Is that why Trump congratulates Sanders on his wins?


Trump, and everyone supporting him, believe that going against Sanders is an easy win for Trump.

He's said in private (and in public) not wanting to go against Bernie.

[numberthirty]

Nope. Still waiting to hear one...

So, there are no countries that would benefit from this sort of thing that you could think of?

[PwrdOn]

Genuine question, why is the New York Times bad? One of the few newspapers I've heard of.

I was just making a joke by calling them what Trump calls them. The (failing) NYT is mostly fine, they tend to be one of the few credible and objective news sources though just given where they are based and who writes for them, they tend to have a bit of an elitist streak and, while not as bad as the Washington Post in this regard, tend to portray pro-establishment opinions that often go against the wishes of the public at large. For example, despite their supposed liberal bias, both papers tend to run a steady stream of articles pushing an aggressive and expansionist approach to international relations, because this goes along with the so-called "bipartisan foreign policy consensus" that has been in effect for about as long as anyone can remember. In this particular case, despite the fact that they had earlier and quite comically endorsed BOTH Warren and Klobuchar for president, you could definitely tell that they were in the tank for Biden and were keen to present this as an overwhelming victory for him even without any votes being counted. Sure you could say they had exit polling data to go off of or whatever, but can you imagine them calling any race for Bernie before a single vote was counted, whatever the exit polls said?

[numberthirty]

I was just making a joke by calling them what Trump calls them. The (failing) NYT is mostly fine, they tend to be one of the few credible and objective news sources though just given where they are based and who writes for them, they tend to have a bit of an elitist streak and, while not as bad as the Washington Post in this regard, tend to portray pro-establishment opinions that often go against the wishes of the public at large. For example, despite their supposed liberal bias, both papers tend to run a steady stream of articles pushing an aggressive and expansionist approach to international relations, because this goes along with the so-called "bipartisan foreign policy consensus" that has been in effect for about as long as anyone can remember. In this particular case, despite the fact that they had earlier and quite comically endorsed BOTH Warren and Klobuchar for president, you could definitely tell that they were in the tank for Biden and were keen to present this as an overwhelming victory for him even without any votes being counted. Sure you could say they had exit polling data to go off of or whatever, but can you imagine them calling any race for Bernie before a single vote was counted, whatever the exit polls said?

"The Failing New York Times" gets thrown out there the say way he calls Warren a name that I'm not going to repeat.

It's a cheap shot he uses on the regular.