Bernie Sanders back again

[Skroe]

Guess what, spreading wealth is a disruptive thing to do. Shit happens.

Income redistribution is not class war.

Income redistribution is something most, if not all advanced societies implement through one means or another, including our own. The left-right difference is a matter of degrees.

You literally said "class war". That's crazy town.

[Skroe]

Times have changed. What has not changed is the amount of blind people not seeing what's going on around them.

They have not changed. America's electorate is centrist, center-right on some issues, center-left on other issues. There is no progressive majority. Conservatives out number progressives in this country. Most Americans are centrist-independents.

Nancy Pelosi's 2019-2020 Democratic majority Caucus is more conservative than her minority 2017-2018 one and her minority 2015-2016 one. While the progressive freshmen are high profile, she gained the majority with Centrist Democrats winning in districts Trump won. Not progressives. The progressives largely won where Democrats usually win.

In fact, the chance of a Democratic Senate has substantially decreased thanks to the 2018 midterm elections. If Democrats managed to hold at least Florida, never mind Missouri and Indiana as well, they would have had real favorites at winning it in 2020. Now? They scan still win it, but its' going to be close. 2022 offers some better opportunities, but remember: the only reason they had that better shot in 2020, that is gone now, is the same reason they had a 60 vote majority in 2009 until Ted Kennedy died: they had Democratic Senators in red states who voted with Democrats. And these were conservative Democrats. But they still allowed a Democratic Majority in the Senate.

This gets back to what I was saying about Bernie Sanders in 2016, and I'll say it again here. You think electing a progressive President will change anything? Guess what... doubling income tax, Universal Basic Income, Free College, the Green New Deal, or whatever else will simply never happen, no matter who is President, until Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate, which they are many, many years away from getting. Obama arrived at a convergence of points in history. Democrats had won the house in 2006 and held it in 2008, and in the Senate, the old guard Red-State democrats were in their closing years (most were gone by 2010 and 2012) at the exact time the worst financial crisis hit on a Republican President's watch. Obama had the luck of timing, and that's how the country got Obamacare.

Electing Bernie Sanders or anyone else with the expectation of a progressive revolution is fundamentally a feel good exercise that will end in disappointments when none of his agenda happens anymore than Trumps wall.

Don't take my word for it. Look at the budget that was literally just passed. It looks like the last four budgets, under both Trump and Obama. Because elected Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate have a very broad agreement on how to spend taxpayer dollars. The fight is on the margins now.

You know, maybe I do want Bernie elected after all on second thought, just so you can watch him sign four defense budget that fund the biggest military build up since the 1980s that Democrats and Republicans have broadly agreed to finance, in excess of Presidential requests, since late 2014. Would that drive the point home? Because it is far more likely Bernie signs the budget in 2022 for two Ford class carriers to be bought simultaneously, than he does Universal Basic Income.

You want to understand how government really works? Learn about budgeting and drop the dogma. Nobody cares about what you think is right. All that matters is the mechanisms of getting things funded. And those two Ford class carriers have a lot more district-level and state-level support than getting UBI off the ground ever will.

And that's how sausage is made.

[Skroe]

Even Warren mentioned "class warfare" by name in her speech. It's as mainstream as it gets

"Class conflict (also class warfare and class struggle) is the political tension and economic antagonism that exists in society consequent to socio-economic competition among the social classes"

The rich won't give up their wealth peacefully, most likely, and will try to escape with it. That's your conflict. If they give it up peacefully, there's no need for any of this, obviously. I don't want violence. I am a pacifist.

Yeah... you know I voted for Warren? She says nutty stuff like that to the Democratic analog of the MAGAites of Trumpville. She isn't remotely my political cup of tea (I voted for her because I refuse to vote Republican until they purge themselves), but she's highly nuanced and intelligent, not a lunatic.

It's not a real thing and she knows it. It's not mainstream. It's something you say to the zealots.

Let me tell you something as a fairly wealthy person living in a highly taxed state. You can tax me more to provide better public services. I can afford it. It is my civic duty, and Massachusetts is a well run state. You try and make me give up my wealth though and try to turn America into some socialist paradise? I could get a job in Singapore in about a week. We live in a global economy, and if backwards looking Americans want to cave in the American economy by turning this into some industrial workers paradise, rather than the leading hub of the modern global economy, we who have the skill set and the ability to take our business elsewhere, simply will.

That's something the hard left needs to really wrap its head around. It's not an idle threat. It is a fact. In the 1960s, with the world in the depths of the Cold War, Europe in an uneven state still recovering from the War, and most of Asia under the thralldom of Communism, America was pretty much the only game in town. In the third decade of the 21st century, America is far from the only game in town. Right now we're still the best game in town. But there are others approaching the same level, and some that in other ways are better. A global economy means the talent has global options.

To use myself for example, I want to pretty much the best university for Software engineering in the world, and got two degrees out of there. I work at a leading firm and have been rising up the ranks pretty quick. But I am here, now, because my family is here now, and because I like my job. But over the next 20 years, my parents will pass away and I will have fewer links here, and then I may join the majority of people I went to college and grad school with, who are now working outside of America, in East Asia.

In other words, America is entitled to nothing and has to earn everything new it wants, and everything it wants to keep, which includes its great wealth, its human capital and its position in the world. Because a strong of bad policies, left and right can and will rapidly undo that. And that's just the fact of there being competition now, where there wasn't decades ago.

- - - Updated - - -

Small steps, dream big.

First elect Bernie. We can see after.

Anything but status quo and centrism /puke

That's a slogan. It's not a plan. That's exactly what Trump supporters said. And look what it got them.

Besides the tax cut, Donald Trump has done nothing that the next Democratic President won't be able to undo within his first 100 days.

His wall is exactly the same as the Sanders wishlist. You have no route to 60 votes in the Senate. You have no route to reallocating money from the things Congress broadly agrees to spend money on to it.

Really. What's your plan to get conservative Democrats in the House from districts whose dollars primarily come from Defense spending dollars to go along with, say, massive defense cuts in favor of reallocating that money towards UBI or Free College? You're basically saying "fuck your district, vote for the national plan". If they do that, they'll lose the next election. And you can't get progressives elected there. And without them, there is no house majority.

This is the point I tried to make to Trumphadis for months and they just didn't want to hear it. Budgets make things happen. This garbage you said... "small steps, dream big" gets you nothing but defeat. In fact it gets you worse than that, when President Bernie Sanders sides four budgets that buys 20 stealth bombers a years starting in 2021, and not a big tax increase where does your dreams get you then?

You wan't Bernie Sanders to be king, not President. That's your problem. You have no plan beyond bestowing him a title. Just a lot of dreams.

Dreaming is fine, but effective presidencies have plans to succeed, and you and Bernie don't have no more than Trumphadis and their orange lord. For you it's "Class War". For them, it's the wall. But it's the same stupid that Congress will never fund.

[Xeones]

Bernie Sanders was distinctive in the field compared to Clinton's "1990s 2.0" New Democrat model in 2016. He was the progressive alternative. Folks kind of forget (or maybe weren't old enough or politically in the know enough to remember) that in 2008, Obama beat Hillary as a quasi-progressive alternative to New Democrat model that still dominated the party. In the General election, Obama hard pivoted to the center and ran, basically, as a New Democrat, which lead to the all those stories of Obama true believers feeling betrayed in 2009/2010.

Hillary Clinton fell to Obama in 2008 because Obama's 2008 campaign is of historic importance for those who haven't read about it. It was revolutionary. It was the model of most major campaigns in the Western world since, and pioneered extremely modern methods of fund raises, messaging, voter turn out, and voter-candidate contact. There was nothing else like it. Hillary Clinton's 1990s model campaign barely stood a chance against it, even with her star power. And McCain's 1990s model campaign never had a chance in the world. Obama's 2012 campaign built on that.

Fast forward to 2016, and Hillary Clinton did the smart and obvious thing and hired away most of the Obama 2012 people, and she ran a campaign that was much more in line with the post-Obama architecture of one. And she was able to beat the progressive alternative in Sanders. Sanders, let's be clear, never had a chance to beat her, and it wasn't because of superdelegates. His supporters greatly overplayed the significance of caucuses in and minor primary victories, when in fact, after Super Tuesday, it was over. They did it because they wanted to believe. As I said in 2016, the math doesn't care what they wanted to believe. The Math judgement's said Sanders lost states he couldn't afford to lose, and he lost them badly.

And that was against a New Democrat.

Now the New Democrats are effectively no more, and 2019 Democrats are a mixture of center-left, progressivism, and oddly, historically center-right institutionalism brought on by Donald Trump.

Bernie Sanders is yesterday's model compared to the superior alternatives in this time. The only question is if he goes quietly, or if, when he loses again, he'll half heartedly support the Democrtic Nominee again.

I have a generally extremely low opinion of Bernie Sanders. I think he's a charlatan who talks a good game, but that's it. I think the fact that his ex-campaign staff quit on him week one of the founding of his PAC because he put a crony in charge says everything you need to know about Sanders. I think he'll lose the primary and AFK the General election, because like kindred spirit Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, he hopes the blight upon the country (Brexit there, Trump here) metastizies to the point their left-wing ideas gain enough currency among the general populace to move the country to the left of the center-left, rather than the center left, as most other Democrats envision.

Unlike in 2016 though, I'm not going to spend a lot of time this cycle shooting down Bernie Sanders. I don't think he has enough importance this time, and the alternatives, especially Kamala Harris, are more likely to win the primary and beat Trump.

There are a few reasons by honestly the biggest problem I have with him now is his age. It's been 3 years since I first started getting excited for him back in 2016. In that time I've watched my grandmother turn into someone who has no clue who I am. I suspect Trump has some form of mental decline. I know this is largely due to genetics, but I can't in good faith vote for him at his age while remembering that video of Regan getting called an idiot by an advisor when his mind left him in his second term.

In 2016 after 8 solid years of Obama I was excited for someone to go in and mix things up. Trump has put the nation and world into chaos in less than 4 years. I just want someone to fix things. Someone who can go in straight away with the full support of their party and an understanding of the legislative branch to get things done. That isn't Bernie.

Also I found it so odd how Bernie under performed with minorities, a lot of his speeches concentrated on them and he was even arrested for being a civil rights activist in college apparently. And he did so very poorly compared to Hillary. I don't think he will do better this time with candidates like Harris or Booker.

Combining all that together, I have to agree with Trump. He missed his chance.

[mvaliz]

You getting the same vibe I am, that this a Trump supporter engaging in some performance art here?

I've been getting that vibe since this CryotriX guy showed up. I've been saying it stinks for a month and change.

Dude, I rumbled that about him weeks ago, called him out on it and threw his charlatan ass on ignore immediately.

[Skroe]

Dude, I rumbled that about him weeks ago, called him out on it and threw his charlatan ass on ignore immediately.

Yeah I think I am going to do that. He's posting in completely bad faith.

[Xeones]

So, Skroe must've posted his anti-Bernie rants in another part of the forums. Good? What do you want me to do, fall on my knees and ask forgiveness because i didn't know when this subforum was created? You can wait for that.

Anyway, there's really nothing to discuss. Corporate dems are among the most disgusting, vile, traitorous beings in the world. They DECEIVE the people on the left with SOCIAL and CULTURAL mostly irrelevant trash, like expecting praise and votes because they don't hate gays and blacks, and they NEVER fight the class war.

The class war is the only war left to fight. It's as easy as that. If you're not fighting it, you're not on the left. You protect the rich and corporations, you're NOT LEFT. You come with big piles of nothingness and "we can have a discussion", you're not left.

As things are now, there are 3 choices:

- Bernie
- Tulsi
- Warren

Rest of the dems are pure trash.

lol?

At this point I consider the front runners Harris and Booker. I know the polling suggests other things, but I don't think Beto is going to run and I think once the primary officially starts rolling those two will be the top of the results.

I'm not even sure who Tulsi is so I'm not sure why you mentioned her, she has a lot of work to pull off to be top 3 and she could do it. She could be another Obama. That doesn't explain your statement now as it currently stands though.

[Benggaul]

Ugh, guys, the worst thing anyone who wants Trump out of office could be doing right now is petty bickering over who the better Democratic candidate should be. Debate? Sure. With civility and respect to one another. I know that's a BIG ask in the MMO forums (and the Politics forum in particular), but ripping each other to shreds over their preferred candidate will only serve to do two things:

1) Further entrench the person you're insulting in the belief that their candidate is better (we've already seen this with Trump supporters) because that's how the mind works.
2) Give Trump supporters a good laugh and undeserved confidence in their decision to vote for him twice.

All of these slams on here really does not serve any good purpose. Lay out your arguments, make your case, but don't shit up the thread with "You want to vote for *BLANK*? LOL DUMBASS!"-level of discourse. You're only hurting your cause.

[Skroe]

Ugh, guys, the worst thing anyone who wants Trump out of office could be doing right now is petty bickering over who the better Democratic candidate should be. Debate? Sure. With civility and respect to one another. I know that's a BIG ask in the MMO forums (and the Politics forum in particular), but ripping each other to shreds over their preferred candidate will only serve to do two things:

1) Further entrench the person you're insulting in the belief that their candidate is better (we've already seen this with Trump supporters) because that's how the mind works.
2) Give Trump supporters a good laugh and undeserved confidence in their decision to vote for him twice.

All of these slams on here really does not serve any good purpose. Lay out your arguments, make your case, but don't shit up the thread with "You want to vote for *BLANK*? LOL DUMBASS!"-level of discourse. You're only hurting your cause.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I'd even vote for Bernie Sanders to remove Donald Trump from office. Bernie Sanders would be a trash President who would shatter his supporters hearts and hopes the second he signs a budget for stealth bombers, but not for Medicare for all, but Bernie Sanders is not a security threat to the United States, and Donald Trump is. Bernie Sanders is at worst, quixotic in his focus. Donald Trump is a figure of malice. Bernie Sanders is stubborn about a changed world. Donald Trump would let the world burn if it benefited himself. Bernie Sanders would act in the public / American interest. Donald Trump has never once acted in the American interest, only his own.

This is not hard. I can deal with President Bernie, in large part because, and I'll just point to my wall thread here, the lessons of the wall apply to every single "outside the norm" policy agenda of any President from now on. Things changed because of changes to budgeting practices around 2011 and what Presidents want, regardless of party, to happen hasn't mattered less in probably two life times. I don't think Trumpkins or Sanderistas quite grasp that, in thinking their man is the guy who is going to change anything. Or even start the change of anything. They aren't even a start. That's the hilarious and sad part. They're an affectation. Presidents haven't had this little influence over budget since the pre-FDR era. We're talking President Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge times.

Anyone over Trump is a perfectly valid way to vote and anyone who is interested in defending American democracy from a mortal threat has the responsibility to do that. That is the essence of party over country.


But if anyone has any illusions about the next Presidency changing anything, left or right, they're dead wrong. Change ENDS with the election of a President to sign bills. Step 1 is figuring out how to get 60 Senators on your side, and keep them there until you can win the House and then win the Presidency.

Or in other words, Progressives serious about Progressive change would talk a lot less about what exciting ideas that won't happen anytime soon the candidate du jour is talking about, and a lot more about how to unseat David Perdue in Georgia, Thom Tillis in North Carolina, Steve Daines in Montana, Mike Rounds in South Dakota, Susan Collins in Maine, Bill Cassidy in Lousiana, and somehow keep Doug Jones in Alabama. Oh and by the way, winning all of those gets you 55 Democrats. Which menas you also have to defeat Cory Gardner in Colorado and Martha McSally in Arizona to get to 57. And now you're three short.

Sure woulda been nice if Democrats in the Senate didn't lose Florida, Missouri and Indiana last year, huh?

[jeezusisacasual]

But you forgot the greatest state of them all Wyoming, no progressive ideas are going to win here either. The biggest thing that people want is a Medicare for all style health reform. If that is passed alot of the problems go away period. Thanks to the internet more and more Americans are seeing how much better healthcare is in other western style nations. My end goal is to remove lobbying dollars from government but i understand that will take a convention and all hell will break loose during that i fear. Its funny because every person i speak to wants a universal healthcare system, they want to end the reliance on health insurance and even they think Republicans will do it before Democrats. As a type 1 diabetic it is my goal to ensure that we move toward that system, if America was the greatest nation on earth we would not have people dying due to rationing insulin.

[Benggaul]

Sure woulda been nice if Democrats in the Senate didn't lose Florida, Missouri and Indiana last year, huh?

Honestly I expected them to lose another seat or two, so was pleasantly surprised when the net loss was only 1. But you never wanted Dems to have a supermajority in the Senate, Skroe, be honest. Or at least not before the 2016 elections.

With respect to the rest of your post, I hope you did not think that I was singling you out in mine. I was just commenting on what I have been reading in this thread in general--not specific to any one person. In fact, among most of those in this thread you are usually one of the least of the offenders--except when it comes to the bad-faith Trump posters and in which case fuck them.

As far as how big a difference the President makes, I can semi-agree with you. I'm sure people will remember under Obama how many times his ideas/promises were stonewalled in Congress--for good or ill. I DO think, however, that a strong, rational President can still win opposing party members over to his side depending on the issue and measures discussed. I do agree that it is and will be rare, however.

It is my personal opinion that what the US needs now is, to be frank, a boring President. There needs to be a period where nothing much is happening except for cleaning up after the mess this current administration is making of fucking EVERYTHING, so the thought of someone with "BIG IDEAS!" taking the reins right now doesn't sit right with me. The US needs someone with dignity and respect who can be the global representative of the country abroad, reassure allies that all is well--and not try throwing radical new policies into the mix when America is trying to heal itself. I realize this is most likely not a popular opinion, but it's one I don't think I'd be easily swayed from given what we've seen the past couple of years.

I look forward to reading debates between progressive and conservatives again instead of the daily dose of "Can you believe he did this shit?" versus "Hyuck, hyuck, that's our MAGA!" that's been dominating, but I fear that orange shithead has broken things so badly that it's going to be a long, long time, if ever, before most people can discuss things rationally instead of insta-REEEE-ing...however justified.

[breadisfunny]

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I'd even vote for Bernie Sanders to remove Donald Trump from office. Bernie Sanders would be a trash President who would shatter his supporters hearts and hopes the second he signs a budget for stealth bombers, but not for Medicare for all, but Bernie Sanders is not a security threat to the United States, and Donald Trump is. Bernie Sanders is at worst, quixotic in his focus. Donald Trump is a figure of malice. Bernie Sanders is stubborn about a changed world. Donald Trump would let the world burn if it benefited himself. Bernie Sanders would act in the public / American interest. Donald Trump has never once acted in the American interest, only his own.

This is not hard. I can deal with President Bernie, in large part because, and I'll just point to my wall thread here, the lessons of the wall apply to every single "outside the norm" policy agenda of any President from now on. Things changed because of changes to budgeting practices around 2011 and what Presidents want, regardless of party, to happen hasn't mattered less in probably two life times. I don't think Trumpkins or Sanderistas quite grasp that, in thinking their man is the guy who is going to change anything. Or even start the change of anything. They aren't even a start. That's the hilarious and sad part. They're an affectation. Presidents haven't had this little influence over budget since the pre-FDR era. We're talking President Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge times.

Anyone over Trump is a perfectly valid way to vote and anyone who is interested in defending American democracy from a mortal threat has the responsibility to do that. That is the essence of party over country.


But if anyone has any illusions about the next Presidency changing anything, left or right, they're dead wrong. Change ENDS with the election of a President to sign bills. Step 1 is figuring out how to get 60 Senators on your side, and keep them there until you can win the House and then win the Presidency.

Or in other words, Progressives serious about Progressive change would talk a lot less about what exciting ideas that won't happen anytime soon the candidate du jour is talking about, and a lot more about how to unseat David Perdue in Georgia, Thom Tillis in North Carolina, Steve Daines in Montana, Mike Rounds in South Dakota, Susan Collins in Maine, Bill Cassidy in Lousiana, and somehow keep Doug Jones in Alabama. Oh and by the way, winning all of those gets you 55 Democrats. Which menas you also have to defeat Cory Gardner in Colorado and Martha McSally in Arizona to get to 57. And now you're three short.

Sure woulda been nice if Democrats in the Senate didn't lose Florida, Missouri and Indiana last year, huh?

the executive branch is not the only branch of government though.

[Skroe]

the executive branch is not the only branch of government though.

Which is entirely the point I was making. Electing a President gets you basically nothing. It gets you moderate regulatory control and a bully pulpit that even Trump, the most prolific bully of our time, can't really do much with, without the backing of Congress.

In our system, if people want to make change - the change on the scale Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump envisions - they have to win a majority in the house and super-majority in the Senate first. Extremely few progressives, just like the Trumphadis and their fucking wall, want to even look that problem in the eye, much less come up with a plan to actually accomplish that task. They both say the same nonsense that whats-his-face up there said... "It's a start", "Big dreams start small", or some facile crap like that *waves hand*. Really, it's like looking into the sun for them. It's the thing around which all their hopes orbit, but blinds them if they stare at it, because they truly cannot effect the sun, but the sun can sure as hell effect them.

Which gets me to my point: electing Bernie Sanders to bring about great change is a big fat zero. He will have no more success in cutting defense programs to fund medicare for all than Donald Trump had in cutting Obamacare to pay for the wall.

Is this a reason to say "well it doesn't matter who you elect as President". Hell no. Donald Trump's illegitimate reign of terror has shown how much elections matter and the great harm a malicious president can do if they seek to damage that has been built. I don't think Sanders, or any of the Democratic candidates have that on their agenda, unlike Individual-1. Presidents have great power still, when it comes to "negative influence", let's call it. The power to destroy.

But the power to create and change? That comes from Congress. Presidential Budget Requests don't matter anymore. Congress hasn't taken one seriously since 2010, and both houses have changed hands, as has the Presidency, since them. And the end of earmarks (2011) give them less incentive than ever to care what the President of the day wants. Sanderistas, like the Trumphadis, can live in fantasyland with their fucking dreams but if you want to make actual change, learn how the sausage is made behind closed doors, and it's not a dream. It's ugly as sin. It's the F-35 getting divided up between 48 states and Bernie Sanders being a big fan of it because it brings billions in federal dollars to Vermont. It's Mitch McConnell building monuments to himself in Kentucky. It's Elizabeth Warren going easy on Raytheon, one of Massachusetts' largest employers. It's Cory Booker's close relationship with both New Jersey-centric Pharma and Silicon Valley.

In 2016 I tried to get a serious answer out of the Sanderistas how their political revolution was functionally going to work besides Sanders making a lot of forgettable speeches, PACs doing what they normally do, and the usual crowds and marches that never lead to anything going on. I got a big fat nothing then. And I predict that if I press the issue, I'll get a big fat nothing now. But maybe Today's Sanders fans are the embryonic stage of what Trumphadijs have become. Trump is not getting his wall, period. It is over, and the racists lost. But the racists are now living this fantasy whereby the Trump is near "finishing the wall" or some shit. Is that what Sanders fans going to do when nothing happens on their Agenda? "Finish Universal Healthcare!" "Finish Free College For All!", when Congress decides to boost healthcare spending by 3% and Federal Student financial aid by 4%?

I'm interested in serious people. Sanderistas in 2016 were not serious people. They were passionate. They were emotive. They were sloppy. And they were intentionally ignorant. They didn't want to challenge Saint Sanders to legitimately deliver anymore than Trumphadis want to challenge their orange lord.

So go Sanders. If you win the Democratic Primary, I will vote for you, and then chuckle when you sign $800 billion defense bills for 4 years straight. A President who isn't good at making Sausage is a weak President. Obama was trash at making Sausage. Trump is even worse. Sanders won't be any better. Will any of the Democrats? We'll see. Every Presidential candidate ever reckons themselves a great man or woman who will make great speeches. But the Presidents who mattered were excellent sausage makers. And they worked with well less than 60 votes in the Senate.

[Gestopft]

It is my personal opinion that what the US needs now is, to be frank, a boring President. There needs to be a period where nothing much is happening except for cleaning up after the mess this current administration is making of fucking EVERYTHING, so the thought of someone with "BIG IDEAS!" taking the reins right now doesn't sit right with me. The US needs someone with dignity and respect who can be the global representative of the country abroad, reassure allies that all is well--and not try throwing radical new policies into the mix when America is trying to heal itself. I realize this is most likely not a popular opinion, but it's one I don't think I'd be easily swayed from given what we've seen the past couple of years.

I think it's going to be hard to heal without taking a serious step toward fixing the policy failures that led to Trump in the first place. It's going to take a long time to reverse the damage, no matter who wins the presidency, but I think that 2016 was an overall rejection of "business as usual" and the political class has to prove that they understand that this time around. I think it's going to be hard for a "boring" president to convince the electorate that they get it.

[Skroe]

Honestly I expected them to lose another seat or two, so was pleasantly surprised when the net loss was only 1. But you never wanted Dems to have a supermajority in the Senate, Skroe, be honest. Or at least not before the 2016 elections.

With respect to the rest of your post, I hope you did not think that I was singling you out in mine. I was just commenting on what I have been reading in this thread in general--not specific to any one person. In fact, among most of those in this thread you are usually one of the least of the offenders--except when it comes to the bad-faith Trump posters and in which case fuck them.

As far as how big a difference the President makes, I can semi-agree with you. I'm sure people will remember under Obama how many times his ideas/promises were stonewalled in Congress--for good or ill. I DO think, however, that a strong, rational President can still win opposing party members over to his side depending on the issue and measures discussed. I do agree that it is and will be rare, however.

It is my personal opinion that what the US needs now is, to be frank, a boring President. There needs to be a period where nothing much is happening except for cleaning up after the mess this current administration is making of fucking EVERYTHING, so the thought of someone with "BIG IDEAS!" taking the reins right now doesn't sit right with me. The US needs someone with dignity and respect who can be the global representative of the country abroad, reassure allies that all is well--and not try throwing radical new policies into the mix when America is trying to heal itself. I realize this is most likely not a popular opinion, but it's one I don't think I'd be easily swayed from given what we've seen the past couple of years.

I look forward to reading debates between progressive and conservatives again instead of the daily dose of "Can you believe he did this shit?" versus "Hyuck, hyuck, that's our MAGA!" that's been dominating, but I fear that orange shithead has broken things so badly that it's going to be a long, long time, if ever, before most people can discuss things rationally instead of insta-REEEE-ing...however justified.

Oh I didn't think you were singling me out.

I absolutely wanted the Democrats to hold every seat in the election in 2016 and 2018. To put it bluntly, I'm not some fucking political child who wants their policy change and wants it now. Far too many politically involved people act like if we don't get universal healthcare tomorrow, or if we don't get government cut down to where it was in 1885 by next year, we're all going to die, or conversely, we're to become the USSR. Life is not that dramatic and our system is designed to make assailing the status quo extraordinarily hard.

Or to put it another way, this ridiculous freak outs that people on the right over *gasp* a Democratic majority, or a Democratic President doing liberal (*gasp* Socialist!) things is the pinniacle of the absurd. I intend to live a very long, and very happy life. Is that going to be under what... another 50 straight years of Conservative Presidents and Conservative-dominated Congresses. Hell no! I'd have to really believe that what I want out of government is flimsy and vulnerable and won't EVER happen, if I were to freak out because sometimes those dastardly Democrats win one. I believe my policy agenda will succeed, little by little, over the course of my long life. There is no "fierce urgency of now".

I was annoyed that Democrats lost Florida in 2018 in particular. Getting newly minted Senator Rick Scott out of office before he dies or retires is going to be extraordinarily hard. He is at the head of one of the best political organizations in the country, and the single best in the Republican Party. Thanks to Bill Nelson not taking his race seriously until the last five minutes, that seat is off the map probably until the deep 2030s.

But you're right it could have been worse.

My hope for 2020 is that Democrats win the Presidency, hold their majority in the House, and win the majority in the Senate (I put right now 50/50 odds on that). Every Republican who kneeled before Donald Trump loses their career, without exception. None get forgiven. Why? You're going to see it again next week when the Motion of Disapproval for the National Emergency is put forward, and a whopping two Republicans step forward to vote for it and it fails, despite almost all of them thinking it's bullshit in private. They've betrayed their oath so many times, we've lost count.

So exile it is for them. And exile it is for conservatism, while we purge our side of things from the hucksters, grifters, racists, frauds and crazies who have set up shop here. Democrats, as I see it, deserve the majority, everywhere, because in the Age of Trump, they have been the only party defending democracy while the Republican Party has become a nesting ground for authoritarianism, rather than lose on issues or lose election fairly.

Democrats have defended the founders creation. They've been the real "conservatives" in the literal sense. Republicans have utterly betrayed it.

I agree with the entirety of the rest of your post, to be clear. I would add, I would very much like the next Democratic President to promise in the general election to sign legislation handing power that's been put in their hands since the 1930s back over to Congress. The ability of a President to declare a national emergency, for example, particularly without a fixed duration of time (say 30 days) before it is automatically ended is the kind of nonsense that a functioning democratic system would be above. A thing of that magnitude - as the words "National Emergency" have been used the world over as a highway to authoritarianism - deserves a vote of APPROVAL (not this disapproval garbage) in Congress.

So yes. Let's have a boring Presidents. Moreover let's have a President who promises to weaken the office in an enduring fashion and bring it more in line with what the pre-"Imperial Presidency" standard was.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it's going to be hard to heal without taking a serious step toward fixing the policy failures that led to Trump in the first place. It's going to take a long time to reverse the damage, no matter who wins the presidency, but I think that 2016 was an overall rejection of "business as usual" and the political class has to prove that they understand that this time around. I think it's going to be hard for a "boring" president to convince the electorate that they get it.

The big mistake Americans make is looking at the President and Congress to solve their problems. Nationalizing every issue.

They should be looking at their State Legislatures and Governors mansions. Decisions made the effect their day to day lives far more regularly than national level policy. A quick and obvious example: lots of states had gay marriage years before the Supreme Court ended the bans.

Most economic issues that effect every day Americans are handled by State governments, not Federal. Federal is icing on the cake. Regulations of course matter.. Remember: most people in this country work for small business, not big business. And small business typically isn't even just state level... it's local.

If Americans truly wanted to get into the messy act of being politically active and meaningfully improving their immediate lives, they'd become familiar with their state-level legislators as much as they are how much of a two faced cunt Lindsey Grahmn, one of one hundred Senators of somebody elses state, is. But most people aren't.

[JohnBrown1917]

I see you're back to taking the learning about things after you post. Those are perhaps the three worst choices for the Dems in 2020. I guess Trump told you to post those?

Its clearly Russia who made him post it!

- - - Updated - - -

Technically, from the looks of things, he lost the election through illegal outside influence. But we'll wait for the final report to come out.

'
You mean the same shit the US does to other countries?

Usually you post with some kind of knowledge, but this seems to be an exception. Keep in mind the democratic nominee has won the popular vote in every presidential general election since 1988, save one. So I wouldn't try dying on that particular hill.

Does not change the still pick shitty candidates, that the other party is even worse.. well.. that is just how the US works.

- - - Updated - - -

Because the far left and far right have won so many presidential elections?

Bernie is centre-left, not a single elected US politican is anything close to far left.

[Felya]

You mean the same shit the US does to other countries?

Yes, it’s bad when US does it and it’s bad when done to US. Otherwise you are a hypocrite...

Does not change the still pick shitty candidates, that the other party is even worse.. well.. that is just how the US works

This is feelz over reelz. The only way to actually counter what he said, is that Democrats lost the election twice, despite the popular vote wins. This is more of a demonstration why attacking this logic as just “Trump supporters” is inadequate. It’s the American liberal litmus test, that will have your preferred candidate lose every single time. Think about it... a foreign nation can attack US elections, while you celebrate it, because you don’t like it when US does it. How do you like Trump supporting SA by funneling arms to them to fight in Libya, that ended up killing a school full of children? That foreign money going to Trump is totally cool, because we did the same in funding Iraq to fight Iran? The money oil companies spend to sustain their power over US government is perfectly fine, because they do it to other countries too? See... “Trump supporter” is simply an inadequate term... we need one for democrats being horrible, which inadvertently normalizes Trump’s and US government action.

Seriously... can you imagine your self just 3 years ago, saying that foreign nations interference in countries, is totally cool... because everyone does it? I don’t think that’s possible... I think if you thought about it, without the clouded judgment, you wouldn’t support any foreign nation interference in elections.

Bernie is centre-left, not a single elected US politican is anything close to far left.

You bet... because you are center left? How about this... instead of asserting what has become a useless scale, since no one wants to treat it objectively. Let’s compare the issues Bernie pushes, to the DNC stated platform. Without applying subjective labels, let’s compare these *spit* astablishment democrat’s platform, with this independent that caucused with democrats for 30 years. Let’s see how far apart they are, to justify your ire. When Bernie tells you to vote for a democrat that beats him next election, will you do it?

[JohnBrown1917]

Yes, it’s bad when US does it and it’s bad when done to US. Otherwise you are a hypocrite...

You should tell that to the people ranting about russia 24/7 while supporting candidates that pull this shit.

This is feelz over reelz. The only way to actually counter what he said, is that Democrats lost the election twice, despite the popular vote wins. This is more of a demonstration why attacking this logic as just “Trump supporters” is inadequate.

No idea what you're even on about, i'm not talking about the election results.

a foreign nation can attack US elections, while you celebrate it, because you don’t like it when US does it.

Nice strawman?

How do you like Trump supporting SA by funneling arms to them to fight in Libya, that ended up killing a school full of children? That foreign money going to Trump is totally cool, because we did the same in funding Iraq to fight Iran? The money oil companies spend to sustain their power over US government is perfectly fine, because they do it to other countries too? See... “Trump supporter” is simply an inadequate term... we need one for democrats being horrible, which inadvertently normalizes Trump’s and US government action.

This is not excluse to Trump, remind me who started the war in Libya again?

[/quote]

Seriously... can you imagine your self just 3 years ago, saying that foreign nations interference in countries, is totally cool... because everyone does it? I don’t think that’s possible... I think if you thought about it, without the clouded judgment, you wouldn’t support any foreign nation interference in elections.

????

You bet... because you are center left? How about this... instead of asserting what has become a useless scale, since no one wants to treat it objectively. Let’s compare the issues Bernie pushes, to the DNC stated platform. Without applying subjective labels, let’s compare these *spit* astablishment democrat’s platform, with this independent that caucused with democrats for 30 years. Let’s see how far apart they are, to justify your ire. When Bernie tells you to vote for a democrat that beats him next election, will you do it?

Still no idea wtf you're on about.

[Felya]

You should tell that to the people ranting about russia 24/7 while supporting candidates that pull this shit.

When they post it, I will. In fact, I think most of them have me on ignore and I still do it. Right now it’s you... so... howdy?

No idea what you're even on about, i'm not talking about the election results.

That’s the point. He shows you the popular vote and you go off on a feelz tangent. That’s the fucking point of what I said. You understood it, you just have no logical response. My example, of hinging on 2 of those popular votes resulting in Trump and Bush, is the logical counter. Your going off on not even talking about elections in response to his assertion, is feelz over realz. It’s why I said the term “Trump supporter” is inapt. The ability to both reply to an argument, while explaining it, to start by saying you have no idea. Is not a unique trait of a “Trump supporter”.

Nice strawman?

No, that’s not what a strawman is. Try explaining what was wrong in that quote. Because strawman doesn’t work...

This is not excluse to Trump, remind me who started the war in Libya again?

Yes, it explicitly is. Can the people who started the war end it? Do they have the ability? Who actually does? Pointing at people who can no longer have an impact, is explicitly excusing those that actually can. By your irrational logic, we need to blame those who have lost their power to do anything. It’s not that different than chasing phantoms... the results are the same.

????

Was ‘no, I cannot’ too difficult to type?

Still no idea wtf you're on about.

Of course not... how can a feelz over reelz reactionary, deal with the “wide” difference between astablishment democrats and the guy who caucused with them for 30 years. Actual policy is irrelevant...

[Grapemask]

You try and make me give up my wealth though and try to turn America into some socialist paradise? I could get a job in Singapore in about a week. We live in a global economy, and if backwards looking Americans want to cave in the American economy by turning this into some industrial workers paradise, rather than the leading hub of the modern global economy, we who have the skill set and the ability to take our business elsewhere, simply will.

I have to back up to this point. This is the sort of scaremongering that the wealthy have been using every time the prospect of taking away a dime of their money comes up. I'm going to call it for the 100% bullshit it is.

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt at all that a few would go elsewhere if taxes increased to some degree. They do have the money to do that. But we have a lot of non-financial policies here that we gain from - namely, property rights and civil rights, among others. Just like all sorts of people holler that they'll move to Canada if so and so wins whatever election, very few do because it turns out that there's a lot more to what makes America a stellar place to live than the person who runs it or the percentage you pay in taxes. Singapore, for example, dramatically limits your freedom of expression, the police are allowed to surveil you at any time without cause, simple crimes are punished with caning, just to name a few. "I'll leave if I can't get my way" is all meaningless tough talk.