2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Kyriakos]

Don't talk about it, be about it.

Instead of apparently neither being nor talking about it.

So, if I could vote, I'd vote for Bernie. And I think Biden cannot win in the general.

You say you voted for Bernie, and don't think Biden can win against Trump.

Surely that is some colossal difference in view, if the above are so

 

[Tristan_C]

Yeah corona-chan is pure mana from heaven, politically. It wrecks the market, puts the Trump rallies on hold, and provides an exogenous reason to not hold a Biden rally.

 

[Berzerker]

Do you not remember how Cheney set up a separate intelligence channel to bypass the security services - who were not finding the intel the White House wanted - or how the UK Security Services were opposed to the war but pressured into it by Number 10; or do you choose not to remember to create your bargain basement conspiracy theory?

Was Cheney and his cohorts not part of the Deep State? The black sites, torture program, cherry picked intel, Colin Powell holding vials of 'anthrax' at the UN, Patriot Act and spying on everyone, etc... Where was the intel community on all that? They were running the programs. Does that sound like a conspiracy to lie us into a war?

I think if they are having trouble recalling how they felt about the deep state in 2003, they can hardly be expected to remember the eighties.

The main lesson of political correctness is that language can be wielded to shape thought, and as far as this goes, I think Washington profits immensely from the fact that there are not really any neutral descriptive terms for what they do in there. "Deep state" is outright corny. "Administrative state" is long and redundant. "Military-industrial complex" is getting warmer but is not comprehensive. "Washington elites," the term most often used by the left during the Bush era, is almost a term of endearment now.

I guess for accurate and biting figurative language, the "swamp" is a good word. Now that I think on it, the #Resistance has tried to appropriate that term.

The swamp is overly broad, Wall St and Mike Bloomberg buying politicians is standard fare but not really deep statish. The MIC is a good term since Ike used it so long ago but the administrative state sounds too bureaucratic to be nefarious.

 

[Gorbles]

People would rather vote for Biden than Trump, because of the measurable impact of comparable administrations. If you can't see that, then that's on you. Individual examples of how Biden isn't perfect (nowhere near perfect) aren't the foolproof gotchas you keep assuming them to be, @Berzerker.

It's the exact same (ironically Republican) argument against Obama. The centres existed under his administration too, ergo, checkmate libs! Except that the centres under both administrations could be bad. They could even be worse under one of them, which means when comparing which administration people arguably might want to have in power, people would therefore have a preference.

To repeatedly make arguments against the Democrats (in defense of criticism of Republicans, either individually or by policy), which boil down to "both sides are bad so why vote for the Democrats", is such an amazing insight into your apparent lack of support for Trump it really removes the need for further discussion

Likewise, kids evince progressive intentions without any regard for real-world circumstances and consequences. Yeah it would be great if everyone suddenly became a model citizen and worked for the common good. I totally agree. +1 for progressive policies.

What about people who aren't kids, who have progressive intentions and seek to balance those against the complexities of the real world? I mean, I get it, it's easy to rephrase the example so that it's easier to argue against, but Estebonrober wasn't specifying kids. Nobody did. You did that.

 

[Tristan_C]

What about people who aren't kids, who have progressive intentions and seek to balance those against the complexities of the real world? I mean, I get it, it's easy to rephrase the example so that it's easier to argue against, but Estebonrober wasn't specifying kids. Nobody did. You did that.

In discussing Sanders' support base everyone has been discussing the yoots.

Making the assertion he did, Estebonrober has probably seen the same polling stories I have, that 70 percent of millenials and younger avow themselves socialists. Then in Biden's camp we have the ancient progressives, who are collectively doing something which appears to be rather stupid. These facts all correspond with that old saying.

 

[Gorbles]

In discussing Sanders' support base everyone has been discussing the yoots.

Making the assertion he did, Estebonrober has probably seen the same polling stories I have, that 70 percent of millenials and younger avow themselves socialists. Then in Biden's camp we have the ancient progressives, who are collectively doing something which appears to be rather stupid. These facts all correspond with that old saying.

You're making assumptions to cover your rephrasing of the argument. Also, I don't know why this persists, but millenials aren't young anymore. They're not "the youth". They're increasingly into their 30s, and have held jobs for a decade or two. I mean, heck, the image you quoted said 18 to 44. Forty-four. That is not "the youth", for the love of all that is sacred.

But beyond that, you haven't answered my question. What about the people who aren't children, who have progressive intentions. Are you going to dismiss their arguments, or are you actually going to recognise them as valid? This whole thing came about from you trying to dismiss support for progressive policies.

 

[Kyriakos]

You're making assumptions to cover your rephrasing of the argument. Also, I don't know why this persists, but millenials aren't young anymore. They're not "the youth". They're increasingly into their 30s, and have held jobs for a decade or two. I mean, heck, the image you quoted said 18 to 44. Forty-four. That is not "the youth", for the love of all that is sacred.

But beyond that, you haven't answered my question. What about the people who aren't children, who have progressive intentions. Are you going to dismiss their arguments, or are you actually going to recognise them as valid? This whole thing came about from you trying to dismiss support for progressive policies.

Not talking about Tristan (don't know how old he is either ^_^ ), but usually "boomers" see everyone else as a kid

 

[Tristan_C]

It gets more stark when you segment the age groups.
https://twitter.com/BayArea4Bernie/status/1237848712019206148


Accidentally hit post so pardon this edit

But beyond that, you haven't answered my question. What about the people who aren't children, who have progressive intentions. Are you going to dismiss their arguments, or are you actually going to recognise them as valid? This whole thing came about from you trying to dismiss support for progressive policies.

Yes they are valid in the sense that they exist, and my response to you was trying to be polite. If you need clarification, the old saying goes something like,

Young conservatives are heartless. Old liberals are headless.
​

Old liberals are backing Biden. That figures.

 

[Socrates99]

Two points about Kulinksi, Kerry was up against a wartime president in '04 and not enough people had learned or become outraged about the lies they were told about the Iraq War - and Kerry voted for the war anyway - and the older crowd 65+ has Medicare, ofc they're not gonna be as fired up about Bernie's Medicare for all.

Didn't even watch the short bit from Tapper did ya? Even though I said it's at the beginning and that's all that's necessary. He refers to talking with a Bush strategist after the election who admitted they were more apprehensive about facing Dean who had much more excitement about his run than Kerry. Kerry was specifically chosen because of the wartime aspect in '04. He was a military officer and people thought that would play better vs Bush who only had a short stint in the guard.

Biden, like Kerry, has that high propensity voter on lockdown. That's that 65+ voter. They'll show up for anybody with a D. It works in the primary but in order for dems to win in the general they need the less active voters to turn out. The argument for Biden is that he's more "electable." The Bernie supporters are pointing out where that narrative is faulty. Nobody's excited about Biden's platform, he really doesn't have one. Republican voters are more lockstep, they'll show up for a clown in orange makeup as long as he's got that R next to his name. Democrats are more finnicky.

Watched it all. Seems reasonable. "Electability" is memetic, defying a uniform characterization. In some way, though, the gestalt choice of Biden over Sanders on this deceptive idea of Biden's higher "electability" expresses where the passion is. We have not been talking passionately about universal welfare and the environment for three years. They have been on the boilerplate, but all the passion was invested in the Mueller report and the impeachment hearings. Biden comes from apparatus engaged in those projects— the top level of the previous admin and the DNC— so while the passion is not in him personally, he has a resume and is tied more closely to the all-consuming goal of getting rid of Trump than the old bolshevik is.

That'd be where the excitement is at on cable news. It's a deflection. The actual democrat voters are concerned about healthcare as demonstrated by exit polls. Even people voting Biden claim to support many of Bernies policies. Healthcare frequently tops the list as the most important issue. Republicans feel the same way. The failure to do anything when they had power may have been a factor in them losing the House.​

 

[Sommerswerd]

So, if I could vote, I'd vote for Bernie. And I think Biden cannot win in the general.

But you can't vote, so that's irrelevant. As for me I can vote, and I did vote... for Bernie. And while I'm not optimistic about Biden's chances... its irrelevant. In terms of who I'm voting for, it does not matter what Biden's chances are, because I already voted for Bernie and he lost. It is highly unlikely at this point that Bernie gets the nomination, and in any case, I can't vote for him again, because I already voted. Do you get that?

So endlessly whining to me about how you don't think Biden can win is completely pointless, because my Bernie vote has already been cast so I can't do anything else to stop Bernie from losing to Biden. Bernie has failed, I gave him my vote, but he and his supporters didn't deliver. He didn't convince the majority of voters to vote for him. So what he would have, should have, could have done against Trump is irrelevant. He's never going to face Trump if he can't even beat Biden. Get it?

The only reasonable thing for me to do now is focus on the reality that Biden is probably going to be the nominee. It does not matter if I don't like Biden's chances against Trump.. It does not matter if I think Bernie might have had broader appeal in the general. Bernie can't make it to the general because he can't manage to get nominated. That's not my fault, I'm a Warren supporter and I still voted for Bernie anyway. Bernie failed. So now I need to move on.

 

[Kyriakos]

But you can't vote, so that's irrelevant. As for me I can vote, and I did vote... for Bernie. And while I'm not optimistic about Biden's chances... its irrelevant. In terms of who I'm voting for, it does not matter what Biden's chances are, because I already voted for Bernie and he lost. It is highly unlikely at this point that Bernie gets the nomination, and in any case, I can't vote for him again, because I already voted. Do you get that?

So endlessly whining to me about how you don't think Biden can win is completely pointless, because my Bernie vote has already been cast so I can't do anything else to stop Bernie from losing to Biden. Bernie has failed, I gave him my vote, but he and his supporters didn't deliver. He didn't convince the majority of voters to vote for him. So what he would have, should have, could have done against Trump is irrelevant. He's never going to face Trump if he can't even beat Biden. Get it?

The only reasonable thing for me to do now is focus on the reality that Biden is probably going to be the nominee. It does not matter if I don't like Biden's chances against Trump.. It does not matter if I think Bernie might have had broader appeal in the general. Bernie can't make it to the general because he can't manage to get nominated. That's not my fault, I'm a Warren supporter and I still voted for Bernie anyway. Bernie failed. So now I need to move on.

I am not whining at you - why would I? One vote isn't particularly important either.
Which makes your argument that it is "irrelevant" how I'd vote since I cannot, seem pretty pointless.

The sooner some realize how ridiculous it is to think it matters how people on CFC vote as if they will swing the election, the faster (hopefully) useless antagonism ends.

 

[Gorbles]

Accidentally hit post so pardon this edit
Yes they are valid in the sense that they exist, and my response to you was trying to be polite. If you need clarification, the old saying goes something like,

Young conservatives are heartless. Old liberals are headless.
​

Old liberals are backing Biden. That figures.

Generalisations don't help anybody. I personally believe anyone who supports a number of conservative (in the US or UK) or otherwise right-wing policies has to be heartless to some extent, if not a greater extent. But that's my belief. It doesn't preclude liberals, leftists, centrists, or anybody else from being heartless too, which is the problem with the kind of old saying you put stock in.

Support for progressive policies exists. I wasn't trying to argue more than that. The mess of the Democratic nominee is going to take more than the cycle of the 2020 election to unwrap, if it ever gets unwrapped.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I am not whining at you - why would I? One vote isn't particularly important either.
Which makes your argument that it is "irrelevant" how I'd vote since I cannot, seem pretty pointless.

How you would vote is irrelevant because you don't have a vote... talk about pointless.

 

[Estebonrober]

Yeah corona-chan is pure mana from heaven, politically. It wrecks the market, puts the Trump rallies on hold, and provides an exogenous reason to not hold a Biden rally.

Wait. Are you "politicizing" the corona virus? I was told this is bad by our leadership heir Trump and heir Pence.

 

[Kyriakos]

How you would vote is irrelevant because you don't have a vote... talk about pointless.

Sorry for being a foreigner.
Still, this doesn't prevent me from having a view, and that is what forum posting is to present if one feels like it.

 

[Estebonrober]

How you would vote is irrelevant because you don't have a vote... talk about pointless.

I have to say considering our influence over the entire planet it is fair for any foreigner (and especially those who pay attention) to have opinions on US politics.

 

[Socrates99]

I have to say considering our influence over the entire planet it is fair for any foreigner (and especially those who pay attention) to have opinions on US politics.

+1 Was just going to say this. Considering how much we impose our will on the globe it's really not right to tell a foreigner their opinion isn't welcome.

 

[Tristan_C]

Very much so. Though assuming foreigners are rationally self-interested, they don't have US or my personal interests at heart. So more often than not, it is a good to take stock of foreign public opinion and do the exact opposite. I have been argued-with repeatedly based on appeals to foreign public opinion polling. It's really quality entertainment.

 

[Gorbles]

Very much so. Though assuming foreigners are rationally self-interested, they don't have US or my personal interests at heart. So more often than not, it is a good to take stock of foreign public opinion and do the exact opposite. I have been argued-with repeatedly based on appeals to foreign public opinion polling. It's really quality entertainment.

Please tell me this a joke

 

[Tristan_C]

Well, alright, there some "externality" topics, ranging from dumping plastic in the ocean to MAD, where there is a fervently shared general interest, and globalist perspectives are warranted.

But on recent topics like trade wars, world public opinion holds almost unanimously that the US should elect a pushover to replace our feral president. This sends me an entirely different signal on what to vote for.