If Biden Falls, Who Will Rise?

[Cheerful Charlie]

So if a given politician has a following of any sort, you are going to label that "a cult"? So only those politicians that have 2% of the voter approval pass muster with you for not being "a cult"? This is nonsense.

No. I see much of Trump’s base as being cult-like. There is a certain blind devotion that overlooks any possible flaw. This seems to have lessened among over time. I’m not seeing a lot if MAGA hats or signs. Fewer people are taking about him as though he is the second coming. I see at least a portion of Bernie supporters as cult like: they believe he has no flaws, they believe that only Bernie can (fill in the blank) and they brook no criticism or counterpoints if someone disagrees. I’ve only recently run into anyone who takes Gabbard at all seriously. But it’s similar: not people who will tolerate any mention of weak points or any discussion —nothing but rabid support.

I don’t care which candidate it is: this is unwise and anti-democratic behavior.

My top candidates are Harris, Warren, Booker and maybe Klobuchar. None of them is perfect but they each have strengths that I think could make them effective as POTUS and as national and international leaders. They are all bright, hard working and devoted to public service. They are not self-agrandizing in the way s that Trump obviously is and imo, that Bernie is IMO. I find it frightening that anyone is remotely considering Gabbard seriously. I have very deep concerns about where her money is coming from and how many bots she has working for her.

I used to listen to Thom Hartmon. Here, in Houston, we had a shortened version of Hartman's show on our local Pacifica station. Sanders was often a guest on his programs and discussed various issues at length. I found that usually I agreed with Sanders. he was anything but strident or doctrinaire. Rabid support? Nah! Bernie earned his support. At least from me who actually listened to him.

Rabid support? Clinton. Such as on Democratic Underground where any attempt to discuss Sanders was verboten, and could get on banned. My brother was so treated. And this site was not the only offender in this regard.

I voted for Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the election. The problem with discussing ideas at length is the "My eyes glaze over" effect. To break through, one has to play the game, repeat, simplify, repeat. Who actually bothers to read Warren's many well thought out policy statements from her site? Or Bernies?

I suspect a large part of Sander's problem is that he is not a Democrat so the Democratic establishment will not support him. I support Warren. I am not a fan of Biden, but would vote for him if he wins.

Put this talk of "cults" is crap. Many MAGAts do not actually like Trump, but he gives them what they want.

 

[Rhea]

It was a great accomplishment that he should be remembered for, whether or not he ever becomes president.

Yup, I agree. This is what Sanders is very good at, being a gadfly. And I wish he would remain in the Senate and do it. This is not a good skill for a President, though.

And Clinton only adopted what she did from Sanders because Sanders pushed so hard.

Nope. You don’t know America.
She did it because she was always for those things before but was made to feel - quite personally - that the voters were not behind it. Bernie helped push the voter voice for it. She embraced that. I did, too.

After the election, I doubt very much she would have actually delivered on any of what Sanders was pushing for though. She was simply too bought by corporate interests. She'd never shut down the medical insurance industry.

Bullshit. You don’t know that and her history disproves it. This is just flat out a wrong reading of American history.

A Clinton victory would have begun the arduous process of making college education affordable again.

Bullshit. Tuition fees would have continued to climb, not come down.

Again, you don’t know that and her history disproves that thesis.

Its a chance for a better system and norms to rise from the ashes. Bernie, Warren, Yang, hell we've even got Williamson in the race. The wheel is broken. Instead of fixing it, lets build wings and soar to higher ground.

That is simply childish wishful nonsense.

Indeed. Yang would get things done that Clinton couldn’t? Williamson could get things done? Childish wishful nonsense.

 

[Rhea]

And I'm sorry: you don't know bupkis about the US.

You're funny how you keep claiming people who you disagree with know nothing. Its almost like you're full of yourself.

Jolly, you may not be able to admit this, but you have made a LOT of proclamations about what Americans think, and when the Americans on this board tell you that, no, that is NOT what we think, you do not correct your bold claim or adjust it in any way. Americans on this board have repeatedly informed you that your claim on what we think and what drives us is wrong. You continue to proclaim knowledge about the American psyche. You are very often wrong. You do not seem to care that you are wrong. I expect you will continue to make arriogant statements about “what Americans want,” to Americans who have told you they don’t want that.

Same goes for statements of history about what has happened in America’s past. For those of us who were THERE and tell you that you are completely wrong about the Zeitgeist of those moments, you deliver the same arrogant commitment to telling us what our own childhoods were like.

You are very frequently wrong, but you don’t care. It’s quite dramatic.

 

[Rhea]

Here you simply do not know what you are talking about.

I think I know as well as you do, and probably better.

Serious question for which I would be interested in a detailed answer:

What, exactly, do you do to inform yourself such that you feel you are better informed about the feelings of Americans toward candidates and presidents than the Americans themselves, including those who are politically active?

You’ve made this claim a number of times, and it is very curious.

You have claimed that you know WHAT AMERICAN VOTERS WANT, and even when that contradicts what actual American voters say on that subject, you come back with this comment above, that you know better than us! what we want.

Do you have triple PhDs in American political Zeitgeist studies? Or what? It must be something really astonishing to support this claim that you know what we want better than we do!. Did you secretly spend 50 years as an American resident?


You’ve made this claim so many times that I really think you owe it to this community to explain in detail what studies or think tank positions or what makes you feel that yours is a valid claim?

 

[Toni]

Carter wasn't. Reagan and Obama quickly became so. Hillary didn't start out as a sell out politics as usual corporatist either. But she became that well before she ran for the presidency. I see no risk of this happening to Yang or Bernie (or Williamson), and a slight risk of it happening to Warren, but not nearly as much with her as with others like Harris, Booker, etc. Biden is already there.

I strongly suspect you have no clue what it is like to live and work in the DC area. Almost everyone in power becomes an insider to a large degree pretty quickly or they are out on their ass.

And you don't see that as a problem? It was Carter's undoing, but he didn't get absorbed by it (good on him). Trump has been breaking it. Bernie would stand up to it. So would Yang. So would Williamson. The government should serve the people, not the other way around. It shouldn't be "I'm with her/him". It should be that she/he is with the people. And that brings me back to Toni's claim that Bernie is an egomaniac. Why does anyone think that? He's been about his policy ideas ahead of himself since day one.

Bernie and Williamson would be largely ignored where they could not be manipulated. Yang is very smart and he could probably avoid being manipulated but he would be ignored, which is a shame because he’s smart and clear thinking. I’d love to see him in a cabinet position and to expand his national presence. I don’t think he has a shot at the Presidency at this time. In the future? Maybe.

 

[Toni]

So if a given politician has a following of any sort, you are going to label that "a cult"? So only those politicians that have 2% of the voter approval pass muster with you for not being "a cult"? This is nonsense.

No. I see much of Trump’s base as being cult-like. There is a certain blind devotion that overlooks any possible flaw. This seems to have lessened among over time. I’m not seeing a lot if MAGA hats or signs. Fewer people are taking about him as though he is the second coming. I see at least a portion of Bernie supporters as cult like: they believe he has no flaws, they believe that only Bernie can (fill in the blank) and they brook no criticism or counterpoints if someone disagrees. I’ve only recently run into anyone who takes Gabbard at all seriously. But it’s similar: not people who will tolerate any mention of weak points or any discussion —nothing but rabid support.

I don’t care which candidate it is: this is unwise and anti-democratic behavior.

My top candidates are Harris, Warren, Booker and maybe Klobuchar. None of them is perfect but they each have strengths that I think could make them effective as POTUS and as national and international leaders. They are all bright, hard working and devoted to public service. They are not self-agrandizing in the way s that Trump obviously is and imo, that Bernie is IMO. I find it frightening that anyone is remotely considering Gabbard seriously. I have very deep concerns about where her money is coming from and how many bots she has working for her.

I used to listen to Thom Hartmon. Here, in Houston, we had a shortened version of Hartman's show on our local Pacifica station. Sanders was often a guest on his programs and discussed various issues at length. I found that usually I agreed with Sanders. he was anything but strident or doctrinaire. Rabid support? Nah! Bernie earned his support. At least from me who actually listened to him.

Rabid support? Clinton. Such as on Democratic Underground where any attempt to discuss Sanders was verboten, and could get on banned. My brother was so treated. And this site was not the only offender in this regard.

I voted for Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the election. The problem with discussing ideas at length is the "My eyes glaze over" effect. To break through, one has to play the game, repeat, simplify, repeat. Who actually bothers to read Warren's many well thought out policy statements from her site? Or Bernies?

I suspect a large part of Sander's problem is that he is not a Democrat so the Democratic establishment will not support him. I support Warren. I am not a fan of Biden, but would vote for him if he wins.

Put this talk of "cults" is crap. Many MAGAts do not actually like Trump, but he gives them what they want.

I lost an earlier post but, fwiw:

I have a Twitter acct just so that I can read some things. I know: Twitter! But honestly, reading anything from the Berniebroes and how they absolutely do not tolerate any dissension, any deviation from their main and only points which are that Bernie, and only Bernie knows and leads the way and that Bernie was cheated out of the nomination of a party which he only joined to gain that party’s nomination.

To me, this is cult like behavior. There is zero discussion about how or why he is the better leader or why his points are better than others. This is cult like behavior imo. You don’t have to agree, but that’s how I see it.

 

[Toni]

I personally met Bernie in 2016. I introduced him in a town hall kind of debate near a reservation. Bernie launched into his spiel, then there was Q&A. The thing that I noticed about Bernie is that he does not listen to people. He came in with an agenda. But he couldn't listen and then respond to the issues the crowd wanted to hear. They wanted to hear issues that affected the reservation and local issues. I also didn't find him to be very warm back stage or personable.

This is consistent with my impression (from TV only) of him. Bernie is a broken record. I think his age is a problem.
In contrast Warren physically and mentally looks 60 to me.

Both posts echo my impressions.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yang would get things done that Clinton couldn’t?

Absolutely and without a doubt he would. Yang isn't a conservative pariah like Clinton is. Yang doesn't call anyone "deplorables" and doesn't play himself up as the chosen one. He's clearly in it for the policies he's putting forth and hasn't sold his own ideals out for corporate backing as Hillary did long ago.

 

[southernhybrid]

I've known many Bernie supporters, and most of them did act cult like, imo. Some fo them voted third party because, and I quote, "I didn't like Clinton." Fuck! What has like have to do with why we vote for anyone? It's nice to like the candidate that you support, but experience and knowledge of the system should be the first priorities, imo. Very few presidents get much of what they want, because Congress has to support the president's policies. It would be nice if candidates didn't promise things that would be impossible or close to impossible to pass into law, but I guess voters like the excitement that comes with the belief that a president has some sort of magical control over the Congress.

Despite Trump's sycophants in Congress, about the only major thing he got passed was that tax break that primarily helped the wealthiest Americans and corporations. Most Republicans are always ready to help the wealthiest. He has used some of his given powers to start this insane, imo, trade war, which is having the effect of hurting poor and middle class Americans, not to mention how it may impact the over all economy if it drags on very long.

Warren says she will use executive action for gun control policies. I know her heart is in the right place, but such an action would immediately be challenged in the courts. SCOTUS, unfortunately has already defended the 2nd Amendment in a rather extreme way, imo, and the current make up of the court is even more extreme. While I like Warren, I wish she didn't play that Bernie game of making promises that can't be kept. Harris has also promised to use EA to accomplish certain things. Trump uses EA all the time but many of his actions have been stopped by the lower courts. It's time for presidents to realize that their power is limited because we supposedly have 3 coequal branches of government. I think we need to stop allowing our presidents to have so much power. It's getting out of hand.

Anyway, we Americans will all get our chance to vote for whoever we feel is the best candidate during our primary elections.

 

[laughing dog]

Yang would get things done that Clinton couldn’t?

Absolutely and without a doubt he would.

Given Mr. Yang has no experience in governing or making coalitions, on what basis do derive the notion that Mr. Yang would be able to get things done that Mr. Clinton (or Mr. Obama) could not?

 

[Elixir]

Yang would get things done that Clinton couldn’t?

Absolutely and without a doubt he would.

Given Mr. Yang has no experience in governing or making coalitions, on what basis do derive the notion that Mr. Yang would be able to get things done that Mr. Clinton (or Mr. Obama) could not?

It's what they said about Trump. Turned out all he was good for was getting things UN-done.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yang would get things done that Clinton couldn’t?

Absolutely and without a doubt he would.

Given Mr. Yang has no experience in governing or making coalitions, on what basis do derive the notion that Mr. Yang would be able to get things done that Mr. Clinton (or Mr. Obama) could not?

I read that as Hillary Clinon, not Bill, as you'd see if you didn't clip out where I explicitly said so. Could Yang get more done than Bill Clinton could today? Sure. Bill is well past his prime. In is prime, maybe not.

 

[Toni]

Given Mr. Yang has no experience in governing or making coalitions, on what basis do derive the notion that Mr. Yang would be able to get things done that Mr. Clinton (or Mr. Obama) could not?

I read that as Hillary Clinon, not Bill, as you'd see if you didn't clip out where I explicitly said so. Could Yang get more done than Bill Clinton could today? Sure. Bill is well past his prime. In is prime, maybe not.

Or Mrs. Clinton, who was already a successful, accomplished and well respected leader nationally and internationally. Yang would be anecellent cabinet head—and maybe in another 4-8 years, an excellent presidential candidate. But now? Now is not his time.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Or Mrs. Clinton, who was already a successful, accomplished and well respected leader nationally and internationally. Yang would be anecellent cabinet head—and maybe in another 4-8 years, an excellent presidential candidate. But now? Now is not his time.

Why not? The man has a plan and good ideas and hasn't sold them out to special interests and corporations like Haris, Booker, Biden, etc. He's fresh and doesn't carry the "socialist" baggage Bernie does, the "pocahontas" thing Warren does.

I'd like to see more from Klobuchar. I can't tell yet if she's a sell out or the real thing.

 

[laughing dog]

Jolly Penguin
What makes you think an inexperienced politician would get anything done?

 

[Toni]

Or Mrs. Clinton, who was already a successful, accomplished and well respected leader nationally and internationally. Yang would be anecellent cabinet head—and maybe in another 4-8 years, an excellent presidential candidate. But now? Now is not his time.

Why not? The man has a plan and good ideas and hasn't sold them out to special interests and corporations like Haris, Booker, Biden, etc. He's fresh and doesn't carry the "socialist" baggage Bernie does, the "pocahontas" thing Warren does.

I'd like to see more from Klobuchar. I can't tell yet if she's a sell out or the real thing.

What’s he polling at?

If he can’t get enough of the masses behind him, Washington isn’t going to listen to him either. Both because he doesn’t have the broad based support to make them pay attention but also because they are people just as the voters are and so far, he hasn’t convinced enough people that his ideas are good enough or that he’s the one to implement them.

Building something takes a lot more time than destroying it.

 

[Rhea]

Why not? The man has a plan and

Yes, he does say that he has “a” plan. One.

I'd like to see more from Klobuchar. I can't tell yet if she's a sell out or the real thing.

Can you please define “sell out” and what it means to policy?
Please be very specific.
What exactly constitutes a “sell out” and how do you detect it.
And how that “sell out” condition affects the abbility to get things done.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Jolly Penguin
What makes you think an inexperienced politician would get anything done?

What makes you think experience at being a politician makes them better at serving the nation rather than their own personal advancement and profit?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What’s he polling at?

Not very high. But he was Fourth place last I looked. Really nobody is polling very high aside from Biden, Warren, and Bernie. But that can and likely will change, especially if and when Biden collapses.

Yang, much like Bernie last time around, is a relative newcomer and unknown. He is climbing steadily but does need a big bump. If he can stay in the race as the herd thins, his message will be heard in the debates and he will climb much higher. Will he win? Probably not, which is unfortunate, but it's possible, and even if he doesn't, then much like Bernie last time around, he may still get his message out and sway the future course of the party.

If he can’t get enough of the masses behind him, Washington isn’t going to listen to him either.

He polls ahead of Klobuchar, Harris, and Booker in a few polls. Do you dismiss them?

Both because he doesn’t have the broad based support to make them pay attention but also because they are people just as the voters are and so far, he hasn’t convinced enough people that his ideas are good enough or that he’s the one to implement them.

He needs time and exposure. It's early enough that he can get both yet.

ml
Building something takes a lot more time than destroying it.

Yes. And it helps if you're actually building something, rather than just saying whatever is politically expedient to advance yourself a la Harris, Booker and Biden.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why not? The man has a plan and

Yes, he does say that he has “a” plan. One.

What do you mean by that? He actually has the most stated policy ideas than anyone else running. It's quite extensive. Everything from college athlete stars getting a cut of the money they pull in, to a psychologist in the white house, to the American Mall Act, to election day being a national holiday, to term limits on supreme court appointments, and on and on.

I'd like to see more from Klobuchar. I can't tell yet if she's a sell out or the real thing.

Can you please define “sell out” and what it means to policy?
Please be very specific.

A sell out is somebody who takes money from wealthy donors or special interest groups and advances their agendas (often without being transparent about it; though some are). A sell out is usually somebody who declares their position as whatever is politically expedient to advance themselves and then votes against what they promise, or who won't state their view or keep it ambiguous so they can mislead the voters and enact policy for whoever bought them.

I don't know if that applies to Klobuchar or not. Need to see more of her and her voting record.