2020 Democratic Nominee

[sasquatch69 603]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bingo.  I like rage as much as the next guy -- yelling and flailing make me feel better.

But once I've cooled down, and decided that I really, really want to fuck you, I follow a deliberate, strategic path -- the old bull recommendation of "no, son, let's WALK down there and screw ALL of em."

Winning this fight requires action on multiple fronts, much of it not glamorous or attention-grabbing at all.  For example, bang-for-our buck in trying to recapture state houses before the next round of redistricting.  Strategic use of litigation.  Pushing for a president who will nominate judges who will be more amenable to ruling in favor of the rule of law (which is the position that we'll be advancing).

Yelling and ranting feels good.

Playing boring old chess gets shit done.

After listening to several of Rick Wilson's monthly appearances on the "With Friends Like These" podcast, I'm now more convinced than ever that the backroom deals/boring old chess route is most definitely the way to go, sprinkled with some political machinery/attack ads on top.  It sucks, but it works. 

[Longhorn94 2458]

8 minutes ago, GoldAppleCorps said:

When this is all over in November, the Democratic Party needs to do an objective, full post-mortem on why Elizabeth Warren couldn't get more traction. She seemingly checked all the boxes. Name recognition, track record, debate performances, policies and platforms, and was arguably personable.

I'm not saying she should have won. Votes are still subjective. However, I want to see if there was a better reason than "we really don't want a female to run for President". If that really is the underlying cause, I'm not looking for condemnation so much as I am recommendations to try and help correct that.

from my point of view, she made a few mistakes: 1. She never differentiated herself from Bernie - this was critical to her success. She should have positioned herself as the candidate that bridged the gap between the moderates and the progressive. Progressive Social Policies married to Capitalism. But instead she went with "I'm with Bernie" 2. Well that worked until she freaked everyone out with her M4A plan. People do not pick candidates based on their policies. The more specific you get, the more ammo you are giving to your rivals. Just pick good, general plans that are kind of vague and non-specific. People pick their candidates based on their person, ethics, morals, personality, effectiveness, and whether they believe in them.; 3. And then when it was time to start pointing out the differences between her and the Bern, she chose to attack Bloomberg over and over and over again until it started feeling way too personal. She didnt realize that she was helping Biden and hurting herself. She should have been balancing her criticisms of Bloomberg with showing how she is different that Bernie and Biden. I love her and thought she would make a great president but she made lot of tactical mistakes along the way.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11820]

See above, pretty much captures my thoughts on the matter.  I really wanted her to do well.

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Maybe the monkeys you hang around with dance when you crank your shitty organ, but I don't.

There is no list for Biden to be made. Brisket is lying and blustering and trying to macho his way out of proving his claim that Biden is a GET THINGS DONE guy beyond Sanders or basically any other Senator.

But that's OK. I don't consider it a knock against Biden that he doesn't have a big list of impressive progressive accomplishments, because the reality is that Senators (Congressmen in general) don't rack up huge list of impressive accomplishments tied to them specifically. It's a cooperative, deliberative body. It's behind the scenes work. It's letting other people put their names on something in exchange for their support. It's making deals.

You're just repeating his ad copy for him and then acting like everyone else is stupid. It's cute.

[Old Freak Nasty 821]

I think it's hard to see at the time that there was really no Warren/Sanders fight over voters.  Now that we see that Sanders has a cap to the percentage of support he has it's easy to say in hindsight.  The Bernie bloc is more a personality cult rather than voters who would deliberate over subtle policy nuances between the two of them.

Warren obviously thought there was a significant section of those voters she could woo with her strategy since the campaign started.  And since she had a formidable organization I'm sure a lot of other intelligent people within thought it was the right plan.

It turned out to be wrong.  I hope she's not too old to run in 2024 if disaster strikes and Trump is re-elected and makes to full term (death, impeachment, 25th amendment section 4).

Edited March 5, 2020 by Old Freak Nasty

[Brisketexan 105329]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

There is no list for Biden to be made. Brisket is lying and blustering and trying to macho his way out of proving his claim that Biden is a GET THINGS DONE guy beyond Sanders or basically any other Senator.

But that's OK. I don't consider it a knock against Biden that he doesn't have a big list of impressive progressive accomplishments, because the reality is that Senators (Congressmen in general) don't rack up huge list of impressive accomplishments tied to them specifically. It's a cooperative, deliberative body. It's behind the scenes work. It's letting other people put their names on something in exchange for their support. It's making deals.

You're just repeating his ad copy for him and then acting like everyone else is stupid. It's cute.

So.....do you think anyone here buys that bullshit you just tried to sell?  Anyone?  Bueller?  No, man.  It's just more weak sauce.

There are literally easily accessible lists of just the legislative accomplishments -- as lead sponsor, as committee chair, etc. -- for each of them.  They're right out there.   You can find them.  You already have.  But you do much better flailing against a ghost than actually handling reality.  It's cool, though, man.  You do you.

Shit, you're making me defend Biden, so I guess that's an accomplishment - he was far from my first choice in this horserace.  But that's your gift -- you can drive people to support somebody else like nobody's bidness. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

There are literally easily accessible lists of just the legislative accomplishments -- as lead sponsor, as committee chair, etc. -- for each of them.

Cool show me.

[Zonahorn 8079]

Bernie is absolutely my first choice, but I'm happy to vote for Joe Biden. He's far more palatable than Hillary

[conVINCEd 21469]

I didn’t vote for Bernie because I don’t want a grumpy old man yelling at me for the next 4 years.  Now, I’ll happily vote for him if he wins the nomination to avoid an infinitely more unpleasant experience, but the thought of having to listen to him every time I turn on the news is not appealing to me.

[Brisketexan 105329]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Cool show me.

https://www.google.com/

 

 

 

 

[G650 14277]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

That's not why we think you're stupid.

I lol'd.

[G650 14277]

1 hour ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Harris sticks out the most to me, but it worries me that she didn't pick up much support in the primaries.  

Harris was my number pick out of the whole field for Prez, so this would please me. She has a very good relationship with Biden as well, which is a plus.

[washparkhorn 9939]

The neverbernie bros are a huge problem. 

[hayden_horn 11365]

2 minutes ago, Old Freak Nasty said:

I think it's hard to see at the time that there was really no Warren/Sanders fight over voters.  Now that we see that Sanders has a cap to the percentage of support he has it's easy to say in hindsight.  The Bernie bloc is more a personality cult rather than voters who would deliberate over subtle policy nuances between the two of them.

Warren obviously thought there was a significant section of those voters she could woo with her strategy since the campaign started.  And since she had a formidable organization I'm sure a lot of other intelligent people within thought it was the right plan.

It turned out to be wrong.  I hope she's not too old to run in 2024 if disaster strikes and Trump is re-elected and makes to full term.

some good analysis. warren was my choice as well, but it went beyond tactical errors. i think there was a strategic problem in how to approach this particular election, and i think you do a good job of outlining that. she was trying to court the democratic socialist wing of the party instead of trying to bridge that gap by being the reasonable someone. bernie has his support, and they are not going to peel away to other candidates. she was trying to woo people like b_t who just are not going to vote for anyone not named bernard.

she will be too old to run in 2024. if there is anything this election has highlighted, it's that the democratic party needs to move past white boomers and get some younger blood to shine in the electorate.

[Biff Tannen 45734]

1 hour ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

White, college-educated man here with an Asian, college-educated wife (we both also have professional degrees).  We both voted for Warren and are pivoting to Biden.  Neither of us are happy about a bunch of old white guys duking it out on stage, but we're going to suck it up and vote.  We're hopeful that Biden can provide a return to normalcy, re-establish sane U.S foreign policy, and rebuild the regulatory agencies that Trump has gutted.  That's not near the progressive agenda that we would like, but it's at least realistic.  Whereas we supported the progressive Warren because we mostly agreed with her policies and, importantly, she provided plans for implementing those policies, we don't feel like we can switch to the progressive Bernie because as far as we can tell his plan for implementation of his policies is to yell a lot and try to invoke a revolution. 

This is exactly me, but sub in the Asian wife for an Italian one.  no pics.

[Ghost of LL 15539]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So.....do you think anyone here buys that bullshit you just tried to sell?  Anyone?  Bueller?  No, man.  It's just more weak sauce.

There are literally easily accessible lists of just the legislative accomplishments -- as lead sponsor, as committee chair, etc. -- for each of them.  They're right out there.   You can find them.  You already have.  But you do much better flailing against a ghost than actually handling reality.  It's cool, though, man.  You do you.

Shit, you're making me defend Biden, so I guess that's an accomplishment - he was far from my first choice in this horserace.  But that's your gift -- you can drive people to support somebody else like nobody's bidness. 

[G650 14277]

44 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

she moved to Texas with her family in 7th grade so no accent. 

Uh.

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

15 minutes ago, Old Freak Nasty said:

I think it's hard to see at the time that there was really no Warren/Sanders fight over voters.  Now that we see that Sanders has a cap to the percentage of support he has it's easy to say in hindsight.  The Bernie bloc is more a personality cult rather than voters who would deliberate over subtle policy nuances between the two of them.

I'm not so sure. 

There was a point where Warren had a shitload of momentum in Sept./Oct. and looked like the favorite to win the nomination. That coincided with Bernie at around 15-20% in polling and lots of pundits claiming he was capped at that number. 

It basically went all downhill from November to now with Warren. And Bernie's "cap" grew by about 10 points. I think there was overlap and a significant portion of progressives moved to Bernie over that period. 

 

[Huckleberry 33095]

50 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Amateurs talk protest rallies.  Professionals talk redistricting.

 

51 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Great.  I love protests and direct action.  But a crucial piece of the puzzle (and, dirty secret here -- the deal-closing piece of the puzzle) is in the halls of power.  If you want to have the maximum effect, get in them.

This attitude seems fundamentally at odds with the reality of the great progressive victories that have actually happened. Loud and annoying protests are what led to civil rights, LGBTQ legal rights, gay marriage, etc. Literally the same legislators changed their minds in many cases because of the screams of protestors wearing them down and turning public sentiment.

Sure guys, combative protests might have created every other good thing that we've done, but let's not protest combatively this time. 

They both (protests and legislation) have their place in the process but b_t is actually correct that only one side of this argument is acting condescending and elitist. And simultaneously ignoring that throughout history the dealmaking has never happened until it's been forced by protests. 

And let's not even get into the hypocrisy around here of chastising someone for pointing out Biden's horrific legislative legacy while also mocking Sanders' legislative history. He is also correct that there is a real threat of a Biden administration instituting regressive policies so he can feel like he accomplished something. The nomination is effectively over, but the establishment fans are reacting the exact wrong way. Now is not the time to chastise the progressives, it's the time to hold Joe Biden accountable for his past and make sure he understands that protecting banks at the expense of people won't be tolerated. That reaching across the aisle isn't actually a good thing when it results in the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Yes, he is an abrasive asshole. Oh well, he's also making a lot of great points that people are ignoring because it's easier than refuting them. And I guess because ripping on b_t is the cool thing to do. Which, for the record, he absolutely deserves and I happily do when warranted. But y'all are missing the forest because of that one asshole tree right at the edge. 

[kevwun 15890]

There were loud screaming protests and guys like LBJ slapping backs and twisting arms in private to get the bills passed.  You need both.

[Huckleberry 33095]

2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

There were loud screaming protests and guys like LBJ slapping backs and twisting arms in private to get the bills passed.  You need both.

That's literally what I just said. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

 

[Todd Gack 432]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

This attitude seems fundamentally at odds with the reality of the great progressive victories that have actually happened. Loud and annoying protests are what led to civil rights, LGBTQ legal rights, gay marriage, etc. Literally the same legislators changed their minds in many cases because of the screams of protestors wearing them down and turning public sentiment.

Sure guys, combative protests might have created every other good thing that we've done, but let's not protest combatively this time. 

They both (protests and legislation) have their place in the process but b_t is actually correct that only one side of this argument is acting condescending and elitist. And simultaneously ignoring that throughout history the dealmaking has never happened until it's been forced by protests. 

And let's not even get into the hypocrisy around here of chastising someone for pointing out Biden's horrific legislative legacy while also mocking Sanders' legislative history. He is also correct that there is a real threat of a Biden administration instituting regressive policies so he can feel like he accomplished something. The nomination is effectively over, but the establishment fans are reacting the exact wrong way. Now is not the time to chastise the progressives, it's the time to hold Joe Biden accountable for his past and make sure he understands that protecting banks at the expense of people won't be tolerated. That reaching across the aisle isn't actually a good thing when it results in the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Yes, he is an abrasive asshole. Oh well, he's also making a lot of great points that people are ignoring because it's easier than refuting them. And I guess because ripping on b_t is the cool thing to do. Which, for the record, he absolutely deserves and I happily do when warranted. But y'all are missing the forest because of that one asshole tree right at the edge. 

I agree with all this.  But I think people may be somewhat tainted by recency bias in that recent protests against gun violence have come up pretty empty from a legislative standpoint.  The "let's do a fucking march!" crowd needs a W on something so that we feel better about organizing and marching for something as transformative as M4A or tuition-free college.

[Brisketexan 105329]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

This attitude seems fundamentally at odds with the reality of the great progressive victories that have actually happened. Loud and annoying protests are what led to civil rights, LGBTQ legal rights, gay marriage, etc. Literally the same legislators changed their minds in many cases because of the screams of protestors wearing them down and turning public sentiment.

Sure guys, combative protests might have created every other good thing that we've done, but let's not protest combatively this time. 

They both (protests and legislation) have their place in the process but b_t is actually correct that only one side of this argument is acting condescending and elitist. And simultaneously ignoring that throughout history the dealmaking has never happened until it's been forced by protests. 

And let's not even get into the hypocrisy around here of chastising someone for pointing out Biden's horrific legislative legacy while also mocking Sanders' legislative history. He is also correct that there is a real threat of a Biden administration instituting regressive policies so he can feel like he accomplished something. The nomination is effectively over, but the establishment fans are reacting the exact wrong way. Now is not the time to chastise the progressives, it's the time to hold Joe Biden accountable for his past and make sure he understands that protecting banks at the expense of people won't be tolerated. That reaching across the aisle isn't actually a good thing when it results in the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Yes, he is an abrasive asshole. Oh well, he's also making a lot of great points that people are ignoring because it's easier than refuting them. And I guess because ripping on b_t is the cool thing to do. Which, for the record, he absolutely deserves and I happily do when warranted. But y'all are missing the forest because of that one asshole tree right at the edge. 

I've said repeatedly that I very much hope that the progressives assertively take a seat at the table and push Biden to listen and be responsive to their agenda, which will hopefully make Biden a better Biden.  He has the skillset to make shit happen -- we have the ability to push him to make the RIGHT things happen, if we use it wisely, and don't just act like easily dismissed shrill assholes.

And as for what's forced "dealmaking," it's a shitload more than just protests.  Protests matter....but so does strategic litigation (Brown v. Board of Education), so does electoral pressure (changing public mood driven by both protest and social presence and activisim), so does gaining a foothold in relevant legislative bodies, etc.  

Sorry, I live in the real world, where believing in something really hard ain't enough, where having super-enthusiastic supporters who aren't enough to constitute a majority of voters in your own party isn't enough.  And where perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good, or at least "better than where we are now."  For example, I don't want the next two SCOTUS justices appointed by Donald Trump.  I want them appointed by a Democrat, and that includes Joe Biden.

[Bruh Man 3160]

She is the best presidential candidate I've ever seen. I'm gutted today. Progressivism took a big L with this one. She was the hardest working, smartest, most thoughtful candidate in this race. Sexism and Bernie sucking up all the air on the left killed her. 

 

 

[Longhorn94 2458]

27 minutes ago, G650 said:

Uh.

No Minnesota accents. Lol

[Dbeasy 15091]

And there you have it.  THAT'S why we think you're fucking stupid.  Because you equate "get inside and make shit happen" with being a conservative (and using that as a pejorative).

FDR, Nellie Taylor Ross, LBJ, Shirley Chisholm -- famous conservatives, folks!  At least according to b_t's metric.

God, you can't help but make yourself look worse with each successive post.

 

Brisket you are dead wrong. Dead wrong. There are dozens of other reasons why we think BT is stupid. JK BT.

[Dbeasy 15091]

Nah. In 10 years the only woman left in the Republican Party will be Mike Pence’s wife. 

Is that what you call his gay lover? Nttawwt.

[bad_teammate 13224]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 And where perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good, or at least "better than where we are now."  For example, I don't want the next two SCOTUS justices appointed by Donald Trump.  I want them appointed by a Democrat, and that includes Joe Biden.

So you don't want a repeat of Brett Kavanaugh?

You don't want Joe working to get a conservative right-winger into the SC who threatens Roe v Wade and sexually assaults or harasses women?

hmm, that's interesting

 

[Brisketexan 105329]

Well, being that he'll be NOMINATING the SCOTUS justices if he's president, I'm rather confident that his picks will be much better than Trump's  Yeah, I'm going way out on a limb there.

 

[Bateshorn 9938]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I've said repeatedly that I very much hope that the progressives assertively take a seat at the table and push Biden to listen and be responsive to their agenda, which will hopefully make Biden a better Biden.  He has the skillset to make shit happen -- we have the ability to push him to make the RIGHT things happen, if we use it wisely, and don't just act like easily dismissed shrill assholes.

And as for what's forced "dealmaking," it's a shitload more than just protests.  Protests matter....but so does strategic litigation (Brown v. Board of Education), so does electoral pressure (changing public mood driven by both protest and social presence and activisim), so does gaining a foothold in relevant legislative bodies, etc.  

Sorry, I live in the real world, where believing in something really hard ain't enough, where having super-enthusiastic supporters who aren't enough to constitute a majority of voters in your own party isn't enough.  And where perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good, or at least "better than where we are now."  For example, I don't want the next two SCOTUS justices appointed by Donald Trump.  I want them appointed by a Democrat, and that includes Joe Biden.

My favorite example of this was a podcast I listened to about was Craig vs. Boren.  It's a kinda obscure case about sales over beer in Oklahoma in the 70s that allowed 18 year old women but 21 year old men to buy beer.  It was originally bought by a pissed off frat boy, but RBG identified it as an opportunity to establish new law for gender equity under the 14th amendment.  She advised the plaintiffs attorney, who was a fool all along the way, but was careful not to take over the case, although she did sit at counsel's tables at arguments.  His presentation went terribly in the morning before the Supreme Court, BUT, RBG had carefully maneuvered a totally separate case she was arguing to be before the Supreme's that afternoon.  

The Court quickly dealt with her case then used the rest of that time to pick her brain about the mornings case.  She convinced them to rule in the plaintiffs favor.  It was such a perfect example of how you need inside AND outside to make the gears turn.  And to be clear: That Berger court wasn't exactly forward thinking on gender equality issues.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Bateshorn

[bad_teammate 13224]

So this whole pendulum metaphor is ridiculous, because we are about to nominate a guy who was chosen as VP specifically because he was to the right of Obama. The Republicans are moving further right, and so is the Democratic Party.

It's not a pendulum, it's a ratchet strap tightening towards fascism and half the people here are fucking furious at the people who want to keep pulling left instead of just resting comfortably at the hub before being tightened again.

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, being that he'll be NOMINATING the SCOTUS justices if he's president, I'm rather confident that his picks will be much better than Trump's  Yeah, I'm going way out on a limb there.

Since we're talking about a guy who is further right than Barack Obama, who is it that you think Biden is going to nominate? He's going to be back in DC, in his element, around all his old friends.

He's going to listen to activists, who he has zero record of every caring about and openly mocks? Or is he going to do what he's done for decades and be "make a deal with Republicans" guy?

Is he going to nominate people hostile to corporate power? Answer seriously.

[David Dennison 18946]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

So this whole pendulum metaphor is ridiculous, because we are about to nominate a guy who was chosen as VP specifically because he was to the right of Obama. The Republicans are moving further right, and so is the Democratic Party.

It's not a pendulum, it's a ratchet strap tightening towards fascism and half the people here are fucking furious at the people who want to keep pulling left instead of just resting comfortably at the hub before being tightened again.

Since we're talking about a guy who is further right than Barack Obama, who is it that you think Biden is going to nominate? He's going to be back in DC, in his element, around all his old friends.

He's going to listen to activists, who he has zero record of every caring about and openly mocks? Or is he going to do what he's done for decades and be "make a deal with Republicans" guy?

Is he going to nominate people hostile to corporate power? Answer seriously.

No. It would be silly to expect him to. He's a neoliberal.

[workswithseed 2110]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

I’m pissed off that we don’t have a woman candidate for President. Warren, Klobuchar and even Harris were better candidates than Biden or Sanders.

Klobs would have been good, so would Tulsi, Warren is too much of a liar to vote for 

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

Klobs would have been good, so would Tulsi, Warren is too much of a liar to vote for 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Let's say Joe wins.

Who is the Republican who follows him?

How neutered is the progressive grassroots after this?

[workswithseed 2110]

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't know how many times I tell ya, I didn't vote Trump.

Klobs is a Dem from a purple state which would mean she know how to appeal to the left and right isle. Tulsi has a no war stance and youth which would have been a good change in the Whitehouse, and maybe cut spending on the defense budget.

Edited March 5, 2020 by workswithseed

[washparkhorn 9939]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No. It would be silly to expect him to. He's a neoliberal.

Just so we are all on the same page - and please correct me if I am wrong:

Dominant Economic Policy in the US - Keynesian (New Deal) to Neoliberal (libertarian) to post-keynesian (TBD)

Obama ran as a progressive (New Deal) and won.  That was a huge accomplishment. We haven't had a progressive win the presidency since FDR/JFK/LBJ. 

 

 

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

8 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

You're dealing with workswithseed.  It's a waste of time to try and find logic in his statement.

[Tuco 5077]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not really a question if you're not a liar or just trying to start fights on the Internet.

Bernie has basically the uniform support of every progressive activist group you could name and the vast majority of unions. When people are out on the street marching for justice, it's primarily Bernie supporters.

You already know this. You're just trying to start fights on the Internet because that's your one dance move.

Oh, seriously man, get fucked.  

Bernie didn't have shit to do with the Women's March, or any of the protests I've been involved with.  

One of the big problems with our political spectrum, is that we look at it as a single line.  Certainly Bernie has been a leading figure on many progressive issues dealing with class inequality.  I don't see him on the front lines of gay rights.  I don't see him on the front lines of racial equality, in fact, conflating racial equality with race equality happens to piss off some black activists.  I don't see him on the front lines of immigration abuses.  There is not one progressive movement, and Bernie is not a central figure to most of the different movements out there.  He's great at the battle he's fighting, but it's not the only battle out there. 

Some of you Bernie supporters are worse than Beatles fans.  There's a lot of people to like for different reasons. 

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Tuco

[workswithseed 2110]

7 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

You're dealing with workswithseed.  It's a waste of time to try and find logic in his statement.

What don't you get? 

[mchookem 16384]

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

 

also, your generation should vote

[Chuckie Finster 22732]

Sounds familiar...

 

[Hank Scorpio 17731]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

 

This attitude seems fundamentally at odds with the reality of the great progressive victories that have actually happened. Loud and annoying protests are what led to civil rights, LGBTQ legal rights, gay marriage, etc. Literally the same legislators changed their minds in many cases because of the screams of protestors wearing them down and turning public sentiment.

Sure guys, combative protests might have created every other good thing that we've done, but let's not protest combatively this time. 

They both (protests and legislation) have their place in the process but b_t is actually correct that only one side of this argument is acting condescending and elitist. And simultaneously ignoring that throughout history the dealmaking has never happened until it's been forced by protests. 

And let's not even get into the hypocrisy around here of chastising someone for pointing out Biden's horrific legislative legacy while also mocking Sanders' legislative history. He is also correct that there is a real threat of a Biden administration instituting regressive policies so he can feel like he accomplished something. The nomination is effectively over, but the establishment fans are reacting the exact wrong way. Now is not the time to chastise the progressives, it's the time to hold Joe Biden accountable for his past and make sure he understands that protecting banks at the expense of people won't be tolerated. That reaching across the aisle isn't actually a good thing when it results in the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Yes, he is an abrasive asshole. Oh well, he's also making a lot of great points that people are ignoring because it's easier than refuting them. And I guess because ripping on b_t is the cool thing to do. Which, for the record, he absolutely deserves and I happily do when warranted. But y'all are missing the forest because of that one asshole tree right at the edge. 

This is correct. Brisket and the rest of the former Republicans cosplaying as Democrats now puff their chests out and tell the crazy people who believe in things to pipe down and wait their turn and be civil and protect the discourse so that maybe someday in the future we can start a conversation about what real change would look like.
 

Politics is a game and they are smarter than all of you so sit down and listen to a Republican tell you crazy kids what is best for the country. It’s not 100% a byproduct of the I’ve-got-mine-so-none-of-this-is-that-pressing syndrome, but that is a part of it.

 

The main thing that they cannot abide is people being mean and not respecting the discourse. You should be able to go have a beer with the Senator who just passed the legislation to gouge poor people with payday loans because that’s just politics, we can still all respect one another and shake hands because we’re all in the same boat called privilege. Not serving someone at a restaurant because of the horrendous things they do as a politician is the highest form of insult to these people. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

Bernie didn't have shit to do with the Women's March, or any of the protests I've been involved with.

Did I say Bernie was the organizer of literally every movement in America?

You're making up arguments to be mad at.

Here's what I said:

Quote

Bernie has basically the uniform support of every progressive activist group you could name and the vast majority of unions. When people are out on the street marching for justice, it's primarily Bernie supporters.

The Women's March is very good. I love it. It was also co-founded and co-chaired by huge Bernie 2016 supporters.

Does that mean Bernie is responsible for them? No.

Does that mean he gets credit for being central to them? No.

All it means is that Bernie is a widely known ally of progressive movements. He's not a god. He's not a saint. He's an old man who has fought for social justice for many decades and activists nationwide know him and trust him. Find me a progressive activist organization that does not support Bernie Sanders. Even if they openly endorse Warren, they still support Sanders as well (See: WFP)

[G650 14277]

2 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

This is correct. Brisket and the rest of the former Republicans cosplaying as Democrats now puff their chests out and tell the crazy people who believe in things to pipe down and wait their turn and be civil and protect the discourse so that maybe someday in the future we can start a conversation about what real change would look like.
 

Politics is a game and they are smarter than all of you so sit down and listen to a Republican tell you crazy kids what is best for the country. It’s not 100% a byproduct of the I’ve-got-mine-so-none-of-this-is-that-pressing syndrome, but that is a part of it.

 

The main thing that they cannot abide is people being mean and not respecting the discourse. You should be able to go have a beer with the Senator who just passed the legislation to gouge poor people with payday loans because that’s just politics, we can still all respect one another and shake hands because we’re all in the same boat called privilege. Not serving someone at a restaurant because of the horrendous things they do as a politician is the highest form of insult to these people. 

What a load of shit.

[WBT 20666]

3 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Sounds familiar...

 

lulz at that petty [sic] thrown in there

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, WBT said:

lulz at that petty [sic] thrown in there

English major pounces!

[Pig Bellmont 8738]

2 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

This is correct. Brisket and the rest of the former Republicans cosplaying as Democrats now puff their chests out and tell the crazy people who believe in things to pipe down and wait their turn and be civil and protect the discourse so that maybe someday in the future we can start a conversation about what real change would look like.
 

Politics is a game and they are smarter than all of you so sit down and listen to a Republican tell you crazy kids what is best for the country. It’s not 100% a byproduct of the I’ve-got-mine-so-none-of-this-is-that-pressing syndrome, but that is a part of it.

 

The main thing that they cannot abide is people being mean and not respecting the discourse. You should be able to go have a beer with the Senator who just passed the legislation to gouge poor people with payday loans because that’s just politics, we can still all respect one another and shake hands because we’re all in the same boat called privilege. Not serving someone at a restaurant because of the horrendous things they do as a politician is the highest form of insult to these people. 

I think Brisket’s point was more that any significant change in this country doesn’t simply occur with 100% pure policies and an unwillingness to compromise. 

[Brisketexan 105329]

5 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

This is correct. Brisket and the rest of the former Republicans cosplaying as Democrats now puff their chests out and tell the crazy people who believe in things to pipe down and wait their turn and be civil and protect the discourse so that maybe someday in the future we can start a conversation about what real change would look like.
 

Politics is a game and they are smarter than all of you so sit down and listen to a Republican tell you crazy kids what is best for the country. It’s not 100% a byproduct of the I’ve-got-mine-so-none-of-this-is-that-pressing syndrome, but that is a part of it.

 

The main thing that they cannot abide is people being mean and not respecting the discourse. You should be able to go have a beer with the Senator who just passed the legislation to gouge poor people with payday loans because that’s just politics, we can still all respect one another and shake hands because we’re all in the same boat called privilege. Not serving someone at a restaurant because of the horrendous things they do as a politician is the highest form of insult to these people. 

No, it's not a game - "game" implies that the consequences are not serious.  Nonetheless, you're goddamned right that it involves game theory.

There are only two rules in this exercise:

1) Get elected/put in a position of power, so that

2) you can implement your agenda.

If you can't do #1, then your # 2 is, well, #2.  

 

And you accomplish #1 by - and follow me closely here - convincing more people to vote for you than the other guy.

I don't disparage the earnestness of Bernie supporters.  I'm GLAD we have people who believe things strongly when it comes to important matters of policy.  And I'm GLAD we have people who may help us shift the Overton window back to the left.  I'm not telling them to wait their turn.....the voters are.  If it was Bernie's turn, he'd have the majority of people supporting him.  In politics, that's how you know "it's your turn" -- you win.

Now that it's becoming clear that Bernie won't win, what are he and his supporters going to do with their strong beliefs?  Are they just going to shit on everyone who didn't agree with them 100%, and call them "shitlibs," and "conservatives," and "no better than Trump," or are they going to try to use every tool at their disposal to actually try to bring about some positive change, INCLUDING trying to work within a Biden administration to keep it honest and more responsive to the concerns of the people the Bernie movement purportedly stands for?  I'd like it if they would.