-
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.
Pelosi, Schumer, Buttigieg and other Dems have undisclosed meetings on "what to do about Bernie"
- Thread starter Deleted member 198
- Start date
- Status
Seems like the Dem Leaders want to fuck over the field for Biden. Id highly prefer Harris or Warren based on what they've been saying but when it comes down to it, if Bernie or Joe are the final 2, i'm for Bernie.
Yea except for his national numbers being trash for such an amazing economy and his base not being anywhere near enough to secure him a second term given the razor thin margins he was able to win by in 2016 via a November surprise by Comey.
Other than basically nothing indicating he is going to win in 2020, he is going to win in 2020
What? Are you talking about Bernie Sanders? He changed his position from "All Lives Matter" after Sandra's death (and also realizing he needed to connect with black voters). And so did Clinton. She met with BLM activists after they crashed her speech and she got bad press.
No one actually cares about PoC unless we force the issue mate. They're complicit when they need to buy "working class whites" over working class blacks/Hispanics/etc. Everyone needs to pulled from center over identity politics (Which BOTH Clinton and Sanders demonized.)
Yes you are.
I think this is disingenuous, as I and any other Bernie supporter/Republican/not Clinton supporter pretty vividly remember the complete circus show of the DNC that year with some serious questions being raised about the integrity of the whole process, but I really don't care enough to retread the same arguments that happen all the time on this forum and on GAF. You're welcome and entitled to your opinion that Clinton won it in a landslide.
Whoa. what's the delegate count looking like? I hadn't realized we'd already had some primary elections.😂
No one is implying that it creates 100% assurance either, but at the same time we have to assume it influences elections, or else, why would they do it? But the insistence that it does not exist, is absurd. People also generally dislike shit like this because it promotes cronyism and corruption. In times of economic downturn, which for the vast majority of americans is happening, stuff like this leads to populist movements, as we see in both parties. The best way to avoid these populist movements is to just get rid of the cronyism, but as you may know, elections aren't inherently made on the backs of what the American public want.
I mean, perhaps if the health care industry had lobbied for incremental solutions instead of stonewalling them, they might have saved themselves? But, my personal beliefs about the health care crisis in America aside, I don't think the idea of some kind of UHC is particularly extreme? The rest of the developed world is already there. It's extreme to suggest that we should adopt a similar model here in the US?
Wasn't trying to negate what you were saying.Yes, he did campaign for her and fund raised for her (though I don't know how much), but in general he wants to put a wrecking ball into the political market.
His disservice was taking the primary fight to the convention when he was done months earlier. Lot a of precious healing time lost due to that.
It's wrong for the party to already back a candidate until the people have voted (unless it's Bernie)
You mean the circus from a handful of California Sanders Delegates booing and heckling speakers at the DNC?
Cause I remember that too
Once again hi
Like, do you honestly think had she stopped there they would've voted for her?
Let me spell it out for you plain as day:
1)Hate minorities.
2)Backbone of Democratic party is minorities.
3)Will not vote for a party that helps minorities
4)Therefore will not have voted for Hillary Clinton.
5) See 1-4.
I'm going to be blunt: anyone who understands the the five points above and still complains about Hillary being "lazy" are practically being apologists for bigots, and exonerating responsibility of their prejudicial beliefs.
These people are fucking RACIST.Clinton didn't even campaign in Wisconsin. Her campaign manager (Robbie Mook) wouldn't even supply organizers with basic campaign literature there. Ed Rendell tried to encourage the campaign to move into and start pushing toward rural white voters in Pennsylvania, but her campaign refused to do that. People still want to point the finger at Bernie or his supporters rather than the arrogant campaign that Clinton ran. Have people already forgot how she had a fireworks celebration planned weeks in advance only to cancel it as reality started setting in? Obama busted his ass on the campaign trail which completely nullified those Hillary voters who voted against him. Hillary got her ass handed to her by Trump when it came to campaigning
Like, do you honestly think had she stopped there they would've voted for her?
Let me spell it out for you plain as day:
1)Hate minorities.
2)Backbone of Democratic party is minorities.
3)Will not vote for a party that helps minorities
4)Therefore will not have voted for Hillary Clinton.
5) See 1-4.
I'm going to be blunt: anyone who understands the the five points above and still complains about Hillary being "lazy" are practically being apologists for bigots, and exonerating responsibility of their prejudicial beliefs.
Can you actually read the comment chain you're replying too instead of just assuming I'm arguing for something I'm not
You just repeated the previous post in different words. The former is not just "hyperbolic", it's also factual distortion. But you're applying charged words like "gaslighting" and "cult" specifically to the distortion from the latter.
Your initial post asked me "why can't it be both?", but now it's about how the distortion of the former is teensy-tiny and not worth discussing, while the latter is abhorrent gaslighting. It doesn't seem like YOU believe both can be true at the same time if you treat one as negligent and want to focus entirely on the other.
Yeah I'd have meetings too. You need to plan how to get his supporters into the fold after he gets beat in the primary.
Why not? It's their personal candidate selection process. Just because the parties dress it up as a sacrosanct part of the democratic process doesn't mean it is or should be treated as such.
Why not? It's their personal candidate selection process. Just because the parties dress it up as a sacrosanct part of the democratic process doesn't mean it is or should be treated as such.
because it can easily get spun into what it is currently getting spun into. And generally, the american people do not like cronyism
Other than inspire a record-breaking wave of women candidates who went on to flip the House of Representatives for the first time in 8 years, I guess
I'd say that Bernie does have an active narrative to offer. The centrist candidates are the ones whose platform is "I'm not Donald Trump"/"what are you going to do, vote for the fascists?" like Hillary then or Beto now
TERRIBLE look.
He was on a roll too. And then he does this shit.
The entire left of the party have adopted his policies and are riding his wave and this is how they repay him.
Disgusted.
It is safe to say the ratfucking began against Biden. I don't want him to compete but it is blatant how the events around him unfolded.
Me: The last Republican primary and the Democratic primary prior to the last both stand as evidence that political leadership cannot effectively control who is receives the Presidential nomination in the primaries. Political leadership's power and influence exists and is evident in other aspects of governance.
You: But it does, though.
I give up.
Y'all need to crack a damn history book every once in a while. That's really all I can say.
This is such a lazy engagement with politics, and I'm glad Bernie understands that maaaaaaybe giving these people someone more deserving to hate (I.e. the oligarchs) could potentially peel enough of them off to make a difference.
Like, nobody denies there is a huge contingent of racists that are unreachable, but if even 5-10% of them could be siphoned off to vote against their corporate masters instead of people of color - hardly an unreachable goal - it could make a huge difference.
So, yeah, Hillary campaigning there with the right message could have made a difference. This is not particularly controversial.
We have no actual quotes from these meetings, so I don't understand where you're getting some plan being hatched to destroy his candidacy. I mean, I'll vote for his crotchety ass in the general if I have to, but certainly not in the primary--which I can't vote in anyways as a registered NPA
Bernie has the best shot, but I'm confident he's not going to get the nomination for the same reason he didn't get it in 2016.
I did. I disagree that M4A is extreme. You'll still have health care providers- doctors, nurses, technicians, clerks, hospital administrators, etc. You'll still have drug companies. You'll even still have some middlemen, though they'll be government employees rather than in private industry.
Lots of people only reading sensationalized headlines. Including bernie. But hey, left eat left and the cycle continues on.
That's surprising to me because I feel like I've heard Beto O'Rourke speak a lot and never once heard him say "I'm not Donald Trump, what are you going to do, vote for the fascists?" Or in fact anything remotely close to that. Dare I say you might be just making shit up?
I can't say I blame them. Bernie is non-viable in a general election, as much as I like some of his policies.
Beleive the system would remain public, but the government will be the ones paying via the tax dollar collection, so they wouldn't actually be government employees. It would work more like the Canadian/french system?
Least, thats how I think it is.
The "why can't it be both" was about Sanders having flaws of his own while campaigning in 2016 and the party treating him like a leper. Both of those are true. It's also true that hardcore bernie fans say he was robbed, and that the party treats him like a leper.
The democratic party has more power than one candidate, so when a large party with a lot of resources is pushing that any anti-bernie feelings are really just conspiracy theories –while at the same time having meeting about what to do about him– is compared to one candidate's vocal online fans, I treat the factual distortion with more power and resources as worse. I'm speaking for what I find more harmful and insidious.
Do you find both to be equal? Why?
The health insurance industry employs a couple million people. Even if you believe doing away with that is ultimately a net good for the country, I don't know how eliminating any industry of millions of workers can be seen as anything but extreme.
- Status