Let the Betting Begin - Bernie's VP

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Vonnegut, Feb 27, 2020.

Loading...
  1. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

  2. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Harder to win Florida, yes. And he is either in complete bubble and doesn't realize it, or he knows and simply doesn't care - despite the stakes. Not a good look for a potential President.

    I so hope Joe can win.
     
  3. Vonnegut

    Vonnegut Active Member

    Agree on the first part. As for the second, I’m curious. If you don’t mind sharing, do you find him to be a strong candidate or simply favor his odds against Trump?
     
  4. Vonnegut

    Vonnegut Active Member

    Do you know of him ever explaining his rationale on those issue (support of Cuba, Venezuela, etc)? Every interview I’ve heard, he becomes agitated and changes the subject when they’re brought up. His refusal to call Chavez a dictator has always disappointed me. For the life of me I can’t see how he can hold his positions, on those issues.
     
  5. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    He'll be better than Trump, that's for sure.

    I'm biased because I am from Ukraine, and favor Joe because of his knowledge of the country. Biden was at the tip of Obama administration's efforts in the country, and these efforts were instrumental in keeping Poroshenko government from straying from the reform path. Attempts to paint the Joe-Hunter-Shokin affair as a negative are laughable for anyone who know anything about former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. His dismissal was a very good thing; of course, his replacement is bad as well, but this wasn't at all obvious at the time.

    Ukraine aside, I like Warren, Klobuchar, and Butigieg in approximately this order somewhat more than Joe, but Biden is more than competent enough to be President. Joe does appear to have slightly better position to defeat Trump, which is a factor too.
     
  6. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    His rationale is nitpicking that what he says is technically the "truth". Which is either incompetence as a politician, or disingenuous. Gah, I really don't like the guy!

    Actual reason I think is either residual feelings of an old leftie, or desire to say controversial things to enhance his image of a rebel. So either childish, or... childish.
     
  7. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    The problems he identifies are real. So the fact that he'll in all likelihood be unable to do diddly squat about them is a reason to NOT like prospect of his presidency. Alternatively, he might flip to more moderate plans of Joe/Pit or, more likely, Warren (on healthcare, it's basically Sander's idea but more gradual and in a way that MIGHT actually work). I don't know what's worse, him ignoring the "working class" he claims to care much about, or adopting Warren's approach after his campaign and extended cult buried her in mud for it.

    I. DO. NOT. LIKE. THE. GUY. Whew, this feels better
     
  8. Vonnegut

    Vonnegut Active Member

    Pretty much in agreement! I still like the guy, but more of as a crazy neighbor who's fun when he gets riled up over drinks in the backyard...
     
  9. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    Quite true. Despite being Jewish himself, he will also lose Florida's Jewish vote thanks to his tendency to blatantly trash Benjamin Netanyahu, who has always been popular in the U.S. (BTW, Netanyahu and I went to the same high school, but I didn't know him - we were four years apart.) Not to mention Bernie's favoritism toward Palestinians over Israel. With both Jews and Cubans in Florida, Bernie is toast. If Bernie is ultimately the man, we can expect to see four more years of the Donald.
     
  10. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    The explanation is pretty straight forward: Even when your brand depends on being an iconoclast, as Sanders's does, it's tough to admit on American media that you're a communist.

    And he's a communist. Not a "democratic socialist" or some other euphemism. As a lifelong apologist for various communist regimes that can only be described as evil shows, he's a communist.
     
  11. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Now, to be fair, we need to use words in their actual meaning, and "communist" is someone whose goal is abolishment of private property and money. Bernie's actual stated policies are actually pretty mainstream, and can quite truthfully labeled "democratic socialism". What he factually is, though, is a Commie sympathizer, of the kind KGB used to cultivate under labels of, politely, "fellow traveler" or, among friends, "useful idiot". A somewhat common cultivation setup included Inturist-facilitated tours (like Bernie's 1988 honeymoon in Yaroslavl, to take just a one example. What kind of person gets pumped about USSR in 1988?).

    I must say, though, that some of Sanders' campaign staff and many of the most insane online followers (remember, they are supposed to advocate for common sense democratic social policies) act with a moral compass of a radical revolutionary movement; it'd explain a lot if they were secret communists.

    Would you finally admit that Hillary was actually not such a bad option in 2016?
     
  12. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Compared to all the support the president has provided to Xi, Putin, Erdogan, Kim, Duterte....
     
  13. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Are you sure Miami Cubans care about any of this? We're talking about winning Florida.
     
  14. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    If she'd merely been corrupt and not also a warmonger, then yes. But as she is? God, who knows.

    Bottom line: Johnson was still the only non-bad option in 2016.
     
  15. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

    Please be careful. You’ve promised to never talk politics.
     
  16. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    STRONGLY disagree. In any case, it's irrelevant; you're either for Hillary or for Trump, in effect. Just like now, the only sane choice is the Democratic nominee, even if God forbid it's Bernie. Who BTW also says he's "not a pacifist".
     
  17. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    No, you're not. That's just a notion that the mainstream parties push to keep alternatives from eating their collective lunch. And sadly, so far it's worked extremely well, although the symbiotic relationship both parties have with big donors and the mainstream media has been an enormous part of that.

    Sanders does not magically become a sane choice just because Trump is an insane choice. But if Democrats haven't learned the electability lesson that 2016 so pointedly taught them, that's on them.
     
  18. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Donald Trump won election with the third-largest population vote deficit ever. (The five elected with a deficit in the popular vote: John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes, Donald Trump, Benjamin Harrison, and George W. Bush.

    Of those, only Bush won re-election, and that was before the Iraq War was a bust. Also, Bush won by the slimmest margin ever for a winning incumbent.

    The Adams and Hayes elections were incredibly controversial. Harrison's was, but less so. And we know about both Bush and Trump.

    By the numbers and by history, Donald Trump is really high on the "beatable" scale; an extremely vulnerable candidate. But he was that in 2016, too, yet he was elected. It happens. Whether it happens again seems more a function of what the Democrats do than what the Republicans (including Trump) do. He seems to be a very stable constant in terms of his job approval rating--a stationary target if you will. He won't hand the election to the Democrats, no matter to what extreme he might go. They'll have to take it from him.
     
  19. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

    Once upon a time would have disagreed with this. I would have thought that his behavior has been so outrageous that no one would vote for him. But everyone has their pet issue, whether it’s guns or immigration or abortion or whatever, and it seems that there are a lot of people who care nothing for honesty or character as long as he promotes their pet issue. Maybe the country will surprise me but I see no solid indication that Trump will lose. Especially if the Democrats put their own egos ahead of the welfare of the country.
     
  20. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Yes, you are. In a contest with only two possible outcomes, you affect the result by backing one or another. Backing "non-mainstream" alternative is an equivalent on taking one's toys and going home. Voting fringe (the proper antonym for "mainstream) party is thus not rational, even if said party prints a magazine titled "Reason" (chuckle).
    Again, yes it does. Besides, Sanders, even now, is not a good choice but not necessarily "insane". For example, being a single-issue voter bent on Medicare For All is not insane, even though I disagree with such people. A vocal minority of Bernie fans do come across as, for the lack of a better word, insane - but not all of his voters are there.
    Let me reiterate here that Hillary'16 was a rational choice; arguably, THE rational choice.
     

Share This Page