theropod_V_2.0 wrote:I expect Bernie to pull out all the stops Sunday night. I think he has had it with the DNC, and will push Joe until he has a cussing, stuttering fit, and expose the obvious dementia. I wouldn’t surprise me at all if he burns his bridges and tells the entire democratic party to suck it. If he takes his voters in an open revolt in a third party run he would kill any hopes of a Biden presidency, and he just might rip both parties a new one. Such a thing is decades overdue.

He will never do this. He is too nice and kind. He's been relentlessly attacked and smeared for ages, but he will never do to them what they did to him. He still calls Joe "Jim Crow" Biden his friend.

Bernie is too nice. He is too honorable. He is too gentle. And it sucks. He should have been more of a dirty fighter. It looks like dirty fighting is what's needed to take down the corrupt system that exists today.

It's like 2016 all over again, and consequently, it's going to be like 2016 all over again.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Its again not the federal government's responsibility.

Well I guess it would be then, wouldn't it! Also "some people can't even be trained to take care of dogs" is a shitty argument when you are talking about people who have already been successfully trained to do coal mining. And guess what, miners will still be necessary as the transition to greener technologies includes minerals and stuff that needs to be dug up and processed.

What the federal government should not do is bail out workers for a dying industry.

Why not? They have had no problems bailing out rich people and corporations. It's time that regular workers are bailed out too.

Read my post instead of trying to dissect it and score cherry points as you virtue signal.

I already said I do not believe it is the role of the federal government to bail out banks and corporations. Why would that make my position any less consistent?

Just because our government has done so, does not mean it should have.

That is akin to saying, "The federal government has no problem invading the privacy of foreign countries, why not give it the authority to invade the privacy of its citizen's homes."

And if you read my post, I point out that I think it should be the federal government's job to take care of its people. You seem to be of the opinion that people should just be left to themselves and live or die depending on whether they are rich or not. That might be the American Way, but other governments around the world actually try to help people.

I literally wrote the federal government should be authorized to extend educational opportunities, whether it be in forms of college, trade, or simply teaching people basic skills like Excel, and typing. Not exactly leaving them to live or die based on wealth.

I simply disagree with the extent the government goes to bail out industry. The natural unemployment rate is essential for economics. Messing around with that can also have detrimental effects on the economy. People lose jobs. It is part of economic growth. The government should provide welfare, but I believe that is for local governments to handle. It eases the burden on the federal government.

After all, the cost of living in California is way higher than Alabama. If the federal government was in charge of divvying out unemployment benefits they'd be doing so in a messy manner. Just utilize the bureaucracy already established and legislate the states by giving minimum expectations. Likewise state governments legislate local counties, etc.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Waffling Warren

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Joe "Jim Crow" Biden

Grow up.

Spearthrower wrote:It's like 2016 all over again, and consequently, it's going to be like 2016 all over again.

Correct.

Spearthrower wrote:It's like 2016 all over again, and consequently, it's going to be like 2016 all over again.

plus a side dish of 2004

willhud9 wrote:After all, the cost of living in California is way higher than Alabama. If the federal government was in charge of divvying out unemployment benefits they'd be doing so in a messy manner.

Works in other countries.

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:I expect Bernie to pull out all the stops Sunday night. I think he has had it with the DNC, and will push Joe until he has a cussing, stuttering fit, and expose the obvious dementia. I wouldn’t surprise me at all if he burns his bridges and tells the entire democratic party to suck it. If he takes his voters in an open revolt in a third party run he would kill any hopes of a Biden presidency, and he just might rip both parties a new one. Such a thing is decades overdue.

...

I hope Bernie rips him to shreds, and should. Electability? Joe Biden? In a delusional neo-con wet dream. If Joe Biden is the DNC choice it almost assures a second term for Turnip.

Instead we got headlines like "We ask our experts: Who won the debate?". Even asking that question means it's over for Sanders.

You were right, Roger. The headline we needed was "We ask our experts: Can Biden survive?" If it wasn't done before, it's certainly done now.

I’m seriously disappointed in Bernie. Apparently he only believes in his cause so deeply. When Joe laughed at him for telling the truth about Joe’s stance on social security/medicare I thought he was going to push the issue, but he just let it drop.

Progressive ideals will have to wait until well after I’m gone, if they ever come. I think the people of USA are well and truly fucked.

RS

CNN post debate spin didn’t bring up a single instance of Joe’s lies. Fuck it. The USA is now without a doubt an oligarchy.

RS

CNN is dreadful, and MSNBC is too.

Re: Porter... Any politician’s “support for” M4A is only as good as his/her willingness to push back against lies about feasibility, & to call out the money interests behind that propaganda. Let’s remember that Yang, Beto, Harris, Warren, and briefly even Buttigieg all expressed “support for” M4A. They all capitulated, some quickly, some gradually, all for generally the same reasons. None of these people are dumb enough to have supported something & only later figured out it wasn’t financially feasible. It’s always a realization about political support, and that’s essentially a matter of courage. Career politicians are not generally brave.

Katie Porter seems to be the real deal, and luckily she comes from a state that’s among the likeliest to push for something like M4A, which I think is the best chance for a national shift in the political dialogue (though Sanders’s two presidential runs are still the single biggest catalysts). Porter ran against a neolib anti-M4A Dem, and then won against an incumbent Repub in a district that had apparently never once elected a Dem to Congress.

I don’t know where she got her backing in the general, but in other places where similar matchups took place (progressive vs “centrist”, and then progressive vs Repub) the Dem apparatus has consistently undermined the candidate even after the primary, such as Kara Eastman in Nebraska’s 2nd. That district is only +4 Repub, and she lost the general by 2 points. She’s running again, and she hasn’t changed her tune (quote from this Omaha World-Herald piece after the 2018 election):

”If not having complete support from the national party means that I did not acquiesce to the party’s bland speaking points or want the party to personally attack my opponent, then I am grateful to have stood on my own,” she wrote. “As a first-time candidate for federal office, I believe that we won the most important battle — to change the political landscape here in the heartland.”

That’s the kind of determination it’s going to take, plus some pragmatic maneuvering in state legislatures in CA & some other states... and it’s the motivation behind AOC’s decision about fundraising to promote progressives across the country. And let’s remember, Sanders is one of the immediate inspirations for AOC entering politics. It’s the “not-me-us” long game that matters more. (If we survive climate change, that is.)

The base wants what progressives want. They’re just too easily spooked by the cowardly establishment politicians, who have ruthless funders.

Re: that Cali primary, I wanted to link this Buzzfeed article that highlights the rhetoric around progressive talking points. Basically, calling out the bs semantics is going to be the principal task of the progressive vanguard. The reason establishment politicians have to pay lip service to this agenda is that it’s popular. They can’t then be allowed to bs about it, or they’ll keep swindling uninformed voters, like the kind that voted for Obama in droves in 2008 & then were disillusioned by 2012, with a peak malaise setting in by 2016.

The label “New Democrat” and the letters DCCC have to be vilified to the point they become an embarrassment. The Dem establishment is corporate interests dressed in politician’s clothing. They can only swindle voters because they are expert double-speakers. That’s how they got ahead in life. Their movement has had ~30 years to mature, and we’ve only had a few years to catch up. That (slow) awakening is not a small reason for the Warren exodus this past November. It’s possible she doesn’t quite understand it, and is therefore a dupe of these people. But... she doesn’t seem that dumb to me.

From a 2006 docu about Nader.

A part of me wants to dip myself into the political arena and push for M4A at the state level. If Virginia could pass UHC successfully itd send a strong message to the rest of the country.

More power to you. Virginia Dem party seems more hostile to progressivism than some blood-red states. But every finger in their face is a step in the right direction.

So Biden for President then.

Hard to get enthusiastic about, but that's the task.

Just as his campaign to date has relied massively on endorsements by people more impressive than he is, his campaign in the general election may well depend on him tapping people more impressive than he is for key cabinet positions, and someone a bit more enthusiasm-generating for VP.

He's still several sizeable steps up from an old paper bag full of horse jizz, and that'd be preferable to Trump, so I think there's room for some enthusiasm!