Bernie Sanders 2020 Watch

[David Dennison 18886]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

OK... so? And?

It's possible to make happen and it's the only way to get these things done.

Sure it's possible. But if the left can't get mobilized by Donald Trump's presidency to put enough pressure on Democrats get him impeached, do you really think it's going to materialize to put pressure on Republicans to change their votes when a Democrat is in the White House?

[bad_teammate 13208]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Sure it's possible.

Stop posting.

Your contributions here are beyond worthless. Just stop. You've wasted people's lives, we are all closer to death, as you endlessly droned on with unearned confidence about how it was not going to happen. But here you are now.

What is your fucking point?

Don't answer. Just stop posting.

[David Dennison 18886]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Stop posting.

Your contributions here are beyond worthless. Just stop. You've wasted people's lives, we are all closer to death, as you endlessly droned on with unearned confidence about how it was not going to happen. But here you are now.

What is your fucking point?

Don't answer. Just stop posting.

I get it. You don't like actual politics, which is why you didn't address the rest of that post.

Edited August 13, 2019 by David Dennison

[bad_teammate 13208]

"Actual politics" = "Confidently stating things that can't be confidently stated until forced to flip-flop."

lol

If you think I'm dodging your brilliant ripostes, troll, you're mistaken. I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings, so...

Quote

But if the left can't get mobilized by Donald Trump's presidency to put enough pressure on Democrats get him impeached, do you really think it's going to materialize to put pressure on Republicans to change their votes when a Democrat is in the White House?

This question is a false equivalence. Trump's impeachment has nothing to do with future progressive changes (you can be against impeachment or ambivalent about it and for Bernie's entire slate of economic reforms), and furthermore it is definitely more likely that Dem/Dem-lean voters would put pressure on Republicans than on Democrats.

Do I think it's going to happen? I don't know. I hope so. I know it's possible and I know which of the candidates not only says it out loud but also appeals to exactly the type of people who need to be motivated/inspired. I know that I don't have much choice to but to push for the path that is the only one leading to a better future.

What is it that motivates you to constantly announce that things aren't possible when you know they are?

[David Dennison 18886]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

What is it that motivates you to constantly announce that things aren't possible when you know they are?

The United States Senate.

[bad_teammate 13208]

Is it impossible for the Democrats to take the Senate in 2020?

No.

If they don't, is it impossible for the Democrats to take the Senate in 2024?

No.

[David Dennison 18886]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Is it impossible for the Democrats to take the Senate in 2020?

No.

If they don't, is it impossible for the Democrats to take the Senate in 2024?

No.

No, just not very likely in 2020. 2022 and 2024 look better, but then you still have the problem of the filibuster, and as far as I can tell, that's in no danger of being discarded even if the Democrats take the Senate in 2020. 

[henrygandorf 29191]

31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not a pivot, it's obvious history. Major grassroots movements make huge differences.

- It got Obama and a Dem Supermajority into office in 2008
- While largely astroturfed, the Tea Party revolutionized the entire Republican Party and led to Donald Trump becoming president

Are you arguing that grassroots movements are impossible?

it's a pivot because you originally said that republican senators could be swayed by overwhelming grassroots movements in their states (which i called adorable).  bestest grandson pete or bestest grandpappy bernie or the ghost of jf fucking k isn't going to make that happen.  they suck that bad.

i said "solid" pivot, because then you made it about grassroots movements bringing people to office, which is a totally different argument, and one i agree with 100%.

[henrygandorf 29191]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is it impossible for the Democrats to take the Senate in 2020?

No.

If they don't, is it impossible for the Democrats to take the Senate in 2024?

No.

the issue with the senate is the same issue with the electoral college - there are more red states than blue states right now.  2020 will see more red states than blue, while the dem nominee likely wins the popular by 6-7mm votes.

we need some of the purple states to turn blue, including and especially texas.

[bad_teammate 13208]

28 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, just not very likely in 2020. 

No one said it was.

You said it wasn't even possible.

You should stop posting

26 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

it's a pivot because you originally said that republican senators could be swayed by overwhelming grassroots movements in their states (which i called adorable).  bestest grandson pete or bestest grandpappy bernie or the ghost of jf fucking k isn't going to make that happen.  they suck that bad.

You don't know this.

Holy shit, bud, are you not seeing DD's posts?

Quote

i said "solid" pivot, because then you made it about grassroots movements bringing people to office, which is a totally different argument, and one i agree with 100%.

I didn't pivot to that. I said it before I mentioned grassroots pressure against Republicans.

Unless I'm a time traveler doing a reverse-pivot?

21 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the issue with the senate is the same issue with the electoral college - there are more red states than blue states right now.  2020 will see more red states than blue, while the dem nominee likely wins the popular by 6-7mm votes.

we need some of the purple states to turn blue, including and especially texas.

I love it when people say the most obvious shit and then act like you're an idiot because you didn't bother stating the obvious to begin with.

Yes, henry, it's going to be very hard. You and DD go collect your cookies for defeating an argument no one fucking made.

[henrygandorf 29191]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I love it when people say the most obvious shit and then act like you're an idiot because you didn't bother stating the obvious to begin with.

Yes, henry, it's going to be very hard. You and DD go collect your cookies for defeating an argument no one fucking made.

nope, no one was doing that.

i was having a normal conversation and agreeing with you.  it's not impossible, but there are obstacles.

this isn't a pm conversation.  plenty of people don't understand the obstacles in taking back the senate and how the situation differs from the house.

[henrygandorf 29191]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I didn't pivot to that. I said it before I mentioned grassroots pressure against Republicans.

Unless I'm a time traveler doing a reverse-pivot?

yeah buddy, i followed the conversation just fine:

 

-he asked how any of this would be passed into law.

-you replied by saying grassroots movements can bring change by electing officials who want to change things.

-then he responded by saying there would be a republican senate.

-to which you responded they could be swayed by grassroots pressure applied by people in their states.

-then we both responded to that claim, likely because we both thought it was ridiculous and silly.

-then you responded to that, by pivoting back to your initial point, saying grassroots movement can bring about change through elected officials, and you brought up obama and the dem house.

 

you thought your grassroots point was strong enough to withstand a separate argument, and you were wrong, so you retreated, and rightfully so.  

[BradInATX 9208]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Dennison’s troll game is strong today.  So many ‘just asking questions’?

Watching you follow b_t around trying to get affection from him is one of the most cringe cases of battered wife syndrome I've ever seen.

[bad_teammate 13208]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

-he asked how any of this would be passed into law.
-you replied by saying grassroots movements can bring change by electing officials who want to change things.
-then he responded by saying there would be a republican senate.
-to which you responded they could be swayed by grassroots pressure applied by people in their states.

A completely bullshit mischaracterization of reality. It's all posted for posterity right there, why lie like this? Why would you complete excise the actual point of the argument and pretend that secondary clause was the entire thing?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

You don't know what is going to happen.

- You don't know that there will be a Republican senate.
- You don't know that literally every Republican senator will be 100% immune to pressure from constituents.

You can pretend to know and feel smug in your confidence, but that doesn't make it reality. You don't care if it happens, that's the difference. It's fun to sit on the ledge with the other "stupid leftists, nothing will change" temporarily-not-Republicans because the reality of today is one that benefits you and you are not interested in actually seeing that change. So your knee-jerk reaction is to shit all over the possibility.

It's why the Petes and Betos are so attractive, because what they actually represent is nothing threatening or changing any of the existing power structures. Positive image and words, but the economic and social caste system 100% maintained.

[BradInATX 9208]

You should learn to take yes for an answer.

[bad_teammate 13208]

me, a moron: "Governments in general are subject to shifts and changes. When voter participation changes and previously-inactive groups of citizens are activated and inspired, they can transform the government of a nation into something unrecognizeable. You can go from an inspirational and moral leader who valued process and norms and hope directly to a hateful ideologue who openly rejects everything we held dear only a year earlier. But after that negative shift, a positive reaction can occur. People can mobilize to not only restore the better mode of governance but push beyond towards an even brighter future, because the power ultimately lies in the people and the governors are only as strong as the governed allow."

you, a genius: "Nuh-uh."

[henrygandorf 29191]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Neither is it certain that those Republicans cannot be influenced by overwhelming grassroots pressure from within their state.

 

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

-to which you responded they could be swayed by grassroots pressure applied by people in their states.

 

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

A completely bullshit mischaracterization of reality.

not sure how i completely mischaracterized your argument in such a bullshit way.

as the above will prove, this was certainly necessary:

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What the fuck is wrong with you?

have a good night.

[bad_teammate 13208]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

not sure how i completely mischaracterized your argument in such a bullshit way.

B_T: "An influx of progressive representatives pushed into power by millions of working class people and people of color brought into the political process who are currently not participating. A nationwide, 50-state, grassroots movement to energize the people to force the corrupt DC elite into making the necessary changes."

B_T: "Perhaps (there will be a Republican Senate), but it's not certain. Neither is it certain that those Republicans cannot be influenced by overwhelming grassroots pressure from within their state."

henry: "-to which you responded they could be swayed by grassroots pressure applied by people in their states."

You purposefully ignored the bolded part, which was the main thrust of my argument, and chose instead to focus on something else.

That's how you completely mischaracterized my argument in such a bullshit way.

Is that clearer?

[bad_teammate 13208]

You guys should really interrogate your motivations when it comes to how much you hate Bernie.

imgur

/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

I hate myself for liking Bernie.  So wtf to do?!

[David Dennison 18886]

I voted for Bernie.

True story.

[henrygandorf 29191]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

B_T: "Perhaps (there will be a Republican Senate), but it's not certain. Neither is it certain that those Republicans cannot be influenced by overwhelming grassroots pressure from within their state."

this was the conversation i was engaged in.  not an argument, a conversation.  i agree with the first part (that you typed that i did not quote) and i've already said so.

back to what i did quote (above).  the second sentence (the non-bolded part) assumes that the republicans keep the senate (apologies if i misunderstood, but that's how it reads, because your use of the word "those").  i agree nothing is certain, but once you typed the second sentence, i figured we were going with it, like starting a sentence, "well let's say the republicans do keep the senate..."

i have seen nothing from the 2016-2019 republicans that tells me that any bit of grassroots pressure, from in state or out, or any type of common sense, common decency, or common dignity, will make republican senators act like actual human beings.  it's not about feeling smug or being attracted to things that don't want change, it's about pessimism and being battered by our current situation.

considering many of us feel that way, i think bernie and warren qualify as the "attractive" options in your scenario.  beto and pete to some maybe feel more realistic or safer?  i'm not saying i think that, i'm just trying to figure out what you're trying to say.  i don't think pete or beto are the model "centrists" you're attacking with your opinions here.  i also don't really think we're disagreeing, other than an interpretation of what you meant, but yeah, this is an internet message board.

[henrygandorf 29191]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You guys should really interrogate your motivations when it comes to how much you hate Bernie.

it's almost like it bothers you that we don't hate bernie.

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

it's almost like it bothers you that we don't hate bernie.

It does.  100%.  

[bad_teammate 13208]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i have seen nothing from the 2016-2019 republicans that tells me that any bit of grassroots pressure, from in state or out, or any type of common sense, common decency, or common dignity, will make republican senators act like actual human beings.

Even if we grant that, what is your actual point in even jumping in? What's the goal? What's the purpose?

Seriously, think about it. What motivated you?

[bad_teammate 13208]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I voted for Bernie.

True story.

What happened to you?

[bad_teammate 13208]

Bernie & Cardi B - 3 million views in 5 hours
 

 

[David Dennison 18886]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What happened to you?

Elizabeth Warren.

[bad_teammate 13208]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Elizabeth Warren.

So you went from voting for Bernie Sanders to actively trolling against him online... because you like Warren now?

That's... odd.

[edit]

A question you probably won't answer: How is Elizabeth Warren going to get her plans passed?

---

Bernie is right.

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by bad_teammate

[henrygandorf 29191]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Even if we grant that, what is your actual point in even jumping in? What's the goal? What's the purpose?

Seriously, think about it. What motivated you?

the notion that republican senators could be swayed by a grassroots movement or in-state pressure was laughable to me, so i said something.

you could call it a moral imperative.

you could also realize that this was me inserting myself to take a cheap shot at republican senators.  not at you, and certainly not at bernie.

[bad_teammate 13208]

"Adorable" is a diminutive.

Come on.

[henrygandorf 29191]

you need to learn the difference between “somebody having some fun with you” or “good natured ribbing” vs “being attacked”. especially when everyone’s target is the right. 

there are plenty of people using actual attacking language when they don’t agree. you can tell the difference. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It’s amusing people think our normative rules of the Senate and decorum are going to hold up after Trump.   Almost as hilarious as Biden saying doing away with the filibuster is dangerous.  Poor old bastard doesn’t understand this current path we’re on is the epitome of dangerous. 

There are no rules.  

There is no spoon.  

We the people can create or destroy whatever we want. 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13208]

15 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you need to learn the difference between “somebody having some fun with you” or “good natured ribbing” vs “being attacked”. especially when everyone’s target is the right. 

there are plenty of people using actual attacking language when they don’t agree. you can tell the difference. 

Post #1: "well this is adorable"
Post #2: "solid pivot."

The target of both of these is me, not the right. First a diminutive, then an accusation of me changing my argument.

You walked into the middle of a heated argument, if your intention was good-natured ribbing then you are absolute dogshit at reading a room. That's the kindest interpretation of your entrance.

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s amusing people think our normative rules of the Senate and decorum are going to hold up after Trump.

There is a potential future after Donald Trump that is not oblivion and fire. That potential future will require a governing structure that isn't Thunderdome.

Honestly, if the idea is to scrap the filibuster entirely then we need to just get rid of the Senate. I am totally fine with that, by the way, because the Senate is undemocratic by design. However, if you keep the Senate, then the filibuster has a valid use in protecting the power of the minority power group.

Bernie's goal is to win back the Senate, House, and White House and enact filibuster reform to require a standing/speaking filibuster. He voted against weak filibuster reform in 2013 because it didn't go far enough.

----------------------------------------------------------------

 “Most Americans grew up believing that in America the majority rules.  That is not the case in the Senate,” Sanders added. “For many years now, especially since President Obama has been in office, it has taken 60 votes to pass any significant piece of legislation. When Lyndon Johnson was majority leader in the 1950s, he filed cloture to end a filibuster only once.  Majority Leader Reid has filed cloture 390 times.

 “The Senate is not the House and the minority party must be treated with respect and given the opportunity to offer amendments and make their case in opposition.  A minority must not, however, be allowed to permanently obstruct the wishes of the majority.  That is not democracy.  That is a perversion of democracy.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Let Ted Cruz grandstand for 24 hours and hold everything up, but as soon as he gives up the floor by falling down or dying or quitting, the vote is held and the majority wins. It's not an absurd idea.

Letting the minority have that voice and power preserves the nature of the Senate. If you just get rid of it entirely, then what is the point of the Senate?

If you want to answer, "None, get rid of the Senate" then I'm down to see the plan.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The Senate just arbitrarily declining to vote on widely popular legislation passed by the house and not hear nominees like Garland is borderline criminal.   The current purpose of the Senate is to work against democracy as hard as possible.  It absolutely needs to be nerfed.  Get rid of the senate?  I could be persuaded. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13208]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Senate just arbitrarily declining to vote on widely popular legislation passed by the house and not hear nominees like Garland is borderline criminal.   The current purpose of the Senate is to work against democracy as hard as possible.  It absolutely needs to be nerfed.  Get rid of the senate?  I could be persuaded. 

The forces working against democracy are extremely powerful. You have the wealth class up top and their vassals in government institutions. And you have their lackeys in mass media.

The cure to this, as Bernie and Liz rightly identify, is the mass mobilization of the people.

How mass media manufactures consent:

- Selection of topics
- Distribution of concerns
- Emphasis
- Framing of Issues
- Filtering of Information
- Bounding of Debate

And they do it to serve the interests of the dominant elite groups. Little to none of this is conscious or acknowledged, it is simply how the machine is designed.

[David Dennison 18886]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

The forces working against democracy are extremely powerful. You have the wealth class up top and their vassals in government institutions. And you have their lackeys in mass media.

The cure to this, as Bernie and Liz rightly identify, is the mass mobilization of the people.

How mass media manufactures consent:

- Selection of topics
- Distribution of concerns
- Emphasis
- Framing of Issues
- Filtering of Information
- Bounding of Debate

And they do it to serve the interests of the dominant elite groups. Little to none of this is conscious or acknowledged, it is simply how the machine is designed.

The only way to break the machine is to stop participating in it. That takes solidarity on a scale the American people have thus far been unable to accept. It also requires a willingness to risk one's social status and livelihood. Most Americans will not risk their family's security to do what it takes to rein in capitalism.

[Rougarou 594]

6 hours ago, David Dennison said:

The only way to break the machine is to stop participating in it. That takes solidarity on a scale the American people have thus far been unable to accept. It also requires a willingness to risk one's social status and livelihood. Most Americans will not risk their family's security to do what it takes to rein in capitalism.

Indeed, short term instinct drivers like family security are hard to turn off. That’s why you see the real awesome radicals are generally the youth, the old and the insane (in a good way) single people who are breaking glass for progress and change (like bad teammate) who probably shouldn’t be tasked with raising kids anyways. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Rougarou

[bad_teammate 13208]

7 hours ago, David Dennison said:

The only way to break the machine is to stop participating in it. That takes solidarity on a scale the American people have thus far been unable to accept. It also requires a willingness to risk one's social status and livelihood. Most Americans will not risk their family's security to do what it takes to rein in capitalism.

All it takes to "rein in capitalism" in the way outlined by Bernie Sanders is 51% of the Congressional vote. And there's ample historical precedent for that and a lot more.

You are being melodramatic in an attempt to cover up your lack of a point.

1 hour ago, Rougarou said:

Indeed, short term instinct drivers like family security are hard to turn off. That’s why you see the real awesome radicals are generally the youth, the old and the insane (in a good way) single people who are breaking glass for progress and change (like bad teammate) who probably shouldn’t be tasked with raising kids anyways. 

Also the working class and people of color, other groups conservatives are eager to say shouldn't reproduce.

Thanks for yet another pointless post in the thread, though.

[bad_teammate 13208]

If your underlying point is "You have to get votes in Congress to pass laws and that's not always easy" then thank you in advance. Literally everyone here knows that, so please go pet rabbits in the field.

[bad_teammate 13208]

Wait, is Bezos not a noble, disconnected benefactor who is just throwing money at good journalism to save our nation!?!?

WHAT!?

Also, MSNBC quoting an anonymous horse account on Twitter to attack Bernie. We welcome their hatred.

Millionaires paid by billionaires.

[edit]

You will be SHOCKED to find out who "Hoarse Whisperer" is.

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Perhaps it’s me but it doesn’t seem like the Berners are welcoming the hatred well.    

[Js1 85353]

35 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Wait, is Bezos not a noble, disconnected benefactor who is just throwing money at good journalism to save our nation!?!?

WHAT!?

Also, MSNBC quoting an anonymous horse account on Twitter to attack Bernie. We welcome their hatred.

Millionaires paid by billionaires.

[edit]

You will be SHOCKED to find out who "Hoarse Whisperer" is.

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

11 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s amusing people think our normative rules of the Senate and decorum are going to hold up after Trump.   Almost as hilarious as Biden saying doing away with the filibuster is dangerous.  Poor old bastard doesn’t understand this current path we’re on is the epitome of dangerous. 

There are no rules.  

There is no spoon.  

We the people can create or destroy whatever we want. 

 

 

Warren is right.   Hell, even if you don't actually want to pull the trigger, using this legitimate threat as leverage is the smart move. 

[Dropout 355]

12 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

it's almost like it bothers you that we don't hate bernie.

 

12 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

It does.  100%.  

It’s your indifference. As bt has eloquently pointed out it doesn’t really matter to you if Bernie is elected bc what he fights for will have minimal impact on the lives of the comfortable. You have room to make snide comments and move on w life. Others not so much. Could even be a matter of life and death in some cases. That is why he asked you to check your motivations.

36 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Case in point. More indifference. Yes let’s calm down while the house is on fire. It’s funny. A good long joke.

[Hank Kingsley 20959]

2 minutes ago, Dropout said:

 

It’s your indifference. As bt has eloquently pointed out it doesn’t really matter to you if Bernie is elected bc what he fights for will have minimal impact on the lives of the comfortable. You have room to make snide comments and move on w life. Others not so much. Could even be a matter of life and death in some cases. That is why he asked you to check your motivations.

Case in point. More indifference. Yes let’s calm down while the house is on fire. It’s funny. A good long joke.

This is complete bullshit, and I'll turn it around on you to see how it feels.

Berners think they are better than everyone else because they believe they care more about others. They can make snide comments about other candidates and any dissenting media types because they have "purer hearts".  They believe the right way to make progress is to shame others and basically say "fuck you" if you're not a full on progressive right now and side with Bernie on everything. 

Bernie is awesome. His message is powerful. Unfortunately his surrogates are really shitty messengers. 

 

[Js1 85353]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The notion Bernie has to win the Democratic nomination and win the presidency to advance his ideas is what irks me.  There’s some weird sense of entitlement among the Bernie Bros that we’re all supposed to fall in line because Bernie is god’s gift to America but we can’t see it because we’re too comfortable, or we think we are.

The “I and only I alone can fix it” vibe with Bernie is what rubs some people the wrong way.  As if he has a monopoly on his ideas or he’s the only one willing to fight hard enough to make them a reality while discounting the possibility there might be better advocates available with just as much passion and fire. 

I’ve come around on Bernie after giving him a lot of shit.  He’s a good guy in it for the right reasons with good ideas.  I’m not convinced he would make the best President but he would be light years better than most people running.  

Edited August 14, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hank Kingsley 20959]

Bernie's authenticity and life long activism has significantly pulled the Democratic Party to the left over the last 3-4 years. It's a worthy accomplishment and he will be considered an American hero in the history books IMO. 

That doesn't mean he would make a good POTUS.  I'd argue that he could accomplish more by continuing to fight the good fight as a U.S. Senator. 

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[GSU&UT 1798]

Bitch about Sirota all you want, showing any tweets by the fucking Hoarse Whisperer (a troll account) on a cable news network is amazing, especially when it came on a day where lots of non-white and LGBTQ people shared their stories of why they came to like Bernie.