US Presidential Election 2020

Water John · 27-02-2020 5:38pm

It will be an interesting position if Trump's actions and record have numbed peoples reactions and the attacks on Sanders carry no weight.

Manic Moran · 27-02-2020 5:42pm

sid waddell wrote: »

The words "pandering to black voters" have very negative connotations indeed about the person who uses them.

I would have thought would have been obvious, but apparently not.

Nope, apparently not.

It's a factual statement, I'm not sure how much more neutral it can be. The point I raised isn't the pandering itself; as I say, it's the default position of any politician. It was in reference to the level of emphasis on one demographic at the expense of the other in that debate. There is a very, very large contingent of hispanic/latin voters participating in the Democratic primary next week*. That they were subordinated to the attentions of a smaller demographic in South Carolina and Georgia is a fact worth remarking upon, and I'm not alone. Also from CNN: And once again, the lack of any significant discussion of immigration in a Democratic debate was notable. California and Texas, the two states with the country's largest Latino populations, vote on Super Tuesday -- and so overlooking this critical topic was inexcusable.

They may as well start getting used to it. Immigration was a notable topic in the election of Trump, they're going to have to start talking about it eventually. If they don't, Trump will anyway.

*I failed to be complete in my previous post. The 5.5million was just in Texas alone.

Foxtrol · 27-02-2020 5:50pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The clear narrative among establishment democrats to use whatever they can to undermine sanders and that is being ratcheted up now the panic is setting in. And beside that, the familiar old equivalence trope, in evidence in your second to last post, which elevates every trivial slip sanders might make into gaffes of trumpian proportions. Only getting warmed up i would imagine.

The Bernie and his supporter's victim mentality is so tiresome.

Moans that he isn't being treated like the front runner, then moans that he is getting the scrutiny that a front runner gets. Using equivalence one minute when it suits and then complaining about it next.

When we saw 2016 descend into farce based on 'but her emails' nonsense, I don't know why you can't accept that Bernie taking positions that damage more than help in the general isn't concerning or something that should be avoided.

Englo · 27-02-2020 6:34pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

When we saw 2016 descend into farce based on 'but her emails' nonsense, I don't know why you can't accept that Bernie taking positions that damage more than help in the general isn't concerning or something that should be avoided.

Uhm... What?

You appear to be attacking Sanders for doing the exact opposite of what he did. This article from the Washington Post would be of interest to you, taken from May 2016, hammering Sanders on his what they deemed his campaigns biggest mistake - continued outright refusal to get involved in the email debacle.

Contrast that with this campaign where Clinton isn't even running but can't stop taking shots at Sanders, and you really couldn't have that situation much more backwards.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/31/resolved-bernie-sanderss-biggest-mistake-was-not-talking-more-about-hillary-clintons-emails/?outputType=amp
(opening in chrome incognito browser can often get you around the paywall)

For the bajillionth time in this campaign, Bernie Sanders was asked over the weekend about the ongoing FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s decision to exclusively use a private email server during her time as secretary of state. And, for the bajillionth time, Sanders took a hard pass on the question.

Here's the exchange with “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd:

CHUCK TODD: Do you think Hillary Clinton needs a clean bill of health from the FBI before she accepts the Democrat nomination?

BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I have said many, many times that I’m trying to run a campaign based on the needs of the American people. And that is raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, paid family and medical leave, making public colleges and universities tuition-free. Those are the issues, by the way, that the American people are deeply concerned about.

CHUCK TODD: I understand that.

BERNIE SANDERS: But so I have not gotten into the email situation at all. There is a process unfolding. There's an investigation that is going on. It will play out and we’ll see what happens.

That answer is, effectively, the same one that Sanders has been giving for the year-plus that he has been running against Clinton. And it’s also the reason Sanders was never able to get over the top — or even come all that close — in the 2016 race.

...

Sanders tried that with hard pushes in Iowa’s caucuses and New Hampshire’s primary. Winning both of the first two races, he rightly surmised, would have forced people to rethink the idea of a Clinton coronation.

What Sanders should have done after he failed to pull off that double was to begin to incorporate Clinton’s email troubles into his stump speech — using the ongoing investigation to raise questions in Democratic voters’ minds about both her trustworthiness and her electability.

But, time and again, Sanders turned away

Joe_ Public · 27-02-2020 6:53pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

The Bernie and his supporter's victim mentality is so tiresome.

Moans that he isn't being treated like the front runner, then moans that he is getting the scrutiny that a front runner gets. Using equivalence one minute when it suits and then complaining about it next.

When we saw 2016 descend into farce based on 'but her emails' nonsense, I don't know why you can't accept that Bernie taking positions that damage more than help in the general isn't concerning or something that should be avoided.

What positions are those exactly that should be concerning, considering that Sanders is already the clear front runner and nearly all available polls suggest that that isn't likely to change anytime soon, next tuesdays potential carnage notwithstanding. Plus, polls have him as the best dem candidate to take on trump, winning lots of states, including vital swing states. Admittedly, that can all change.

But i am not suggesting for one minute that the castro comment wasn't damaging, polls in florida suggest he's taken a hit on that. So be it. It's one comment, of a rather throwaway nature and given how little they have to attack him on - a honeymoon in russia on top of a few strange things written in student journals, oh some 50 years ago, health issues (ok, valid question to ask) - i'm not surprised they've latched on to castro with such vigour. If one politically inexpedient remark is of such value to them, then i'm not sure the sanders campaign has that much to moan about yet tbh. But the heat will rise, i've no doubt about that too.

Red for Danger · 27-02-2020 6:59pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

The Bernie and his supporter's victim mentality is so tiresome.

Moans that he isn't being treated like the front runner, then moans that he is getting the scrutiny that a front runner gets. Using equivalence one minute when it suits and then complaining about it next.

When we saw 2016 descend into farce based on 'but her emails' nonsense, I don't know why you can't accept that Bernie taking positions that damage more than help in the general isn't concerning or something that should be avoided.

You do realise bernie is winning and the attacks have failed.
Al Sharpton has jumped ship and now batting for sanders, hillary has stopped attacks and showing signs of acceptance. Nancy and Chuck have both had something positive to say, they're all beginning to hedge only a matter of time before all establishment bend the knee.
Thats how goes, no principles just power hungry.
The media will be just as quick to get inline.

As paper never refused ink, you can continue on with the points you're making. But you're going have a rough couple of months because you're views are entirely irrelevant as they're not connected to whats actually happening.

Also
This {sanders =trump, because moaning } thats a fairly detached notion to be carrying around with you, you should keep that stuff to yourself.

Foxtrol · 27-02-2020 7:06pm

Englo wrote: »

Uhm... What?

You appear to be attacking Sanders for doing the exact opposite of what he did. This article from the Washington Post would be of interest to you, taken from May 2016, hammering Sanders on his what they deemed his campaigns biggest mistake - continued outright refusal to get involved in the email debacle.

Contrast that with this campaign where Clinton isn't even running but can't stop taking shots at Sanders, and you really couldn't have that situation much more backwards.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/31/resolved-bernie-sanderss-biggest-mistake-was-not-talking-more-about-hillary-clintons-emails/?outputType=amp
(opening in chrome incognito browser can often get you around the paywall)

I wasn't talking about Sanders there, I was talking about the general election.

Many seem to be looking to see everything as a slight on Bernie!

What I was trying to say is that Trump and republicans will make a mountain out of whatever molehill there is so it is idiotic to give them ammunition for no reason other than purity or pride. Those actions are exactly why people fear about his electability

pixelburp · 27-02-2020 7:12pm

I know we live in the age of Trump, but with it we shouldn't slide into a binary purity test, or moral equivalence for everyone else, that Sanders' misjudged foolishness over Cuba is on the same planet as the current Presidents swaggering vulgarity and ignorance. That kind of absolutism is bad enough at the best of times but does seem typical in many walks of life nowadays.

Sanders should have known better; that nuance goes out the window when it comes to political opinions in the public domain, and it may yet do him damage in the long run, but we shouldn't draw a straight line between political idiocy and actual, bluffing idiocy of the sitting President.

I like Sanders, I like his forthrightness and honest of belief; he seems unafraid to at least own the things he says and does. He (rightly) mocked the crowd in South Carolina when he pointed out that Obama said similar about Cuba and got booed. Equally though, that stubbornness could yet cause him trouble if he refuses to at least engage in the tough questions.

Joe_ Public · 27-02-2020 7:14pm

Red for Danger wrote: »

You do realise bernie is winning and the attacks have failed.
Al Sharpton has jumped ship and now batting for sanders, hillary has stopped attacks and showing signs of acceptance. Nancy and Chuck have both had something positive to say, they're all beginning to hedge only a matter of time before all establishment bend the knee.
Thats how goes, no principles just power hungry.
The media will be just as quick to get inline.

As paper never refused ink, you can continue on with the points you're making. But you're going have a rough couple of months because you're views are entirely irrelevant as they're not connected to whats actually happening.

Also
This {sanders =trump, because moaning } thats a fairly detached notion to be carrying around with you, you should keep that stuff to yourself.

I dont know if you've seen this from todays paper. It's firewalled but the headline gives the general idea. I'd be waiting at least a week befoer making any judgement on the democratic establishment to be honest.

https://nyti.ms/2PsxaJi

Foxtrol · 27-02-2020 7:16pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

What positions are those exactly that should be concerning, considering that Sanders is already the clear front runner and nearly all available polls suggest that that isn't likely to change anytime soon, next tuesdays potential carnage notwithstanding. Plus, polls have him as the best dem candidate to take on trump, winning lots of states, including vital swing states. Admittedly, that can all change.

But i am not suggesting for one minute that the castro comment wasn't damaging, polls in florida suggest he's taken a hit on that. So be it. It's one comment, of a rather throwaway nature and given how little they have to attack him on - a honeymoon in russia on top of a few strange things written in student journals, oh some 50 years ago, health issues (ok, valid question to ask) - i'm not surprised they've latched on to castro with such vigour. If one politically inexpedient remark is of such value to them, then i'm not sure the sanders campaign has that much to moan about yet tbh. But the heat will rise, i've no doubt about that too.

Answered yesterday the concerns that came off the top of my mind

Foxtrol wrote: »

Reds under the bed, increasing the deficit, his health, 'the squad', anti-fracking, increasing taxes, taking away people's healthcare/doctor.

Englo · 27-02-2020 7:16pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

I wasn't talking about Sanders there, I was talking about the general election.

Many seem to be looking to see everything as a slight on Bernie!

Your post, again:

When we saw 2016 descend into farce based on 'but her emails' nonsense, I don't know why you can't accept that Bernie taking positions that damage more than help in the general isn't concerning or something that should be avoided.

You will need to clarify what you meant here, because there isn't really any way I can see it other than blaming things like the email debacle - which Sanders went out of his way to repeatedly avoid - were his fault because he criticised her for other things.

You then seem to reiterate that sentiment in this same post, that any criticism of presidential candidates is idiotic and gives Trump and co more ammunition...

What I was trying to say is that Trump and republicans will make a mountain out of whatever molehill there is so it is idiotic to give them ammunition for no reason other than purity or pride. Those actions are exactly why people fear about his electability

...but by this logic, nobody - yourself included - should be criticising Sanders at all, because it only gives ammunition. Especially as the front runner.

I don't agree with that idea, but you do seem to be saying that Sanders criticising Clinton during the 2016 primaries was something he shouldn't have done.

Joe_ Public · 27-02-2020 7:24pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

Answered yesterday the concerns that came off the top of my mind

Reds under the bed, increasing the deficit, his health, 'the squad', anti-fracking, increasing taxes, taking away people's healthcare/doctor.

Fair enough. It's a bit of a balancing act, isn't it? Sanders not giving up or compromising on his beliefs and principles, even though they might hurt him politically in certain areas, probably just underscores the integrity that is driving so many people to his cause in the first place. Sure, anti-fracking might lose him a state but how many voters elsewhere will get behind him for his green new deal policies? I mean, being criticised for being anti-fracking? I'd take that any day of the week.

Foxtrol · 27-02-2020 7:36pm

Red for Danger wrote: »

You do realise bernie is winning and the attacks have failed.
Al Sharpton has jumped ship and now batting for sanders, hillary has stopped attacks and showing signs of acceptance. Nancy and Chuck have both had something positive to say, they're all beginning to hedge only a matter of time before all establishment bend the knee.
Thats how goes, no principles just power hungry.
The media will be just as quick to get inline.

As paper never refused ink, you can continue on with the points you're making. But you're going have a rough couple of months because you're views are entirely irrelevant as they're not connected to whats actually happening.

Also
This {sanders =trump, because moaning } thats a fairly detached notion to be carrying around with you, you should keep that stuff to yourself.

See this is what I'm talking about with Bernie supporters, if you're not 100% behind everything the 'dear leader' says then you're an enemy.

Today we have a campaign by Bernie supporters to try to primary Warren because she had the gall to state how Bernie had reversed his position on what should happen if a candidate only had plurality of delegates heading into the convention. Warren has barely taken a shot at Bernie all through the cycle and that is how she is treated.

For all the talk of Bernie 'winning', it doesn't matter at all unless he wins in November. Otherwise he'll be looked at like Corbyn and blame pointed to him for whatever Trump does over the following 4 years.

BTW I plan to donate to whoever the democratic candidate is, as well as to targeted swing seats. I'd actively canvas but I'm in a strongly blue state. However, the prospect of supporting Sanders is made more difficult by supporters using toxic terms like 'bend the knee', 'power hungry' and calling views 'irrelevant'.

Foxtrol · 27-02-2020 7:41pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Fair enough. It's a bit of a balancing act, isn't it? Sanders not giving up or compromising on his beliefs and principles, even though they might hurt him politically in certain areas, probably just underscores the integrity that is driving so many people to his cause in the first place. Sure, anti-fracking might lose him a state but how many voters elsewhere will get behind him for his green new deal policies? I mean, being criticised for being anti-fracking? I'd take that any day of the week.

What votes did he gain that weren't already voting for him by airing and standing by his Castro views?

Similarly, given Trump is so bad on the environment, how many votes would Sanders gain by being on an absolute ban on fracking instead of an orderly phasing out?

It is a balancing act, however smart politics is a net winner of votes, not a net loser.

A moral victory of standing by your principles would mean nothing to the people across the US that he claims to care about if Trump is elected for another 4 years

Joe_ Public · 27-02-2020 7:49pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

What votes did he gain that weren't already voting for him by airing and standing by his Castro views?

Similarly, given Trump is so bad on the environment, how many votes would Sanders gain by being on an absolute ban on fracking instead of an orderly phasing out?

It is a balancing act, however smart politics is a net winner of votes, not a net loser.

A moral victory of standing by your principles would mean nothing to the people across the US that he claims to care about if Trump is elected for another 4 years

I dont think anyone suggested he gained any votes on the castro thing, but again i dont blame him for standing by them. He'll lose florida by more than he would have, like i said, so be it.

A fracking ban has lots of support throughout the US, including even in so called fracking strongholds so i dont see the big problem. Sanders can hardly go to one state and be against it and be blase about it in another, so he can just simply be consistent about it. Its part of his climate policy and that policy is hugely popular among the young - so he has to get them out to vote, we know that's where lots of states will be won and lost. I certainly dont think it's a done deal by any means, despite favourability of polls, but i think things are going rather well for the moment at least.

Foxtrol · 27-02-2020 7:51pm

Englo wrote: »

Your post, again:

When we saw 2016 descend into farce based on 'but her emails' nonsense, I don't know why you can't accept that Bernie taking positions that damage more than help in the general isn't concerning or something that should be avoided.

You will need to clarify what you meant here, because there isn't really any way I can see it other than blaming things like the email debacle - which Sanders went out of his way to repeatedly avoid - were his fault because he criticised her for other things.

I agree Sanders didn't push her emails, read it without the frame that I'm taking a shot at him related to it.

I'm talking about how Trump used emails in 2016 and the concerns that Bernie is taking positions in 2020 that can be used by Trump.

You then seem to reiterate that sentiment in this same post, that any criticism of presidential candidates is idiotic and gives Trump and co more ammunition...

...but by this logic, nobody - yourself included - should be criticising Sanders at all, because it only gives ammunition. Especially as the front runner.

How is that logical?

I'm criticising Bernie giving open goals for others to attack him. Me or the democrats ignoring the open goal and staying quiet now doesn't mean that Trump will do so in the general.

I don't agree with that idea, but you do seem to be saying that Sanders criticising Clinton during the 2016 primaries was something he shouldn't have done.

I've now twice clarified what I meant in my post. I didnt say what you hoped I was said

Englo · 27-02-2020 7:57pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

See this is what I'm talking about with Bernie supporters, if you're not 100% behind everything the 'dear leader' says then you're an enemy.

Do you really think Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton are "100% behind everything" Sanders does?

Today we have a campaign by Bernie supporters to try to primary Warren because she had the gall to state how Bernie had reversed his position on what should happen if a candidate only had plurality of delegates heading into the convention. Warren has barely taken a shot at Bernie all through the cycle and that is how she is treated.

Can you provide a link for this please? I am looking for it but google is coming up empty.

For all the talk of Bernie 'winning', it doesn't matter at all unless he wins in November. Otherwise he'll be looked at like Corbyn and blame pointed to him for whatever Trump does over the following 4 years.

Isn't that true of everyone? If sanders wins the nomination but loses the election he gets Corbyn comparisons. If Biden wins the nomination but loses the election he gets Hillary comparisons. Same for Pete or Amy, while Warren would probably get a bit of each (further left leaning but us politics are dumbed down so much and she has a vagina so...)

Foxtrol · 27-02-2020 8:01pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I dont think anyone suggested he gained any votes on the castro thing, but again i dont blame him for standing by them. He'll lose florida by more than he would have, like i said, so be it.

A fracking ban has lots of support throughout the US, including even in so called fracking strongholds so i dont see the big problem. Sanders can hardly go to one state and be against it and be blase about it in another, so he can just simply be consistent about it. Its part of his climate policy and that policy is hugely popular among the young - so he has to get them out to vote, we know that's where lots of states will be won and lost. I certainly dont think it's a done deal by any means, despite favourability of polls, but i think things are going rather well for the moment at least.

The problem is that there is really only a handful of states that actually matter. Growing votes in safe blue states to the detriment of swing states will likely only result in a bigger overall vote win for Bernie but still losing the electoral college.

Again, if he is putting 'standing by his principles' or being 'ideologically pure' above doing what is best to win the election, then it just adds to the questions about how electable he is. Everything doesn't have to be all or nothing.

StringerBell · 27-02-2020 8:03pm

I still have strong doubts about whether Bernie can win a general, but considering the outcome of the 2016 election I'm more open to it, every action and all that.

Joe_ Public · 27-02-2020 8:12pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

The problem is that there is really only a handful of states that actually matter. Growing votes in safe blue states to the detriment of swing states will likely only result in a bigger overall vote win for Bernie but still losing the electoral college.

Again, if he is putting 'standing by his principles' or being 'ideologically pure' above doing what is best to win the election, then it just adds to the questions about how electable he is. Everything doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Yes, i agree on that. We all saw the queues at the polls in london the morning of the uk election day and thought for a while labour were going to reap the harvest, but the big vote didnt happen outside the capital and other urban centres. So lesson to be learned by sanders people there.

But sanders is winning right now. In the polls and in the primaries. So he's getting it far more right than wrong. He's battle hardened and the campaign he fights to win the nomination doesnt have to be the same as the one he fights to best trump. Remains to be seen on that, i guess.

Foxtrol · 27-02-2020 8:14pm

Englo wrote: »

Do you really think Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton are "100% behind everything" Sanders does?

No and you can see the abuse they receive because of it. Who do you think Sanders is moaning about when he talks about 'the establishment'.

Can you provide a link for this please? I am looking for it but google is coming up empty.

£primarywarren is trending on twitter in the US

https://twitter.com/HeidiNBC/status/1233041201701572608?s=20

Isn't that true of everyone? If sanders wins the nomination but loses the election he gets Corbyn comparisons. If Biden wins the nomination but loses the election he gets Hillary comparisons. Same for Pete or Amy, while Warren would probably get a bit of each (further left leaning but us politics are dumbed down so much and she has a vagina so...)

Agreed and I'd say the same to supporters of any other candidate that was on here gloating about how much they are winning, after victories in 2 out of the first 3 states.

Foxtrol · 27-02-2020 8:20pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, i agree on that. We all saw the queues at the polls in london the morning of the uk election day and thought for a while labour were going to reap the harvest, but the big vote didnt happen outside the capital and other urban centres. So lesson to be learned by sanders people there.

But sanders is winning right now. In the polls and in the primaries. So he's getting it far more right than wrong. He's battle hardened and the campaign he fights to win the nomination doesnt have to be the same as the one he fights to best trump. Remains to be seen on that, i guess.

Battle hardened is a stretch, last debate was his first time as a true front runner and he didn't look as solid as he did when he was throwing bombs from the sidelines.

I'd love if he could pivot a bit to the centre but the fact he dug in his heels on the Castro comment raises concerns that he has no intention to. Even the likes of AOC has tried to pivot some but no sign Bernie having any intention.

The same thing was said about Trump during the primary in 2016 and he barely shifted positions for the general (same was also said about his positions in the general and how he would govern and that didn't change either).

We'll wait and see but im not confident

Foxtrol · 27-02-2020 8:30pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I know we live in the age of Trump, but with it we shouldn't slide into a binary purity test, or moral equivalence for everyone else, that Sanders' misjudged foolishness over Cuba is on the same planet as the current Presidents swaggering vulgarity and ignorance. That kind of absolutism is bad enough at the best of times but does seem typical in many walks of life nowadays.

Sanders should have known better; that nuance goes out the window when it comes to political opinions in the public domain, and it may yet do him damage in the long run, but we shouldn't draw a straight line between political idiocy and actual, bluffing idiocy of the sitting President.

I like Sanders, I like his forthrightness and honest of belief; he seems unafraid to at least own the things he says and does. He (rightly) mocked the crowd in South Carolina when he pointed out that Obama said similar about Cuba and got booed. Equally though, that stubbornness could yet cause him trouble if he refuses to at least engage in the tough questions.

No one is drawing that straight line equivalence between Trump and Sanders though. I'd argue that if you don't see some similar traits between the two, aside from being old white men, then you aren't looking.

Interesting that you seem to criticise those drawing any comparisons between Trump and Sanders but then hail Sanders for comparing his comments to those by Obama.

Red for Danger · 27-02-2020 9:14pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

BTW I plan to donate to whoever the democratic candidate is, as well as to targeted swing seats. I'd actively canvas but I'm in a strongly blue state. However, the prospect of supporting Sanders is made more difficult by supporters using toxic terms like 'bend the knee', 'power hungry' and calling views 'irrelevant'.

Ok so just to point out how ridiculous this bernie bros thing is.

Bernie sanders set out to takeover and transform the Democratic party. He has nearly achieved his goals
If he does you'll then be faced with a choice between
A Trumps Republican party
B Sanders Democratic party
C Neither/independent/not voting = irrelevant

Depending on your political views and so on take your pick...

So because of the sheer volume of supporters within both Republicans and Democrats , 10's of millions, you'll have all sorts of supporters.
Very decent folk and people who should be locked up for life for the terrible things they've done.
So you're claiming that because some rando on boards.ie said you're "irrelevant" and the establishment were "power hungry," you then decided to abandon your political outlook and hold on to your political donation

Seriously?
Id love to be a fly on the wall when the canvassers call

"I would but Red for Danger on boards.ie......."

Foxtrol · 27-02-2020 9:58pm

Red for Danger wrote: »

Ok so just to point out how ridiculous this bernie bros thing is.

Bernie sanders set out to takeover and transform the Democratic party. He has nearly achieved his goals
If he does you'll then be faced with a choice between
A Trumps Republican party
B Sanders Democratic party
C Neither/independent/not voting = irrelevant

Depending on your political views and so on take your pick...

Just as ridiculous as the 'Bernie or Bust' nonsense in 2016, that many of his supporters have brought into 2020. Because their candidate wasn't the nominee they in part caused Trump to provide tax breaks for his rich friends, destroy the environment, put kids in cages etc etc

So because of the sheer volume of supporters within both Republicans and Democrats , 10's of millions, you'll have all sorts of supporters.
Very decent folk and people who should be locked up for life for the terrible things they've done.
So you're claiming that because some rando on boards.ie said you're "irrelevant" and the establishment were "power hungry," you then decided to abandon your political outlook and hold on to your political donation

Seriously?
Id love to be a fly on the wall when the canvassers call

"I would but Red for Danger on boards.ie......."

How many canvassers come to your door and spit in your face before asking you to support their candidate?

Do you not understand human emotions? One 'rando' wouldn't impact me at all but it would make it more difficult if thousands of supporters online acted similarly, including many in positions of power within a campaign.

I'm not your problem though, your problem is moderate democrats, independents, or moderate republicans, where a vote for Bernie is a vote against a lot of their self interests. Acting like a prick just doesn't help your cause.

Joe_ Public · 27-02-2020 10:18pm

This whole sanders and trump resemblance thing kind of bothers me. So theyre two stubborn elderly white guys. So they're both interlopers in their parties, anti elitist and enrolling the support of lower classes to take on the establishment. That seems to be how it goes. Oh and the bernie bros = the deplorables. They dont like us but we dont care kind of thing.

Anyone with any modicum of sense can see that these only connect on a very superficial, surface level. No one believes that trump cares a jot about anyone beyond getting him elected. Its a con job pure and simple. And the corporate elites in the US know they have every right to fear sanders, unlike trump. Trump isnt against the establishment, he just wants to corrupt it to use it for his own ends.

By any substantive measure there is nothing at all in common between these two people, in almost every way they are political night and day.

Red for Danger · 27-02-2020 10:48pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'm not your problem though, your problem is moderate democrats, independents, or moderate republicans, where a vote for Bernie is a vote against a lot of their self interests. Acting like a prick just doesn't help your cause.

Honestly man, I don't rate your political opinion or judgement at all.
You're fine when it comes to enthusiasm and interest and looking into matters etc, but when it comes to taking it all on board and looking at situations objectively is not for you.
It's like you're, too soft, too soft hearted, you're not tough fibered enough.

Foxtrol · 27-02-2020 11:16pm

Red for Danger wrote: »

Honestly man, I don't rate your political opinion or judgement at all.
You're fine when it comes to enthusiasm and interest and looking into matters etc, but when it comes to taking it all on board and looking at situations objectively is not for you.
It's like you're, too soft, too soft hearted, you're not tough fibered enough.

Not tough fibered like all the 'Bernie or Bust' folk? :rolleyes:

I don't see how I have an objectivity problem. None of the candidates tick all the boxes for me and unlike some here I'm not blinkered to the flaws of each candidate.

I'd argue that the soft hearted folk aren't what Bernie and his supporters should worry about. On a personal level, I've felt little to no negative impacts and some positive ones from Trump's policy decisions. My 'soft heart' makes me care about those that have been impacted badly by his policies and I'll support whoever the democrat is. Many others will need to be convinced to potentially vote against their short term personal interests and a bunch of people acting like pricks because they don't agree 100% with what Bernie says isn't going to help much.

RobertKK · 28-02-2020 12:37am

This is Trump's election to lose, the Democrats need a financial crash at this stage to win it.

Sanders will have the problem Corbyn had and will be seen/portrayed as a communist.

everlast75 · 28-02-2020 9:04am

I still have to periodically stop and take in the fact the Trump defenders on here are okay saying they would vote for him, despite the fact that he is an absolute (there can be no equivocation at this stage) racist.

Our species has learned **** all.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments