• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
Kinda odd to announce in an interview, instead of a rally.

Also, the outside possibility that he announces he's not running.

Bernie's a weird dude when it comes to announcing, the previous one was in the middle of nowhere in front of the press. lol

I find the problem with "pragmatism" is that it implies the existence of a "correct" goal when the goal is often relatively vague and undefinable.

If your goal is to get elected, and you make promises you can't keep in the service of that, like, just a random suggestion I'm pulling out of the blue, building a wall across the southern border to curb illegal migrants, and making these promises successfully fulfills your goal of being elected, despite your promises being illusory for the most part and basically nonviable, what was "pragmatic" here? Keeping your promises or getting elected? Which is to say, if blood-and-soil populism actually gets you into power (assuming this is your goal), how is it not "pragmatic"? And if it is "pragmatic", then what virtue is "pragmatism" if it can be used for good ends and for bad ends?

Really makes you think.

Pragmatism is the key to legislation in congress regardless of what the goal is and some are more difficult to pass then others. That's wy it's the correct route. Making massive sweeping changes through congress is a non-starter for everyone, unless they have the votes to pass it and Bernie usually doesn't. That's why he's the amendment king, not he sweeping changes king. This is about process.

Don't operate like Trump is the norm, he isn't. Certainly not for Democrats, unlike the right we actually care about governing and politicians upholding their promises, sometimes to a flawed degree which the GOP takes advantage of. Look at how the left, the party and the media scolded Obama for not being able to accomplish the change he swore to uphold in Washington, and ignored the fact the majority of his terms were blocked in record numbers by the GOP via obstruction. That can very easily happen to Bernie. Not accomplishing things depresses turnout for the left, rather than embolden it. We're not Republicans, who don't even believe in the wall. The best politicians get elected and accomplish their goals in congress, which is why it's crucial they must oversell things because Bernie failing to get free college would be devastating to his rank and file if he can't do it. They're not riding his coattails to spite the GOP, they want action.

Of course, this argument brings into question - if you think Bernie has no hope in achieving anything why are you voting for him? You'd get the same result with Kamala or Warren being POTUS.

Popularism is vastly more popular on the right than it is on the left, otherwise Bernie would have had higher chances of becoming the nominee rather than simply being a sacrificial lamb to the all consuming centrist because centrists play to win rather than fucking around for 40 years.

Getting into power is one thing, getting things done while in power is quite another. That requires being pragmatic and compromising because presidents aren't kings. They have to work with congress, and those who don't have trouble governing - like Trump is doing. His congress is a disaster because despite holding the majorities and the presidency he fails to get numerous bills through due to the infighting and having bad leaders. They weren't smoothly shoving everything through congress like W. was.

I think that, in many ways, Bernie represents a positive future of the Democratic vision.

Although his age is a legitimate problem and he would really need to pick a good VP because we dont want another Truman situation.

Nah, AOC does. She's the true manifestation of socialism in the party's future. Bernie did his bit in '16, now he needs to give the torch to Warren since he's abysmal about growing the socialist branch for POTUS candidates through his decades in office.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
If what they want is stupid/unrealistic, then pragmatism would be to refuse. It is like with a baby... it may want to climb the stairs, but I will refuse for the sake of averting pain and medical procedures.

KLOBUCHAR 2020: YOU ARE A BABY WITH A DEATH WISH PLEASE SHUT UP ABOUT HEALTH CARE
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
I find the problem with "pragmatism" is that it implies the existence of a "correct" goal when the goal is often relatively vague and undefinable.

If your goal is to get elected, and you make promises you can't keep in the service of that, like, just a random suggestion I'm pulling out of the blue, building a wall across the southern border to curb illegal migrants, and making these promises successfully fulfills your goal of being elected, despite your promises being illusory for the most part and basically nonviable, what was "pragmatic" here? Keeping your promises or getting elected? Which is to say, if blood-and-soil populism actually gets you into power (assuming this is your goal), how is it not "pragmatic"? And if it is "pragmatic", then what virtue is "pragmatism" if it can be used for good ends and for bad ends?

Really makes you think.
Over-promising isn't pragmatic if it screws your electoral chances every 2-4 years. Which, hey, actually goes along with your Trump parallel now that the House has flipped after 2 years of broken promises. And I seem to recall something similiar happening to the last president with promises... Not to mention if you're not getting the most votes even while over-promising there's absolutely no case to be made for the pragmatism of it.
 

y2dvd

Member
Nov 14, 2017
2,481
Bernie got less votes among older voter compared to younger ones. He got less votes among black voters compared to white ones. And those effects stacked. His numbers have not improved relative to '16, they've actually cleaved by 2/3ds compared to where he was one on one vs Hillary.

Arguing that Clinton's name value is what won it for her when Bernie won 50% of white voters is incredibly insulting to black voters. If you don't realize what you're saying, take a step back and look at the implications.

You are also misinterpreting the polling. Bernie polls better among minorities overall than white people because minorities are more likely to be Dems/left-leaning. Not because they're his primary base of support in an internal party primary.

Explain why Clinton was able to garner so much support from black voters then. I'll take a back seat.
 

lidmat

Banned
Jun 18, 2018
502
KLOBUCHAR 2020: YOU ARE A BABY WITH A DEATH WISH PLEASE SHUT UP ABOUT HEALTH CARE

How realistic is it to raise taxes beyond pre-tax cut levels to pay for medicare-for-all? I think the corporate tax cut was beneficial since it makes companies consider investing more capital (and thus have more employment/labor) domestically, rather than go to other countries. Even if you find the political will to remove the individual tax cuts, you'd have to charge people abhorrent rates (>70%) to cover the additional federal government costs.

The idea is stupid as hell.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I think the corporate tax cut was beneficial since it makes companies consider investing more capital (and thus have more employment/labor) domestically, rather than go to other countries
Is this a real post and not satire?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/...e-corporate-behavior-heres-what-happened.html

Trump's Tax Cut Was Supposed to Change Corporate Behavior. Here's What Happened.
Nearly a year after the tax cut, economic growth has accelerated. Wage growth has not. Companies are buying back stock and business investment is a mixed bag.

And some other pieces:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.38cb21845e72
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-14/trump-tax-cut-turns-out-both-better-and-worse

Even WSJ is less optimistic than you:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-year-later-benefits-from-corporate-tax-cut-seem-muted-11545494400
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
17,251
Sydney
How realistic is it to raise taxes beyond pre-tax cut levels to pay for medicare-for-all? I think the corporate tax cut was beneficial since it makes companies consider investing more capital (and thus have more employment/labor) domestically, rather than go to other countries. Even if you find the political will to remove the individual tax cuts, you'd have to charge people abhorrent rates (>70%) to cover the additional federal government costs.

The idea is stupid as hell.

2u1bio.jpg
 

lidmat

Banned
Jun 18, 2018
502
Is this a real post and not satire?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/...e-corporate-behavior-heres-what-happened.html

Trump's Tax Cut Was Supposed to Change Corporate Behavior. Here's What Happened.
Nearly a year after the tax cut, economic growth has accelerated. Wage growth has not. Companies are buying back stock and business investment is a mixed bag.

And some other pieces:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.38cb21845e72
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-14/trump-tax-cut-turns-out-both-better-and-worse

Even WSJ is less optimistic than you:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-year-later-benefits-from-corporate-tax-cut-seem-muted-11545494400

"Companies are buying back stock and business investment is a mixed bag. "

So you're saying some companies already made higher investments domestically. And after the short-run high resulting in stock buyback, companies will have more money availed to them through the tax cut. They can't keep buying back stocks forever.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
"Companies are buying back stock and business investment is a mixed bag. "

So you're saying some companies already made higher investments domestically. And after the short-run high resulting in stock buyback, companies will have more money availed to them through the tax cut. They can't keep buying back stocks forever.
It will likely take years to get a better sense of whether the law fundamentally reshaped American corporate investment. But there's little clear evidence that it is drastically reshaping the way in which most companies invest and spend.

The results of a survey published in late October by the National Association for Business Economics showed that 81 percent of the 116 companies surveyed said they had not changed plans for investment or hiring because of the tax bill.

Many companies also said they would use tax savings to create jobs. But the Just Capital research finds that, since the tax cuts were passed, the 1,000 largest public companies have actually reduced employment, on balance. They have announced the elimination of nearly 140,000 jobs — which is almost double the 73,000 jobs they say they have created in that time. About half of those net losses came from companies in the restaurant and leisure industries, the analysis found.

Nearly a year after the cuts were signed into law, wage growth has yet to pick up when accounting for inflation. In September, the Labor Department reported that inflation-adjusted wages had risen 0.5 percent from the year before. That's a slower rate of growth than the economy itself experienced in September 2017, when it was 0.6 percent.

Growth has accelerated in nominal terms. Median wage growth was 3.5 percent in September, according to calculations by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, up from 3 percent in January, but still below its recent highs in 2016. Growth in the Employment Cost Index rose from 2.9 percent at the end of 2017 to 3 percent in the third quarter.

By Republicans' own economic theories, it should take a while for corporate tax cuts to translate into higher worker pay. First, the cuts need to stimulate increased capital investments, which in turn raise worker productivity. More productive workers would then see their wages rise accordingly.

I mean I didn't think I'd be discussing supply-side economics here but this is the state of politics now, I guess.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Explain why Clinton was able to garner so much support from black voters then. I'll take a back seat.
Because her husband was absurdly popular among black voters, she had campaigned to and worked with those communities along Bill for over three decades, and she was the Secretary of State to the nation's first black President, as well as that President's preferred successor. Oh and her first gig out of college the summer before law school was going undercover to expose racist private schools in the south.

Bernie, by contrast, has represented the second-most-white state in the country for literally his entire political career and prior to 2016 never once had to campaign to a significant minority constituency to win election. Ever. And it showed, and his campaign, rather than listen to the people who understood the electoral math and the prior election (Obama beat Hillary despite losing white voters because he won 90% of Black voters) showed that even with Bernie going even w/ white voters, that was not good enough to win, simply ignored them and did what was comfortable for him the rest of the campaign- avoiding the South the rest of the campaign. (A mistake Hillary would repeat in the general.)

This is not some difficult to grasp thing, this comes from just following her career trajectory.
 

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,841
I don't know if I like Warren weaponizing her dog for her campaign.



But I sure like Bailey! What a good boy.
 

Deleted member 24149

Oct 29, 2017
2,150
As long as the officially good boy doesn't end up in a doggy cage on top of a car.

I'm going to need some doggos to get through the next two hell years.
 
OP
OP
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
How realistic is it to raise taxes beyond pre-tax cut levels to pay for medicare-for-all? I think the corporate tax cut was beneficial since it makes companies consider investing more capital (and thus have more employment/labor) domestically, rather than go to other countries. Even if you find the political will to remove the individual tax cuts, you'd have to charge people abhorrent rates (>70%) to cover the additional federal government costs.

The idea is stupid as hell.

Sorry, I think you must've gotten lost on the way to the Republican Presidential Primary OT.
 

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,841


I'm gonna need every candidate to have a dog.

I hadn't heard about Bailey until now.

Dogs 100% know who is a good person and Warren is certified to be a good person..
 

Soul Skater

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,201
Pragmatism is refusing to give the voters what they want
Hillary's "no we can't" campaign finished with like 56% of the vote last cycle. So I think a decent amount of people who vote democrat actually don't want a lot of the things we want. I think we actually overestimate how liberal the party in total is. Dems who went far left in the midterms regularly disappointed in the primaries and moderate messaging is largely what flipped the house. But we'll see I guess
 

Deleted member 24149

Oct 29, 2017
2,150
Hillary's "no we can't" campaign finished with like 56% of the vote last cycle. So I think a decent amount of people who vote democrat actually don't want a lot of the things we want. I think we actually overestimate how liberal the party in total is. Dems who went far left in the midterms regularly disappointed in the primaries and moderate messaging is largely what flipped the house. But we'll see I guess

The trend is more more democrats identifying as liberal but there is a conservative/moderate base that exists. I don't think more moderate messaging is what flipped the house. I just think 2 years of Trump was enough motivation to get democrats out in force.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-democrats-now-identify-as-liberal/
 

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,841
Hillary's "no we can't" campaign finished with like 56% of the vote last cycle. So I think a decent amount of people who vote democrat actually don't want a lot of the things we want. I think we actually overestimate how liberal the party in total is. But we'll see I guess

She got 48.18% of the popular vote, versus 46.09% from Trump.

There's an argument to be made that a more "pragmatic" campaign means less enthusiasm which causes less people to want to come to the polls.
A segment of the population recognize that fundamentally the current system isn't working, and they would be more willing to vote for anything that changes the current system, which unfortunately included Trump.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
17,251
Sydney
Hillary's "no we can't" campaign finished with like 56% of the vote last cycle. So I think a decent amount of people who vote democrat actually don't want a lot of the things we want. I think we actually overestimate how liberal the party in total is. Dems who went far left in the midterms regularly disappointed in the primaries and moderate messaging is largely what flipped the house. But we'll see I guess

That was years ago. M4A is now incredibly popular amongst Dem voters.

There's a reason virtually everyone who is running has endorsed it as policy.
 

Papaya

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
2,475
California
I hope Bernie announces tomorrow. I might donate a little bit to his campaign, if he does. Saw an interview with him the other day, and he's still got it. His messaging is still spot on, and better than a lot of the other candidates, IMO. Kamala is the best, in the traditional sense, but Bernie has a certain appeal that a lot of people like (me included). This primary is very interesting, and we're in a much better spot than last year (where it was just Hillary and Bernie). Most the candidates this time around are much better than Hillary, IMO.

I think Schultz is gonna ruin it for all of us, though. Biden is the only one that seems to be able to take both them out, at the same time (Schultz wouldn't run if Biden ran, anyway). Trump for another 4 years cause I don't think Biden is making it out ;(

I'm not going to push for him to win, either.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
The trend is more more democrats identifying as liberal but there is a conservative/moderate base that exists. I don't think more moderate messaging is what flipped the house. I just think 2 years of Trump was enough motivation to get democrats out in force.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-democrats-now-identify-as-liberal/

"Liberal" is very broad term, which applies to virtually everyone aside from the conservative Dems. The leftists lost the majority of their seats in the mid-terms, as well. Everyone assumes the current GOP will motivate voters to go in force, rarely is that the case. Not every election is a wave election.
 

henlo_birb

Member
Dec 15, 2017
1,885
I really like Yang. I hope his platform can grow so people don't immediately write him off as a non-serious candidate. He's popping up more and more, so I have hope that will be the case. The more I hear from him, the more I like him. His arguments are sound and he's approaching things from a different angle. He's very open to answering questions and answering them directly. More than any other candidate he makes me want to get active.
 

Deleted member 1445

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,140
How realistic is it to raise taxes beyond pre-tax cut levels to pay for medicare-for-all? I think the corporate tax cut was beneficial since it makes companies consider investing more capital (and thus have more employment/labor) domestically, rather than go to other countries. Even if you find the political will to remove the individual tax cuts, you'd have to charge people abhorrent rates (>70%) to cover the additional federal government costs.

The idea is stupid as hell.
What? Stupid? You have an entire era where tax rates were beyond "abhorrent", according to you, yet it was as prosperous as can be. There's undeniable proof that it's stupid not to do it.

How did you get to the point where you deny all evidence and suddenly say the proven thing is stupid, instead of the other way around??
 
Nov 20, 2017
3,613
Making it official:



"We have got to look at candidates not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or gender, and not by their age. I think we have got to try to move us toward a nondiscriminatory society that looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for."
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,484
"We have got to look at candidates not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or gender, and not by their age. I think we have got to try to move us toward a nondiscriminatory society that looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for."

We'll stop looking at those things when they're no longer relevant factors to marginalized groups. Until then, a candidate's race, gender, sexual orientation and age will matter.

I understand this argument benefits candidates who aren't minorities the most, but it's just a bad answer and is one reason that I won't be voting for him in the primaries, even though he's the candidate I'm most ideologically aligned with. Having said that, if he's the nominee, I'll do everything in my power to get him elected.
 

NoName999

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,906
"We have got to look at candidates not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or gender, and not by their age. I think we have got to try to move us toward a nondiscriminatory society that looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for."

Nice to see that he still hasn't learned despite having two years to stop putting his foot in his mouth. TWO YEARS!
 

AdrianG4

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
565
Nice to see that he still hasn't learned despite having two years to stop putting his foot in his mouth. TWO YEARS!

You don't think that Obama and other Democratic politicians haven't said more or less the same things in their speeches directed at the whole nation? Bernie Sanders is not excusing racism here.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,365
Probably already been discussed in here to death, but I've got to ask, does anybody think Harris is gonna be able to overcome 'phony' thing? Because from the other side of the pond, it looks like that idea's already taken hold, at least in internet circles, alongside the 'cop' narrative.

It just seems eeirily similar to how the narrative coalesced around Hillary and there didn't seem any way to fight it. Though it is still early days.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,484
Nice to see that he still hasn't learned despite having two years to stop putting his foot in his mouth. TWO YEARS!

Yes and no. He's definitely directly addressing some of the concerns of minorities with his platform now, but he's also trying to make the argument that people should gloss over the fact that he's an old white man, which is ridiculous.
 

OmniOne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,063
I for one hope we learn how much of Bernie's vote in 2016 was simply 'not Hillary' sooner than later.

I'd put money on Bernie, whether it's his intention or not, handicapping whomever our nominee is.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
👏 WE 👏 DEMAND 👏 MORE 👏 POLITICAL 👏 DOGS 👏
I can agree with that. If we're gonna see cringey as hell attempts to connect with voters, may as well show off some doggos at the same time.

How realistic is it to raise taxes beyond pre-tax cut levels to pay for medicare-for-all? I think the corporate tax cut was beneficial since it makes companies consider investing more capital (and thus have more employment/labor) domestically, rather than go to other countries. Even if you find the political will to remove the individual tax cuts, you'd have to charge people abhorrent rates (>70%) to cover the additional federal government costs.

The idea is stupid as hell.

Ha. Yeah, no. That tax cut didn't do shit to boost the economy. I bet you're also concerned about the debt but think raising taxes to pay for it is a no-no. If you're gonna call something stupid at least do some basic research.

The trend is more more democrats identifying as liberal but there is a conservative/moderate base that exists. I don't think more moderate messaging is what flipped the house. I just think 2 years of Trump was enough motivation to get democrats out in force.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-democrats-now-identify-as-liberal/

It really doesn't matter what dems identify as. Voters as blocks don't really hold concrete policy positions, just vague ones, and this isn't even an America only thing.

Terms like liberal, left, centrist are just buzzwords to the people that identify themselves as such as voting blocks. They don't know what it means to be any of those things. Hell, you have people that think they're fiscal conservatives that consider raising taxes to get rid of debt to be off-limits, which means they're not actually fiscal conservatives!

But, yeah, I agree that two years of Trump flipped the House. But so did 2 years of Obama. People are dumb, the party in power becomes complacent and also gets disillusioned if they don't get instant gratification on the promises that they were made.

She got 48.18% of the popular vote, versus 46.09% from Trump.

There's an argument to be made that a more "pragmatic" campaign means less enthusiasm which causes less people to want to come to the polls.
A segment of the population recognize that fundamentally the current system isn't working, and they would be more willing to vote for anything that changes the current system, which unfortunately included Trump.

I mean, Hill had almost the same approval rating as Trump going into it. I don't think choosing Hillary as the nominee was particularly pragmatic simply because she was damaged goods before the election even started.

That was years ago. M4A is now incredibly popular amongst Dem voters.

There's a reason virtually everyone who is running has endorsed it as policy.

The term's popular but when you dig into it with polling you find out that most people view M4A as a public option and would actually hate a single payer system that takes away their current options. Which is to say the party is really in the exact same place as they were with Obama, but like different buzzwords.

The irony is that the term being made a flexible one means the expansion of the term to mean multiple things is working in single payer advocate's favor.

Nice to see that he still hasn't learned despite having two years to stop putting his foot in his mouth. TWO YEARS!

Looks like he's not gonna change his messaging at all really, which means he'll probably get the same voting block problems.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
17,537
Will he actually release his tax returns this time?

If he is mathematically eliminated, will he stay in the race anyway?

Will he ignore black voters again?
 

Gaf Zombie

The Fallen
Dec 13, 2017
2,239
Making it official:



"We have got to look at candidates not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or gender, and not by their age. I think we have got to try to move us toward a nondiscriminatory society that looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for."


I like Bernie. But holy shit is this a tone deaf thing to say given the narrative about him not understanding minority issues. Like....wow.

boldstrategycotton.gif

Edit: Also, I'm not ashamed to admit that being older than Moses docks you a few points in my eyes. Father Time will catch up to us all, can't sugarcoat that.
 

NoName999

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,906
You don't think that Obama and other Democratic politicians haven't said more or less the same things in their speeches directed at the whole nation? Bernie Sanders is not excusing racism here.

None of the other Democrats other than Cory "put yourself in a white person's shoes who wonders why blackface is wrong" Booker had constantly put their foot in their mouth on social issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.