All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Superbat]

I just cast my Super Tuesday vote for Bernie Sanders instead of Elizabeth Warren. Let me tell you why

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a9370766.html

After disappointing performances in the past four primaries, former mayor Pete Buttigieg and billionaire Tom Steyer announced over the weekend that they were ending their candidacies for president. Super Tuesday is just a day away and with three wins in the primaries by Bernie Sanders and one by Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bloomberg need strong performances to be able to stay in the game. I’d vote for anyone but Bloomberg, but until now my heart was torn between Sanders and Warren.

As an overseas voter and a diabolically expert procrastinator, I waited until March 1st, the day before Super Tuesday and the same day I was moving apartments, to submit my electronic ballot for the Democratic primary election. After Cory Booker dropped out of the race, I’d been on the fence up until the very last minute between Warren and Sanders. A lot of progressives share my anxiety, too. Sanders’ and Warren’s policy proposals are similar and until recently they were friends – so unless you’re a die-hard Bernie Bro or a longtime Warren fan, for example, it’s not so clear which candidate would be the best choice to beat Trump at the polls in November and the most able to bring about the changes progressives want to see.

But I finally made up my mind and I’m voting for Bernie. Let me tell you why.

In terms of policy proposals, Sanders and Warren have similar but distinguishable plans. They largely have the same end goals in mind: universal childcare; raising the minimum wage; restrictions for Wall Street; expanding free, quality public healthcare for all Americans. Basically, they both want to improve life for marginalized groups and the non-wealthy. I have always been impressed with Warren’s preparation and the detail in her plans, but on issues of foreign policy, human and civil rights, Bernie’s roots run deeper.


More importantly, Bernie Sanders has the Democratic establishment scared and that intrigues me. Back in 2016, emails were released by WikiLeaks showing a coordinated effort by the Democratic National Committee to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders for the nomination. The scandal resulted in the resignation of the Chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and gave Trump plenty of fodder to taunt Dems and Hillary Clinton on Twitter with for years to come.

The son of a Holocaust survivor, Bernie Sanders is also the only candidate who has long taken a clear pro-human rights stance on Israel’s actions that violate international law, saying he would condition the receipt of military aid on compliance with international legal norms. It’s remarkable because of his unique position as the child of survivors of the worst genocide in modern history. It’s also remarkable because it’s a hard position to take for political reasons, even if most of the world outside America is settled on issues like illegal settlements. Bernie’s willingness to criticize the Israeli state and the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a bold, courageous and deeply unpopular path to take in American politics today and I admire him infinitely for his courage.

Finally, Bernie has the turnout needed to beat Trump. Since 2016, progressive voters have been telling the Democratic establishment that another middle-of-the-road candidate isn’t going to get the turnout the party needs to beat Trump at the polls. Bernie Sanders has garnered that turnout by proclaiming a revolution for years. His steadfastness on the issues and long decades of work fighting for the rights of lower-income and middle-class Americans is unparalleled.

I agree that Warren is an underappreciated politician and it’s highly compelling that she’s a candidate many women of color support. If she weren’t up against Sanders, she would’ve had my vote from the beginning. That’s not because she’s a woman, but because of her history in academia and the way she used her platform as a Senator on issues from impeachment to consumer rights.

America learned in 2016 that voting for a woman just because she’s a woman won’t get us anywhere. Sure, Hillary was wildly more prepared for the Oval Office than former reality TV star Trump – but that wasn’t what voters were looking for; they were looking for a revolution. Like Joe Biden or Michael Bloomberg, Clinton represented the stagnation and two-faced, back-door dealing that many people identified with the old Democratic establishment. Ultimately, that didn’t inspire enough votes in the states that mattered for the Electoral College.

After the pair’s feud in the January debate, I was almost certain I would vote for Bernie over Warren. Days before, Warren had accused Sanders of saying that a woman could never be president back in 2018. There was no hard evidence to support the claim. She then refused to shake his hand at the end of the debate after he reached out to shake hers. Her accusations about Bernie were reminiscent of her similarly unfounded claims of Native American ancestry. With the support of other Native American tribes, the Cherokee Nation even wrote her an open letter bringing her attention to the damage she had done.

Let’s face it – Donald Trump won on a platform of far-right revolution. Sanders can win for the same reason, but on the left. Democrats need someone who truly inspires people and has the years of experience necessary to fundamentally change this country. That person, whether mainstream Democrats like it or not, is Bernie Sanders.

It’s a revolution on the right or a revolution on the left, but there’s no time left for things to continue down the middle. The American brand of capitalism simply hasn’t work for most folks and we need big changes on multiple fronts. Let’s hope the Dems get it right this time around, or we’ll be looking at four more years of dog-whistle support for white nationalism, tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, kids in cages and an erratic, narcissistic reality TV star with his hand on the big red button.

[aja_christopher]

He should have been kicked out after he attacked his girlfriend. Better late than never.

If he was supporting Sanders, that would have never come up and Sanders never would have made an issue of it.

Wasn't so long ago people were here defending Rogan who called black people "apes" -- which apparently was okay so long as he supported Sanders.

Selective purity tests that grade on a curve based on support for Sanders.

[Steel Inquisitor]

He should have been kicked out after he attacked his girlfriend. Better late than never.

Not a good look that not liking Sanders is the breaking point, but not domestic abuse.

[worstblogever]

Probably because he's winning and she's fourth/fifth in the polls

Pretty sure she just got pushed to at least third, what with others dropping out.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Your "point" is nonsensical.



They got numerous things done, except you want to pretend like no progress was made to look like Sanders will be on an equal playing field politically in the party, he isn't. It's not like we don't have any information to glean on, we have 8 years of Obama and Biden in office. Biden's not going into this with a blank slate.

What evidence have you provided to counter mine, or prove Sanders will be stronger in those areas? All you have is how you feel and denial, not facts.



It usually is, due to how the senate is structured.



What proof would that be? I do think someone who has a good relationship with the party and its leadership will be getting more done in congress, but when I bring it up you equate that as being equal with Sanders disaster of an administration anyone could see from Mount Everest since whatever faults Biden has Sanders are worse when it comes to governing.



The compelling reason being: you prefer Sanders over Biden. It has nothing to do with logic or facts, it's all in your gut. We aren't having a real discussion because you're not interested in having it. Anything that Biden has as an advantage in congress you're refuse to acknowledge.

Try to be more objective than we'll have a real discussion when you're up to it.



He's more like Obama in the party than Sanders is, but you see that as a positive for Sanders.

"You're point is nonsensical". Oh it makes perfect sense, you realized that along time ago. Pretending to not understand it is kind of a referendum on you.

1. Yes they got things done with a super majority that doesn't exist now. Once they lost it, any major policy they enacted got accomplished as a result of executive actions that have since been wiped out. Sanders will be able to make executive actions. He will still have the same struggles with legilature that Obama did when he got stonewalled. Biden will have the exact same issues.

2. See here's the problem here and why I have to question your reasoning abilities. I never once made an argument that Sanders would fair better. I said all things being equal I prefer Sander's policies to Biden. If they both get nothing done, I prefer Sanders getting nothing done and making his policies part of the national discussion for 4 years than Biden's policies being part of it. If they get 1% done a piece, I prefer Bernie's policy more so I want his 1% over Biden's. If they get everything done, then obviously I like Sander's policies better so I want him to get everything done over Biden. If everything's equal, I might as well go with the policy I like more because regardless I am getting more for whatever Sanders can get done vs what Biden can get done.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. You have not once provided evidence that Biden would get more done with a Republican Senate or the current structure in the House.

So yes am asking for any proof that Biden who was part of an admin with a much more popular person than he was would get more done when he got stonewalled nearly their entire administration but for the time they had a near supermajority. There isn't any. That's evidence. You make assumptions like "Sanders disaster of an adminsitration" as though they deserve to be taken at face value. That's not evidence. It's you backing up your talking points with bias, which quite frankly isn't worth anyones time. .

And no the compelling reason is that because you keep questioning Sanders ability to get things done but have not provided a single compelling piece of evidence to support that Biden or the alternative would do better.

You are quite literally projecting and then accusing me of doing the same thing that you are doing. I'm saying you didn't provide a single shred of data in your argument to support that Biden would do better so I don't have to presume to that. It's a waste of time. And frankly I don't think you know enough to actually supply it which is why you just keep going in circles rather than actually do the one thing that might be able to help your point.

I don't care when you want to decide to have a real discussion because you failed at the most basic level. You made a statement, you were questioned on the legitimacy of your opinion, you refused and failed to provide any data to suggest your opinion has merit. So you are already in the red here. You failed to prove the assumption you made, so nobody here has to take your opinion at face value. I have no reason to believe based off your argument that either would do better. And I actually was the only who gave examples based off the prior administration, the current makeup of the Congress, the current division in the Democratic Party, the state of how popular Biden is vs Obama, etc. You just keep asking me to prove a negative because you can't competently make your own argument for yourself.

You didn't need to write a novel crying about it either. If you had substance to back you up it would have been shorter and more meaningful. So I don't know what you think you are doing besides trying to make a spectacle hoping you get backup from someone.

It's silly

[Celgress]

If he was supporting Sanders, that would have never come up and Sanders never would have made an issue of it.

Wasn't so long ago people were here defending Rogan who called black people "apes" -- which apparently was okay so long as he supported Sanders.

Selective purity tests that grade on a curve based on support for Sanders.

Extremist Movements tend to categorize outsiders as friend or foe - if you agree with them or help forward their goals in any way you are a good person your other actions, no matter how heinous, are irrelevant. Everything is subordinate to the glorious cause. They are very much the ends justify the means type of crowds.

[Superbat]

If he was supporting Sanders, that would have never come up and Sanders never would have made an issue of it.

Bernie didn't make an issue of it but I see him getting kicked out as good thing.

Wasn't so long ago people were here defending Rogan who called black people "apes" -- which apparently was okay so long as he supported Sanders.

I didn't and I don't remember any of the other Bernie supporters defending him. What I remember is after that I posted about Pete tweeting out a video where he's being praised by the rapist Charlamagne and everyone that went after Bernie about Rogan stayed silent.

Selective purity tests that grade on a curve based on support for Sanders.

I don't support Rogan.

Not a good look that not liking Sanders is the breaking point, but not domestic abuse.

I agree, he should have been fired in 2014.

[aja_christopher]

I don't support Rogan.

I didn't say you did -- I said people defended him and his endorsement when he supported Sanders.

Because he could "attract" new demographics -- like people who agree with his comments regarding black people and apes.

I'm not even saying that's not your right -- just that it shows that most of these purity tests are both subjective and hypocritical.

[PwrdOn]

If they don't I'd say the two-party system has failed in this country. On one side you'll have a naked Fascist and his rabid supporters on the other side you'll have a trojan Communist and his rabid supporters. It'll be a bleak day for democracy, moderation and, quite frankly, common sense.

On one side you have a guy putting kids in cages and on the other you have a monster who wants to give everyone health care and college education. Truly like sailing between Scylla and Charybdis...

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

On one side you have a guy putting kids in cages and on the other you have a monster who wants to give everyone health care and college education. Truly like sailing between Scylla and Charybdis...

Celgress doesn't understand what communism and socialism are and thinks extending a program we already have and forgiving some debt and taxing rich people more is the same thing as seizig the means of production. But because he calls his campaign a revolution that means the policies don't matter. It's silly.

By his metric the entire Western world is communist, the USSR won the Cold War, and America's been borderline socialist since pre WWII

[Superbat]

I didn't say you did -- I said people defended him and his endorsement when he supported Sanders.

Because he could "attract" new demographics -- like people who agree with his comments regarding black people and apes.

I didn't defend him.

I remember some other people saying his endorsement would help Bernie but I don't remember anyone defending Rogan as a person or his racism, misogyny and transphobia.

I'm not even saying that's not your right -- just that it shows that most of these purity tests are both subjective and hypocritical.

Like how no one here said anything about Charlamagne and Pete, or Anita Dunn, a chief strategist for Biden's campaign that advised Harvey Weinstein when the story was about to break.

[Darkspellmaster]

On one side you have a guy putting kids in cages and on the other you have a monster who wants to give everyone health care and college education. Truly like sailing between Scylla and Charybdis...

It's not even that. Most are totally fine with those aspects of Bernie's plans. Its other things that have me pausing. For example not wanting to get rid of the Filibuster, and his stance on Gun control.

[Steel Inquisitor]

"You're point is nonsensical". Oh it makes perfect sense, you realized that along time ago. Pretending to not understand it is kind of a referendum on you.

It making sense to you and being silly to me are not mutually exclusive.

1. Yes they got things done with a super majority that doesn't exist now. Once they lost it, any major policy they enacted got accomplished as a result of executive actions that have since been wiped out. Sanders will be able to make executive actions. He will still have the same struggles with legilature that Obama did when he got stonewalled. Biden will have the exact same issues.

So back the candidate who has the absolute worst relationship with the party because you think the battle is over? At least try to work with the Democrats to do something right, Sanders is supposed to be the fighter candidate here and fighting requires working with the party. Something Biden has an advantage over him on.

This is more than just the Republicans. Biden with fight with them, Sanders with fight with them and the Democrats. How is that the superior option?

This is about congress, not executive actions.

2. See here's the problem here and why I have to question your reasoning abilities. I never once made an argument that Sanders would fair better. I said all things being equal I prefer Sander's policies to Biden. If they both get nothing done, I prefer Sanders getting nothing done and making his policies part of the national discussion for 4 years than Biden's policies being part of it. If they get 1% done a piece, I prefer Bernie's policy more so I want his 1% over Biden's. If they get everything done, then obviously I like Sander's policies better so I want him to get everything done over Biden. If everything's equal, I might as well go with the policy I like more because regardless I am getting more for whatever Sanders can get done vs what Biden can get done.

Your argument is that Sanders is the better candidate and when pressed about his vulnerabilities you go into denial. I've had to go about the implication of your argument since you refuse to address a crucial factor with the president's relational with the party as something worth acknowledging as a priority.
Except things don't become equal with that equation, you're using two standards for the candidates and Sanders wins because you like him more. That's not objective. Everything is not "equal," that's what you're not getting.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. You have not once provided evidence that Biden would get more done with a Republican Senate or the current structure in the House.

You don't think a president having a stronger relationship with Democratic party leadership is relevant to that?

So yes am asking for any proof that Biden who was part of an admin with a much more popular person than he was would get more done when he got stonewalled nearly their entire administration but for the time they had a near supermajority. There isn't any. That's evidence. You make assumptions like "Sanders disaster of an adminsitration" as though they deserve to be taken at face value. That's not evidence. It's you backing up your talking points with bias, which quite frankly isn't worth anyones time. .

I don't think Biden would get as much done as Obama but I think he has a greater shot than Sanders will. I'm not making assumptions, I'm basing that off his relationship with the party and how he's run his campaigns. You haven't provided anymore "evidence" then I have in this conversation so don't assume you've got the oral high ground on that. I'm provided an argument, you're basing it on feelings.

And no the compelling reason is that because you keep questioning Sanders ability to get things done but have not provided a single compelling piece of evidence to support that Biden or the alternative would do better.

This would be more compelling had you tried doing any of this with your argument for Sanders.
Instead I'm supposed to take your word that both have equal standardising with the party leadership based on?
Provide me with evidence that Sanders has a track record superior to Biden's with the party and making bills.

You are quite literally projecting and then accusing me of doing the same thing that you are doing. I'm saying you didn't provide a single shred of data in your argument to support that Biden would do better so I don't have to presume to that. It's a waste of time. And frankly I don't think you know enough to actually supply it which is why you just keep going in circles rather than actually do the one thing that might be able to help your point.

You've been dodging whenever I bring up Biden having a superior relationship to the party. Do you dispute this, or are you going to ignore it again? It'd help if you bothered to answer my questions about the party rather then dodging it completely. You haven't once done that. Why is that?

I don't care when you want to decide to have a real discussion because you failed at the most basic level. You made a statement, you were questioned on the legitimacy of your opinion, you refused and failed to provide any data to suggest your opinion has merit. So you are already in the red here. You failed to prove the assumption you made, so nobody here has to take your opinion at face value. I have no reason to believe based off your argument that either would do better. And I actually was the only who gave examples based off the prior administration, the current makeup of the Congress, the current division in the Democratic Party, the state of how popular Biden is vs Obama, etc. You just keep asking me to prove a negative because you can't competently make your own argument for yourself.

All I'm doing is following your lead, you're not interested in a conversation about Sanders leadership. If you dislike my argument so badly why are you continuing those tactics yourself? How are you arguing any differently? Where have you done this? I didn't see any links or relevant information. You haven't bothered clearly up the discrepancies between how the party views Biden and Sanders. All you do is compare Biden to Obama, when nobody is arguing that he'll do more than Obama the argument was that he'll do more than Sanders.

If sanders has a stronger relationship than Biden it should be easy to come up with like to prove it, it's only a negative if you can't do it.

You didn't need to write a novel crying about it either. If you had substance to back you up it would have been shorter and more meaningful. So I don't know what you think you are doing besides trying to make a spectacle hoping you get backup from someone.

It's silly

I'm not the one making a spectacle here. An argument requires addressing a strong case for your opinion, you've provided the emotional aspect, the factual basis is lacking.

[aja_christopher]

I didn't defend him.

I remember some other people saying his endorsement would help Bernie but I don't remember anyone defending Rogan as a person or his racism, misogyny and transphobia.

Like how no one here said anything about Charlamagne and Pete, or Anita Dunn, a chief strategist for Biden's campaign that advised Harvey Weinstein when the story was about to break.

I didn't say anyone supported his racism -- just that purity tests didn't apply to him with regards to his endorsement.

And I couldn't care much less what other people said about Charlamagne -- it just shows you and Sanders aren't any better than others in that regard.

[Celgress]

Celgress doesn't understand what communism and socialism are and thinks extending a program we already have and forgiving some debt and taxing rich people more is the same thing as seizig the means of production. But because he calls his campaign a revolution that means the policies don't matter. It's silly.

By his metric the entire Western world is communist, the USSR won the Cold War, and America's been borderline socialist since pre WWII

You are the one who doesn't understand, friend. Say Sanders & co get their revolution, I hope for your sake you never run afoul of your brethren by saying or doing something they don't approve of. If you do, you'll soon learn what authoritarianism (Fascism and Communism) is all about firsthand.