Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Elegiac]

Well because not agreeing with M4A is stupid. Every nation can do it but us?

Literally not the point.

The point is said concern for minorities is apparently contingent on ideological agreement.

And given how Bernie Bros seem to be treating other Democrats the same way they treat Republicans, you can see the cause for concern.

[GreenJesus]

I find it hilarious that democrat establishment is fine with electing a republican that ACTUALLY rewrote the rules to extend his Major term an extra 4 years and then he changed it back before he left. Like.. This is literally what we are scared of Trump doing yet Bloomberg ACTUALLY did it in the past. When he is president will he continue donating hundreds of millions to democrat campaigns so that they don't go after himself for crimes/shady deals he commits? The problem with Bloomberg is that he won't incriminate himself every day on twitter and be incompetent with everything he tries doing. Bloomberg is probably MORE dangerous since he will do everything trump is doing but quietly while paying people off.

Bernie needs to win super tuesday hard.

[cubby]

The other funny thing is that a lot of the pro-Bernie freakouts on this forum aren't even like...American citizens. They're left wing Europeans.

Now, conservatives like to say how different American politics is as justification for why X social program can't work - they're not incorrect, but the difference isn't one of administration - it's one of the nature of demographic animus. European politics has a significant difference in that racial and other minority issues never crystallized under a left wing (yes I know the Democrats aren't left wing but they're the left of the two parties) the way they did in the United States. European leftism is traditionally and still largely is solely defined by economic issues. Sound familiar?

Which is why, strangely, you can have an ostensibly left wing party that still has severe problems with antisemitism or race relations.

I'm not going to shit on how the internet has enabled people to compare and contrast their civic conditions with those of other countries, because it's a net good thing. I will point out, however, that a side effect of the importation of European style leftism seems to be dragging some of that baggage with it - which you can see in the repeated mention that "identity politics" is a hindrance to the progressive agenda.

Where this crosses the border into toxicity is what particular set of lessons someone happened to internalise after 2016. Because for a whole lot of people it seems to be "Fine! I'll build my own Trump; with blackjack, and hookers."

I want to add that this mentality, in a specific setting, is what I was referring to regarding Sanders/Biden criticisms. Candidate critiques are valid, but only in one case are we ALSO calling the candidate a name, provided by the GOP no less.

Biden fucked up embellishing/lying about being arrested. He got called out on it. And then admitted error, apologized. THEN it was also called a "mental error" which goes back to the GOP criticism of him.

Sanders fucked up with his medical records, said he'd release them, then didn't. Got called out on it. Issue still pending. But THEN did NOT get called a name.

That is the key difference. Criticize the candidates as you see fit, but don't use the GOP "name calling" along with the valid criticism.

- - - Updated - - -

I find it hilarious that democrat establishment is fine with electing a republican that ACTUALLY rewrote the rules to extend his Major term an extra 4 years and then he changed it back before he left. Like.. This is literally what we are scared of Trump doing yet Bloomberg ACTUALLY did it in the past. When he is president will he continue donating hundreds of millions to democrat campaigns so that they don't go after himself for crimes/shady deals he commits? The problem with Bloomberg is that he won't incriminate himself every day on twitter and be incompetent with everything he tries doing. Bloomberg is probably MORE dangerous since he will do everything trump is doing but quietly while paying people off.

Bernie needs to win super tuesday hard.

Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat until he switched parties to run for Mayor.

[Edge-]

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/27/...ion-gop-donor/

Well this is an interesting wrinkle. The DNC superdelegate backing a brokered convention just also happens to work as a lobbyist for the health care industry and consequently makes considerable donations to Republicans for his job.

He's donated to both parties in the past, but this year he apparently has yet to donate to any Congressional or presidential candidates this election.

[Elegiac]

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/27/...ion-gop-donor/

Well this is an interesting wrinkle. The DNC superdelegate backing a brokered convention just also happens to work as a lobbyist for the health care industry and consequently makes considerable donations to Republicans for his job.

He's donated to both parties in the past, but this year he apparently has yet to donate to any Congressional or presidential candidates this election.

Solution: What starts with an E and rhymes with "compulsion"?

[Elegiac]

BernieBro narrative is made out to be a much larger problem then it actually is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Y'all are doing exactly zero to address it besides insisting everyone else is wrong.

It is also a racist, sexist, and erases 100,000s of minorities who actively support his campaign.

"I have a minority supporter" is not any more of a counterargument than "I was Obama's VP".

[Rozz]

Literally not the point.

The point is said concern for minorities is apparently contingent on ideological agreement.

And given how Bernie Bros seem to be treating other Democrats the same way they treat Republicans, you can see the cause for concern.

Question, but why do you say this? I'm not being malicious, I just haven't seen this sentiment (I guess yet?).

[Elegiac]

Question, but why do you say this? I'm not being malicious, I just haven't seen this sentiment (I guess yet?).

I was asked to change my signature quoting a Bernie supporter defending TERFs, so...Take that as you will.

[JohnBrown1917]

Is that why Castro locked up all queer folk. That's why I get nervous when tankies praise Castro.

Then you should also be worried about the US where homosexuality was also against the law around that time.

[Themius]

Literally not the point.

The point is said concern for minorities is apparently contingent on ideological agreement.

And given how Bernie Bros seem to be treating other Democrats the same way they treat Republicans, you can see the cause for concern.

Other democrats seem to be treating Bernie the way they treat republicans, which is a cause for concern. Already plotting how to sabotage him and still saying he can't bring together people despite doing just that

[Elegiac]

You should be worried about the US where homosexuality was also against the law around that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Are we really going to have to have a redux of every contrarian supporting authoritarian regimes the US dislikes? The 1970s called, they want their annoying college students back.

- - - Updated - - -

Other democrats seem to be treating Bernie the way they treat republicans, which is a cause for concern. Already plotting how to sabotage him and still saying he can't bring together people despite doing just that

Again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

This doesn't actually indicate what I said about the Bernie Bros is incorrect. Just that you seem to think it's acceptable because the other side is doing it.

[cubby]

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/27/...ion-gop-donor/

Well this is an interesting wrinkle. The DNC superdelegate backing a brokered convention just also happens to work as a lobbyist for the health care industry and consequently makes considerable donations to Republicans for his job.

He's donated to both parties in the past, but this year he apparently has yet to donate to any Congressional or presidential candidates this election.

That seems extremely significant/bad. In my categories of political events, it would qualify as a: What. The. Holy. Fuck.

Am I missing something regarding the potential severity/horrificness of that development/reveal?

[Santti]

I was asked to change my signature quoting a Bernie supporter defending TERFs, so...Take that as you will.

You were? Like, by a mod?

It was a rather hilarious quote.

[Themius]

BernieBro narrative is made out to be a much larger problem then it actually is. It is also a racist, sexist, and erases 100,000s of minorities who actively support his campaign.

Wait heath care is a much smaller problem???

[Edge-]

That seems extremely significant/bad. In my categories of political events, it would qualify as a: What. The. Holy. Fuck.

Am I missing something regarding the potential severity/horrificness of that development/reveal?

Not as big as you think it is, IMO. It's an interesting wrinkle, not a major bombshell.

[cubby]

Bernie needs to win super tuesday hard.

It sure looks like he's going to crush it. The polls are all pointing to a sweeping, conclusive win.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...mary-forecast/

[Themius]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Are we really going to have to have a redux of every contrarian supporting authoritarian regimes the US dislikes? The 1970s called, they want their annoying college students back.

- - - Updated - - -



Again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

This doesn't actually indicate what I said about the Bernie Bros is incorrect. Just that you seem to think it's acceptable because the other side is doing it.

Do you know what whataboutism is?

You clearly do not.

Let's paste the definition here and go through it step by step since comprehension is wanting.

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

you mention how Bernie bros are treating people. I mention how the rest of the established democrats are treating him.

This is not a Whataboutism because I am not discrediting your position. There is a problem with some Bernie bros. I have spoken about it already. What I am saying is you cannot point to just Bernie and then ignore that this is in fact a common thing that is happening all around the candidates.

Do you mean to tell me any argument that takes a look at the entire picture and notes "this is quite common place among supporters are several different candidates, and there are already people vying to sabotage so this idea that Bernie's supporters are especially bad is misplaced and moot when looking at the evidence" Is just Whataboutism? Please... there is a fallacy for your argument right here by arguing that something is a fallacy and therefore is an invalid argument. Everyone forgets about that one.

Also you literally put fucking words in my mouth WHERE THE FUCK DID I POST IT WAS OKAY?!

I LITERALLY CRITICIZED BERNIE SUPPORTERS IN THIS FUCKING THREAD so you're not only calling something that isn't a fallacy, a fallacy but you're also making up your own assumptions and attributing them to me.

Do fucking better.

[Rozz]

I was asked to change my signature quoting a Bernie supporter defending TERFs, so...Take that as you will.

I guess with a grain of salt. I'm not denying your experiences, but ya know. I don't find it a fair shake considering the spectrum of ineptitude all the candidates attract. And don't take that as a "we all have bad eggs" excuse, it's a criticism that several the most popular candidates are all preying on those types in the first place.

Also, Relax yall.

[Elegiac]

So, gonna post this Vox article here because it carries a lot of very valid points about why there are progressives who aren't on board with Bernie.

The biggest problem facing US democracy did not come up at the Democratic debate in Charleston this week. It hasn’t really been discussed in the election at all. But it lurks behind all the more specific issues, an unwelcome presence no one quite wants to acknowledge.

It is simply this: The US is in a period of declining social and political trust. Americans increasingly think the system is rigged and that their fellow citizens don’t necessarily share their basic values and presumptions. This makes them strongly disinclined to invest their hopes in political promises of common good.

Everything progressives want — from getting humane policies passed to executing on them effectively — requires a foundation of social and political trust. The erosion of that foundation must be reversed if the left ever hopes to lead the country through big, transformative changes.

All the candidates sense the distrust and disengagement on some level. But the candidate most preoccupied with it, with the most developed plans to address it, is Elizabeth Warren.

It doesn’t seem to be helping her much, politically speaking. She’s has fallen back in the polls and faces rough sledding on Super Tuesday. But whatever the fate of her candidacy, her focus on rebuilding trust is something that the eventual winner should adopt as their own. Without trust, nothing else is possible.

--

The other, “left” lane is occupied by Warren and Sanders, who both promise, in Warren’s familiar phrase, “big structural change.” They are the only two candidates proposing changes equal to the moment.

There is not a huge tangible difference to be found in their legislative goals, certainly relative to what either is likely to be able to accomplish. Warren’s regulated capitalism and Sanders’s democratic socialism often blur together in policy terms: They both seek universal health care, higher wages, stronger unions, canceled student debt plus free college, and higher taxes on the wealthy. They both want something more like Denmark’s system, whatever label is put on it.

But there are interesting differences in their rhetoric, focus, and theories of change.

The best explanation I’ve seen of those differences is an essay by Will Wilkinson, who notes that Sanders typically avoids or waves aside questions about procedure or structural impediments. Sanders is focused — has been for decades — on outcomes. Health care. Decent jobs and housing. Cleaner air and water.

Sanders’s theory of change is not centered on any set of procedural arguments. (To the extent he makes any, they are dubious, like his ludicrous promise to pass both Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal through budget reconciliation, which is absolutely not going to happen.) It is instead a story of revolution, a movement of people in the streets, sweeping aside institutional impediments and rebuilding systems from the bottom up.

--

Warren shares many elements of Sanders’s populist rhetoric. She, too, is focused on how the rich and powerful have rigged the system against ordinary people. But she does not propose to blow the system up or sweep it aside. She proposes to fix it. She (legendarily) has a plan for that, a clear sense of which institutions are broken, what new institutions need to be created, and what kind of people she wants running them.

As Warren used to say frequently, she is a “capitalist to her bones.” She believes in the generative power of markets; she just believes they need to be operated transparently and fairly, with everyone protected from immiseration and offered opportunities for full participation. She wants well-regulated capitalism with a healthy welfare state — which is how the Danes themselves think of their system.

This is why, unlike Sanders, she explicitly cites her anti-corruption reform agenda as her first and top priority if she becomes president. It’s why she, unlike Sanders, supports getting rid of the filibuster. For her, procedural reforms are not an afterthought, but a vital part of the agenda in and of themselves, because they are the only reliable way to generate the trust needed to support the rest of the agenda and progress beyond it.

- - - Updated - - -

Painting all Sanders supporters as Angry White Dudes

I've not done this.

I say "Bernie Bros" and you immediately assume that is inclusive of all Bernie supporters. It's literally the left wing version of the deplorables moment - you're outing yourselves by thinking you're the ones being discussed.

[cubby]

Not as big as you think it is, IMO. It's an interesting wrinkle, not a major bombshell.

Ah, ok - I thought it was saying that one of the DNC Superdelegates, who is also pushing essentially for a contested convention, is actually a GOP donor. That sounded pretty subversive, but maybe not the big deal I imagined. Plus, I definitely could have misunderstood the article.