-
Features
Bernie supporters lie about Biden
- Thread starter southernhybrid
- Start date
PyramidHead
Contributor
Is that why he approached Warren in 2015 and asked her to run, and that he wouldn't if she did? I remember this because I was speaking with and encouraging those in the draft movement before she officially declined. Only then did Bernie enter the race and thats how I heard of him. How selfish of the man. He isn't the one who acted self entitled with "I'm with her" and claiming it was was her turn. He wasn't the one funding the DNC and getting debate questions in advance from them so he could have a coronation instead of a primary.
Other than Yang on UBI, yes Bernie is. Warren is now busy distinguishing herself as Bernie-light. Pete and Biden and Klobuchar are centrists (meaning right leaning). Who else do you think is more progressive than Bernie?
So you keep claiming.
It's easy and politically potent to claim a man is sexist. Hillary drones would have done that to any male candidate who ran against her. Obama, Bernie, anyone. Credit to Obama and his supporters for not trying to frame Hillary as a white supremacist.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,022
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
That was definitely more of a thing in 2008. There were statements put forward that support for Obama was based on not liking women. Bernie Bros. originally was meant to discuss the online young white supporters of Bernie Sanders.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,767
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
And what the fuck business does a self proclaimed Canadian have attempting to influence US elections? Especially one who is not particularly well informed about US politics!
I’m sorry you couldn’t be shuffed to actually read the link I posted earlier comparing the positions of candidates. Of nothing else would turn me off Bernie it is his support of the NRA.
Frankly it doesn’t matter how progressive Bernie or any other candidate is. They don’t have the power to enact legislation and Bernie has never been good at leading. He does not work well with others -and that is an absolutely imperative quality for POTUS to have. I believe the net effect of Bernie would be to set the US back, not pull it forward.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,767
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
There were allegations of Obama not being an impassioned advocate for women and there were allegations of Clinton supporters being too racist to support a black candidate. I am certain that some wanted Obama because he was male and Hilary was not. I am certain that there were some Clinton suppprters who couldn’t support a black candidate. I don’t think either was a big portion of supporters.
Frankly I heard from both camps enough to suggest racism in one camp and sexism in the other. But not from the candidates themselves. As it turned out, Obama was indeed a full throated supporter of women’s issues.
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 9,964
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
Why didn't the all powerful leftists start with Biden?
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,022
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Yeah, that is fair.Toni said:
Sadly (or not), I can't really remember 2008 too well due to the noise of 2012 and 2016. There was noise, and maybe because I'm male I was more susceptible to hearing the complaints of some Clinton advocates, though never in person.
Also, why are we talking about Obama and Clinton in a thread about impeachment...
...oh wait...
Nevermind, I'm just so used to threads getting derailed.
It was thought that Biden's constant gaffes would derail him. They made the same mistake that the right made in regard to Trump apparently.
I care about my fellow human beings. I would like to see people not go bankrupt due to medical bills there. I would like to see a candidate there win who is actually for single payer universal health care, as I already enjoy. I want this for people in less developed and more backwards countries like the USA.
And whose fault is that? Not mine. Yours. As you so adeptly pointed out above, it isn't me who voted in those who won't make the changes happen. It's you and your fellow Americans. You can do better. Stop beating the drum of "no we can't".
I hope you actually get the chance to find out how a President Sanders would do. You likely won't. I predict President Trump's second term given this level of "no we can't".
PyramidHead
Contributor
The liberal idea of political change is electing someone who will "work within the system", make erudite arguments to convince the rational and well-intentioned opposition to simply support her plans, and legislate us incrementally in the direction of justice. Then, when she is inevitably replaced by someone else, those changes are reversed--not incrementally, but dramatically. But even without that last part, the general idea is that as citizens we should accept the landscape of our institutions of power and their structural barriers as absolute, and select the person who least offends those institutions to channel them on our behalf. Implied in this calculation is that not only do we have the luxury of time to wait for these changes to eke out across multiple administrations, but in the end we're better off leaving the governance to professionals who know how to navigate the waters of established political norms rather than challenge them. It is for this reason that all liberals are also conservatives, in the broader systemic sense.
The democratic socialist idea of political change is as follows: (1) stake out a clear and uncompromising progressive ideological agenda; (2) unapologetically advance this agenda while publicly naming its main obstacles, both institutional and cultural; (3) galvanize a popular movement to pressure the system from below, so that those who oppose the agenda can expect consequences for doing so; (4) build labor power that can be leveraged against the political establishment until it grants our demands. This is the Sanders strategy, and the answer to everyone naive enough to think "working with Congress" is how structural changes happen in society. Rather than compromise with the atavistic black blob that is the Republican party, Sanders would probably ignore them and go straight to the people, who have always had the power to directly extract concessions from the political establishment but have never been given a president who would side with them.
We don't just have the ability to withhold our mostly pointless vote. We can withhold our most precious and vital resource that the entire system requires in order to function: our labor. That shakes out very differently depending on whether the chief executive is on the side of the rank-and-file or the scabs, the workers or their bosses.
...
In the end, however, even this strategy is not adequate to meet the challenges we are facing. There will still be a powerful, rich, well-connected opposition that will do everything in its considerable sphere of influence to hold back this movement. Throughout the past century or so, that opposition has been none other than the United States government itself, and it has ruthlessly prosecuted its intentions by subverting the governments of weaker states, influencing global commerce in its favor, cynically manipulating geopolitics through sanctions, and generally allowing capital to dictate the limits of our political aspirations (rather than our aspirations dictating the limits of capital). After all, the New Deal passed within living memory; that didn't stop the neoliberal takeover of politics from Thatcher to Reagan to both Bushes, both Clintons, Obama, and now virtually every Democratic presidential candidate. The Civil Rights movement rapidly made strides for women and minorities; Donald Trump is our current president, and we are living through a resurgence of white supremacist fascism the world over. None of these changes will stick as long as the pillars of political action are propped up by exploitation and imperial conquest, and the small minority who reap all its benefits will never willingly cede power to the mass of people.
The democratic socialist idea of political change is as follows: (1) stake out a clear and uncompromising progressive ideological agenda; (2) unapologetically advance this agenda while publicly naming its main obstacles, both institutional and cultural; (3) galvanize a popular movement to pressure the system from below, so that those who oppose the agenda can expect consequences for doing so; (4) build labor power that can be leveraged against the political establishment until it grants our demands. This is the Sanders strategy, and the answer to everyone naive enough to think "working with Congress" is how structural changes happen in society. Rather than compromise with the atavistic black blob that is the Republican party, Sanders would probably ignore them and go straight to the people, who have always had the power to directly extract concessions from the political establishment but have never been given a president who would side with them.
We don't just have the ability to withhold our mostly pointless vote. We can withhold our most precious and vital resource that the entire system requires in order to function: our labor. That shakes out very differently depending on whether the chief executive is on the side of the rank-and-file or the scabs, the workers or their bosses.
...
In the end, however, even this strategy is not adequate to meet the challenges we are facing. There will still be a powerful, rich, well-connected opposition that will do everything in its considerable sphere of influence to hold back this movement. Throughout the past century or so, that opposition has been none other than the United States government itself, and it has ruthlessly prosecuted its intentions by subverting the governments of weaker states, influencing global commerce in its favor, cynically manipulating geopolitics through sanctions, and generally allowing capital to dictate the limits of our political aspirations (rather than our aspirations dictating the limits of capital). After all, the New Deal passed within living memory; that didn't stop the neoliberal takeover of politics from Thatcher to Reagan to both Bushes, both Clintons, Obama, and now virtually every Democratic presidential candidate. The Civil Rights movement rapidly made strides for women and minorities; Donald Trump is our current president, and we are living through a resurgence of white supremacist fascism the world over. None of these changes will stick as long as the pillars of political action are propped up by exploitation and imperial conquest, and the small minority who reap all its benefits will never willingly cede power to the mass of people.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,767
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Your ignorance of basic US government structure and elections cycles is duly noted. Your 'benevolence' is taken with that in mind, as are all of your posts opining anything at all about the US political system.
laughing dog
Contributor
Returning to the OP, It is misleading to claim Biden supported cuts to SS. He did support freezing increases, but that is not a cut.
Derec
Contributor
So he is a senator from a rather rural state and that leads him to not as against guns. So what? It shows he can hold positions contrary to the party line. Presidents should be people with their own opinions, not merely ciphers for the prevailing party Zeitgeist.
That would remain to be seen, in the unlikely event that Bernie indeed becomes #46. I still think Biden is by far most likely to win the nomination. It's his race to lose, not least because the moderate lane is far less fractured than the almost-even Bernie-Warren progressive schism.
Derec
Contributor
It is in real terms, due to inflation.
It has been said that a people get the governance that they deserve. You give good evidence for this claim. Enjoy your Trump.
I agree with that. Biden is most likely win the primary. He is also most likely to lose to Trump. Trump will eat him for breakfast.
southernhybrid
Contributor
Not only that, but the add that was supported by some of the Sanders staff, was specifically a lie. It was taken out of context. Biden was making a point about Paul Ryan's desire to cut SS. The members of the Sanders team simply did what Trump staff often do, they lied.
I was hoping that some of the the Sanders crowd could explain how they feel about this, and how they think Sanders would be able to accomplish any of his goals if he were to become president. So far, nobody has done that.
southernhybrid
Contributor
Trump may eat any of these candidates for breakfast, but so far, Biden is the only one who scares him. He wants Sanders to be his opponent. That's very obvious if you follow some of the things that Trump has been saying. Keep up!
I really don't think any of us have a clue as to who, if anyone, can beat Trump. The electoral college as well as the way that the Democrats are attacking each other is just helping Trump. Trump's base isn't going to leave him even if he shoots someone on 5th Ave. The Dems aren't at all united, and that is a huge problem.