US Presidential Election 2020

StringerBell

sid waddell wrote: »

I see that Biden has hired a supporter of India's viciously anti-Muslim BJP as, wait for it, his Muslim Outreach Co-ordinator.

It'd be like hiring a KKK member as an African-American outreach co-ordinator.

https://muslimmatters.org/2020/02/27/meet-joe-bidens-muslim-outreach-coordinator-a-supporter-of-narendra-modi-and-his-islamophobic-hindu-nationalist-agenda/

I know you are a Sanders guy, but this is quite the reach surely? I mean, you would actually be up in arms I assume if this was slipped as an attack against your guy instead? This is actually old news too you know?

For clarity, he has been on the Biden team since early September last year iirc and he has worked on numerous Democratic campaigns over the last number of years.

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

I've actually criticised Bernie on this thread and by no means think he's perfect, and he wasn't even my first preference from the field - Warren was - if you could fuse the best bits of the two that would be my ideal candidate.

Care to list out your criticisms of Bernie? I'm interested in seeing them, as

You're doing nothing projecting your own ultra-apologism for Biden onto me.

I don't think I've apologized once for Biden.

The only thing I can think of coming close was stating the fact that Biden's Mandela comments were victimless and as a result were looked at very differently than praising a dictator that murdered and stole from the families of a segment of the electorate.

The two comments you're trying to push together aren't equivalent or for that matter even similar. The way you've spoke about them together, you'd swear Biden had come out and stated there were some positives about the white government in South Africa during the apartheid.

In case you don't believe me, some criticisms I have of Biden as the nominee:
- Age has caught up to him, he is slow and getting confused regularly
- Doesn't excite the young vote
- Doesn't excite the progressive vote
- Prone to gaffs, even in his prime
- Support from Hispanics could be questionable
- Voting record could be used against him

rossie1977

StringerBell wrote: »

Bloomberg should be dropping out pretty soon in all honesty along with Warren I guess. It's now a two way race between two elderly white men, incredible.

Trump, all top Republican and Demcrats in Congress are old white people too.

I expect a big swing towards youth during next major election cycle whether that's 2024 or 2028

Foxtrol

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I wouldnt quibble with any of that. A big win for sanders in California, the most populous and diverse state in the US, has definite value right now though in that it cements the notion that he appeals to every group and demographic. I know that myth about his narrow appeal has been shred anyway but would be no harm to see it laid bare in real voting data. Assuming the polling is accurate.

It only shows he has a wide appeal in California, which doesn't align to any of the swing states.

Your logic is like saying an Irish political party is popular in Dublin, therefore it should be popular all over the country.

sid waddell

StringerBell wrote: »

I know you are a Sanders guy, but this is quite the reach surely? I mean, you would actually be up in arms I assume if this was slipped as an attack against your guy instead? This is actually old news too you know?

For clarity, he has been on the Biden team since early September last year iirc and he has worked on numerous Democratic campaigns over the last number of years.

I'm not "a Sanders guy". Warren was my preferred candidate narrowly from him but he's certainly a much better option than Biden.

It's no exaggeration to say the BJP's ideology is Nazi-like. Modi is arguably the most dangerous man in the world today and was himself banned from the US and the EU for over a decade for inciting anti-Muslim pogroms in Gujarat province when he was governor there.

The head of Genocide Watch, Professor Gregory Stanton, says "India is preparing for genocide". Nobody with connections to the BJP should be next or near any US campaign.

For the record I also have a serious problem with Sanders hiring Tad Devine, who has strong links to Paul Manafort's activities in Ukraine - and I was delighted to see Devine left the Sanders campaign recently. He should be kept well away from it. Devine also worked for Al Gore and John Kerry so, like this BJP guy working for Biden, he's worked on other Democratic campaigns. That doesn't mean his presence wasn't extremely problematic.

StringerBell

sid waddell wrote: »

I'm not "a Sanders guy". Warren was my preferred candidate narrowly from him but he's certainly a much better option than Biden.

It's no exaggeration to say the BJP's ideology is Nazi-like. Modi is arguably the most dangerous man in the world today and was himself banned from the US and the EU for over a decade for inciting anti-Muslim pogroms in Gujarat province when he was governor there.

The head of Genocide Watch, Professor Gregory Stanton, says "India is prearing for genocide". Nobody with connections to the BJP should be next or near any US campaign.

For the record I also have a serious problem with Sanders hiring Tad Devine, who has strong links to Paul Manafort's activities in Ukraine - and I was delighted to see Devine left the Sanders campaign recently. Devine also worked for Al Gore and John Kerry so, like this BJP guy working for Biden, he's worked on other Democratic campaigns. That doesn't mean his presence wasn't extremely problematic.

Apologies, I would have been a Warren fan myself. She was my preferred candidate, I have just seen your back and forth so assumed you were backing Sanders.

I'm not arguing against anything to do with Modi, the BJP or anything like that. Bernie showed support for an actual dictator also, yet that is defended. That you don't see the irony in that is a bit odd. (For the record I also think that Bernie's comments re Cuba, and the Soviet Union are irrelevant distractions)

The guy is clearly a political operative, he has ties to the Democratic party and was hired to do a job. I don't think he is a BJP party member, but am open to correction? I believe he worked on Modi's campaign way back when?

Obama brought Modi to the WH, its politics.

It is a reach to try to paint it as anything particularly problematic for Biden for a guy who is known to have worked for, or at least supported Modi, on his campaign staff. It is a large staff, it is kind of irrelevant I would suggest and like I said, old news. Why are you bringing this up now and not in September when he moved on to the team?

I can guess I suppose, but again. Its just a distraction, it isn't important.

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

Care to list out your criticisms of Bernie? I'm interested in seeing them, as



I don't think I've apologized once for Biden.

The only thing I can think of coming close was stating the fact that Biden's Mandela comments were victimless and as a result were looked at very differently than praising a dictator that murdered and stole from the families of a segment of the electorate.

The two comments you're trying to push together aren't equivalent or for that matter even similar. The way you've spoke about them together, you'd swear Biden had come out and stated there were some positives about the white government in South Africa during the apartheid.

In case you don't believe me, some criticisms I have of Biden as the nominee:
- Age has caught up to him, he is slow and getting confused regularly
- Doesn't excite the young vote
- Doesn't excite the progressive vote
- Prone to gaffs, even in his prime
- Support from Hispanics could be questionable
- Voting record could be used against him

Some of my criticisms of Sanders are his reluctance to abolish the filibuster, his not being clear enough that Trump and his cronies need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and to go to prison, preferably for the rest of their lives, and his hiring of Tad Devine as I referenced in my previous post to this. I have some reservations about him on foreign policy particularly in regards to Ukraine/Georgia etc.

Biden continuallly lied through his teeth in an effort to portray himself as some sort of fearless anti-apartheid/anti-racism campaigner, which he was not.

You might bizarrely try to pass off these lies as "victimless".

You might not think they're a problem. I very much do and I wouldn't have thought I'd have to explain why.

Sanders' comments about Castro are much ado about nothing because they are both nuanced and true. Obama made the exact same comments. Did you miss what our own president said about Castro when Castro died? I presume you're howling for his head?

Did you watch the Mehdi Hasan video I posted earlier? Biden refused to call Hosni Mubarak a dictator. He was happy to deal with dictators from all over the place, including of course the Saudis.

Now some of that can be put down to a vice-President having to deal with some shady characters as part of the job.

But you can't run with the hare and hunt with the hound. Biden has cosied up to far more dictators than Bernie Sanders ever has. He has denied that dicators are dictators.

Michael Bloomberg explictly says, and I quote, "Xi Jinping is not a dictator".

And literally nobody is talking about it, least of all you.

Ths is not about "perception". This about truth.

Joe_ Public

Foxtrol wrote: »

It only shows he has a wide appeal in California, which doesn't align to any of the swing states.

Your logic is like saying an Irish political party is popular in Dublin, therefore it should be popular all over the country.

I'm only referring to primaries, swing states are another story entirely. In the context of the primaries, not just a win but a thumping one in cali would be a big boost for sanders, especially if things are getting tight. Thats all I'm saying.

sid waddell

StringerBell wrote: »

Apologies, I would have been a Warren fan myself. She was my preferred candidate, I have just seen your back and forth so assumed you were backing Sanders.

I'm not arguing against anything to do with Modi, the BJP or anything like that. Bernie showed support for an actual dictator also, yet that is defended. That you don't see the irony in that is a bit odd. (For the record I also think that Bernie's comments re Cuba, and the Soviet Union are irrelevant distractions)

The guy is clearly a political operative, he has ties to the Democratic party and was hired to do a job. I don't think he is a BJP party member, but am open to correction? I believe he worked on Modi's campaign way back when?

Obama brought Modi to the WH, its politics.

It is a reach to try to paint it as anything particularly problematic for Biden for a guy who is known to have worked for, or at least supported Modi, on his campaign staff. It is a large staff, it is kind of irrelevant I would suggest and like I said, old news. Why are you bringing this up now and not in September when he moved on to the team?

I can guess I suppose, but again. Its just a distraction, it isn't important.

I think it is important, extremely important.

Modi and his party are naked fascists. The BJP's popularity originates from a mob of thousands attacking the sacred Babri Masjid mosque in 1992 and literally hacking the building to the ground with anything they could get their hands on. At every stage they have had a naked and viciously anti-Islam agenda and their modus operandi on the ground is nakedly fascist too with massive paramilitary style marches of uniformed men in white shirts. Trump's visit to India last week led to pogroms against Muslims in Delhi killing at least 38.

Now a president like Obama can at least have some excuse for meeting the Prime Minister of India because of his position - even Trump can have that excuse - though Trump has gone way beyond that and clearly associated himself with the political agenda of Modi and the BJP, which is no suprise, because he wants to associate himself with pretty much every scummy far right regime everywhere.

Biden has no such excuse - nobody associated with the BJP should be near any US campaign, especially a Democratic one - and I'd be saying the exact thing for anybody else who hired somebody like that, Sanders included.

Tulsi Gabbard is heavily linked to Modi and the BJP as well and that's one of the main reasons among several why she is utterly toxic and should never be allowed stand on a Democratic platform again.

The BJP's ideology borrows heavily from that of the KKK, so I think the comparison is entirely appropriate. You wouldn't have anybody associated with the KKK on a campaign team. Why should it be different for the BJP? Because less people are aware of what they are? That's not an excuse.

And in a position of Muslim outreach, of all positions? Staggering stuff.

Why am I bringing up this BJP guy on Biden's team now? Because I became aware of it about half an hour ago and it was an immediate red flag. Anything to do with the BJP is a red flag.

rossie1977

California is actually a very conservative state outside LA and San Francisco. It's the state after all that's given us the current form of Republican politics ie Reaganism.

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

Some of my criticisms of Sanders are his reluctance to abolish the filibuster, his not being clear enough that Trump and his cronies need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and to go to prison, preferably for the rest of their lives, and his hiring of Tad Devine as I referenced in my previous post to this. I have some reservations about him on foreign policy particularly in regards to Ukraine/Georgia etc.

This is what you call criticism?

I'd take you seriously if you had included at one of:
- questionable support from black voters
- questionable support from moderate voters
- questionable support from hispanic voters
- health concerns
- lack of legislative accomplishments/bringing people with him
- voting record could be used against him
- previous comments could be used against him
- unpopular/expensive policies

Compared to you I went to town on Biden on actual election issues and yet you call me an ultra- apologist for him. Your 'criticisms' are one step up from not liking the colour of his suit.

Englo

Foxtrol wrote: »

The problem is that is well and good but has nothing to do with my post or the question you posed.

Just because they are angry doesn't mean getting a lift from Dublin to Laois isn't going to help them more in their hopes of getting to Cork than staying in Dublin and sulking.

It has everything tgo do with the question I posed. I asked why it is seen as acceptable for Biden supporters to not support Sanders if he wins, but not the reverse. You answered that because Biden is centre-left, then everyone to the left of is compelled to vote for him, which as I mentioned is very redictivist.

I pointed out that that doesn't hold true, and gave a detailed post as to why, primarily centered around the fact that many Americans, especially when we look at the under 40s (millennials and Gen y) have been in financial struggle their whole lives with no signs of improvement regardless of the economy, and would in Biden be faced with a candidate who has sworn to CEOs continue along that line, whose largely older supporters helped create this situation after being the beneficiaries of socialism, and who would not support their candidate (Sanders) in the reverse scenario as a cherry on top.

I also pointed out that I don't agree with these people as I don't agree with Biden supporters who would rather Trump over Sanders, but that their reasons for not doing so would be very valid.

You decided to ignore this and fob it off as a rant about boomers which really just helps cement my point, especially as you have again chosen to ignore their frustrations and anxieties which I have now had to reiterate twice.

If there was any evidence so far that Bernie was actually energizing that group to get the turnout required to beat Trump plus moderates then you'd have an argument but he has failed to do it thus far.

You ha e been accusing others of acting "cult like" and the likes, myself included, but why is it then that you are the one ignoring evidence already put in front of you?

From FOX News, about as far from network ideologically aligned with Sanders as you could find: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-sanders-knocks-biden-out-of-first-majority-thinks-trump-wins

The problem is that it seems like it is only one side listening.

I have to be honest here, the irony is nothing sjortnof remarkable. Three times now I have had to point out to you why Sanders supporters, though I think they should, would not be atomically compelled to vote for Biden, and you continue to flat out refused listen. Literally right above this I have had to repost a link that was already shown to you by another poster on polling.

Maybe it is only one side listening?

Bernie tried every tactic to get a contested convention in 2016, which apparently is the most toxic thing anyone could try to do in 2020.

Bernie is the only candidate that got any input into the rules for the 2020 race but the establishment are against him

Bernie negotiated a large amount of concessions for the 2016 platform, yet between him dragging it out for so long it wasn't enough and many Bernie voters stayed home or voted elsewhere.

1. I don't mind a contested convention that much.

2. Which rules are you referring to? What I do know that they changed the rules after he did much better than expected. In 2016 to force him to register as a democrat this time, but I doubt that's what you're alluding to.

3. It's a bit of a joke to say a candidate has to step down at an arbitrary point, especially given the reason that many stay in beyond their viability is to negotiate and accumulate bargaining power. The same rings true of Warren or soon enough probably Bloomberg (I'm expecting a slip for him, and rise in momentum for Biden), and Sanders supporters expecting her to step down are being hypocritical also.

Also worth noting, by your own argument above re Biden supporters voting for Trump, shouldn't the majority of Sanders supporters have actually not voted for Clinton at all but instead voted for Jill Stein (almost certain Russian asset though she turned out to be) based on their ideology? And yet they didn't, as she got a whopping 1.07% of the vote.

You posted the video but I'm yet to see you say anything about what that means about his personality or how he would govern.

If you agree with what you posted elsewhere that his problem with Obama is that he didn't follow through on everything he said in 2008 the I don't see how this isn't a large concern.

Its not that Obama didn't follow up on everything, which I think you are very well aware of. It's that he didn't follow through on so, so many important things that he ran on. I quite liked Obama and thought he did a very good job in many respects, but Obama the President and Obama the 2008 Campaigner are two very different things.

You also have conveniently left out the part where I point blank said I disagreed with it.

And as for how it speaks to his ability to govern, I actually think it shows good and bad. It does show him as quite stubborn, but it also shows that he has strong principles to try not to stray from his mandate, if elected.

It does make you wonder in terms of being a unifier in terms of the negotiations, but I think in this instance he is spot on. Trying to negotiate in good faith with republicans cod so long was one of Obama's biggest mistakes, and played a role in their ability to just steamroll over the democrats and dominantly control the narrative in the way that they have done.

You said this "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."

If you believe what Obama did was to ignore the everyday worker and younger generations then I don't know what to say. He balanced them with other interests but that is what governing is. While Obama did all he did, what legislation did Bernie lead? Appearing to be pure and 'fighting for their interests' means nothing if you have nothing to show for it.

Obama was well intentioned, and did a really solid job on the economy. He also knew how to speak to these younger generations and may have had their interests at heart, but the fact is that the average 20 of 30 something today is not in as good a situation as they were in mid 2008 (obviously better than in January 2009). And they weren't in as good as spot them as they had been in the 90s... and so on and so on.

All this looks like to these people is a spiral downward and downward as the money filters upwards and upwards, crippling their abilities to own homes, raise children, go to college, or just afford rent and bills. This isn't just a worry or concern in a hypothetical sense of if Candidate X were to win the election in the way that we see for some of Sanders' policies, this is the reality that many of these people have been living in for their entire lives, regardless of the letter beside the person's name in the oval office.

You can say that Bernie's history "means nothing" all you like, but it doesn't stop his supporters from feeling they can actually trust him with decades of a track record to go from as an elected official who fights for people and workers first and foremost. Calling them a cult and Nazis is absolutely not the way to get these people onside.

StringerBell

sid waddell wrote: »

I think it is important, extremely important.

Modi and his party are naked fascists. The BJP's popularity originates from a mob of thousands attacking the sacred Babri Masjid mosque in 1992 and literally hacking the building to the ground with anything they could get their hands on. At every stage they have had a naked and viciously anti-Islam agenda and their modus operandi on the ground is nakedly fascist too with massive paramilitary style marches of uniformed men in white shirts. Trump's visit to India last week led to pogroms against Muslims in Delhi killing at least 38.

Now a president like Obama can at least have some excuse for meeting the Prime Minister of India because of his position - even Trump can have that excuse - though Trump has gone way beyond that and clearly associated himself with the political agenda of Modi and the BJP, which is no suprise, because he wants to associate himself with pretty much every scummy far right regime everywhere.

Biden has no such excuse - nobody associated with the BJP should be near any US campaign, especially a Democratic one - and I'd be saying the exact thing for anybody else who hired somebody like that, Sanders included.

Tulsi Gabbard is heavily linked to Modi and the BJP as well and that's one of the main reasons among several why she is utterly toxic and should never be allowed stand on a Democratic platform again.

The BJP's ideology borrows heavily from that of the KKK, so I think the comparison is entirely appropriate. You wouldn't have anybody associated with the KKK on a campaign team. Why should it be different for the BJP? Because less people are aware of what they are? That's not an excuse.

And in a position of Muslim outreach, of all positions? Staggering stuff.

Why am I bringing up this BJP guy on Biden's team now? Because I became aware of it about half an hour ago and it was an immediate red flag. Anything to do with the BJP is a red flag.

Ok, so I looked it up for curiousity. This doesn't sound like a Muslim outreach position?

A NEW ADVISER to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, the director of outreach to the Asian-American Pacific Islander community,

Or has he switched roles at this point? Now given that your sourcing was the MM website I am sure you took what was written there with a pinch of salt.

Again, not going to argue anything regarding India, Modi, BJP, any of it. You don't need to bother highlighting any of the issues you have with them for the purposes of this, you are not a fan. You have many issues with them, they are doing horrible things. We can take that as read.

Ok, you just became aware of it, fair enough. I would say though that considering the time that has passed since he joined the team it is surely clear to you that it is not, and certainly has not been deemed important by anybody who actually matters?

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

This is what you call criticism?

I'd take you seriously if you had included at one of:
- questionable support from black voters
- questionable support from moderate voters
- questionable support from hispanic voters
- health concerns
- lack of legislative accomplishments/bringing people with him
- voting record could be used against him
- previous comments could be used against him
- unpopular/expensive policies

Compared to you I went to town on Biden on actual election issues and yet you call me an ultra- apologist for him. Your 'criticisms' are one step up from not liking the colour of his suit.

Sorry, but that post is complete raimeis. It appears you don't even understand what the word "criticism" means.

Foxtrol

rossie1977 wrote: »

California is actually a very conservative state outside LA and San Francisco. It's the state after all that's given us the current form of Republican politics ie Reaganism.

It is also a long time since the Reagan years, have you seen the current representation for the house? It is 45-6

sid waddell

StringerBell wrote: »

Ok, so I looked it up for curiousity. This doesn't sound like a Muslim outreach position?

Or has he switched roles at this point? Now given that your sourcing was the MM website I am sure you took what was written there with a pinch of salt.

Again, not going to argue anything regarding India, Modi, BJP, any of it. You don't need to bother highlighting any of the issues you have with them for the purposes of this, you are not a fan. You have many issues with them, they are doing horrible things. We can take that as read.

Ok, you just became aware of it, fair enough. I would say though that considering the time that has passed since he joined the team it is surely clear to you that it is not, and certainly has not been deemed important by anybody who actually matters?

It should be deemed important, that's the point. If there was a person with previously undisclosed or unknown associations to the KKK on any campaign team they'd be fired no questions asked. That this isn't the case for somebody with BJP associations is down to either lack of knowledge on the Biden team's behalf or a knowledge from the Biden team that the US media has a lack of knowledge/lack of interest in what the BJP are.

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

Sorry, but that post is complete raimeis. It appears you don't even understand what the word "criticism" means.

Well you should really learn how to set expectations. Having repeatedly thrown around your criticisms as a shield to show your impartiality, the real truth is that there is basically nothing of substance you have issues with.

I'm sure I can find the most ardent Bernie Bro that would accept there is more to be concerned about and critical of Bernie than your 'criticisms'.

It is ok to have drank the Bernie cool-aid, just don't pretend you are independent.

Foxtrol

Englo wrote: »

It has everything tgo do with the question I posed. I asked why it is seen as acceptable for Biden supporters to not support Sanders if he wins, but not the reverse. You answered that because Biden is centre-left, then everyone to the left of is compelled to vote for him, which as I mentioned is very redictivist.

I pointed out that that doesn't hold true, and gave a detailed post as to why, primarily centered around the fact that many Americans, especially when we look at the under 40s (millennials and Gen y) have been in financial struggle their whole lives with no signs of improvement regardless of the economy, and would in Biden be faced with a candidate who has sworn to CEOs continue along that line, whose largely older supporters helped create this situation after being the beneficiaries of socialism, and who would not support their candidate (Sanders) in the reverse scenario as a cherry on top.

I also pointed out that I don't agree with these people as I don't agree with Biden supporters who would rather Trump over Sanders, but that their reasons for not doing so would be very valid.

You decided to ignore this and fob it off as a rant about boomers which really just helps cement my point, especially as you have again chosen to ignore their frustrations and anxieties which I have now had to reiterate twice.

I can't deal with your whole post right now so just responding to the bit related to your original question.

I understand certain folks that support Bernie are angry about all the things that you listed but no matter how valid their anger is it still doesn't make their choice make any sense.

Can you explain how anger means that getting some of what they want isn't worth voting for Biden (gun control, expanded obama care, environmental improvements etc)? Is Biden offering anything that is worse than what Trump will give them?

briany

With Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropping out, Operation Stop Sanders looks to be in full swing.

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

Well you should really learn how to set expectations. Having repeatedly thrown around your criticisms as a shield to show your impartiality, the real truth is that there is basically nothing of substance you have issues with.

I'm sure I can find the most ardent Bernie Bro that would accept there is more to be concerned about and critical of Bernie than your 'criticisms'.

It is ok to have drank the Bernie cool-aid, just don't pretend you are independent.

Earlier on you were mendaciously accusing others of using Trump style debating which is very ironic because your attempts at debate this evening have been exactly that.

I don't see any need to engage any further with that.

Itssoeasy

briany wrote: »

With Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropping out, Operation Stop Sanders looks to be in full swing.

I think the democrats will lose in November if sanders is the nominee for the democrats. His health is a big question mark and he's a left wing version of trump except his far more intelligent but some of his ideas and the price they cost make Sinn Fein look reasonable. He's no different to trump in that like trump sanders says to his base that it's the billionaires and millionaires fault. Now it's trumps is a complete disaster is needs to be voted out in November but not a hope IMO if Bernie sanders is the nominee. His base like trumps believe he can do no wrong.

Itssoeasy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I think the democrats will lose in November if sanders is the nominee for the democrats. His health is a big question mark and he's a left wing version of trump except his far more intelligent but some of his ideas and the price they cost make Sinn Fein look reasonable. He's no different to trump in that like trump sanders says to his base that it's the billionaires and millionaires fault. Now it's trumps is a complete disaster is needs to be voted out in November but not a hope IMO if Bernie sanders is the nominee. His base like trumps believe he can do no wrong.

To the contrary, Sanders is the Dems only hope of beating Trump.

What extravagant, expensive, ideas does Sanders have that make Sinn Fein look reasonable?

Rjd2

Deleted User wrote: »

To the contrary, Sanders is the Dems only hope of beating Trump.

What extravagant, expensive, ideas does Sanders have that make Sinn Fein look reasonable?

Think about 2024 also.

4 years of Biden is much more likely to lead to Hawley/ Hailey/DeSantis winning 2024.

Itssoeasy

Deleted User wrote: »

To the contrary, Sanders is the Dems only hope of beating Trump.

What extravagant, expensive, ideas does Sanders have that make Sinn Fein look reasonable?

Fair enough we are at different ends of this and we won't agree. Well his Medicare for all and having no private health insurance going on his own numbers will cost a bloody fortune like in the trillions at the top end. I meant reasonable in the sense of spending money not in terms of policy.

Sure Fox News and that crowd are just waiting and praying Bernie sanders becomes the nominee and they know they will have an easy time. Sanders in some but certainly not all aspects makes trump like somewhat better than he is. I mean trump and his allies will just repeat socialism over and over again.

Rjd2

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Fair enough we are at different ends of this and we won't agree. Well his Medicare for all and having no private health insurance going on his own numbers will cost a bloody fortune like in the trillions at the top end. I meant reasonable in the sense of spending money not in terms of policy.

Sure Fox News and that crowd are just waiting and praying Bernie sanders becomes the nominee and they know they will have an easy time. Sanders in some but certainly not all aspects makes trump like somewhat better than he is. I mean trump and his allies will just repeat socialism over and over again.

Tucker Carlson is on record of saying Bernie is a threat, heck Trump the guy who proved those "experts" wrong in 2016 is on record for not been comfortable with running v Bernie.

Ignore those who are saying Bernie has no chance, many of those are Never Trumpers who want the blandest Democrat to run and are still utterly clueless to why people are voting for populists.

You will get some on the right who think Bernie is an easy match up, they are still stuck in the 80s where they believe screaming Commie is a winning message, maybe in Florida but not everywhere else.

Look at Ireland, FF and FG master plan for dealing with SF was to scream IRA at them and its working out wonderfully for them isn't it?

Biden has the same percentage chance of beating Trump as does Bernie, anyone who says otherwise was sleeping when a lukewarm centerist lost to Trump in 2016.

Manic Moran

So I've been doing some quick research on tomorrow's vote here. Second election for me as a Texan, same polling station.

There are voter ID laws here, though they are quite loose. It used to be that the ID had to be no longer than 60 days out of date, now the law is 4 years. Further, if you don't have a valid ID, but you can claim a good excuse, something like a utility bill will suffice. (The polling station is not allowed question your excuse, they'll take you at your word if you sign the declaration).

However, further cementing my opinion of "A pox on both your houses", I've had a look at the sample ballots for both the Republican and Democrat parties. If you want a facepalm, here they are. Like most, I wager, I'll be voting on the Democrat ballot.

Democrat: https://www.bexar.org/DocumentCenter/View/14469/Sample-Ballot---Democratic-Party-Primary-Election-PDF
Republican: https://www.bexar.org/DocumentCenter/View/14470/Sample-Ballot---Republican-Party-Primary-Election-PDF

Given that the Texas legislature hasn't met in a year and a half, there are no propositions or referenda for enactment into law. (My old county in California has a couple of tax measures and there's one at the State level). There are, however, a ridiculous amount of positions to vote for, but what I find astounding is that they are also selected by Primary. A comparison of, for example, judges and sheriffs do not work like they do in California, where everyone votes on the nominees, instead, there are five candidates for Sheriff on the Democrat ballot, and three different ones on the Republican side. One republican has never, to my knowledge, ever been a cop, and one Democrat is a current cop who is currently facing corruption charges. And I certainly don't think that the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas should be between a Democrat nominee and a Republican nominee. I hope to hell that there are some independents on the ballot to vote for in November.

Then, once you've gotten through the fifty or so positions to vote for (47 or so consisting of people I've never heard of to form an opinion about), you then get to the party position ballots. I have to assume these are sensings to formulate the position of the Democratic Party of Texas and the Republican Party of Texas.

There is no way I can see that any proposition on either side is going to fail. There is no attempt at neutrality whatsoever. For example, the Democrat ballot (Prop #2) wants to know " Should everyone in Texas have the right to high-quality public education from pre-k to 12th grade, and affordable college and career training without the burden of crushing student loan debt?"

Hmm. "Crushing student loan debt". Not exactly the sort of unbiased statement which would pass muster in court.

Then again, hop over to the Republican ballot, (Prop #7) "Texans should protect and preserve all historical monuments, artifacts, and buildings, such as the Alamo Cenotaph and our beloved Alamo, and should oppose any reimagining of the Alamo site."

In fairness, the Alamo is considered a shrine (and you will be instructed to remove you hat upon entry), but does "beloved" belong on a poll? Is that a legal term I missed in law school?

There are eleven propositions on the Democrat ballot, all of which are very much in line with the Democrat ideals (Which is why I'll be astounded if any fail). There are ten on the Republican side, all of which are very much in line with the Republican ideals (which is why I'll be astounded if any of them fail either).

That said, unlike the Democrat ballot, at least a number of Republican ones are something more than generic party policy statements. All the Democrat ones are "A right to

---

whatever" such as "Right to be free from violence #6" "right to clean air #3" etc. Some more reasonable, such as a right to freedom from harassment #5". But the vast majority of these rights are actually obligations on other people to do things, not rights per se.

The Republican ones often take a restrictive tack instead of placing an obligation. "Do not restrict prayer in public schools" (#1), "Do not place regulations on firearms" (#2) , but even the affirmative ones are not particularly abstract. "Support the border wall (#4)", "Term limits of 12 years for State Representatives" (#8), "Make bail dependent only on risk to society and flight risk, not ability to pay" (#10) (The last of which I thought was a Democrat position, but maybe I am wrong).

Then after those there are another 70 or so positions for the Democrat party to vote upon. No wonder nobody could be arsed to show up at primaries, it's more trouble than it's worth. The Republican ballot does not have this addition.

Will let you know tomorrow how the voting process went.

markodaly

sid waddell wrote: »

You say you don't want to want to argue policy, yet then you do argue policy.

No, I am not arguing the policy at all. You are getting confused, again.

You're saying that private heath insurance would be superior on a comprehensive public system.

I didnt say that either...

What evidence is there to suggest that?

You want to argue about something I did not say. Sorry but not biting.

You talk about electability.

Why then is Bernie winning and doing better than any other candidate in polling in the key swing states?

Finally getting somewhere.

Yes I am talking about electability. Bernie is doing very well among a certain set of democratic voters. The field was very open and he has emerged as the front runner, but now its narrowing, fast. We will see if Biden or Bloomberg can mount a credible challenge on him.

He may well be the Nominee, but a part of me cant see it. He isnt even a registered Democrat.
The Democrats are stuck either way.
Bernie is the nominee, then a large part of the moderate wing will stay at home and not vote.
If Bernie is not the nominee, the a large part of the progressive wing will stay at home and note vote.

Its hard to see them beat Trump given they are so divided.

markodaly

sid waddell wrote: »

If it is Trump v Biden, it'll be a battle of two candidates with early onset dementia.

Ageist comment aside you do know that Bernie is the oldest out of the lot?

sid waddell

markodaly wrote: »

Ageist comment aside you do know that Bernie is the oldest out of the lot?

It's not ageist to point out that Trump and Biden are both displaying outward signs of the onset of dementia.

Bernie is not.

It is ageist to say somebody's age rules them out.

pixelburp

If Biden wins, it feels like it'll be 2016 all over again; the demographics most emboldened by Sanders will be depressed and demotivated by another Establishment careerist. Maybe this time the presence of Trump as President might persuade others to hold their nose, maybe more won't get suckered into another "Jill Stein" waste of a vote, but overall I can't help but see Biden as representative of "more of the same".

Trump made it clear enough the electorate want a change, for all his many, many faults, and don't get a sense there's a yearning to return to the kind of politics Biden represents.