• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Obama reportedly says he will speak out against Bernie if he gains a lead in the primary

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,154
Location
Hallandale, FL
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
President Obama privately said he would speak up to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) from becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, Politico reported Tuesday.
...
But earlier this month, the former president warned the 2020 candidates of leaning too far left at a speaking engagement, saying "the average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...-he-would-speak-up-to-stop-sanders-report?amp


I largely agree with Obama here. We need a candidate that wants to largely continue Obama's policies, not tax and spend the nation to death.
 
Last edited:
President Obama privately said he would speak up to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) from becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, Politico reported Tuesday.
...
But earlier this month, the former president warned the 2020 candidates of leaning too far left at a speaking engagement, saying "the average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campa...-he-would-speak-up-to-stop-sanders-report?amp


I largely agree with Obama here. We need a candidate that wants to largely continue Obama's policies, not tax and spend the nation to death.

I agree with Obama's comment too, but I can't really agree with your comment. "Tax and spend" is roughly the government equivalent to a company "revenue and expenditure." It doesn't deserve the negative connotation that people give it. Governments do a lot of things better and more efficiently than the private sector as evidenced by dozens of countries with higher taxes and (believe it or not) higher citizen happiness than the US. There is no explicit reason to fear increased taxes spent on productive infrastructure and investment.

In any case I much prefer the "tax and spend" candidates to the "borrow and spend" candidates I see everywhere these days.
 
Let's unite as a party and stop sll this radical, divisive rhetoric. By attacking someone if they become the frontrunner.

I liked many things about Obama but is he losing some of his marbles?
 
I liked many things about Obama but is he losing some of his marbles?

Lets be fair to him and not take this reporting as for sure true. He "said something in a private meeting".... says who? How do they know? Are they the person in the meeting?

Once Obama actually comes out against Bernie then I'll believe it. Until then, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
I liked many things about Obama but is he losing some of his marbles?

Lets be fair to him and not take this reporting as for sure true. He "said something in a private meeting".... says who? How do they know? Are they the person in the meeting?

Once Obama actually comes out against Bernie then I'll believe it. Until then, I give him the benefit of the doubt.

A good point.
 
Shockingly so. And since this is the origin:

Publicly, he has been clear that he won’t intervene in the primary for or against a candidate, unless he believed there was some egregious attack. “I can't even imagine with this field how bad it would have to be for him to say something,” said a close adviser. Instead, he sees his role as providing guardrails to keep the process from getting too ugly and to unite the party when the nominee is clear. There is one potential exception: Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him. (Asked about that, a spokesperson for Obama pointed out that Obama recently said he would support and campaign for whoever the Democratic nominee is.)

And this is the context:

Ostensibly the meetings are for the aspiring candidates to gain some wisdom from the last Democrat to win an open presidential primary and the presidency, but they also allow Obama to collect his own intelligence about what he and his closest advisers have made clear is all that matters to him: who can beat Donald Trump.

Sometimes he offers candid advice about his visitors’ strengths and weaknesses. With several lesser-known candidates, according to people who have talked to him or been briefed on his meetings, he was blunt about the challenges of breaking out of a large field. His advice is not always heeded. He told Patrick earlier this year that it was likely “too late” for him to secure “money and talent” if he jumped in the race. Occasionally, he can be cutting. With one candidate, he pointed out that during his own 2008 campaign, he had an intimate bond with the electorate, especially in Iowa, that he no longer has. Then he added, “And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden.”

It’s better clarified.
 
Let's unite as a party and stop sll this radical, divisive rhetoric.

Hear here.
The eventual nominee will be a flawed individual, and will not enjoy the kind of deification conferred upon Cheato by his adoring acolytes.
The Republican dirt machine will be spewing shit all over whoever the Dem nominee ends up being, and we don't need Democrats adding to it.
 
President Obama privately said he would speak up to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) from becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, Politico reported Tuesday.
...
But earlier this month, the former president warned the 2020 candidates of leaning too far left at a speaking engagement, saying "the average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...-he-would-speak-up-to-stop-sanders-report?amp


I largely agree with Obama here. We need a candidate that wants to largely continue Obama's policies, not tax and spend the nation to death.
Yes, indebted young adults helps drive the economy. Oh... and they better be paying into health care insurance premiums so us older people have health care. And they need to be paying their tithing into Medicare and Social Security because that'll run out of money soon too. It isn't like they can save money with a valid interest rate anyway.
 
What's the difference between saying you will speak out against someone and actually speaking out against them?
 
What's the difference between saying you will speak out against someone and actually speaking out against them?

Trump can't quote you on it.
Trump quotes things that people never said, so I don't see any limits, there.

What's the difference between saying you will speak out against someone and actually speaking out against them?
One is done in private (if said at all), the other in public.

If you and I know about it, it was said in public.
 
What's the difference between saying you will speak out against someone and actually speaking out against them?

Well, again, this whole thing is stemming from this one comment:

Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him.

That's not Obama saying anything at all; that's a journalist claiming that some other person allegedly heard Obama say something that the journalist has chosen to characterize as Obama saying he would "speak up to stop him." We have no idea what Obama actually said or what he may have meant.

The implication is that Obama meant he would speak publicly against Sanders, but speak "up" is not speak "out." Even if that were a direct quote, it could simply mean "I will become more publicly involved than I am now and put my support behind Warren"--i.e., I will speak up--in favor of my preferred candidate--to stop Sanders from becoming the front runner, or something along those lines. It does not axiomatically mean, "I will talk shit about Sanders."

Though if he did, he'd be justified. Sanders is not a Democrat and has only ever shat on the Democratic party while at the same time demanding he be allowed to play in our reindeer games--which we graciously allowed--only for him to fuck over the Democratic party in a number of different ways in 2015, causing a completely unnecessary, bitterly divisive civil war for no reason but his own ego. A very good argument can be made that it's his fault we have Trump in the WH to begin with and had he simply bowed out with honor and integrity when it was mathematically impossible for him to win (in March), Trump would simply be doing what he thought he'd be doing all along; profiting off of being a never-win and falsely boasting how he would have been the best POTUS ever.

But more importantly, Sanders is also someone the Trump camp would LOVE to go against, because they know they could destroy him and we'd have Trump for four more years. Which is why the context is the more important part of the piece:

all that matters to him: who can beat Donald Trump.

Sanders can't beat Trump. He's a cranky, money-grubbing jew from Jew York out to take your money so his kids can go to college. That's the end of it right there for pretty much all of the south, midwest, much of the northwest and a significant part of the northeast corridor. Unfortunately, as we have seen in stark relief, there are tens of millions of deeply bigoted assholes in this country and the idea of a jew in the WH for the overwhelming majority of them (being all Christian white guys) is literally something they would kill to prevent.

Yes, I'm aware the same could have been said for a "nigger" in the WH (and was), but in Obama's case, blacks showed up to vote in numbers we hadn't seen since the sixties (and for good reason). But as Tom Lehrer once put it, "everybody hates the Jews," and that includes heavily Christian Hispanics, Asians and African-Americans in both the Democratic and Independent blocs, so from a purely strategic realpolitiks perspective, it's ironically not personal.
 
Last edited:
Let's unite as a party and stop sll this radical, divisive rhetoric. By attacking someone if they become the frontrunner.

I liked many things about Obama but is he losing some of his marbles?

No, he's being sensible. Selecting a far-left candidate basically guarantees at least 4 more years of His Flatulence.
 
Let's unite as a party and stop sll this radical, divisive rhetoric. By attacking someone if they become the frontrunner.

I liked many things about Obama but is he losing some of his marbles?

No, he's being sensible. Selecting a far-left candidate basically guarantees at least 4 more years of His Flatulence.

Wouldn't that apply to Warren as well? (even if to a somewhat lesser degree)
 
Let's unite as a party and stop sll this radical, divisive rhetoric. By attacking someone if they become the frontrunner.

I liked many things about Obama but is he losing some of his marbles?

No, he's being sensible. Selecting a far-left candidate basically guarantees at least 4 more years of His Flatulence.

Wouldn't that apply to Warren as well? (even if to a somewhat lesser degree)

Warren--like Sanders has done his entire career--is creeping to the right to counter that perception and for exactly that reason.
 
Let's unite as a party and stop sll this radical, divisive rhetoric. By attacking someone if they become the frontrunner.

I liked many things about Obama but is he losing some of his marbles?

No, he's being sensible. Selecting a far-left candidate basically guarantees at least 4 more years of His Flatulence.

So does attacking your parties' frontrunner. As the last election aptly demonstrated.
 
Back
Top Bottom