US Presidential Election 2020

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

briany

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

sid waddell

Water John wrote: »

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.

Which is quite understandable because Medicare For All is far better for them than any health insurance plan that can be negotiated for them by a union.

And that's as good as it gets in terms of health insurance.

Bernie is now favourite to win in South Carolina. Wasn't too long ago that that was a trot home for Biden.

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.

Well, MSNBC, the so called "liberal network" is now openly saying the same thing as myself. You may be offended but reality doesn't care about your offence.

https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1231310971546693632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1231310971546693632&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231231310971546693632

DreamsBurnDown

sid waddell wrote: »

Well, MSNBC, the so called "liberal network" is now openly saying the same thing as myself. You may be offended but reality doesn't care about your offence.

So, because you believe one TV pundit (who I happen to think has long ago lost his marbles) agrees with you, you now believe your position to be correct?

My reality is based on living in the US and listening to a wide spectrum of views, not just those that agree with me. In my experience the #1 priority of Democrats and certainly all the Democrats I know is defeating Trump. Conspiracy theories based on one out of touch TV pundit don't influence my thinking.

sid waddell

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

So, because you believe one TV pundit (who I happen to think has long ago lost his marbles) agrees with you, you now believe your position to be correct?

My reality is based on living in the US and listening to a wide spectrum of views, not just those that agree with me. In my experience the #1 priority of Democrats and certainly all the Democrats I know is defeating Trump. Conspiracy theories based on one out of touch TV pundit don't influence my thinking.

You said no "centrist" Democrats would even consider supporting Trump rather than Sanders. You said even the notion was "offensive".

I showed you the TV network most associated with the Democratic party openly touting that they would.

Yet you now call this a "conspiracy theory", despite me giving an obvious and real example of the exact thing I was talking about, happening live on US television.

In your last few posts, you've used "conspiracy theory", "tinfoil hat", "absurd nonsense", "loons" etc. against people who you disagree with who are making entirely reasonable points. These responses are not arguments. They're terms used to shut down arguments with empty rhetoric with more than a hint of aggression in them.

It doesn't show much of a willingness to debate, only to shout down those you disagree with.

Red for Danger

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

So, because you believe one TV pundit (who I happen to think has long ago lost his marbles) agrees with you, you now believe your position to be correct?

My reality is based on living in the US and listening to a wide spectrum of views, not just those that agree with me. In my experience the #1 priority of Democrats and certainly all the Democrats I know is defeating Trump. Conspiracy theories based on one out of touch TV pundit don't influence my thinking.

Hillary Clinton first said "i wont go there just yet" when asked would she support sanders in the general. She said something about having concerns about an atmosphere of sexism that seems to surround his campaigns. Came back later in the day an said she'd support whoever's the dem nominee.
Some thanks, remember he did 39 rallies for her and continued on working to get her elected while she sent her minions out to write lies about him.

Donnie deutche who i'd consider a prominent centrist, he has a show on msnbc and a regular contributor to various shows on cable news said, he'd vote for trump before sanders, until joe Scarborough got him to half walk it back.

DreamsBurnDown

sid waddell wrote: »

You said no "centrist" Democrats would even consider supporting Trump rather than Sanders. You said even the notion was "offensive".

I showed you the TV network most associated with the Democratic party openly touting that they would.

No I said you referring to centrist Democrats as siding with fascists was offensive, which it is, and frankly I have never heard such a ludicrous statement here in the US from any Democratic supporter. I'm sure one would see it on Twitter, but you can find any kind of extremist views in that cesspool.

There are obviously differences of opinion within the Democratic party and Democratic voters on policies, but favoring Trump over any Democratic candidate isn't one of them. The idea that centrist Democrats would prefer Trump to win rather than Sanders is a conspiracy theory. One pundit on TV noted for some pretty whacky statements while thinking aloud is a pretty weak argument to back up your claim that centrist Democrats side with fascism.

It was pure baseless speculation on his part not based on reality. I'll take it seriously if I start to hear it from other pundits, I suspect we won't.

If what you say is true, and centrist Democrats favor Trump over Sanders, then we Democrats shouldn't choose Sanders as clearly he would lose. If centrist Democrats were to favor Trump, Independents would even more strongly favor him and he would win in a landslide.

DreamsBurnDown

Red for Danger wrote: »

Hillary Clinton first said "i wont go there just yet" when asked would she support sanders in the general. She said something about having concerns about an atmosphere of sexism that seems to surround his campaigns. Came back later in the day an said she'd support whoever's the dem nominee.
Some thanks, remember he did 39 rallies for her and continued on working to get her elected while she sent her minions out to write lies about him.

Clinton needs to get over the fact she lost in 2016, it certainly wasn't Bernie's fault she lost, that's on her. To be honest I would like to see her stay out of the media, don't think she is helping.

sid waddell

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

No I said you referring to centrist Democrats as siding with fascists was offensive, which it is, and frankly I have never heard such a ludicrous statement here in the US from any Democratic supporter. I'm sure one would see it on Twitter, but you can find any kind of extremist views in that cesspool.

There are obviously differences of opinion within the Democratic party and Democratic voters on policies, but favoring Trump over any Democratic candidate isn't one of them. The idea that centrist Democrats would prefer Trump to win rather than Sanders is a conspiracy theory. One pundit on TV noted for some pretty whacky statements while thinking aloud is a pretty weak argument to back up your claim that centrist Democrats side with fascism.

It was pure baseless speculation on his part not based on reality. I'll take it seriously if I start to hear it from other pundits, I suspect we won't.

If what you say is true, and centrist Democrats favor Trump over Sanders, then we Democrats shouldn't choose Sanders as clearly he would lose. If centrist Democrats were to favor Trump, Independents would even more strongly favor him and he would win in a landslide.

Trump fulfils all the key criteria of a fascist. And here we are with corporate Democrats openly touting for him.

It's not my fault if you refuse to see the wood for the trees and refuse to see what's literally in front of your eyes.

But it does preclude debating with you becaues you're obviously 100% certain you're right, despite the facts proving otherwise.

DreamsBurnDown

sid waddell wrote: »

Trump fulfils all the key criteria of a fascist. And here we are with corporate Democrats openly touting for him.

It's not my fault if you refuse to see the wood for the trees and refuse to see what's literally in front of your eyes.

But it does preclude debating with you becasue you're obviously 100% certain you're right, despite me literally displaying how you aren't.

Off you go then.

sid waddell

Presuming Bernie Sanders becomes the nominee - and apparently no candidate has ever before won competitive popular votes in all of Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada - I think he should make a big play of being the ideological heir to FDR.

The fashion now in the US seems to be to look to the past in order to look to the future - I don't like that but it's where the ground seems to be. But the past that Trump looked to was dark, dystopian, divisive and exclusionary.

FDR along with Lincoln is the most unimpeachable president in US history, universally revered. A Democrat, a moderniser, in US terms almost a revolutionary, and, most useful when taking on Trump and a military-obsessed Republican party, a war hero, the man who won "the good war" for America (and is pretty much untainted by the atomic bomb because he died before it was used).

One of the reasons Sinn Fein can make left populism thrive here is that there is no question aboout their nationalism. In Britain, one of Corbyn's main failings with the electorate was that he was anti-empire and therefore, farcically, seen as anti-English or anti-British by a public who have had the supposed virtue of empire force fed to them their whole lives.

Given that the Trump and the Republicans (who openly encourage Russian interference and ruthlessly purge anybody who speaks up about it) will likely try and pull one of their typical bait and switch projection moves to try and portray Sanders as a Russian asset, an association with a figure who is all-American, unimpeachably American, who walked the walk for America and for freedom, might be an effective counter to that and indeed provide avenues to attack Trump.

So if Sanders references and invokes FDR regularly and portrays himself as the modern FDR, he steals some the exact ground that Trump created for himself last time, but in a much more positive, all-American way - there's your slogan - Bernie Sanders - the all-American president.

Rjd2

Bernie looks really strong now.

I assume the corporate dems will step up the screaming of PUTIN@!!!!! at him but I don't think his core base really are to bothered about the Maddow conspiracy obsessed audience.

Red for Danger

Rjd2 wrote: »

Bernie looks really strong now.

I assume the corporate dems will step up the screaming of PUTIN@!!!!! at him but I don't think his core base really are to bothered about the Maddow conspiracy obsessed audience.

They're trying all they know, they can't bring him down.
Every failed attack weakens them. If they keep on the way their going, soon enough nobody will be listening.

Joe_ Public

Sanders seems to have won in almost every demographic, thumpingly so in several categories. Obviously is doing well with moderate voters which bodes well. One exception is the over 65s where biden holds sway and sanders is only around 10%. Slight worry there.

is_that_so

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Sanders seems to have won in almost every demographic, thumpingly so in several categories. Obviously is doing well with moderate voters which bodes well. One exception is the over 65s where biden holds sway and sanders is only around 10%. Slight worry there.

Very early days and very few delegates committed so far. SC is next and Biden would be expected to do a lot better there. Super Tuesday in just over a week should give a much clearer sense of where people's allegiances may lie.

Joe_ Public

is_that_so wrote: »

Very early days and very few delegates committed so far. SC is next and Biden would be expected to do a lot better there. Super Tuesday in just over a week should give a much clearer sense of where people's allegiances may lie.

If he cant win SC i dont know what hope would be left for him. That was supposed to be a slam dunk state for him, he's always had a clear lead in the polls but that's shrinking all the time. All the pressure on biden now.

Red for Danger

is_that_so wrote: »

Very early days and very few delegates committed so far. SC is next and Biden would be expected to do a lot better there. Super Tuesday in just over a week should give a much clearer sense of where people's allegiances may lie.

Well those bidan fans should be absolutely elated today because after about 30 years of running for president the best he has ever done anywhere ever is 4th place. A 2nd place finish should bring the "electable Biden's" supporters onto the streets in celebration.

briany

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.

I follow your logic, a kind of 'aim for the stars and you'll hit the moon' type of thing, but American politics is so partisan that it follows the theory of 'any action must have an equal, opposite reaction'.

Both sides are at it. While Trump and his cronies are still crazier, things like Nancy Pelosi ripping up Trump's speech behind him have firmly dragged the Dems into an arena of pettiness that only exacerbates this vicious cycle of paranoia and recrimination.

If America wants progressive policies, the best thing they can do is vote in progressive representatives and not rely too much on the POTUS to sidestep the whole legislative procedure with executive orders.

sid waddell

briany wrote: »

I follow your logic, a kind of 'aim for the stars and you'll hit the moon' type of thing, but American politics is so partisan that it follows the theory of 'any action must have an equal, opposite reaction'.

Both sides are at it. While Trump and his cronies are still crazier, things like Nancy Pelosi ripping up Trump's speech behind him have firmly dragged the Dems into an arena of pettiness that only exacerbates this vicious cycle of paranoia and recrimination.

If America wants progressive policies, the best thing they can do is vote in progressive representatives and not rely too much on the POTUS to sidestep the whole legislative procedure with executive orders.

I'm not sure how much worse the "Republican reaction" can get or if it's even possible for it to get worse, they've veered so far towards craziness.

Bipartisanship in US politics is dead and has been dead for a long time and that's down to the Republican party and the Republican party alone. That was the inevitable upshot of the Southern Strategy in which they explicitly embraced racism as a strategy. What we have been seeing for decades from the Republicans and their associated media is a desperate bid to sustain white power in US society in the face of the US becoming a majority minority country. They became organised and ruthless at every level while the Democrats completely took their eye off the ball.

The Republicans decided to go to war with Democrats and they will not stop. To win a war you have to destroy your opponents and the Republicans depend on destroying the ethnic minority poor, breaking their spirit, stacking the courts with right wing crazies, making inequality so great that there is no hope.

The Democrats can't win a war by playing nice and attempting to compromise. There is no compromise possible. You have to declare war back, be ruthless and get organised at every level. We've really only seen signs of this since Trump came to power but realistically the project facing the Democratic party is a minimum two decades long one. You need to win state houses, state senates, governorships, literally everything you can get your hands on. That's the only way you can change the country.

Demographics in the medium to longer term are on the Democrats' side, but you can't just wait for power, you have to be organised and ruthless at every level like the Republicans have been.

Water John

The odds guy on CNN last night said Biden had a 1 in 10 chance of a path to nomination, Sanders had a 7 in 10 chance of being the nominee.

Interesting John Dean commented that he didn't see people flip flopping voting between Dems and GOP, what he saw as flip flops were people who may vote Dems or stay at home.

briany

Water John wrote: »

The odds guy on CNN last night said Biden had a 1 in 10 chance of a path to nomination, Sanders had a 7 in 10 chance of being the nominee.

Interesting John Dean commented that he didn't see people flip flopping voting between Dems and GOP, what he saw as flip flops were people who may vote Dems or stay at home.

I've heard people say that polls give Sanders a huge chance of beating Trump if he becomes the nominee. I've also heard the same thing said of Biden (and he brought this up himself) and Bloomberg.

So you've experts saying that they could all beat Trump, and then you have this idea that Trump could win well because the economy under him has been at a high level and maybe when it comes down to it people care more about the ability to pay bills than whether their president says mad stuff on Twitter.

Water John

But the majority of Americans can't carry an unexpected medical bill of €800.
The stock exchange and shares on the rise, but having to work 2/3 jobs to make enough to meet ends, is the reality for most Americans under Trump.

duploelabs

Water John wrote: »

But the majority of Americans can't carry an unexpected medical bill of €800.
The stock exchange and shares on the rise, but having to work 2/3 jobs to make enough to meet ends, is the reality for most Americans under Trump.

And most of those people you mention don't own shares so aren't going to benefit from the stock exchange growing

pixelburp

With all this talk of the Democrats' change of ideology, there been any narrative or sense of a similar change with the various senate seats up for grabs? Seems like a Sanders presidency would live or die based on whether the democrats take back the senate, but equally the KIND of potential democrats may not guarantee an easy passage for any potential legislative change. With all the talk of Trump, it's easy to forget there's a second battle going on in the Senate.

Manic Moran

sid waddell wrote: »

Bipartisanship in US politics is dead and has been dead for a long time

Not true. Compromise is nearly dead, but bipartisanship is a different matter.

https://www.axios.com/bipartisan-legislation-comeback-congress-quorum-3d926313-5d1d-4d9d-95f5-17bed890bf02.html

Politics have never felt more tribal than they do in the Trump administration, but a look at legislation during this session of Congress shows more bipartisanship than at any other point since George W. Bush was in office. Compared to the first 16 months of previous Congressional sessions, there have been more proposed bipartisan bills and more enacted bipartisan bills in the 115th Congress,

Of course, most of those are likely minor, not major policy issues which is where the main points of dispute are between the parties, but even then, there have been points of cooperation. Where there are fundamental philosophical differences such as taxes or gun control, there is little bipartisanship. Yet where there isn’t quite the same level of philosophical difference, such as First Step (criminal justice) or SECURE (retirement issues) acts, Congress is still capable of bipartisanship.

Englo

MSNBC seem to be getting quite a bit of blowback today, after one of their presenters compared Sanders to Hitler, and the rise of his movement to the fall of France vs the third Reich.

Last night it was Chris Mathews, the first time it was Chuck Todd.

It is one thing to ha e a bias, another to declare that bias, and another thing entirely to just spread fear mongering propaganda like that. There is absolutely no way to claim this was anything but the last, especially since sanders surge of popularity is if anything, most like Obama's in 2007 and 2008 which is the easiest and most obvious comparison.

And to make matters worse, Sanders is Jewish and it is well known that he lost a lot of family members to the Holocaust.

Rjd2

MSNBC have been awful for a while, left wing version of fox news.

The meltdown from them and other prominent media people mainly the never Trumper conservatives is amusing as its a reminder they don't have the power they used to have and its clearly driving them mad.

Trump v Bernie who knows?

I do know however Trump is on record of not been keen on facing Bernie and for all his flaws the man knows how to read a room.

sid waddell

Rjd2 wrote: »

MSNBC have been awful for a while, left wing version of fox news.

Em, you do realise what people are actually complaining about here, yes?

Or is that too big an assumption?

Rjd2

sid waddell wrote: »

Em, you do realise what people are actually complaining about here, yes?

Or is that too big an assumption?

Thanks for the constructive feedback.