Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
US Presidential Election 2020
Options
Comments
-
You want to go down the policy discussion as if it matters on an Irish internet forum.
Im telling you, it doesnt.
I am discussing the electoral reality of Bernies medicare for all policy. The fact you dont even want to discuss that, says alot.
You're "telling me". Thanks for that attempt at a lecture.
So what you're telling me is policy doesn't matter a jot while at the same time saying it does matter, and then you point blank refuse to discuss the actual policy in question, perhaps because you have no opinion on it, but we know that's not true, because it's very clear from your posts that you have a very negative view of it. But why, we don't know. You won't tell us.
That's a very weak response indeed, reminiscent of an amateur political spin doctor, a very amateur one.0 -
-
sid waddell wrote: »You're "telling me". Thanks for that attempt at a lecture.
So what you're telling me is policy doesn't matter a jot while at the same time saying it does matter, and then you point blank refuse to discuss the actual policy in question, perhaps because you have no opinion on it, but we know that's not true, because it's very clear from your posts that you have a very negative view of it. But why, we don't know. You won't tell us.
That's a very weak response indeed, reminiscent of an amateur political spin doctor, a very amateur one.
You want to have a big argument on the policy specifics on a medicare for all program vs private health insurance.
I.does.not.matter.
This is the same problem Bernie has as you do, to comprehend basics.
Many many people are happy with private health insurance and don't want medicare. Many of these people are democrats and liberal middle-class folk.
You can argue till you are blue in the face that your scheme is better, but it will be hard to convince them.
The issue is the electability of someone who is so dogmatic about their own virtue and who will not move to compromise.0 -
The issue is the electability of someone who is so dogmatic about their own virtue and who will not move to compromise.
What a thoroughly stupid thing it would be to compromise, even from a negotiation standpoint.
You remain resolute on what you want. They remain resolute what they want. You meet somewhere in the middle.
So for Bernie, let's say worst case scenario he gets some Opt-in option, why on earth, or any other planet, would he start his negotiation from this middle ground?
Children know this basic negotiation tactic.0 -
You want to have a big argument on the policy specifics on a medicare for all program vs private health insurance.
I.does.not.matter.
This is the same problem Bernie has as you do, to comprehend basics.
Many many people are happy with private health insurance and don't want medicare. Many of these people are democrats and liberal middle-class folk.
You can argue till you are blue in the face that your scheme is better, but it will be hard to convince them.
The issue is the electability of someone who is so dogmatic about their own virtue and who will not move to compromise.
You say you don't want to want to argue policy, yet then you do argue policy.
You're saying that private heath insurance would be superior on a comprehensive public system.
What evidence is there to suggest that?
Again, your liberal use of thinly veiled insults and deliberate trigger words to mask a lack of argument is noted.
You talk about electability.
Why then is Bernie winning and doing better than any other candidate in polling in the key swing states?0 -
Advertisement
-
You want to have a big argument on the policy specifics on a medicare for all program vs private health insurance.
I.does.not.matter.
Are you suggesting this is the case:
If I were to sit down with someone and provide them with all the information they need, in a form which they find completely believable and irrefutable, then they would choose to maintain their current health insurance system even if they 100% without a shadow of a doubt understand the new system will be better from both a financial and health perspective?
That's the only reason I can think of that would make discussions irrelevant. I also find it difficult to believe that a majority of people given clear and believable information would choose the option which worsens their health and wealth outcomes.
My own opinion is that there's sufficient FUD being spread about public health systems that Americans in particular are unclear what the benefits are. If a clearer message could be made about the overall impact then it would absolutely get people on board.0 -
The whole American system is rigged in favour of corporations like insurance providers. Massive marketing and advertising and no regulations on such, corporate ownership of media, the influence of right-wing think tanks (which are lobby groups) with their endless "studies", the tabloid and Orwellian framing of language (the demonisation of "socialism", calling public healthcare "communism"), the wholesale buying of politicians, the mass effort to persuade people that there is no alternative, ever.Are you suggesting this is the case:
If I were to sit down with someone and provide them with all the information they need, in a form which they find completely believable and irrefutable, then they would choose to maintain their current health insurance system even if they 100% without a shadow of a doubt understand the new system will be better from both a financial and health perspective?
That's the only reason I can think of that would make discussions irrelevant. I also find it difficult to believe that a majority of people given clear and believable information would choose the option which worsens their health and wealth outcomes.
My own opinion is that there's sufficient FUD being spread about public health systems that Americans in particular are unclear what the benefits are. If a clearer message could be made about the overall impact then it would absolutely get people on board.
And every person who argues against a comprehensive public healthcare system argues through that above framework.
In the same way that Trump tries to flood the media with so much bull**** that people get confused, so does the for profit health insurance industry.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »What a thoroughly stupid thing it would be to compromise, even from a negotiation standpoint.
You remain resolute on what you want. They remain resolute what they want. You meet somewhere in the middle.
So for Bernie, let's say worst case scenario he gets some Opt-in option, why on earth, or any other planet, would he start his negotiation from this middle ground?
Children know this basic negotiation tactic.
Well what would be thoroughly stupid is running a campaign for president like it is a negotiation rather than running to win an election. I'd argue most children know the difference between the two.
If his starting position turns off moderate democrats and independents, not even getting to moderate republicans who might be looking for an option other than 4 more years of Trump, then Bernie is never going to be in a position to be president and find a middle ground.
I'd also question if you know much about Bernie and his negotiation skills or ability to find compromise. Can you also provide a few examples where Bernie led legislation to 'the middle ground' during his decades in politics ? Aside from legislation to name a few post offices in Vermont, he has led basically nothing due to being an ideologue. If you aren't pure like him then you're the same as the republicans, be you even JFK or Obama.0 -
Well what would be thoroughly stupid is running a campaign for president like it is a negotiation rather than running to win an election. I'd argue most children know the difference between the two.
If his starting position turns off moderate democrats and independents, not even getting to moderate republicans who might be looking for an option other than 4 more years of Trump, then Bernie is never going to be in a position to be president and find a middle ground.
I'd also question if you know much about Bernie and his negotiation skills or ability to find compromise. Can you also provide a few examples where Bernie led legislation to 'the middle ground' during his decades in politics ? Aside from legislation to name a few post offices in Vermont, he has led basically nothing due to being an ideologue. If you aren't pure like him then you're the same as the republicans, be you even JFK or Obama.
What Bernie is saying now, JFK was saying 60 years ago.
0 -
So long pete... did he ever get to use his Norwegian?
Imagine if he couldn't actually speak Norwegian, and it was just something that his team thought would influence naive voters.
Going by his farewell speech, he went full retard on Barack Obama and he cant get outta character.
Biden is skint, all his would be donors went with pete, Super Tuesday is all about work rate and campaigning so we're about to see if there's any truth to this "sleepy joe" stuff. Word is, those states haven't seen much of him lately and he's hopeing cnn, msnbc and the gang, are gonna carry him from south Carolina primary all the way over the finish line while he takes his afternoon naps.
Little does he know they've already shot themselves in the foot and have about as much influence as fox news.0 -
Advertisement
-
sid waddell wrote: »What Bernie is saying now, JFK was saying 60 years ago.
That doesn't change the fact that what Bernie said was that there wasn't much between JFK and Nixon. Similarly, Bernie wanted to primary Obama.
Ideological purity is more important to Bernie than actually making the lives of people better.
https://twitter.com/AZachParkinson/status/1216840792549085185?s=200 -
If everything a prospective president said or thought as a teenager was to be regurgitated and held against them, i doubt anyone would ever get elected to the job. Not that you could expect nuance to be a part of political discourse anyway, context doesnt count when all you need to do is smear. Gonna be a long long road for sanders with this stuff.0
-
Zach Parkinson is member of Trumps campaign team so it's obvious he will try everything to bury the top democratic candidates are.
Very little wrong with what Sanders is saying in that video. He says Kennedy was the supposed liberal yet wanting a hard line conservative stance on Cuba. Nixon was the hard-line conservative but taking the wait and see liberal approach in his press conferences but secretly planning bay of pigs invasion behind the scenes.0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »If everything a prospective president said or thought as a teenager was to be regurgitated and held against them, i doubt anyone would ever get elected to the job. Not that you could expect nuance to be a part of political discourse anyway, context doesnt count when all you need to do is smear. Gonna be a long long road for sanders with this stuff.
Sanders has been in politics decades so people know his stance. It was the same thing with Michael D during the Irish elections 'oh he supported Castro etc, not fit to be president etc'
The communism insults and accusations are not eally going to hurt Sanders imo. Those that throw that at him would never have voted for him anyway.
Sanders issues is going to be attracting minority and older voters, same as 2016. He struggles massively in both areas. South Carolina this past Saturday no exception.0 -
He wasn't a teenager in 1986, he was in his mid fourties.Joe_ Public wrote: »If everything a prospective president said or thought as a teenager was to be regurgitated and held against them, i doubt anyone would ever get elected to the job. Not that you could expect nuance to be a part of political discourse anyway, context doesnt count when all you need to do is smear. Gonna be a long long road for sanders with this stuff.
Though your point does still stand generally, yes those 35 year old comments are a cocern in terms of things that might be used against him, but if we apply this logic equally I would wager Biden holds up even worse in this sense.
What I don't get is why 'moderates' who might refuse to vote for Sanders if he won are being seen as people with genuine concerns that should be taken seriously, while 'progressives' who might refuse to vote for Sanders if he win are being painted as unreasonable.0 -
rossie1977 wrote: »Zach Parkinson is member of Trumps campaign team so it's obvious he will try everything to bury the top democratic candidates are.
What are you saying here, we should ignore all evidence from political opponents?Very little wrong with what Sanders is saying in that video. He says Kennedy was the supposed liberal yet wanting a hard line conservative stance on Cuba. Nixon was the hard-line conservative but taking the wait and see liberal approach in his press conferences but secretly planning bay of pigs invasion behind the scenes.
Was there anything wrong with him trying to primary Obama?
It is consistent theme for Bernie, and many of his supporters, that if you aren't 100% with them you're the same as the Republicans and it is that mentality that has meant that he has led basically nothing during his decades in politics.
We're already starting to see the same nonsense as we did for Trump, he'll be different if he won the primary or the general. Like Trump, I see zero evidence of that being the case.0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »If everything a prospective president said or thought as a teenager was to be regurgitated and held against them, i doubt anyone would ever get elected to the job. Not that you could expect nuance to be a part of political discourse anyway, context doesnt count when all you need to do is smear. Gonna be a long long road for sanders with this stuff.
Absolutely. This is a concerted tactic from the "centrists". They are doing everything they can to portray him as a crazy zealot. See above.
It's mad. Apparently completely selling out your voters is "adult" politics.
Stuff like Democrats happily approving horrible conservative judges is "adult politics", apparently.
Being bought off by the for profit health insurance industry is "adult politics".
Deary me.
If these people spent a tenth of the time they spend attacking Sanders actually going after Trump, who knows what could be done.0 -
He wasn't a teenager in 1986, he was in his mid fourties.
Though your point does still stand generally, yes those 35 year old comments are a cocern in terms of things that might be used against him, but if we apply this logic equally I would wager Biden holds up even worse in this sense.
What I don't get is why 'moderates' who might refuse to vote for Sanders if he won are being seen as people with genuine concerns that should be taken seriously, while 'progressives' who might refuse to vote for Sanders if he win are being painted as unreasonable.
He was a teenager when the events he's recalling occurred is what I'm saying. So feeling nauseated by one aspect of JFKs policy regime now turns into "jfk makes sanders physically nauseous". Whether it ends up hurting sanders or not, its a fair indication of the level of discourse we're going to get in a general should he get dem nomination. Sanders would be much more a Robert kennedy man anyway i would think, a disciple of the latters "inclusive populism."0 -
What are you saying here, we should ignore all evidence from political opponents?
Was there anything wrong with him trying to primary Obama?
It is consistent theme for Bernie, and many of his supporters, that if you aren't 100% with them you're the same as the Republicans and it is that mentality that has meant that he has led basically nothing during his decades in politics.
We're already starting to see the same nonsense as we did for Trump, he'll be different if he won the primary or the general. Like Trump, I see zero evidence of that being the case.
Whats the evidence that suggests he was going to primary obama? Is there a good source for that.0 -
We hear about the "perception" of Sanders, not reality. Coincidentally, this always comes from the exact people who are attempting to create a certain negative perception of Sanders so they can bring him down.
And who completely ignore the very real and deeply problematic views of others.
https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/12330799211379220500 -
Advertisement
-
What are you saying here, we should ignore all evidence from political opponents?
We take it bunch of salt. Look at the doctored videos that were all over conservative sites only last year regarding Omar in an attempt to paint her as Jewish/white men hating psychopath.
Nothing in that video suggests anything. It's just an attempt by Trump team to make it out that Sanders is another Castro when clearly he is not.Was there anything wrong with him trying to primary Obama?
If that happened that's in his right as a US senator.It is consistent theme for Bernie, and many of his supporters, that if you aren't 100% with them you're the same as the Republicans and it is that mentality that has meant that he has led basically nothing during his decades in politics.
Some of his supporters can be annoying sure but Sanders himself endorsed Clinton and even campaigned for her at the end.We're already starting to see the same nonsense as we did for Trump, he'll be different if he won the primary or the general. Like Trump, I see zero evidence of that being the case.
Sanders isn't like Trump though. You are trying to compare a career politican who has been asking for the same things for decades with a narcissistic, sexist celebrity with a ton of personal baggage behind the scenes who has flip flopped on various issues so much over last 30 years it's hard to even place him politically.0 -
I'd say social class, or perception of social class, has a lot to do with it.He wasn't a teenager in 1986, he was in his mid fourties.
Though your point does still stand generally, yes those 35 year old comments are a cocern in terms of things that might be used against him, but if we apply this logic equally I would wager Biden holds up even worse in this sense.
What I don't get is why 'moderates' who might refuse to vote for Sanders if he won are being seen as people with genuine concerns that should be taken seriously, while 'progressives' who might refuse to vote for Sanders if he win are being painted as unreasonable.
Same as Sinn Fein voters here are regularly disparaged as unreasonable.
US corporate media is largely drawn from a very narrow spectrum of ethnicity, class and ideology. I don't think they don't really get how so may people, especially young people, have essentially miserable lives through no fault of their own.
Biden voters fit much more into the corporate ideal. They don't threaten corporate power in any way. Corporate media identifies with that on both a policy level and a more viscerable level. Biden voters are portrayed as "respectable". Sanders doesn't really play that game, and thus his voters are portrayed as "dangerous" and "angry".
The "angry" one is a classic US right-wing and "centrist" canard to shut down discussion. The anger of people at not having decent healthcare is classed as illegitimate. In US corporate media, if you're "angry", that's code for "you're nuts". Christ, look at the way Elizabeth Warren was vilified for rightly bringing up Bloomberg's misogynism. Look at the way AOC is vilified.
Justifed anger is something that's massively needed in US society, in massive amounts. Anger at Trump, anger at the untramelled power and privilege of corporate and regressive interests, anger at those who pretend to be for change who are for no change.0 -
He wasn't a teenager in 1986, he was in his mid fourties.
Though your point does still stand generally, yes those 35 year old comments are a cocern in terms of things that might be used against him, but if we apply this logic equally I would wager Biden holds up even worse in this sense.
What I don't get is why 'moderates' who might refuse to vote for Sanders if he won are being seen as people with genuine concerns that should be taken seriously, while 'progressives' who might refuse to vote for Sanders if he win are being painted as unreasonable.
Because it is idiotic for Bernie supporters to sit out because they'll get part of what they want, just not all of it. For some moderates, Bernie is further away from what they want than a continuation of Trump.
Imagine a moderate voter as a hitchhiker that wanted to go from Dublin to Laois, where Trump is Dublin and a moderate democrat nominee is Laois. What Bernie is offering is to bring them to Cork, which is so far past where they want to go that they'd end up further away than where they started.
For Bernie supporter, they want to get to Cork but at least a lift to Laois gets them a good bit of their way to their destination and they can continue on from there. It seems much more unreasonable to refuse this because it isn't the ideal you wanted.0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »Whats the evidence that suggests he was going to primary obama? Is there a good source for that.
Article last week in the Atlantic that seemed well sourced, that went through what happened behind the scenes trying to stop it and of course Bernie's own words that 'it would be a good idea'.
Bernie campaign has denied it was a serious consideration but as far as I know no one else involved in the article has denied it.
https://nypost.com/2020/02/25/biden-accuses-sanders-of-plotting-run-against-obama-in-2012-primary/0 -
rossie1977 wrote: »1) We take it bunch of salt. Look at the doctored videos that were all over conservative sites only last year regarding Omar in an attempt to paint her as Jewish/white men hating psychopath.
Nothing in that video suggests anything. It's just an attempt by Trump team to make it out that Sanders is another Castro when clearly he is not.
2)If that happened that's in his right as a US senator.
3)Some of his supporters can be annoying sure but Sanders himself endorsed Clinton and even campaigned for her at the end.
4) Sanders isn't like Trump though. You are trying to compare a career politican who has been asking for the same things for decades with a narcissistic, sexist celebrity with a ton of personal baggage behind the scenes who has flip flopped on various issues so much over last 30 years it's hard to even place him politically.
Reads like a Trump cycle of defense:
1) it might be doctored
2) the problems it causes doesn't matter, once he is within his rights to do it
3) just a few outliers
4) deflection0 -
sid waddell wrote: »I'd say social class, or perception of social class, has a lot to do with it.
Same as Sinn Fein voters here are regularly disparaged as unreasonable.
US corporate media is largely drawn from a very narrow spectrum of ethnicity, class and ideology. I don't think they don't really get how so may people, especially young people, have essentially miserable lives through no fault of their own.
Biden voters fit much more into the corporate ideal. They don't threaten corporate power in any way. Corporate media identifies with that on both a policy level and a more viscerable level. Biden voters are portrayed as "respectable". Sanders doesn't really play that game, and thus his voters are portrayed as "dangerous" and "angry".
The "angry" one is a classic US right-wing and "centrist" canard to shut down discussion. The anger of people at not having decent healthcare is classed as illegitimate. In US corporate media, if you're "angry", that's code for "you're nuts". Christ, look at the way Elizabeth Warren was vilified for rightly bringing up Bloomberg's misogynism. Look at the way AOC is vilified.
Justifed anger is something that's massively needed in US society, in massive amounts. Anger at Trump, anger at the untramelled power and privilege of corporate and regressive interests, anger at those who pretend to be for change who are for no change.
The majority black South Carolina that overwhelmingly voted for Biden fit exactly into your 'social class' theory :rolleyes:0 -
Article last week in the Atlantic that seemed well sourced, that went through what happened behind the scenes trying to stop it and of course Bernie's own words that 'it would be a good idea'.
Bernie campaign has denied it was a serious consideration but as far as I know no one else involved in the article has denied it.
https://nypost.com/2020/02/25/biden-accuses-sanders-of-plotting-run-against-obama-in-2012-primary/
Ok, i read that atlantic piece last week, source was a biden insider iirc. Sanders people say it was never a runner, biden folk and others say it was. So not sure where conclusive proof is there, believe whatever you want to believe. Sanders making one general unspecific comment about a primary is a long way off smoking gun territory i would think.0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »Ok, i read that atlantic piece last week, source was a biden insider iirc. Sanders people say it was never a runner, biden folk and others say it was. So not sure where conclusive proof is there, believe whatever you want to believe. Sanders making one general unspecific comment about a primary is a long way off smoking gun territory i would think.
Multiple Obama's team went on the record about it, alongside several others off the record.
There were other parties, like Reid, that were mentioned in the piece that have also refused to deny the discussions were had.0 -
Multiple Obama's team went on the record about it, alongside several others off the record.
There were other parties, like Reid, that were mentioned in the piece that have also refused to deny the discussions were had.
So obama and biden insiders say he was, sanders camp denies it and there's absolutely nothing there that proves one way or another that it's something that was being seriously considered. You're perfectly entitled to your belief, but i dont see it's quite the fact you make it out to be.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have to say, that's quite reductivist to be mild.Because it is idiotic for Bernie supporters to sit out because they'll get part of what they want, just not all of it. For some moderates, Bernie is further away from what they want than a continuation of Trump.
Imagine a moderate voter as a hitchhiker that wanted to go from Dublin to Laois, where Trump is Dublin and a moderate democrat nominee is Laois. What Bernie is offering is to bring them to Cork, which is so far past where they want to go that they'd end up further away than where they started.
For Bernie supporter, they want to get to Cork but at least a lift to Laois gets them a good bit of their way to their destination and they can continue on from there. It seems much more unreasonable to refuse this because it isn't the ideal you wanted.
First is the fact that chasing people who still are leaning towards Trump at this point is a fools game. These people will nearly all vote trump, if after the last three years they have not been turned against him then they simply won't, full stop, between now and November. Trying to convince yourself otherwise is an fools errand.
Trying to claim some kind of moral high ground by appealing to these voters while continuing to leave the younger voters alienated and made to feel like they are not part of this game. That is how the last many years have felt for them, and Biden does not represent much difference to Trump to the in that respect, especially as he has gone out of his way to assure the large corporations that nothing at all will change, which leaves him about as open to negotiate as Sanders.
A Biden in in 2020just guarantees for them that their concerns will be swept away under the carpet by the baby boomers that inherited perhaps the best setup in human history (on the back of the US' post WWII socialism) and have spent all the time since hoarding it as much as possible while these younger generations are living paycheck to paycheck, across multiple jobs, with no realistic chance of ever owning a home.
And there is a lot of resentment from these younger voters towards that older generation for that very reason. Let's not forget that Jimmy Carter was closer to Bernie than maybe any president since, but he and all he stood for were roundly rejected by 1980s Democrats and Republicans in favour of trickle down economics, neo liberalism, putting corporations ahead of people, and offloading those same jobs they bemoan the lack of today, to other countries, all in the name of profits that never really made it down much below boardroom level.
There is a very strong argument that they have been one of the most negative, destructive generations in world history, and probably are the worst in US history in this regard. There is a very real reason why global perception of the US has nosedived so badly during their time as the dominant voting bloc, and had it not been for their generation Bernie Sanders would not be seen nearly as negatively as socialism was alive and well in the US before they became the dominant bloc.
This resentment is fuelled further by hearing that same generation take great pleasure in sh*tting on those whose prospects they have ruined so thoroughly. Every time they lecture on how they were able to pay through college as a waitress, had their own house by 25, were able to raise 4 children while working a low paying job, and on and on acts as a serious slap in the face to these younger generations, because not only is that mow impossible - it is impossible because of the people lecturing them. One last slap in the face is the fact that these baby boomers grew up in such a prosperous USA because of socialist policies and programs following WWII.
If we are giving the claim that people who think they might just prefer the guy who throws children in cages, acts against the US' better interests at every possible opportunity, and is clearly not interested in the well being of the country whatsoever, over what Sanders is offering... we really can't pretend that these people were potential voters in any meaningful way.
But beyond that, it shows Sanders supporters just how little Biden supporters are willing to negotiate with them - very little, if at all. Instead, should Biden win we will see them be expected to shut up, vote for him and accept it, because Biden is closer to then on the political spectrum than the other. The great con in this though, is that is exactly how the Overton window has shifted so rapidly to the right in the US over the last 40 years, and how the Democrats are now economically much, closer to the 1980s Republicans than anything else - the same 1980s Republicans that began this whole mess.
Some pundits on the 'moderate' end of the democrats have already made noise that they might prefer more of Trump to a Sanders win. In other words their ideology is more important to them than holding power, and they would rather control their parties identity than control the WH, if it came to it. Well guess what? It cuts both ways, and yes some Sanders supporters are similar, and would rather have a Democrat party out of power in the short term but fighting for their interests, than one in power whose purpose is to serve corporations, the wealthy, and so on, while continuing to ignore the everyday worker and younger generations.
I don't agree with Sanders supporters staying home if Biden is the nominee, but it is no less understandable than Biden supporters staying home if Sanders were to be the nominee. To try and place different sets of rules or expectations where one set of voters is ok to throw their toys out of the pram if they don't get their way, but to label the other as cult-like, unreasonable, and selfish for doing the same... that's not something I can get behind.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement