This is why republicans win. Democrats (and supporters of non-Democrats who are running on Democratic Party resources...) spend all their time attacking each other instead of focusing on the fact that Republicans keep electing despicable shitbags like this. We stab each other gleefully while the ACTUAL threat to our collective futures keeps filling positions of power and influence with the worst possible humans alive. The Purists (whatever their stripe) support third party candidates with no chance of winning, and pretend to have some Idealistic reason that doesn’t involve the probability that they will get to smugly insist for four years that THEIR candidate would have won if not for the evil Democratic Party that is just as bad as the a Republicans somehow. And when Republicans win, the purists on the left will pretend at shock that their support for splitting the left into fractured segments as opposed to a unified force had nothing to do with their insistence on idealism over practicality.
Rapid, wholesale change towards progress would be best for everyone but the rich. We all know it. And I supported Bernie in 2016, working phone banks, registering Democrat for the first time in 20 years so I could throw my support behind him in the primary. I wasn’t at ALL passionate about Hillary, and recognized her many flaws, but in NO world is she ‘just as bad as’ Trump, so I supported her when my guy didn’t get the nomination. Because I’m an adult, who cares about people, even those who didn’t support Bernie. But that rapid, desired, dreamed of change will NEVER happen, barring catastrophe, because of how the system works. Like it or not, but incremental progress is far more realistic than instant progress, and FAR more beneficial to the most people than regressivism and tax cuts for the rich. Sudden tidal changes of the sort that certain segments of the left seem insistent on supporting at any cost will NEVER take off without broader coalition support. Which some leftists refuse to accept if said support comes from the ‘impure’.
And here , just as in 2016, we have the Cult of Saint Bernardus Immaculatus out in force, doing the same thing Christians did to their messiah - turning their messiah’s reasonable, compassionate policies and teachings into weapons with which to bludgeon the infidel and force a ‘convert or die’ dialogue on the rest of us.
So, hooray...
Trump 2020 is going to happen thanks to the fracturing of the left, again, and the progress the left made in the last few decades will be rolled back under a generation of regressive judges and aggressively awful policies and laws that weaken education and destroy the safety nets and protections that disadvantaged or marginalized people rely on. And the Cult will keep blaming Hillary. Or Obama. Or whoever the not-Bernie candidate ends up being. The Cult will keep lashing out when anyone dares suggest that your myopic idealism, near-religious fervor, and desire for a fractured left has a lot more to do with it than ‘not campaigning in Montana’ or whatever...
I’ll say it again: Support whoever you want in the primary, even Bernie! Hell, I will be! I still think he’s the best, overall, on everything but foreign policy, and at least I can be assured that Bernie won’t DELIBERATELY get us into war. That’s what primaries are for!
But WHOEVER gets the nomination - even Uncle Joe - needs support from anyone who DOESN'T want that Republican dream future of the Haves and the Have-Mores despoiling the planet for profit while the rest of us scrabble for whatever scraps we can get, for their amusement and entertainment. A fractured Left WILL give us a Second Trump term. Like it or not. And I’m seeing nothing that tells me that we are anything BUT fractured, so...
Last edited by zinderel; 01-13-2020 at 06:04 PM.
No one should be said to invite smears.
This does seem to be a situation where one candidate is wrong.
If Bernie Sanders explicitly said that women can't win, and he's denying it now, he's wrong to do so.
If he said something more nuanced, or didn't anything say anything like that at all, Warren's in the wrong.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
It's not like he didn't declare Hillary Clinton "not qualified" to be president in 2016.
Or that only a few days ago, he tried claiming Warren was "the candidate of the elite", when quite the opposite is true. That ain't sexist, but it sure as f*** is dishonest.
And now we're learning he said Warren couldn't win because she was a woman in 2018.
Or that he had to go out of his way to address sexism in his campaign in 2016, to make sure the same thing wouldn't happen in 2020. The problem was, he waited until 2019 to do that... so... maybe a little to late, Bernard.
X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.
I'm not acting in bad faith, that would be you and other Bernie supporters. I do not want Bernie as the candidate, but I approach my dislike as objectively as possible. I post polls and, every other page it seems, I have to remind you of how badly he got his ass handed to him by Hillary because you're busy spinning what a great 2016 he had.
Oh....and what bothers me most? Check the next post.
Warren has explicitly said that Sanders said that a woman can't win in 2018. This isn't the same thing as having a tape recording of the conversation.
As for Warren being "the candidate of the elite," that would depend on whether anyone else does better with voters who have high incomes or postgraduate degrees.
Polls do show Warren doing well with that group.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...s-2020-1408548
Economist polls show similar results.In poll after poll, Sanders appeals to lower-income and less-educated people; Warren beats Sanders among those with postgraduate degrees.
https://projects.economist.com/democ...rimaries-2020/
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
What's gross is the fact that you dispute the story not on the merits of Bernie or the reasonableness of it...but straight to "fake news". That's what is most gross to me.
I honestly can't believe you typed this and didn't feel like Trump. That....Knight of the Lake....is what bugs me most about Bernie: his supporters have no use for truth and reality. Only what I can best describe as near idolatry.
About 9.3 percent of Americans over 25 have postgraduate degrees, and these correlate to economic success. It would seem to be an effective measure of whether someone is a candidate of the elite.
This shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. I've got a Masters, but I acknowledge that most Americans don't.
Noting candidate support among the highly educated is a tactic Trump uses, although that's more because he's a populist. As is Sanders.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
I like how you are pretending to be the unbiased one when I've literally argued for Warren over Sanders multiple times on here and plan on voting for her if she's still in the race.
Also your "next post" was really just more bad faith pretending that criticizing someone is the same as blatantly lying and saying he said something he didn't, something that he is on record saying the opposite of MULTIPLE TIMES nearly 30 years ago. It's laughable at best
You literally quoted me saying I don't like Bernie Sanders. How am I pretending to be unbiased? I just try to use evidence, not idolatry, in my reasoning.
I don't know if Bernie said that or not. But if I'm going to dispute that story, it sure as hell isn't going to be by yelling "fake news!" Yet, there are your Bernie folks doing that.
So a portion (highly educated for Warren) of a small portion (highly educated) of only a portion of the electorate (Democrats) like Warren and she is "The Candidate of the Elite" and you think that's an honest framing? I mean, it shouldn't be a bad thing...but it's clearly Bernie's intent to make it a bad thing. It's an attempt to make Warren favored by Democrats/establishment/"elites" in the more broadly meant terms.
It's totally bogus. Warren firing back for that shouldn't be all that surprising.