Democrats 2020

[Derec]

Even in California, where he lost handily to Clinton, district-by-district he did very well in majority-Republican or Libertarian counties.

It was much closer than you make it sound. She won 53%-46%, or 254 to 221 pledged delegates.

It's getting harder to cross party lines for the primaries, though.

There are still many open primary states. In Georgia, you are asked which ballot you want. If there is a runoff, you must take the same one, but you may for example choose Democratic primary ballot for the presidential primary but pick Republican ballot for the statewide election primary.
And even in places like California, one can change party registration from election to election.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't know how you're defining "flawed human beings". Would you care to explain?

Should I take your non-response as a no or are you still at work inventing a definition?

You should take it as me taking your question as a silly question. Flaws are imperfections. Everybody has them. Please don't take my use of that expression as a personal attack.

 

[southernhybrid]

I voted once in a Republican primary to try and keep Ralph Reed off of the final ballot. A lot of my friends did the same thing. It wouldn't surprise me, assuming there is only one Republican in the primaries, if a lot of people in states that have open primaries, asked for a Democratic primary ballot, either to vote for the person who they think the Republicans can beat, or to vote for the Democrat who is the most moderate, in case their own party loses.

That's exactly why I once voted in a Republican primary. I knew at the time, there was no chance of a Democrat winning, so at least I could vote for the least harmful Republican.

 

[poster]

I don't know how you're defining "flawed human beings". Would you care to explain?

Should I take your non-response as a no or are you still at work inventing a definition?

You should take it as me taking your question as a silly question. Flaws are imperfections. Everybody has them. Please don't take my use of that expression as a personal attack.

Nice dodge! Take that any way you like.

Talk about generalizations. So what's the goal of electing a government official? To find those least flawed?

Please describe the 'perfect person' so we all know what to look for in our representatives. Might it be Jesus, or John Lennon, or FDR?

 

[southernhybrid]

You should take it as me taking your question as a silly question. Flaws are imperfections. Everybody has them. Please don't take my use of that expression as a personal attack.

Nice dodge! Take that any way you like.

Talk about generalizations. So what's the goal of electing a government official? To find those least flawed?

Please describe the 'perfect person' so we all know what to look for in our representatives. Might it be Jesus, or John Lennon, or FDR?

Er um.....There is no perfect person, no perfect institution, no perfect economic theory, no perfect form of government etc. It's all more or less bullshit made up by imperfect humans.

Vote for the person that you think can win and that you think is smart and experienced enough to be an effective leader, one who has some ideas similar to your own, but never expect perfection, or you will always be deeply disappointed.

 

[poster]

You should take it as me taking your question as a silly question. Flaws are imperfections. Everybody has them. Please don't take my use of that expression as a personal attack.

Nice dodge! Take that any way you like.

Talk about generalizations. So what's the goal of electing a government official? To find those least flawed?

Please describe the 'perfect person' so we all know what to look for in our representatives. Might it be Jesus, or John Lennon, or FDR?

Er um.....There is no perfect person, no perfect institution, no perfect economic theory, no perfect form of government etc. It's all more or less bullshit made up by imperfect humans.

This statment infers that you know what perfect people, institutions, economic theories, and form of government are. Otherwise, how would you know there are none in existence today?

The two of you have left yourselves to identify the flaws and tell us all how we move forward in creating that more perfect union.

Copernicus wants to evade a response by accusing me of being silly when it was he, not I, who made the argument. All I did was ask him to elucidate it.

 

[PyramidHead]

Bernie just dropped the ball in a huge way by taking the "humanitarian aid" of the likes of Bolton and Abrams at face value.



This is why he's the compromise candidate for the left. Not perfect by any stretch. Funnily enough, the only one in the race who seems to have the right take on Venezuela is Tulsi Gabbard:



...but like most of her positions, this one seems comparatively recent, since she co-sponsored the economic sanctions on Venezuela that helped cause its current crisis.

 

[southernhybrid]

Er um.....There is no perfect person, no perfect institution, no perfect economic theory, no perfect form of government etc. It's all more or less bullshit made up by imperfect humans.

This statment infers that you know what perfect people, institutions, economic theories, and form of government are. Otherwise, how would you know there are none in existence today?

The two of you have left yourselves to identify the flaws and tell us all how we move forward in creating that more perfect union.

Copernicus wants to evade a response by accusing me of being silly when it was he, not I, who made the argument. All I did was ask him to elucidate it.

This is becoming a very silly discussion, but I'll play for a little longer. Since you seem to think that there are perfect humans, why don't you give us an example of a few. Even the great FDR did some horrendous things, but some people still think of him as being perfect. There are people who worship "Saint Reagan" who was obviously far from perfect. So, please who was or is perfect? There is no perfect union. At best there are happy, productive unions where people compromise with each other. This applies to marriage, work places, states, countries etc.. Compromise is the only way to keep people together in all things in life. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

 

[untermensche]

Bernie just dropped the ball in a huge way by taking the "humanitarian aid" of the likes of Bolton and Abrams at face value.

Bernie is thinking as a US Senator about aid he can control.

Others obviously have their own ideas.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Bernie just dropped the ball in a huge way by taking the "humanitarian aid" of the likes of Bolton and Abrams at face value.

View attachment 20295

This is why he's the compromise candidate for the left. Not perfect by any stretch. Funnily enough, the only one in the race who seems to have the right take on Venezuela is Tulsi Gabbard:

View attachment 20296

...but like most of her positions, this one seems comparatively recent, since she co-sponsored the economic sanctions on Venezuela that helped cause its current crisis.

PryramidHead: why do you call Bernie the "compromise candidate"? What far left position does he not hold?

 

[untermensche]

What far left position does he not hold?

He holds no far left positions.

He holds very centrist left positions like belief in Social programs like Medicare and a desire to expand it to all citizens.

Far left means doing away with capitalism and the inherent injustices of capitalism and replacing it with a more democratic system.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What far left position does he not hold?

He holds no far left positions.

He holds very centrist left positions like belief in Social programs like Medicare and a desire to expand it to all citizens.

Far left means doing away with capitalism and the inherent injustices of capitalism and replacing it with a more democratic system.

I don't think that's true. I think that there are a large majority of Americans who are using the republican definition of socialism when they claim that they favor socialism. How many dems are running today? 50? Not one of them is a socialist. If socialism were truly popular, someone would be running who would adopt it's beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

What far left position does he not hold?

He holds no far left positions.

He holds very centrist left positions like belief in Social programs like Medicare and a desire to expand it to all citizens.

Far left means doing away with capitalism and the inherent injustices of capitalism and replacing it with a more democratic system.

I don't think that's true. I think that there are a large majority of Americans who are using the republican definition of socialism when they claim that they favor socialism. How many dems are running today? 50? Not one of them is a socialist. If socialism were truly popular, someone would be running who would adopt it's beliefs.

He uses socialism with a small "s".

All he is is a run-of-the-mill New Deal Democrat.

Something that at one time, before Bill Clinton sold out to corporate interests, was common.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't think that's true. I think that there are a large majority of Americans who are using the republican definition of socialism when they claim that they favor socialism. How many dems are running today? 50? Not one of them is a socialist. If socialism were truly popular, someone would be running who would adopt it's beliefs.

He uses socialism with a small "s".

All he is is a run-of-the-mill New Deal Democrat.

Something that at one time, before Bill Clinton sold out to corporate interests, was common.

Exactly my point. If there were a sizable amount of people on the far left who wanted to replace capitalism with a "worker-controlled" system and throw the capitalists into gulag's there would be a candidate running who supported that.

 

[PyramidHead]

Bernie just dropped the ball in a huge way by taking the "humanitarian aid" of the likes of Bolton and Abrams at face value.

View attachment 20295

This is why he's the compromise candidate for the left. Not perfect by any stretch. Funnily enough, the only one in the race who seems to have the right take on Venezuela is Tulsi Gabbard:

View attachment 20296

...but like most of her positions, this one seems comparatively recent, since she co-sponsored the economic sanctions on Venezuela that helped cause its current crisis.

PryramidHead: why do you call Bernie the "compromise candidate"? What far left position does he not hold?

It's not so much his positions as his approach. He views democratic socialism as a kind of paternalist form of government that puts bread on the table and evens out wealth disparities caused by greedy rich people. In every speech, he returns to the issue of wealth inequality as if it's the product of somebody's personal or moral failings, and focuses on the things we could have with all that money distributed to the poor and middle class. The issue of how the money ended up concentrated in those few hands is rarely tackled, and Bernie seems uninterested in that part compared to the reforms he is proposing--which are great and I support them, don't get me wrong, but he's leaving a lot on the table as a spokesperson for the left when he misses the opportunity to explain why reforms are never enough. He looks back fondly on the New Deal era of government stewardship without confronting the fact that those reforms didn't stick, they were reversed or failed to be enforced, they were subverted or dodged, and they are continually under attack to this day because the economic system rewards those who have the means and the motive to attack them. He opens himself up to charges from his left of being unrealistic, not because what he's suggesting is financially untenable in some way, but because installing government safeguards and public policies from the top down without changing the underlying dynamic of the economy is likely to only be a temporary fix for a systemic issue. I don't think Bernie is opposed to systemic change, he's just hesitant to give specifics about it for some reason. I wish he would speak in the language of class conflict rather than the 1%/99% conflict that has unfortunately become its stand-in.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think that's true. I think that there are a large majority of Americans who are using the republican definition of socialism when they claim that they favor socialism. How many dems are running today? 50? Not one of them is a socialist. If socialism were truly popular, someone would be running who would adopt it's beliefs.

He uses socialism with a small "s".

All he is is a run-of-the-mill New Deal Democrat.

Something that at one time, before Bill Clinton sold out to corporate interests, was common.

Exactly my point. If there were a sizable amount of people on the far left who wanted to replace capitalism with a "worker-controlled" system and throw the capitalists into gulag's there would be a candidate running who supported that.

Your naivete about candidates running for office being a direct outgrowth of enough people wanting what they are proposing is funny and sad at the same time.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's not so much his positions as his approach. He views democratic socialism as a kind of paternalist form of government that puts bread on the table and evens out wealth disparities caused by greedy rich people. In every speech, he returns to the issue of wealth inequality as if it's the product of somebody's personal or moral failings, and focuses on the things we could have with all that money distributed to the poor and middle class. The issue of how the money ended up concentrated in those few hands is rarely tackled, and Bernie seems uninterested in that part compared to the reforms he is proposing--which are great and I support them, don't get me wrong, but he's leaving a lot on the table as a spokesperson for the left when he misses the opportunity to explain why reforms are never enough. He looks back fondly on the New Deal era of government stewardship without confronting the fact that those reforms didn't stick, they were reversed or failed to be enforced, they were subverted or dodged, and they are continually under attack to this day because the economic system rewards those who have the means and the motive to attack them. He opens himself up to charges from his left of being unrealistic, not because what he's suggesting is financially untenable in some way, but because installing government safeguards and public policies from the top down without changing the underlying dynamic of the economy is likely to only be a temporary fix for a systemic issue. I don't think Bernie is opposed to systemic change, he's just hesitant to give specifics about it for some reason. I wish he would speak in the language of class conflict rather than the 1%/99% conflict that has unfortunately become its stand-in.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think that's true. I think that there are a large majority of Americans who are using the republican definition of socialism when they claim that they favor socialism. How many dems are running today? 50? Not one of them is a socialist. If socialism were truly popular, someone would be running who would adopt it's beliefs.

He uses socialism with a small "s".

All he is is a run-of-the-mill New Deal Democrat.

Something that at one time, before Bill Clinton sold out to corporate interests, was common.

Exactly my point. If there were a sizable amount of people on the far left who wanted to replace capitalism with a "worker-controlled" system and throw the capitalists into gulag's there would be a candidate running who supported that.

Your naivete about candidates running for office being a direct outgrowth of enough people wanting what they are proposing is funny and sad at the same time.

How so? Are you saying that the government is conspiring to prevent socialists from running?

 

[untermensche]

I don't think that's true. I think that there are a large majority of Americans who are using the republican definition of socialism when they claim that they favor socialism. How many dems are running today? 50? Not one of them is a socialist. If socialism were truly popular, someone would be running who would adopt it's beliefs.

He uses socialism with a small "s".

All he is is a run-of-the-mill New Deal Democrat.

Something that at one time, before Bill Clinton sold out to corporate interests, was common.

Exactly my point. If there were a sizable amount of people on the far left who wanted to replace capitalism with a "worker-controlled" system and throw the capitalists into gulag's there would be a candidate running who supported that.

It's not that supported in a system controlled by wealth, where wealth owns the media and the candidates.

It is hard to break through that wall.

Ralph Nader, a supporter of regulated capitalism, not worker control, could not break through it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Exactly my point. If there were a sizable amount of people on the far left who wanted to replace capitalism with a "worker-controlled" system and throw the capitalists into gulag's there would be a candidate running who supported that.

It's not that supported in a system controlled by wealth, where wealth owns the media and the candidates.

It is hard to break through that wall.

Ralph Nader, a supporter of regulated capitalism, not worker control, could not break through it.

Actually, the last socialist who ran was Mimi Soltysik in 2016. He got 4,061 votes. Ralph Nader did his job, he helped get Bush elected. But as you noted, he was not a socialist.

 

[untermensche]

Bush was not elected.

He was appointed by a politically biased Supreme Court.

Nader's job was to try to bring Gore to the left. But Gore wanted no part of that.

 

[PyramidHead]

How so? Are you saying that the government is conspiring to prevent socialists from running?

It's nothing so direct, but the cultural taboo about socialism, enforced not just by government but also by media, business, and religious voices, is only just starting to lift in the past decade. That's one aspect of the issue. The other is not about socialism generally, but electoralism generally. Our system of representation does not produce candidates that are favored by voters, it produces candidates that are favored by wealth.

When there is a sea change in the direction of a country's politics, it doesn't happen because the majority of people suddenly change their minds about something and vote accordingly. It builds up over a generation, as more and more people get vocal about what they've always believed but never articulated publicly. When somebody riles up a tendency that has been dormant for a while and people start to see they weren't alone, it can take root and turn into something. But it takes time and it needs to be legitimized in political circles over a few election cycles to stick. Whether or not that's what's happening right now is up for debate. Some would say this is the grand sweep of leftist resurgence that started with Occupy and will culminate in somebody, even if it isn't Bernie, eventually becoming the first self-described socialist president. Others see it as a blip, or an annoying tendency that needs to vanish so the grownups can get actual work done. The latter group currently has all the power and influence in this country's electoral politics, so it's not surprising that socialists aren't more numerous in government, but they are starting to appear here and there.

In any case, your original question was about the ways that Bernie is a letdown to the left, regardless of whether the left is a latent majority or a fringe interest group in the US, and it basically comes down to the left wanting someone who gets to the root of the problem as we see it, rather than treating a reformed and regulated capitalist system as an end in itself like Bernie sometimes does.