Mega Thread: Bernie Sanders 2020 Presidential Campaign

[tyrlaan]

I didn't say she was anti-gay today. I said she has BAD JUDGMENT. I stand by it.
Gabbard was a grown woman in her 20s while she was not only anti-gay in her views, but working for a group trying to take rights away and supporting gay conversion therapy. I can forgive Gabbard due to her convenient change of heart, but at that age she should have known better.


The article says exactly what I claim, and Gabbard is directly quoted. Gabbard didn't support Clinton due to her belief that Clinton's support for the Iraq war 15 years earlier was bad judgment. I don't support Gabbard because (among other things) I believe her work to discriminate 15 years ago was bad judgment. Both have apologized. It's irrelevant to their judgment.


Well, since you are so quick to dismiss, here's the same criticism of Gabbard covered in Hawaii News Now and The Intercept . Gabbard is well-known for refusing any debates with her opponents, all the while calling for more debates for Bernie's 2016 run because she's a GIANT HYPOCRITE.


You can believe whatever you want, since you clearly don't read my posts.
But if you're naive enough to think there's not a substantial left/Dem opposition to Gabbard, you could start by researching why even Daily Kos is supporting her primary opponent. (Is Mother Jones left enough for you?)

If I didn't read your posts, I couldn't possibly have responded the way I did. But you clearly play games with word choice, so that's cool I guess. (I like how you said "convenient" up above - so I assume that means you think she's been playing a long con from since she started in Congress?)

I'm very content to see how things go down as the primary season and campaigns actually start. I'm by no means discounting someone with good things on their platform any more than I'm putting all my chips on one number.

And isn't Mother Jones bullshit too?

If she's a hard pass for you, that's fine. I'll wait until we have more information because nothing you've adjusted here to make me sound incorrect rebutting you is damning unless you want it to be.

- - - Updated - - -

Because I'm interested in moving people away from fighting dumb social causes and losing their energy there, instead of fighting the class conflict. Quite the simple motivation.

Fortunately for people being victimized by assorted social injustices, you aren't very persuasive.

My takeaway so far is that you'd vote for a Stephen Miller or a David Duke if they sported an economic policy you liked. That's not a good starting point for winning over hearts and minds.

[xChurch]

Because I'm interested in moving people away from fighting dumb social causes and losing their energy there, instead of fighting the class conflict. Quite the simple motivation.

Social and Economic problems tend to be quite intertwined, it's a mistake to think they can both be fought separately, since voices in both parties will always tie them together regardless. And I think when most minorities hear white people talk about econmic problems, they assume that it only applies to white people due to you know...history and stuff. There is a reason Bernie lost the primaries. For the record though, I do agree that it's dumb, but you have to play the game as it exists.

[Theodarzna]

Social and Economic problems tend to be quite intertwined, it's a mistake to think they can both be fought separately since voices in both parties will always tie them together regardless. And I think when most minorities hear white people talk about econmic problems, they assume that it only applies to white people due to you know...history and stuff. There is a reason Bernie lost the primaries. For the record though, I do agree that it's dumb, but you have to play the game as it exists.

I am uncertain it is clear cut like that. For example the elite positions from which someone like Kara Swisher can call for the death of say teenagers from rural Kentucky, or even Sarah Jeong whom can attend the most elite school in the country, afford to work her way up the world of elite journalism and then land a job at the top newspaper in the country. Often it seems the most elite people will decry the "privilege" of those beneath them in the hairarchy.

Many times it appears that these social issues are more justification for an elite social classes power, rather than any other deeper underlying issue.

[xChurch]

Many times it appears that these social issues are more justification for an elite social classes power, rather than any other deeper underlying issue.

Which is why economic and social issues are tied, both need to be dealt with. You can't effectively solve the problems with either by ignoring another aspect of it.

[Theodarzna]

Which is why economic and social issues are tied, both need to be dealt with. You can't effectively solve the problems with either by ignoring another aspect of it.

If one is focused on at the explicit detriment of the other, than I'd assume something foul is afoot.

[tyrlaan]

The problem is, let's say we play the game. The social leftist types typically just say some stuff to appeal to their intended targets, like "stronger together", "diversity" or "racial justice", and then when it comes to the hardcore stuff, i.e. wealth inequality, they rarely even support something as basic as medicare for all or try to just avoid the subject. Minorities would hear this personalized message and cheer. But in the end, nothing will truly change for them in this manner. Somebody like Beto or Kamala or Warren would at best tax the rich a bit more, add to the coffers of the state, and I am willing to bet you that medicare4all would be just like the wall, it simply won't happen.

I'm really unsure what to even say other than I will simply never support a corporate democrat or anyone that's willing to prolong the status quo, and that I believe wealth spreading should fix the "social victimization" mentioned in the post above yours. You have money, you can buy a house away from the people that hate you and hire a bodyguard too. You're poor, and you cannot do shit but cry on social media about it. And yes, if there's a crime, law enforcement should handle it.

And then there's the foreign policy. For how long will the US be world police? For how long will there be bases almost everywhere? For how long will Israel and Saudi get billions of aid? Being an Israel or Saudi ally is disqualifying in my eyes. You cannot cry about social injustices while you actively help 2 peoples that oppress their own citizens openly. Yes, Bernie is a friend of Israel too, and it frustrates me to no end, but what else there is other than him?

But that's just griping about dishonest politicians and establishment Dems. Why do you think that people only have a problem with such folk if they follow your mantra of ignoring social injustice?

I absolutely agree that some social injustices would be alleviated as a result of economic changes. But as xChurch said (despite apparently thinking its some sort of game), you can't just act like they are "dumb" or "idiotic" or whatever adjective you want to use next time. And to be clear, I'm not talking about people getting outraged because someone makes fun of their kid named Abcde, I'm talking about things like systemic racism which is, at least with this example, in part, reinforced through economic inequities.

So either you actually do give a shit about social issues and you're just trying to sound like an edgelord... or you don't and are failing to understand (or just choosing not to) how relevant and serious they are.

[ohtlmtlm]

wut? he's not running as an independent...

why are you starting a thread with a false premise for the vote? it almost seems purposefully dishonest labeling him as an independent? you know damn well he wont run as an independent.

He hasn't even officially announced yet.


like the 3rd or fourth post said.... "here we go again"

- - - Updated - - -

I think if he runs as a Democrat Bernie would easily lost a quarter of his base right there. If he runs as a Independent no matter what, I do not believe he will win, but if he or his supporters want a legacy nationally, it's the best possible shot at doing so, because it would force more third party candidates on a national level, which will ultimately fail if it's not supported by a grass roots and local level.

When Jesse Venture ran as a Independent he was actually able to get funding for the Independent Party, unfortunately for them he didn't rerun and whatever momentum they had kind of dried up.

where is that quarter going to go? who are they going to vote for? what are you talking about?

Why are you lying about Sanders running for president as an Independent when all evidence would show he'd run as a Democrat like he did last time around? jesus, this was a quick jump from fair-weather friends among the dem party... lol.


or are you suggesting that there are people that wont vote for Sanders if hes running as a Democrat?, have we come full circle? Am i living in a different reality? ... Are my fingers edible?

[smityx]

Donald Trump will not be running in 2020 if he does it's only to avoid going to prison in NY and to delay any federal action against him until he's eventually ousted. He's to eager to play the martyr and coup victim card of the deep state for his basest of base cultists. Or his heart seizes up due to hamberder overdose

[ohtlmtlm]

77 year old Bernie Sanders will never be President and would be a fool to run for it again.

Rather than be a kingmaker and someone who changed the course of Democratic politics after the 2016 election, he'll look like yesterday's model compared to the other, impressive (even though I disagree with them) younger Democrats - often women - that have put their name forward.

Right now he has name recognition, so polls will show he has an advantage. As we head into the primary season, that'll fade, and he'll be out-competed by newer models.

Bernie 2020 is not likely to be Bernie 2016. It'll be more like John Edwards 2008 after his 2004 showing. Edwards made a strong showing in 2004. But in 2008, he looked dated compared to Barack Obama.

no thanks, you can go back and vote for trump again... the Democratic party doesn't need people like your votes bad enough to sacrifice the left leaning choices we have. You can vote for Dems or republicans, you're a slim LOUD, ANNOYING minority of the Democratic party now that you've lost power in the Republican party. You're wrong on all of your assumptions, you list Edwards and Kerry like the attacks against them were remotely legitimate and that style of attack will work again in the age of social media, Trump should have shown you those attacks can be beaten. Which again brings me back around to attacking your disingenuous adventure into the Democratic party.

You're not interested in beating Trumpo or bettering the Democratic party, you're interested in getting your interests represented, which I can't fault you for, thst's democracy. but at least you can be honest.

- - - Updated - - -

TIL Bernie Sanders needs money. It was almost sad last election so many poor people giving everything they had to Bernie while he was flying around in private jets paying staffers 9 dollars an hour while living in at least 3 mansions. Also, he has been in the senate for 100 years and has basically no significant accomplishments during his time. Also found out he had his first job at 35 years old. He does not represent the people he speaks to.

It really is sad that progressives have to fend off this bullshit, on top of all the other bullshit centrist (and well paid for being centrist) democrats too.

[roboscorcher]

If this happens it proves it. Bernie Sanders is a fucking idiot.

Old todger ought to go into retirement.

If he were to run, it would be to bring the other candidates in line with progressive values (medicare-for-all, reducing climate change, helping minorities, LGBT, middle class) rather than being Republican-lite. That's a good thing.

[SirBeef]

Because he'll be fucking 79 years old.
If he wants to be active, anoint someone decent in the field as "my choice" and keep it at that.

Edit:
Also, due to the fact that he isn't a member of the Democrats, it's less likely he'll be able to work all that well with congressional democrats. Meaning he'll in practicality be a limpdicked dead in the water POTUS with a popular mandate but no political capital.
Why the fuck would anyone want to vote for that?

Not true at all. He has exclusively caucused with the Dems his entire career. He would push them further left. You may have some that don't like it, But I doubt they would go full Freedom Caucus like some in the GOP did and completely break the house.

However, this is my problem with Sanders, 1, he's too old. 2, he's not a member of the DNC and should not be running as a Dem, nor should he get support from them like happened in 2016. 3, he'd be a better VP candidate. He can play the attack dog role very well, plus it would secure up the idiot berniebros who didn't vote for Clinton in-spite of their own faces.

[tyrlaan]

If he were to run, it would be to bring the other candidates in line with progressive values (medicare-for-all, reducing climate change, helping minorities, LGBT, middle class) rather than being Republican-lite. That's a good thing.

Except most if not all the candidates that have announced so far already have these things on their platform. He doesn't need to push the conversation because he already pulled that off.

[Molis]

Too Old. I wont vote for him

[roboscorcher]

Except most if not all the candidates that have announced so far already have these things on their platform. He doesn't need to push the conversation because he already pulled that off.

I hope that's true. His age is a concern now, though he's only 5 years older than Trump. I think he would make a good running mate for a center-left female candidate.

[mvaliz]

I love Bernie, and voted for him in the Democrat primaries (unlike the Bernie-Busters, however, I had no problem with Hillary. I just felt Bernie was 98.5% what I wanted whereas Hillary was 95% what I wanted).

Having said that, however, my love for Bernie wasn't just the man - but the policies. And those policies are now being accepted and promoted by other candidates, namely Liz Warren and Kamila Harris.

So, sorry Bern - loved your time and thank you for all you pushed and got Dems to where they are via policy, but I feel you're better served on support at this point that lead-man.

- - - Updated - - -

Except most if not all the candidates that have announced so far already have these things on their platform. He doesn't need to push the conversation because he already pulled that off.

That's kinda my feeling at this point as well.

Though @roboscorcher does make a point, Bernie would help keep the message on-track. However, I think Robo's being very dissengenuous by calling everybody else "republican lite", which people like Harris and Warren clearly are not.

[Skroe]

no thanks, you can go back and vote for trump again... the Democratic party doesn't need people like your votes bad enough to sacrifice the left leaning choices we have. You can vote for Dems or republicans, you're a slim LOUD, ANNOYING minority of the Democratic party now that you've lost power in the Republican party. You're wrong on all of your assumptions, you list Edwards and Kerry like the attacks against them were remotely legitimate and that style of attack will work again in the age of social media, Trump should have shown you those attacks can be beaten. Which again brings me back around to attacking your disingenuous adventure into the Democratic party.

You're not interested in beating Trumpo or bettering the Democratic party, you're interested in getting your interests represented, which I can't fault you for, thst's democracy. but at least you can be honest.

First, I did not vote for Trump. I was fiercely against Trump since October 2015.

What the Democratic and Republican Party's are today, are not what they were 25 years ago and not what they will be 25 years from now. They aren't also what they were be 25 years before 25 years ago.

That is not an "obvious statement". That is something you're overlooking. Probably intentionally. But maybe not.

Since 1945 there have been realignments of Americans between parties on several occasions. The conclusion of World War II and the start of the Cold War was the first sorting, largely as the country grappled with 14 years of dominance by FDR and a Republican Party that World War II and the Great Depression rendered obsolete and discredited in ideology. Social change, particularly on Civil Rights, and migration within the country mixed the parties up again in the 1960s. Democratic foreign policy and Republican corruption in the 1970s did it again. The failure of Mondale, Dukakis then Bush '41 did it again. The long consequences of the Iraq War and Financial Crisis did it again to both parties (as the center-right declined, the hard right rose, and New Democrats declined in favor of progressives).

Where do you think the term "Neo-conservative" comes from? Litterally, New Conservative. They were ex-Democrats who moved right in the 1970s and 1980s due to post-1968 democratic policies. But really, the term describes a behavior that's been recurrent. Policies change and what is "right" and what is "left" changes.


You're making the dead wrong arrogant presumption that what a "Democrat" is today is what it will be in the future, while keeping it's party in tact, and the same can be said of Republicans, or whatever takes their place. This happened before. In 1968. If Democrats keep moving to the left, what will happen over the next decade and a half is that moderate Democrats won't be Democrats anymore. They'll be independents. Some will self-define as conservatives. The same is true of the Republican party now. They've moved so hard right, that many, many Republicans have left (downplay it all you want, it's a lot more than you realize). Many will never return. I certainly won't. Not until the people who made this calamity possible are gone.

The Democrats can do what they want with their party. I am not a Democrat and I do not care to be a Democrat. My ideology is not the Democrats. I am in alliance with them over Trump, but beyond that, there are many different things I want for this country. There will be a time and place for those battles. I look forward to them. But right now, the focus is on saving the country from a monumental catastrophe that is Trump. That matters more than any other issue by far.

But do not expect that if the Democratic Party becomes more progressive, that it will hold onto everyone who calls themselves Democrats. When Democrats did that in the 1970s, Reagan was President again, not 5 years after Gerald Ford. Democrats completely failed to capitalize on Nixon. Will Democrats fail to capitalize on Trump? Will we have 4 years of President Bernie until 2024, then an 8 year Neo-Republican reign, until 2032, because that is essentially what happened last time we were here.

No I won't be a Democrat. But one day there will be a new Center-Right party in this country. It may be called Republican. It may be called something entirely new (and I hope it will be). And it will be in rivalry with the Democrats. And it will be filled with many ex-Democrats. That is how this works. As time and events of the world change, people's political affliations churn. Consider Net Neutrality. An important issue to many millennails. The concept didn't even exist as a political issue 15 years ago. Or Climate Change (to the current degree). What's the next iteration of these that will help drive a person's political affiliation? What will be important to people in the 2030s and 2040s? That will define what is a "Conservative" and "Liberal" in the next era.

Oh and for the record, my foreign policy has largely won, if you haven't been paying attention to the State Department and Defense budgets and priorities, on a bipartisan basis, since 2014. No President will be changing that. You're welcome.

[Voidwielder]

Oh and for the record, my foreign policy has largely won, if you haven't been paying attention to the State Department and Defense budgets and priorities, on a bipartisan basis, since 2014. No President will be changing that. You're welcome.

The Democratic party is being swallowed by progressive orthodoxy and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

[Skroe]

The Democratic party is being swallowed by progressive orthodoxy and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

It most certainly is not. Some progressives want to believe that, and many conservatives want to paint that fiction. It's a load of bull honkey to anyone who can read a budget. I don't give a flying fuck, and neither should you, the words that anybody utters. What I care is where the dollars go. It is the only thing that matters.

Want to know what House Armed Services Committee chairman Adam Smith, a progressive, is focusing his energy on? Examining if the US should have a nuclear weapons riad, instead of a dyad. Obama Agreed to a big $1 trillion new nuclear modernization program. The programs are starting to lead to new weapons, and big spending bills for the next big project - a replacement for Minuteman III ICBM - is coming up.

So he's going to spend his energy examining if we should build ICBMs and SLBMs and Bombs for Bombs, or just one or two of those.

This effort will fail because the Nuclear Weapons infrastructure is spread across the country and it's, in total, about $40 billion a year to 50 states. That will not get cut. It's probably going to be expanded.

So while he is busy dying on the most pointless of progressive hills, the rest of the defense budget will look exactly the same, upp'd by a few percent. Because that's how this works. While he is busy working on the nuclear issue, he isn't working on how the expansion of the Navy, or the expansion of the air force, or moving more and more forces to Europe, and so forth, all of which get more money every year.

The above is, broadly speaking, how Trump's wall was beat. Not by talk. But by a budget process. And that's also how anything like it will be killed too. Because the right wing and left wing wishlists are simply not worth holding a budget, and the billions of federal dollars that get redistributed, up for anymore.

[downnola]

But do not expect that if the Democratic Party becomes more progressive, that it will hold onto everyone who calls themselves Democrats. When Democrats did that in the 1970s, Reagan was President again, not 5 years after Gerald Ford. Democrats completely failed to capitalize on Nixon. Will Democrats fail to capitalize on Trump? Will we have 4 years of President Bernie until 2024, then an 8 year Neo-Republican reign, until 2032, because that is essentially what happened last time we were here.

Dear God, one could hope.

Edit* nevermind, I thought you wrote Neo-con reign. Don't get me excited like that man.

[Hobb]

If he was the democrat candidate I would vote for him, but in the primaries I wouldn't. He's too old and too far to the left for a moderate like me.