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

1…7677798182…306

Comments

  • #2342
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    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.

    Maybe you find it offensive because it touched a nerve? They generally will and I gave examples. Capital is the god. The corporate US media is notorious for it.

    Why is self proclaimed "Democrat" Lloyd Blankfein saying that he'd find it harder to vote for Sanders than he would for Trump? That's exactly the way a hell of a lot of corporate "centrists" think. The bottom line for them is king.

    You're a self proclaimed "centrist"? Interesting, a lot of people claim a lot of things. You'll get racists who claim they are liberals.

    I note you didn't answer my question about whether you believe Trump is a fascist. Strange that.


  • #2343
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    eagle eye wrote: »
    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.

    Welcome to the world of cliched crude reductionism and rejecting reality.


  • #2344
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    sid waddell wrote: »
    Welcome to the world of cliched crude reductionism and rejecting reality.

    The "reality" as you put it, is that there is a free and fair election in November between two functioning political parties to decide the fate of the US Presidency, just like it's always been.

    Fascist dictatorships murder and jail people with the goal of ultimately eliminating political opponents so that they become the sole party and there's no opposition.

    Yelling fascist and racist to those who align differently to you politically went down a treat in 2016 with the deplorable's, it's certain to work even better in 2020. You and people like you who make vast sweeping ignorant generalisations is why a person like Trump ended up in office, and apparently you still don't see it.


  • #2345
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    sid waddell wrote: »
    Why is self proclaimed "Democrat" Lloyd Blankfein saying that he'd find it harder to vote for Sanders than he would for Trump? That's exactly the way a hell of a lot of corporate "centrists" think. The bottom line for them is king.

    You're a self proclaimed "centrist"? Interesting, a lot of people claim a lot of things. You'll get racists who claim they are liberals.

    Bernie Sanders is absolutely delighted that the CEO of Goldman Sachs is speaking out against him.


  • #2346
    marno21
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,654 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    The same pro-Bernie tactic is being replicated in a Senate race in North Carolina

    https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1230870314432815106


  • Advertisement
  • #2347
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    peddlelies wrote: »
    The "reality" as you put it, is that there is a free and fair election in November between two functioning political parties to decide the fate of the US Presidency, just like it's always been.

    Fascist dictatorships murder and jail people with the goal of ultimately eliminating political opponents so it becomes a one party state.

    Yelling Fascist and Racist to those who align you politically went down a treat in 2016 with the deplorable's, It's certain to work even better in 2020. You and people like you who make vast sweeping ignorant generalisations is why a person like Trump ended up in office, and apparently you still don't see it.

    You think the election will be free and fair? Let's just say you're very naive, and that's being kind. America couldn't even manage that before Trump, and with Trump and the Republican party openly encouraging interference from Russia in the election plus the tried and trusted voter suppression techniques already in operation (as well as the execrable electoral college which does not count every vote equally in worth), only a very gullible person indeed would believe that there will not be serious attempts to deny democract this November.

    But apparently we should believe the best in fascists, believe in their better nature, or something like that. Or so you say.

    You badly need to read some basic history.

    In relation to the second point, you must have been asleep for the last four years. "Lock her up" never happened. Attempts at show trials never happened. Interference in the rule of law never happened. A corrupt fixer brought in to corrupt the justice department never happpened. A promotion to cabinet for the guy who suppressed the Epstein case which Trump was up to his neck in never happened.

    But they did happen.

    You've been posting in support of Trump for a long time on this forum. Therefore we can take anything you say about what Trump is with more than a pinch of salt.

    In relation to your last point, discussion on an Irish forum is irrelevant to which way anybody in America will vote. This is not a campaign ad. It's a discussion forum. Apparently you think otherwise. You'd be better off avoiding feigning imagined victimhood and offence too. It's so, you know, snowflakey and anti-free speech, and I thought Trump supporters hated that?


  • #2348
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    marno21 wrote: »
    The same pro-Bernie tactic is being replicated in a Senate race in North Carolina

    https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1230870314432815106

    The same tactics were in operation in the UK election. Russia likes to create confusion and let it be known that that is what is doing.


  • #2349
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,580 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    sid waddell wrote:
    Welcome to the world of cliched crude reductionism and rejecting reality.
    Thats all in your head. You need to step away from the internet for a couple of days for your own sanity I think.
    The world isn't as black and white as you think. It's not as full of conspiracy as you think either.
    I'm not naive in any way, I realise there is loads of dodgy stuff going on, on both sides, Big difference between me and you is I can step back and think about it and reason out things.


  • #2350
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    Bernie Sanders is absolutely delighted that the CEO of Goldman Sachs is speaking out against him.

    He likely is. But that wasn't the point I made. It helps to back up my point that corporate self proclaimed "Democrats" will not support Bernie in numbers. Why would they? He threatens their bottom line. Whereas Trump is a pro-capital, pro-corporate corruption and corruption in general, and pro-swamp. And that's the most important thing for them.

    Liz Warren was delighted when there was a news story that billionaires didn't like her. But it also helps to exlapin why corporate media have tried to sideline her from the nomination discussion.

    And it explains why Pete Buttigieg has been so heavily pushed by the media and the corporate Democrat class and Michael Bloomberg has been welcomed into the race by them with open arms.


  • #2351
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Thats all in your head. You need to step away from the internet for a couple of days for your own sanity I think.
    The world isn't as black and white as you think. It's not as full of conspiracy as you think either.
    I'm not naive in any way, I realise there is loads of dodgy stuff going on, on both sides, Big difference between me and you is I can step back and think about it and reason out things.

    Questioning other people's sanity isn't an argument. It only shows up your lack of any.


  • Advertisement
  • #2352
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,051 ✭✭✭✭briany


    sid waddell wrote: »
    The same tactics were in operation in the UK election. Russia likes to create confusion and let it be known that that is what is doing.

    It's a genius tactic, really (and evil, too). Fund both sides & increase division. The political process becomes paralysed and everyone becomes cynical because no movement can be seen as truly genuine. Accusations of astro-turfing become ubiquitous. Democracy itself comes under genuine threat as people lose faith in the whole process and popular appetite grows for a 'strong leader' who will cut through all the b*ll****.

    It's a strategy that has not, AFAIK, had an effective way to combat it. I think you can prevent it taking hold by having a population who are politically aware and the necessary fissures don't exist to be wedged open, but once it's in the system, it seems like a terminal cancer.


  • #2353
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    sid waddell wrote: »
    You think the election will be free and fair? Let's just say you're very naive, and that's being kind. America couldn't even manage that before Trump, and with Trump and the Republican party openly encouraging interference from Russia in the election plus the tried and trusted voter suppression techniques already in operation (as well as the execrable electoral college which does not count every vote equally in worth), only a very gullible person indeed would believe that there will not be serious attempts to deny democract this November.

    But apparently we should believe the best in fascists, believe in their better nature, or something like that. Or so you say.

    Democrats are just clean as a whistle when it comes to election integrity aren't they?

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-hate-gerrymanderingexcept-when-they-get-to-do-it
    In relation to the second point, you must have been asleep for the last four years. "Lock her up" never happened.

    Oh no



    Oh nooo


    Attempts at show trials never happened. Interference in the rule of law never happened. A corrupt fixer brought in to corrupt the justice department never happpened. A promotion to cabinet for the guy who suppressed the Epstein case which Trump was up to his neck in never happened.

    But they did happen.

    Yes you're right they did happen, the special council investigation and his impeachment trial were both completed without hindrance.
    You've been posting in support of Trump for a long time on this forum. Therefore we can take anything you say about what Trump is with more than a pinch of salt.

    In relation to your last point, discussion on an Irish forum is irrelevant to which way anybody in America will vote. This is not a campaign ad. It's a discussion forum. Apparently you think otherwise. You'd be better off avoiding feigning imagined victimhood and offence too. It's so, you know, snowflakey and anti-free speech, and I thought Trump supporters hated that?

    I should just take the easy way out, shout fascist and racist at anyone I disagree with.


  • #2354
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,580 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    sid waddell wrote:
    Questioning other people's sanity isn't an argument. It only shows up your lack of any.
    What's your game? Is it one-upmanship? I'm too old for that, I don't care. Very childish.


  • #2355
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    peddlelies wrote: »

    I should just take the easy way out, shout fascist and racist at anyone I disagree with.

    Repeating this nonsense stock slogan is not an argument.


  • #2356
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    sid waddell wrote: »
    Repeating this nonsense stock slogan is not an argument.

    What sort of response were you expecting? You're comparing Trump to people like Mussolini and Hitler and claiming those voted Republican in 2016 were siding with fascism.

    Trump is a golden spoon baby who's jumped from party to party depending on which was beneficial to him at the time, it wasn't that long ago he was Wrestling in the WWE or firing people on reality TV. It's complete and utter nonsense.


  • #2357
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    peddlelies wrote: »
    What sort of response were you expecting? You're comparing Trump to people like Mussolini and Hitler and claiming those voted Republican in 2016 were siding with fascism.

    Trump is a golden spoon baby who's jumped from party to party depending on which was beneficial to him at the time, it wasn't that long ago he was Wrestling in the WWE or firing people on reality TV. It's complete and utter nonsense.
    I think you rather misunderstand the nature of what Trump, whether that's deliberate or not on your part I can't say.

    You brought up Hitler and Mussolini, not me. Given that you're clearly intent on debating against a straw man, I'll leave our exchange there, thanks.


  • #2358
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    sid waddell wrote: »
    He likely is. But that wasn't the point I made. It helps to back up my point that corporate self proclaimed "Democrats" will not support Bernie in numbers. Why would they? He threatens their bottom line. Whereas Trump is a pro-capital, pro-corporate corruption and corruption in general, and pro-swamp. And that's the most important thing for them.

    Liz Warren was delighted when there was a news story that billionaires didn't like her. But it also helps to exlapin why corporate media have tried to sideline her from the nomination discussion.

    And it explains why Pete Buttigieg has been so heavily pushed by the media and the corporate Democrat class and Michael Bloomberg has been welcomed into the race by them with open arms.

    A lot of tin foil hat stuff there.

    Democratic voters will support whoever the candidate is. I'm a typical centrist Democrat and would vote for Bernie if he is the nominee, as would every Democrat I know. I would also vote for any of the other candidates.

    Elizabeth Warren is pro-capitalist and has accumulated quite a bit of capital herself, and more power to her. She has been center stage in every Democratic debate. As for her falling numbers, I would attribute that mainly to her attack on Bernie, that didn't go down well.

    As for Bloomberg, any registered Democrat can run for president, I could run for president if I was motivated. That's the beauty of US democracy, a mayor from a relatively small US city can take on the rich and well known candidates and win, just as a junior senator did in 2008.

    At the end of the day voters will decide, decide whether to come out to vote and who to vote for. If Democrats run an energetic candidate who connects to voters with a sensible platform, this should be a cakewalk.

    How did Democrats win back the House in 2016 with all the Russian interference and Republican suppression? For that matter how did Obama win so comprehensively in 2008 and 2012? It's a feeble excuse, the numbers are there in combined Democratic and Democratic leaning Independents to win handily.


  • #2359
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    sid waddell wrote: »
    I think you rather misunderstand the nature of what Trump, whether that's deliberate or not on your part I can't say.

    You brought up Hitler and Mussolini, not me. Given that you're clearly intent on debating against a straw man, I'll leave our exchange there, thanks.

    When he's mass murdering civilians and getting his secret police to assassinate political opponents we'll pick it up again sure.


  • #2360
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    peddlelies wrote: »
    When he's mass murdering civilians and getting his secret police to assassinate political opponents we'll pick it up again sure.

    You have zero understanding of what fascism is. Goodnight.


  • #2361
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,580 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    sid waddell wrote:
    You brought up Hitler and Mussolini, not me. Given that you're clearly intent on debating against a straw man, I'll leave our exchange there, thanks.
    You didn't mention the names but you brought them and every other fascist up with your extremes. You have come across as if there's no middle ground anywhere.
    Trump isn't a fascist, he's not a nice person but he's a long way from a fascist.


  • Advertisement
  • #2362
    duploelabs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,031 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    peddlelies wrote: »
    When he's mass murdering civilians and getting his secret police to assassinate political opponents we'll pick it up again sure.

    On the latter point about political opponents, it starts with utilising instruments of the state in influencing cases to help his allies (like Roger Stone), and then utilising instruments of the state to smear his political allies (like Joe Biden). We may not be at the stage of secret police and midnight kidnappings, but the US (under Trump) are definitely sliding in that direction and to say they are not is blatantly naive


  • #2363
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    A lot of tin foil hat stuff there.

    Democratic voters will support whoever the candidate is. I'm a typical centrist Democrat and would vote for Bernie if he is the nominee, as would every Democrat I know. I would also vote for any of the other candidates.

    Elizabeth Warren is pro-capitalist and has accumulated quite a bit of capital herself, and more power to her. She has been center stage in every Democratic debate. As for her falling numbers, I would attribute that mainly to her attack on Bernie, that didn't go down well.

    As for Bloomberg, any registered Democrat can run for president, I could run for president if I was motivated. That's the beauty of US democracy, a mayor from a relatively small US city can take on the rich and well known candidates and win, just as a junior senator did in 2008.

    At the end of the day voters will decide, decide whether to come out to vote and who to vote for. If Democrats run an energetic candidate who connects to voters with a sensible platform, this should be a cakewalk.

    How did Democrats win back the House in 2016 with all the Russian interference and Republican suppression? For that matter how did Obama win so comprehensively in 2008 and 2012? It's a feeble excuse, the numbers are there in combined Democratic and Democratic leaning Independents to win handily.

    Nothing there adresses any point I raised.


  • #2364
    Red for Danger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 128 ✭✭Red for Danger


    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

    Democratic voters will support whoever the candidate is. I'm a typical centrist Democrat and would vote for Bernie if he is the nominee, as would every Democrat I know. I would also vote for any of the other

    If you listen to trump supporters coming out of one of his rallies they'll say things like. "trump already has enough money, so he's definitely not in it for the money....."
    These people are vulnerable to every con job out there, because the way it works is almost always " much wants more". So people no matter where they're at will almost always want more, those tiny few who dont are in such small numbers politically speaking they're irrelevant.

    The centrist with a platform both media/politicians are so wealthy they're lot will be slightly reduced if sanders gets his way and slightly increased if trump gets his way.
    Therefore their for more tax cuts or the status quo.


  • #2365
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,051 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Here's the main problem with Bernie Sanders - remember when Obama proposed moderate healthcare reform in 2008? He was fought every step of the way on it. Didn't Obama get so frustrated with the Republicans at one stage that he made an address where he said something to the effect of, "If you told them [Republicans] the sky was blue, they'd tell you it was yellow."? It was like Obama was at his wit's end with the amount of filibustering and pushback he and his administration received. And this was a president who proposed stuff nowhere near as radical (for America) as what Bernie talks about and at a time when America at least seemed less divided.

    Could you imagine what kind of a shellacking Bernie would get? He'd not only get it from the Republicans, but his own party as well, who aren't even really his party because he's really an independent on the Democratic ticket. He'd be a lame duck. He'd get nothing done. He'd do 4 years in the White House and the American media would hold it up as a failed experiment in socialism.

    And I say all this as someone who likes Bernie and find his proposals reasonable by a European standard, but I have to acknowledge the reality of the situation, too. Still, I'd like to see him go all the way, not because I think he'd be able to achieve half of what he's championing, but because of the grassroots movement he inspires, and there is a hope, no matter how small that this movement can grow and assert itself and take America back to being a forward-looking country.


  • #2366
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,839 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Bernie would probably need a Dem majority in the Senate. Even then some Dems Senators will be a though buy. If they try and stop any of his proposals, they have to own that. I suspect the Medicare for All will have to allow present policy holders a keep what they have option.
    Probably wrong too to focus totally on one thing. Ardern in NZ had to leave one of key policies behind when Peters wouldn't go with it.


  • #2367
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    briany wrote: »
    Here's the main problem with Bernie Sanders - remember when Obama proposed moderate healthcare reform in 2008? He was fought every step of the way on it. Didn't Obama get so frustrated with the Republicans at one stage that he made an address where he said something to the effect of, "If you told them [Republicans] the sky was blue, they'd tell you it was yellow."? It was like Obama was at his wit's end with the amount of filibustering and pushback he and his administration received. And this was a president who proposed stuff nowhere near as radical (for America) as what Bernie talks about and at a time when America at least seemed less divided.

    Could you imagine what kind of a shellacking Bernie would get? He'd not only get it from the Republicans, but his own party as well, who aren't even really his party because he's really an independent on the Democratic ticket. He'd be a lame duck. He'd get nothing done. He'd do 4 years in the White House and the American media would hold it up as a failed experiment in socialism.

    And I say all this as someone who likes Bernie and find his proposals reasonable by a European standard, but I have to acknowledge the reality of the situation, too. Still, I'd like to see him go all the way, not because I think he'd be able to achieve half of what he's championing, but because of the grassroots movement he inspires, and there is a hope, no matter how small that this movement can grow and assert itself and take America back to being a forward-looking country.

    Kind of related to your post but here's what I don't get about the "moderate" Democrats: If you want moderate progressive policies you need to aim for strongly progressive policies. For moderate Dems to get the policies they want will take someone more progressive. It's short-sighted in the extreme for them to publicly aim for what they want and to go against the will of a large faction of the party.


  • #2368
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,738 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    I'm glad I held back from voting on the poll. Now I can be all smug and say I knew it wasn't going to be Biden.


  • #2369
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Kind of related to your post but here's what I don't get about the "moderate" Democrats: If you want moderate progressive policies you need to aim for strongly progressive policies. For moderate Dems to get the policies they want will take someone more progressive. It's short-sighted in the extreme for them to publicly aim for what they want and to go against the will of a large faction of the party.

    That seems a bit of a fallacy. If you want moderate policies, surely you should support a moderate candidate, and then support those policies tooth and nail. You are instead suggesting that there will be a position of compromise. "We meet in the middle". I don't think that's realistic.

    With a possible exception of ACA, which was primarily supported by a moderate anyway, I don't think the US has really done anything which resembles a compromise in years. It's been 'whoever's calling the shots generally gets whatever they were aiming for' because both sides become entrenched and one side is going to end up losing. Even 'trade' (We'll vote for this if you vote for that) seems to be a non-factor these days, I can't recall the last time we publicly passed such a bill.

    It's either all-or-nothing in the case of opposing viewpoints (eg tax reform bill 2017) with no need for compromise because the votes are there, or no need for compromise in the case of bipartisan stuff out the bat (eg criminal justice reform bill 2018) since both sides are in favour of it anyway.


  • #2370
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    Sanders looks like he is going to walk it in Nevada. MSNBC live coverage seems resigned to him being the nominee. Chris Matthews just compared Sanders' surge in the last month to the Nazis invading Paris. "It's over". The corporate Democratic wing not taking it too well, so.

    MSNBC is strange. It has some excellent stuff like Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell but some of the other commentary and framing can be dreadful and very corporate Democrat-biased.


  • Advertisement
  • #2371
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,839 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Don't have that slant on CNN, in fairness. Their figures on an entrance poll in Nevada shows Sanders is also taking a good share of the moderates and many union members despite their leaders advocating against Sanders.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement