US Presidential Election 2020

Tchaikovsky · 21-02-2020 10:22AM

I don't know if it's been made clear, but Bernie has a house in DC because he works there, a house in Vermont because he's from there, and a summer house which was passed down from his wife's parents which is basically a shack.

Penn · 21-02-2020 10:31AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The best thing Bloomberg could have done was avoid all the debates and just kept pumping money into advertisements. He was an embarrassment last night. The most loathsome character in the race.

The fact that this was the best thing his media team could pull out of what happened at the debate says a lot

https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1230515129877434368?s=20

pixelburp · 21-02-2020 10:34AM

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

I don't know if it's been made clear, but Bernie has a house in DC because he works there, a house in Vermont because he's from there, and a summer house which was passed down from his wife's parents which is basically a shack.

That's what he said in response to Bloomberg's jibe; I'd be very surprised if most senators didn't have two houses, simply down to the ludicrous size of America as a whole. At least Sanders' state is on the Eastern side and on the same timezone as DC - no way Californian, Texan senators aren't living in second houses.

TBH, it's part of the boilerplate, bad-faith argument made against anyone vaguely socialist or left wing. Even this side of the pond, and seen on Boards occasionally: that if you're not padding around wearing hair shirts in abject poverty you must be some raging hypocrit. This chronic (deliberate?) misunderstanding that socialism prevents or forbids personal wealth. Of course it doesn't, but that doesn't or won't stop this fallacy - going double if Sanders wins the nomination.

briany · 21-02-2020 11:29AM

Bloomberg's blushes will be mighty when he realises he's spent 1/64th of his vast fortune only to look like a pranny. It's a feat that can be achieved for free.

sid waddell · 21-02-2020 11:34AM

pixelburp wrote: »

That's what he said in response to Bloomberg's jibe; I'd be very surprised if most senators didn't have two houses, simply down to the ludicrous size of America as a whole. At least Sanders' state is on the Eastern side and on the same timezone as DC - no way Californian, Texan senators aren't living in second houses.

TBH, it's part of the boilerplate, bad-faith argument made against anyone vaguely socialist or left wing. Even this side of the pond, and seen on Boards occasionally: that if you're not padding around wearing hair shirts in abject poverty you must be some raging hypocrit. This chronic (deliberate?) misunderstanding that socialism prevents or forbids personal wealth. Of course it doesn't, but that doesn't or won't stop this fallacy - going double if Sanders wins the nomination.

Is there any other type of argument that comes from Republicans/Tories/right wing culture war obsessives in general?

briany · 21-02-2020 02:38PM

It seems to me that the Dems are undergoing a shift in their support and the traditional establishment of the party absolutely hates it. They're putting up these milquetoast centrists in a desperate plea to a wished-for demographic of voters who just want the USA to return to a form of sanity where people accept the way the country is run without too much fuss. What appears to be happening is that a surge in youth support threatens to take the party further left than many within it would like, very similar to what has happened to British Labour and the 'Momentum' movement. These types of intra-party civil wars can really do a number on voter turnout. It certainly didn't help Labour and, combined with their weak Brexit stance, has left them at their lowest ebb in... well.... ever. Can't think the Dems want their own version of that.

sid waddell · 21-02-2020 02:51PM

briany wrote: »

It seems to me that the Dems are undergoing a shift in their support and the traditional establishment of the party absolutely hates it. They're putting up these milquetoast centrists in a desperate plea to a wished-for demographic of voters who just want the USA to return to a form of sanity where people accept the way the country is run without too much fuss. What appears to be happening is that a surge in youth support threatens to take the party further left than many within it would like, very similar to what has happened to British Labour and the 'Momentum' movement. These types of intra-party civil wars can really do a number on voter turnout. It certainly didn't help Labour and, combined with their weak Brexit stance, has left them at their lowest ebb in... well.... ever. Can't think the Dems want their own version of that.

It seems to me that corporate Democrats would rather lose to Trump than have a Sanders presidency.

Self proclaimed "centrists" will generally side with a fascist against mild social democracy. Look how the corporate "centrist" class in the US supported Bolsonaro in Brazil and consistently does deals with the far right in Europe and adopts their insane rhetoric.

The Labour centrists were far more interested in damaging Corbyn than in beating the Tories.

And these so called "centrists" then have the cheek to talk about party unity.

Anybody can see what will happen if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates and is then denied the nomination. It would be a disaster and whoever that nominee would be would lose in November. Corporate Democrats aren't stupid. They must know that denying Sanders the nomination in this manner will be a disaster. Which is exactly why I say they'd prefer Trump to win than Sanders.

Trump doesn't threaten the untrammelled power and privilege of corporate capital in any way, he is a godsend for it because he combines orthodox failed Republican economic policy with naked corruption. Sanders does threaten it and in the view of the corpporate "centrist" class even mildly redistributive social democracy does. Nothing must threaten capital.

briany · 21-02-2020 03:17PM

sid waddell wrote: »

It seems to me that corporate Democrats would rather lose to Trump than have a Sanders presidency.

Self proclaimed "centrists" will generally side with a fascist against mild social democracy. Look how the corporate "centrist" class in the US supported Bolsonaro in Brazil and consistently does deals with the far right in Europe and adopts their insane rhetoric.

The Labour centrists were far more interested in damaging Corbyn than in beating the Tories.

And these so called "centrists" then have the cheek to talk about party unity.

Anybody can see what will happen if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates and is then denied the nomination. It would be a disaster and whoever that nominee would be would lose in November. Corporate Democrats aren't stupid. They must know that denying Sanders the nomination in this manner will be a disaster. Which is exactly why I say they'd prefer Trump to win than Sanders.

Trump doesn't threaten the untrammelled power and privilege of corporate capital in any way, he is a godsend for it because he combines orthodox failed Republican economic policy with naked corruption. Sanders does threaten it and in the view of the corpporate "centrist" class even mildly redistributive social democracy does. Nothing must threaten capital.

Yes, corporate Democrats would obviously prefer Trump to Sanders. They've probably made out fairly well under his presidency. Their only real opposition to Trump would be that he's not 'one of them', but he probably still is more one of them than Sanders would be.

Water John · 21-02-2020 03:35PM

Sanders is the only Dems candidate who has been on Fox. He fared well there and I would say has a much better hope of swaying soft republicans and non party to vote for him than Dem centrists.
This is the opposite to what they fear.

briany · 21-02-2020 03:48PM

Water John wrote: »

Sanders is the only Dems candidate who has been on Fox. He fared well there and I would say has a much better hope of swaying soft republicans and non party to vote for him than Dem centrists.
This is the opposite to what they fear.

Why do I get the feeling that Fox are only propping up Sanders so they can come down on him like a ton of bricks later on? Like, I think it's in their interest, as far as making money goes, to make the election as divisive and bitter as possible. If Sanders gets the nomination, i expect Fox to frame the election as an existential battle between capitalism and communism.

eire4 · 21-02-2020 08:00PM

sid waddell wrote: »

It seems to me that corporate Democrats would rather lose to Trump than have a Sanders presidency.

Self proclaimed "centrists" will generally side with a fascist against mild social democracy. Look how the corporate "centrist" class in the US supported Bolsonaro in Brazil and consistently does deals with the far right in Europe and adopts their insane rhetoric.

The Labour centrists were far more interested in damaging Corbyn than in beating the Tories.

And these so called "centrists" then have the cheek to talk about party unity.

Anybody can see what will happen if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates and is then denied the nomination. It would be a disaster and whoever that nominee would be would lose in November. Corporate Democrats aren't stupid. They must know that denying Sanders the nomination in this manner will be a disaster. Which is exactly why I say they'd prefer Trump to win than Sanders.

Trump doesn't threaten the untrammelled power and privilege of corporate capital in any way, he is a godsend for it because he combines orthodox failed Republican economic policy with naked corruption. Sanders does threaten it and in the view of the corpporate "centrist" class even mildly redistributive social democracy does. Nothing must threaten capital.

Since Reagan foisted Milton Friedman's disaster capitalism on the US the Democrats have been controlled and still largely are by a corporate wing that buys into and wants to maintain this disaster capitalism status quo. They have no interest in policies along a more FDR line that would benefit the vast majority of Americans and I agree they will do anything to stop Sanders changing the dynamic that the Democratic party is ruled by currently corporatism via Friedmanite disaster capitalism and turning towards a more FRD like Democratic party.

nigeldaniel · 21-02-2020 08:05PM

Democrats are making a pig's ear out of this with all the infighting. I was hoping the Biden would get the nod but those two Bernie and Warren are making it all into a farce. I would not be surprised if the Ruskeys started feeding silly stories on to the Democrats mid runners hoping they will sling it all out in the open. O hang on a mo...

Eric Cartman · 21-02-2020 08:06PM

briany wrote: »

Why do I get the feeling that Fox are only propping up Sanders so they can come down on him like a ton of bricks later on? Like, I think it's in their interest, as far as making money goes, to make the election as divisive and bitter as possible. If Sanders gets the nomination, i expect Fox to frame the election as an existential battle between capitalism and communism.

absolutely and it would be the easiest walk donny T ever had back to the oval office. Getting rust belt swing states not to vote for a 'commie' is pretty easy.

21-02-2020 08:09PM

The communism malarkey hasn't worked and won't work.

Trump knows that when it's down to himself and Sanders he'll have to approach from a different angle. Even Tucker Carlson has admitted that.

Eric Cartman · 21-02-2020 08:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The communism malarkey hasn't worked and won't work.

Trump knows that when it's down to himself and Sanders he'll have to approach from a different angle. Even Tucker Carlson has admitted that.

I strongly doubt the dems will let bernie get that far, on the offchance they did I think it would switch track to "lowest black unemployment" "more jobs created" "the american dream is not a bigger welfare state" "were the world leader on healthcare innovation"

americans are quite competitive , selling them the visual of winning the baseball game is much more appealing than the bench being a very comfy one.

Penn · 21-02-2020 10:27PM

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1230961139519049729?s=19

Jesus... after going through all the NDAs, they found three they'd be willing to release. Ironically, they would have been better saying absolutely nothing about it

DreamsBurnDown · 21-02-2020 10:44PM

Whatever about the DNC, there are serious concerns among many Democrats in competitive states about Bernie's candidacy, to deny that is head in the sand stuff. Not so much at Bernie himself, as Bernie is fairly well regarded and respected across a wide spectrum of Americans, and most people are sensible enough to realize no matter how ambitious a platform a presidential candidate runs on, there generally is compromise to get it implemented. The concern at state level is that Bernie might get elected but the cost will be the loss of the House and further losses in the Senate and local level elections.

The valid concerns are the no compromise stance of Bernie and a lot of his supporters, and frankly the small subsection of his followers who are seriously damaging the image of the party. There's a few examples on this thread (they may not be American but there are plenty like them in America), not just labeling Republicans but also Independents and moderate Democrats as fascists and fascist enables. I mean how stupid can you get? Hillary turned off lots of voters who would normally vote Democrat by calling them deplorables, but calling them fascists will get them onside? The recent vicious attacks on leaders of the Culinary Union in Nevada is not a trivial issue, it's asking quite a lot to expect someone you label as a "whore" to vote for the candidate you support.

Bernie himself is obviously not speaking in those terms, but he needs to do more than just say these individuals are basically Internet headcases and there is no way to control them. He needs to completely and utterly distance himself from the insanity of branding Independents and fellow Democrats as fascists, far right, etc. if they happen to have a different opinion on issues.

Water John · 21-02-2020 11:03PM

I have't seen any poster here labelling Inds and moderate Republicans as fascists or fascist enablers.
This seems to be a concerted line in the last while, attacking Bernie supporters and trying to make him own each and every supporter's views and actions.

Joe_ Public · 21-02-2020 11:12PM

When people talk about the so called abuse of the "bernie bros" I'd feel obliged if they followed it with concrete, clear cut examples because 4 years of this stuff and i honestly dont know what its referring to. Is it just the few usual online headbangers because, really, they come in all shades and sizes?

DreamsBurnDown · 21-02-2020 11:14PM

Water John wrote: »

I have't seen any poster here labelling Inds and moderate Republicans as fascists or fascist enablers.
This seems to be a concerted line in the last while, attacking Bernie supporters and trying to make him own each and every supporter's views and actions.

Scroll up to post 2319.

Most Americans in swing states are centrists, whether they vote Democrat or Republican or are on the fence. Anyone who has lived in or spent time in a swing state would know that. They also do not side with fascists, many of them come from families who fought fascism or fled fascism.

sid waddell · 21-02-2020 11:17PM

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Scroll up to post 2319.

Most Americans in swing states are centrists, whether they vote Democrat or Republican or are on the fence. Anyone who has lived in or spent time in a swing state would know that. They also do not side with fascists, many of them come from families who fought fascism or fled fascism.

Except they did side with fascism and continue to do so.

sid waddell · 21-02-2020 11:33PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

When people talk about the so called abuse of the "bernie bros" I'd feel obliged if they followed it with concrete, clear cut examples because 4 years of this stuff and i honestly dont know what its referring to. Is it just the few usual online headbangers because, really, they come in all shades and sizes?

In the UK election, Labour had a cohort of online "supporters" who did engage in consistently threatening rhetoric and went in for some nuttier conspiracy theories, and I even saw a few building personas based around supposed Russian "innocence" in Ukraine, which as anybody who has followed that situation will be aware, is utter nonsense, as Russia has been the aggressor at every stage towards Ukraine. I have strong doubts about whether some of that online activity was real and feel the likelihood is that it was Russian bot and troll activity. The same is no doubt true of some of Sanders' online support.

It's being reported now that the Russians are intervening to try and help Sanders. But the problem here lies in how this will be reported and analysed. The corporate media will make a huge deal of this try and damage Sanders when we all know the problem as regards online Russian bot and troll support for Trump is exponentially greater, which is no surprise as he's bought and paid for by the Russians, yet few in the media seem to care anymore.

Nobody should be in any doubt as to the end goal of all this. It's not to get Sanders elected, it's to help Trump get elected. I think the goal of Russia in all this on the Democratic side is to force a contested convention which splits the part. They're well aware of the lengths the corporate Democrats will go to to deny Sanders the nomination even if he gets a plurality of delegates.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the app used in the Iowa caucus was hacked by the Russians.

sid waddell · 21-02-2020 11:36PM

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Scroll up to post 2319.

Most Americans in swing states are centrists, whether they vote Democrat or Republican or are on the fence. Anyone who has lived in or spent time in a swing state would know that. They also do not side with fascists, many of them come from families who fought fascism or fled fascism.

That post doesn't back up your theory in any way. It does perhaps show a comprehension failure on your part though? Maybe you think Bolsonaro and the European far right are not Brazilian and European fascists respectively and are in fact corporate Democrats in the US?

DreamsBurnDown · 22-02-2020 12:11AM

sid waddell wrote: »

Except they did side with fascism and continue to do so.

Who are the "they" who side with fascism? I'm an American who votes Democrat and would identify as a moderate, or a centrist if you wish. Are you suggesting I side with fascism? Should all those who are centrist be expelled from the Democratic party?

Thanks for making my point about the loons that will hand the election to Trump.

DreamsBurnDown · 22-02-2020 12:18AM

sid waddell wrote: »

Nobody should be in any doubt as to the end goal of all this. It's not to get Sanders elected, it's to help Trump get elected. I think the goal of Russia in all this on the Democratic side is to force a contested convention which splits the part. They're well aware of the lengths the corporate Democrats will go to to deny Sanders the nomination even if he gets a plurality of delegates.

There's an easy solution to avoid a contested convention. The DNC are not going to change the rules before the convention, that would be insane and lead to ridicule. If Bernie wins the plurality of delegates, which I believe he will, the remaining candidates can withdraw.

sid waddell · 22-02-2020 12:18AM

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Who are the "they" who side with fascism? I'm an American who votes Democrat and would identify as a moderate, or a centrist if you wish. Are you suggesting I side with fascism? Should all those who are centrist be expelled from the Democratic party?

Thanks for making my point about the loons that will hand the election to Trump.

I didn't suggest anything about you, on the contrary, you were suggesting stuff about me.

You're asking me should all those who are "centrist" be expelled from the Democratic party? Is that an attempt at a serious point? Because it sure doesn't sound like one, it's hysterical. As is your rhetoric about "loons".

Everybody who voted for Trump sided with fascism. Trump is certainly a fascist. Is he not?

peddlelies · 22-02-2020 12:33AM

sid waddell wrote: »

Everybody who voted for Trump sided with fascism. Trump is certainly a fascist. Is he not?

Genuinely feel sorry for you

DreamsBurnDown · 22-02-2020 12:33AM

sid waddell wrote: »

I didn't suggest anything about you, on the contrary, you were suggesting stuff about me.

You exact quote was "self proclaimed centrists will generally side with a fascist against mild social democracy".

This is absurd nonsense, let alone being highly offensive. I am a self proclaimed centrist and believe in mild social democracy. Literally most Democrats I know in the US would say the same. I may disagree with some of Bernie's proposals, especially on health care, but I would still vote for him in the national election.

Who are these Democrats that side with fascists? If you are suggesting Democrats would vote for Trump rather than Bernie, you are simply incorrect.

eagle eye · 22-02-2020 12:40AM

DreamsBurnDown wrote:

Who are these Democrats that side with fascists? If you are suggesting Democrats would vote for Trump rather than Bernie, you are simply incorrect.

Welcome to the world of social media where if you are not firmly on one side, which the person supports, then you are firmly in the polar opposite category.
That's how mad the Internet is these days.

peddlelies · 22-02-2020 12:45AM

Brace yourselves, the Russians are coming

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1230966853280960513

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments