Democrats 2020

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Sanders was not a presidential contender in 2003.

My mistake, I thought you meant the vote was in 2003 and the context was current contenders

Irrelevant distinction. Sanders was in favor of using military intervention in Iraq. What he objected to was doing so unilaterally:

Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good.
...
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the President feels, despite what our intelligence agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a resolution of this magnitude this week and why it is necessary to go forward without the support of the United Nations and our major allies including those who are fighting side by side with us in the war on terrorism.
...
Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution.
...
Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations
...
Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''

His conclusion literally restates his primary objection:

If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, what should we do? In my view, the U.S. must work with the United Nations to make certain within clearly defined timelines that the U.N. inspectors are allowed to do their jobs. These inspectors should undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and destroy them when found, pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance.

Bush did every single thing Sanders recommended in that conclusion.

Note also that his words affirmed that he believed Hussein needed to be removed; that there existed WMDs; and that if Iraq resisted then we should use our military in "forcing compliance." The objection was solely about whether the UN led the invasion and not the US doing it alone.

 

[Politesse]

Irrelevant distinction. Sanders was in favor of using military intervention in Iraq. What he objected to was doing so unilaterally:

Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good.
...
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the President feels, despite what our intelligence agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a resolution of this magnitude this week and why it is necessary to go forward without the support of the United Nations and our major allies including those who are fighting side by side with us in the war on terrorism.
...
Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution.
...
Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations
...
Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''

His conclusion literally restates his primary objection:

If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, what should we do? In my view, the U.S. must work with the United Nations to make certain within clearly defined timelines that the U.N. inspectors are allowed to do their jobs. These inspectors should undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and destroy them when found, pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance.

Bush did every single thing Sanders recommended in that conclusion.

Note also that his words affirmed that he believed Hussein needed to be removed; that there existed WMDs; and that if Iraq resisted then we should use our military in "forcing compliance." The objection was solely about whether the UN led the invasion and not the US doing it alone.

And about having clearly defined realistic and accomplishable goals, rather than an attempted long-term colonization of the country with no clear exit condition. The Bush administration obviously did not have clearly defined goals or the significant backing of the United Nations.

 

[Trausti]

I'm certainly not a Bernie bro, but faulting him when the intelligence community so juiced the evidence on Iraq is a bit unfair. Colin Powell embarrassed himself at the UN with that dross.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The Bush administration obviously did not have clearly defined goals or the significant backing of the United Nations.

Irrelevant to the fact that Sanders' explicit objection was against unilateral military action, not to the idea of using military force. He was against us going alone, not against us going at all.

 

[angelo]

Americans elect this creep at their own peril!

Biden is much more honorable than sleezy shit for brains Trump. I'm sure you agree!

Sure he is. As if openly sniffing women's hair is not creepy enough, sniffing and fondling little girls is a honorable thing to do these days. If that was the Trump in Biden's shoes doing that, you'd hear nothing else on the enemedia for months!

 

[Patooka]

Americans elect this creep at their own peril!

Biden is much more honorable than sleezy shit for brains Trump. I'm sure you agree!

Sure he is. As if openly sniffing women's hair is not creepy enough, sniffing and fondling little girls is a honorable thing to do these days. If that was the Trump in Biden's shoes doing that, you'd hear nothing else on the enemedia for months!

You really haven't been paying attention have you. But please continue with your ranting on how Biden is the creepiest guy to ever run for President. Just to be very clear, if Trump was in Biden's shoes, that would be a significant improvement compared to all the vile shit Trump has done to women.

 

[angelo]

Your turn!

 

[Patooka]

Your turn!

What's the point, other than you wanting to play an infantile game of tit for tat?

Seriously, what's your point? Do you think Biden is the creepiest person to ever run for President? Do you think someone who is at least as creepy as Biden should be disqualified for even being considered President. What exactly is your point? Or are you just being a monkey flinging shit into a fan and seeing what sticks?

 

[lpetrich]

Another one bites the dust. Bernie Sanders Drops Out of 2020 Democratic Race for President - The New York Times

“I cannot in good conscience continue to mount a campaign that cannot win and which would interfere with the important work required of all of us in this difficult hour,” Mr. Sanders said over a live stream Wednesday morning.

He said that he would remain on the ballot in states that still have primaries scheduled and would continue to gather delegates, as a way of carrying his message forward and influencing the Democratic platform.

“While this campaign is coming to an end, our movement is not,” he said.

 

[lpetrich]

Alyssa Milano on Twitter: "Georgia Congressman, civil rights icon John Lewis endorses Joe Biden.
"We need Joe Biden now, more than ever before," Lewis said. https://t.co/whZtHEcil0" / Twitter - seems like the whole party is lining up behind JB.

Did Sanders Blow It For The Democratic Left? Or Was The Nomination Always Out Of Reach? | FiveThirtyEight

Proposes two main theories.

The deck was stacked against the left
with theories

1. Many Democrats are not left-wingers
2. Many voters are very concerned about perceived electability
3. The race is being covered with a focus on electability
4. Joe Biden's popularity with black voters, and how focusing on electability turned his centrism, race, and gender into assets
5. Rich donors don't like populists like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren
6. The Democratic establishment massively mobilized against BS before Super Tuesday
7. Centrists borrowed several of the left's proposals

That last one is strong, but the others are more debatable.

I do think that the Democratic-establishment one is plausible, however. One does have to be suspicious about why Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar folded at such a convenient time.

An additional factor may be nostalgia for Barack Obama's presidency, and JB was BO's VP. Although BO was very cowardly toward the Republicans, he had MUCH better character as a leader than Trump.

The left blew it
with theories

1. Embracing two Northeastern liberals without much appeal to older black voters - BS and Elizabeth Warren
2. BS and EW didn't do enough about electability
3. BS and EW both embraced Medicare for All - something that many Democrats consider impractical
4. BS and EW lacked strategies for fending off attacks by centrists
5. After winning in Nevada, BS didn't reach out to Democrats who didn't support them
6. EW was unwilling to drop out and endorse BS, even as the centrists united around JB
7. BS apparently hoped to win 30% - 35% of the vote in a crowded field, and he had no one-against-one strategy

And in my interviews with Democratic operatives, people tended to highlight shortcomings of the left that aligned with their own preexisting views — more centrist Democrats argued that Sanders and Warren ran on platforms that were too liberal and that those candidates didn’t focus on electability enough, while African American activists said those campaigns did too little outreach to black people, and people aligned with Warren said Sanders didn’t do enough to court the party establishment.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Once again NOTHING Sanders or anyone of the so-called "new left" have proposed are policies that are "more left" than anything on the DNC platform for the past seventy years at the very least.

This pointless, vapid, idiotic, pedantic needle pointing must end more than anything else. There is nothing "more left" in proposing universal healthcare; nothing "more left" in a $15 minimum wage increase as opposed to a $12 minimum wage increase; nothing "more left" in how we regulate corporations or the financial industry, etc.

There are only two parties: Republican and NOT-Republican. Anyone on the NOT-Republican side is on the left.

 

[Elixir]

There are only two parties: Republican and NOT-Republican. Anyone on the NOT-Republican side is on the left.

NOT-Republican now includes a bunch of actual Republicans. They're "on the left" now because Trump has dragged the rest of them off into the weeds on the right.
The trick is to get them to vote Democrat.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Alyssa Milano on Twitter: "Georgia Congressman, civil rights icon John Lewis endorses Joe Biden.
"We need Joe Biden now, more than ever before," Lewis said. https://t.co/whZtHEcil0" / Twitter - seems like the whole party is lining up behind JB.

Did Sanders Blow It For The Democratic Left? Or Was The Nomination Always Out Of Reach? | FiveThirtyEight

Proposes two main theories.

The deck was stacked against the left
with theories

1. Many Democrats are not left-wingers
2. Many voters are very concerned about perceived electability
3. The race is being covered with a focus on electability
4. Joe Biden's popularity with black voters, and how focusing on electability turned his centrism, race, and gender into assets
5. Rich donors don't like populists like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren
6. The Democratic establishment massively mobilized against BS before Super Tuesday
7. Centrists borrowed several of the left's proposals

That last one is strong, but the others are more debatable.

I do think that the Democratic-establishment one is plausible, however. One does have to be suspicious about why Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar folded at such a convenient time.

An additional factor may be nostalgia for Barack Obama's presidency, and JB was BO's VP. Although BO was very cowardly toward the Republicans, he had MUCH better character as a leader than Trump.

The left blew it
with theories

1. Embracing two Northeastern liberals without much appeal to older black voters - BS and Elizabeth Warren
2. BS and EW didn't do enough about electability
3. BS and EW both embraced Medicare for All - something that many Democrats consider impractical
4. BS and EW lacked strategies for fending off attacks by centrists
5. After winning in Nevada, BS didn't reach out to Democrats who didn't support them
6. EW was unwilling to drop out and endorse BS, even as the centrists united around JB
7. BS apparently hoped to win 30% - 35% of the vote in a crowded field, and he had no one-against-one strategy

And in my interviews with Democratic operatives, people tended to highlight shortcomings of the left that aligned with their own preexisting views — more centrist Democrats argued that Sanders and Warren ran on platforms that were too liberal and that those candidates didn’t focus on electability enough, while African American activists said those campaigns did too little outreach to black people, and people aligned with Warren said Sanders didn’t do enough to court the party establishment.

I wouldn't say that the deck was stacked against him. That makes it sound like there was a conspiracy. I just think that there are many many Americans like myself who are liberal on social issues, pro-environment, want a more even playing field but who are also pro economy. I think that Bernie's base (white non college educated union workers) have shifted republican and aren't coming back. Younger voters just didn't turn out.

 

[angelo]

Your turn!

What's the point, other than you wanting to play an infantile game of tit for tat?

Seriously, what's your point? Do you think Biden is the creepiest person to ever run for President? Do you think someone who is at least as creepy as Biden should be disqualified for even being considered President. What exactly is your point? Or are you just being a monkey flinging shit into a fan and seeing what sticks?

You hit the nail right on center. Creepy Joe isn't fit to run a school tuck shop. In fact I wouldn't let him anywhere near my granddaughter let alone lead the free world!

 

[Patooka]

Your turn!

What's the point, other than you wanting to play an infantile game of tit for tat?

Seriously, what's your point? Do you think Biden is the creepiest person to ever run for President? Do you think someone who is at least as creepy as Biden should be disqualified for even being considered President. What exactly is your point? Or are you just being a monkey flinging shit into a fan and seeing what sticks?

You hit the nail right on center. Creepy Joe isn't fit to run a school tuck shop. In fact I wouldn't let him anywhere near my granddaughter let alone lead the free world!

America will have two choices in November. Biden is infinitely more qualified than the alternative. You have said fuck all to disprove this. So I did hit the nail on the head. Your arguments are the equivalent of fling shit into a fan. How very constructive.

 

[angelo]

You hit the nail right on center. Creepy Joe isn't fit to run a school tuck shop. In fact I wouldn't let him anywhere near my granddaughter let alone lead the free world!

America will have two choices in November. Biden is infinitely more qualified than the alternative. You have said fuck all to disprove this. So I did hit the nail on the head. Your arguments are the equivalent of fling shit into a fan. How very constructive.

Yes, it appears so. Either Satan himself disguised as the Trump, or a near senile pedo will end up in the WH. Just as I thought Americans wouldn't be so silly as to vote for Killery back in 2016, I now hold that they're not as stupid as to elect Creepy Joe. But of course, the big unknown this time is the effect of COVID-19 may have on the outcome.

 

[Patooka]

You hit the nail right on center. Creepy Joe isn't fit to run a school tuck shop. In fact I wouldn't let him anywhere near my granddaughter let alone lead the free world!

America will have two choices in November. Biden is infinitely more qualified than the alternative. You have said fuck all to disprove this. So I did hit the nail on the head. Your arguments are the equivalent of fling shit into a fan. How very constructive.

Yes, it appears so. Either Satan himself disguised as the Trump, or a near senile pedo will end up in the WH. Just as I thought Americans wouldn't be so silly as to vote for Killery back in 2016, I now hold that they're not as stupid as to elect Creepy Joe. But of course, the big unknown this time is the effect of COVID-19 may have on the outcome.

You're dancing around the issue like Baryshnikov. Why do you think Trump is the better alternative?

 

[Elixir]

You're dancing around the issue like Baryshnikov.

That's what "I'm Not A Trumpsucker"s do. You can almost see them in their tutus.

 

[lpetrich]

These Elizabeth Warren endorsers have now lined up behind Joe Biden:

Katie Porter on Twitter: "Today I endorse [MENTION=2]Jo[/MENTION]eBiden for president. This trying time for our country has made crystal clear that elections matter and that we need a strong, honest, and compassionate leader in the White House. Donald Trump is not that person; we must defeat him in November." / Twitter

Deb Haaland on Twitter: "My whole career, I’ve fought for universal health care, a minimum wage increase, and affordable housing. Today I’m proud to endorse [MENTION=2]Jo[/MENTION]eBiden for President because he cares about all of these issues. Now more than ever, we as Democrats must unite behind Joe to beat Donald Trump! https://t.co/eL3V9D0Opa" / Twitter

Julián Castro on Twitter: "Our party was made stronger by the many ideas and aspirations of the candidates who ran for president.
The Democratic Party must now come together behind [MENTION=2]Jo[/MENTION]eBiden to defeat Donald Trump and restore integrity, decency, and competence to the Oval Office." / Twitter

 

[ZiprHead]

You hit the nail right on center. Creepy Joe isn't fit to run a school tuck shop. In fact I wouldn't let him anywhere near my granddaughter let alone lead the free world!

America will have two choices in November. Biden is infinitely more qualified than the alternative. You have said fuck all to disprove this. So I did hit the nail on the head. Your arguments are the equivalent of fling shit into a fan. How very constructive.

Yes, it appears so. Either Satan himself disguised as the Trump, or a near senile pedo will end up in the WH. Just as I thought Americans wouldn't be so silly as to vote for Killery back in 2016, I now hold that they're not as stupid as to elect Creepy Joe. But of course, the big unknown this time is the effect of COVID-19 may have on the outcome.