You mean "inoculated with this vaccine".and how many generations were poisoned by this smut?
-
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.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Does this mean you regret accusing Bernie supporters of being Russian trolls?
and how many generations were poisoned by this smut?
Not enough
Smut, for lack of a better word, is good.and how many generations were poisoned by this smut?
Saying that all those who were in the Bernie or Trump camp were/are all racist is simply wrong. Sure there was/is a large block who probably are/were, but if you actually had a reasonable amount of personal interaction with that voter block youd see that many of that group wanted change from the status quo. Hillary at the time was the epitome of the status quo. Trump being a non politician and outsider along with being the only other option vs Hillary created a black swan type situation.
The majority of the Bernie/Trump block were past Obama voters. They voted for change. They were a disenfranchised voting block trying to find someone to change the system and move the needle away from the status quo. At the time Bernie and Trump had that vibe and persona.
Bernie still has that vibe to a degree and he should take advantage of that. However the level of distrust and the increased division Trump (as well as the media) has created, manipulated or amplified has complicated things. There's a change in the mass psyche that has taken hold these past few years from all of this unfortunately.
In what way?
I haven't heard it brought up before in any conversations.
My opinion currently is that she was naive in believing a family rumor and carried it forward into young adulthood and wore it outwardly in her early career. On some level it seems she knew it wasn't true or of significant consequence to her life to try to benefit by taking advantage of any financial or placement opportunities. As she matured she dropped it. Obviously she didn't completely disbelieve and had that DNA fiasco but she apologized and seems to have learned more. If she talks about reconciliation while reparations are in the national conversation she might have an opportunity to address this again and maybe the aspect about white feminism you're referring to.
Harris is taking back her full support for M4A and mentioned being open to other options. Bernie's base wants full support of it full stop. She rejects being a Democratic socialists, something Bernie and AOC embraces (yes I know they are actually social democrats). I don't deny that Harris have moved left on a lot of positions, but I think she will be seen as playing lip service. The M4A comment comes off wishy washy and will be applied elsewhere. I honestly believe she fucked up there and other candidates as well when trying to court Bernie's base. The pick will be someone completely unabashed to Bernie's platform.
Trump openly embraced racism on the campaign trail. It was the centerpiece of his entire campaign.
No one voted for Trump and was in the dark they were voting for a racist running on a platform of racism.
I don't think we can honestly say there are any innocent Trump voters here.
All of them fall into two camps. Racists, or people who knew he was racist and didn't care.
OP
OP
I don't think anybody has claimed that every Bernie supporter was racist. That would be kind of wild.
Every Trump supporter is racist though and being an apologist for them is also kind of racist not gonna lie
VP picks are about picking someone who helps where you are weakest for coalition building reasons, you don't pick someone identical to yourself.
It's a mistake to assume Bernie winning would have guaranteed a win.
They don't know what they want, they're swing voters who don't pay attention to politics and are more political conservative than they think. Hillary tried to give them what they said they wanted but they didn't want actual fixes in reality they wanted a con man selling snake oil because they didn't want to deal with the real world and improve themselves in the process.
Bernie's stock and trade in the primaries was encouraging this division, and this occurs with his base to this day. Except unlike Trump his goal was making sure left leaning voters hatred and distrusted the system, because it was his brand to do so. This is why a key word among his speeches is "revolution" rather than "reform." They want to bury the Dems and replace them, and they're not thinking about the consequences leading to this or how vulnerable it makes the Dems while Trump and the GOP are out there.
It's not really a chance per se, these people have alway been there - just under the surface. Trump and Bernie simply bought them into the parties and into the media spotlight.
He's going for someone with identical values but is of opposite identity.
Most of the party is not democratic socialist, even if he won with a plurality.
It's why crazy populist Trump picked white bread evangelical Pence.
Coalition building is essential in winning elections.
Bernie's base is backing a guy who expects to pass m4a without nuking the filibuster so I have little faith in the actual progressive results of a Bernie presidency until he changes his tune about that. What's the point of voting for someone who has an unwaivering stance on M4A but also thinks the way it will pass is by 8-9 Republicans voting for it?
Can't speak for anyone but myself but...
He's a shameless opportunistic politician making a power grab by promising ideals that he does not even have the fundamental basis or understanding of how to actually pass.
His supporters pushed a narrative that the DNC rigged the system against...someone who refused to claim they are a Democrat unless it suits his egotistical attempt to ride to the white house.
If Bernie Sanders was this firebrand politician who wanted to spark a revolution, he would've ran as what he is, an independent. But he didn't. Because he knew he'd have no chance. Which makes me think he's not just crazy old Bernie, he has some sense of pragmatism. Which then leads me to believe, he's not naive. He just thinks everyone else is.
Then his pushing of ignorance about "too big to fail" and "glass seagall needs to be re-enacted" which continue to ignore what caused the financial crisis.
Ugh. He is Trump, writ small. Go Kamala.
Bernie finally took one step on his "redemption" path for me tonight. Not sure how forgiving people elsewhere will be. A begrudging and irritated preamble to get out of the way that he "endorsed Hillary remember and tried to help." But he volunteered it. Wasn't a question.
If he
a) addresses the crazy fringe pretend Bernie Bots and acknowledges Russian meddling properly and seriously.
b) tries to be a bridge between fractious democrats instead of a lever.
c) releases his taxes properly.
Then I will relax instead of thinking he's just going to be the main entry point for dishonest actors and party infighting.
He's got some way to go on race baggage and some gun pandering but his team and attitude seem to acknowledge that. I can live with his party allegiance carpetbagging because any independent would have to run that way. Bernie's problem in 2016 was that he wanted it both ways and did nothing to curb the nastier parts of his following or ever properly admit that he'd eventually been hijacked as a vehicle to run Hillary over with.
If he
a) addresses the crazy fringe pretend Bernie Bots and acknowledges Russian meddling properly and seriously.
b) tries to be a bridge between fractious democrats instead of a lever.
c) releases his taxes properly.
Then I will relax instead of thinking he's just going to be the main entry point for dishonest actors and party infighting.
He's got some way to go on race baggage and some gun pandering but his team and attitude seem to acknowledge that. I can live with his party allegiance carpetbagging because any independent would have to run that way. Bernie's problem in 2016 was that he wanted it both ways and did nothing to curb the nastier parts of his following or ever properly admit that he'd eventually been hijacked as a vehicle to run Hillary over with.
Neither Kirblar nor I is saying that. We are specifically talking about the Bernie > Trump voters and how they weren't an insignificant part of Bernie's "base" even though they were a minority.
I am pro-Bernie and will support him in the primaries, though I hate his filibuster stance. Seriously, almost kills my support for him, but I dont think any of the other serious contenders would nuke it either. I have no one else to flock to.
Warren and Buttigieg have both expressed an openness to getting rid of it, and in more certain terms than Gillibrand's "I mean, I guess I'll think about it" stance.
True but being loudest and first helps, because voters know your not a band wagoner. Of course you need what ever legislative jiu jutsu people do to get shit passed but you also need to fire up the base and get them to support it. This is why Bernies and others push for $15 min wage was successful, grass roots activism and the policy actually being popular.
I agree. If he addressed those 3 things in addition to working much harder on not being so tone deaf on race issues I would be a lot less concerned about him leading the party off a cliff.
I honestly *want* to be okay with Bernie, he just has a lot of work to achieve this.
Why would he pick someone that he probably views as an establishment when he is wanting to buck that trend? I don't remember this coalition building talk in 2016 so I don't get why it's getting brought up now. Get on board is essentially the sentiments. I don't want a VP that's wishy washy with all of the policies that attracted me to a candidate in the first place. Makes no sense.
This is why Warren is my #1. She's got the policy and the guts to do what she's got to in order to make it happen. You want to talk about the next FDR, well there she is.
VP picks aren't for people who are already on board with the main candidate. It's for growing the coalition behind a candidate. Pence is a prime example of this. You typically pick vp picks as bridges to shore up coalitions you don't already have in your pocket.
Biden was this for Obama as well. Was a counter for the "inexperienced outsider" concern some had with him who didn't vote for him in the primary.
If Bernie was the nominee Kamala Harris would be the betting odds favorite for VP I would think is fair to say.
Honestly, I'm not sure why he doesn't want to nuke the filibuster unless he sees value in using it himself. He definitely needs to explain himself there.
I'm just saying the base don't want to hear half measures. Harris, Booker, and Warren messed up a little there by backing up from full support.
The base.....who likes Biden more than any of the candidates who are in so far lol?
You dont pick a VP to parrot your same talking points, its part of how you win the general.
LBJ was instrumental for JFK"s win back in 1960, Biden was important in 2008. Heck, Al Gore wasnt exactly a compelling pick for Clinton and it might have hurt him a lot more if the recession didnt happen just before the election.
I dont like Harris, but she would be a good pick to build bridges in the party and to also get support from demographics that arent necessarily very fond of Bernie. Thats how JFK won the South!
Candidates need both to succeed, just one won't do. Bernie's fine with the latter, not the former. Being popular means nothing without the legislation, and not everything he's done is as successful as the $15 min wage. Grass roots activism is important from outside for political pressure but it is far from the main ingredient in being a good politician.
Leftists aren't the base, and even if they were this requires coalition building which means doing things which are getting other factions in the party on board. Which entails pulling back to measures they want or feel will have a better shot at passing rather than wasting time on policies which never will get enacted. There are a lot more groups to the Dems than leftists, leave them in the cold Bernie does not get the nomination.
Last edited:
You could be right in that Harris gets picked. I just don't think it's going to play out that way as explained.
I truly don't believe Sanders would ever pick anyone he feels has attacked him in during the primary process. And Harris and the rest are not about to hit him while wearing Socker Boppers. Her own probably doesn't matter.
Because every other candidate is a fucking moron, and would get rid of it even if the republicans own the senate?
its nuts, the american people have no idea whats about to hit them
you were never going to "make america great again", that country doesn't even exist anymore, things are changing fast and people need to seriously get their shit together so we can effectively transition into it
Just an FYI, it can be passed through reconciliation. It's just such a cowardly way of going around the filibuster, when it needs to go.
I dont consider Buttigieg to be a serious contender. I wasnt aware of Warren's stance, sucks that I think she has even worse chances than Bernie in the primaries in that case.
Gillibrand, last I remembered spoke of fondness for it. As in not in full support of the filibuster, but definitely not seriously considering nuking it.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but doesn't the choice to eliminate the filibuster have to happen at the start of a congressional term? Isn't the only way Trump could get rid of it now is to win re-election, at which point our problems are a lot worse than if Bernie also suggested getting rid of the filibuster at some point?
I believe the Senate could vote to nuke it any time they wanted. Reid and McConnell both did it mid-session for judicial nominations.
I find the "Trump wants to do it so it's a bad idea" talking point kind of weak because I don't think Trump supports it on principle. He supports it right now because it would help his team. Get Democrats in the majority and he'll be singing a different tune.
To that end, the most common argument against it is "well what if the Republicans were able to pass bad legislation." Yeah? So stop electing Republicans.
No, it can be got rid of through a simple majority vote at any point the Senate decides to. Like right now, if McConnell and Republicans wanted to, they could nuke it.
You are absolutely right in your findings.
So if Trump wins his second term and all of the Democratic hopefuls were singing to this tune, he now has free reign to nuke it and his political opponents would be hypocrites if they came out against it.
Fucking leave it in for fucks sake.
My understanding is no, but I'm not versed in it at all.
Politifact seems to agree.
We know at some point that Bernie thought it was a good idea (when Dems had the Senate), so it stands to reason with the Hayes Interview, that he doesn't want to bring it up right now.
That said, there's no point in them doing so given the Dems control the House.
It's almost like he's running for president, and has to answer questions he doesn't want to, like he wanted Hillary to do about her speeches.
Im open to judging people on their legislative ability but other than Warren, who I assume Sanders would lean on if he won I dont know what the arguments would be to say someone is a better legislator.
That being said after the fillibuster comments i'd prefer Warren unless Bernie changes his mind.
There is no benefit to keeping it, it only serves to hold back progress.
If Democrats fix the House of Representatives, we wont have to worry much about Republicans pushing a lot of legislation through as the House would be a natural barrier.
With the way demographics are trending, we are looking at the very real possibility that Republicans will find it REALLY difficult to take the House and presidency.
This is of course assuming the House of Representatives is fixed to better represent population, which would also weaken gerrymandering.
How?
Yeah, they lost that chance.
You act like bernie's the only one who can see this, as if other candidates are idiots, and haven't figured any of this out.
- Status