2020 US Election (Part One)

[Kyriakos]

@Narz

I'm not continuing this with you, seen as your post starts with a charitable defense of Rogan, and also ends with condemning anyone put off by his bigoted statements as "stupid". That's not a viewpoint that anyone can meaningfully discuss. You believe the best of Rogan, and immediately the worst of any of his unknown detractors. That's dogma.


People that are worse doesn't mean that other people aren't also bad. You're being charitable, which isn't the same thing as what I was talking about r.e. centrists. I still consider your charity massively misplaced, and bear in mind that was just one example. He consistently courts alt-right and right-wing personalities, and while he may reach out to centrist and nominally left-leaning folks (when the best examples I can Google involve Russel Brand and Louis Theroux, I mean, sure, better than ol' Milo, but not what anyone outside of America would call actually leftist), he definitely slants an obvious way.

The point about his audience (that you didn't bring up, but I'm crossing the streams with the point below a bit, hah) is significant. If he has a large audience, it's far more likely that that audience, if swept under a Sanders voting block, would influence the existing voting block more than that block would influence them. Especially if the cultural lynchpin that spreads these views is Rogan himself (not Sanders - importantly).


You don't have to be mean-spirited or hateful to be discriminatory against minorities. In fact, that's what makes airing such views so dangerous - people focus on the tone of the message, rather than it's actual meaning.

Whether or not his audience is massive and his endorsement will actually translate that audience into a Sanders-candidate set of votes remains to be seen. It's one thing to take Rogan on merit. It's another thing to assuming a future positive voting block for Sanders - especially if you're not going to consider any votes lost by the same endorsement.

This isn't purity politics, and it's not like marginalised people are some singular entity that all have the same opinion, but I've seen enough pushback for it to be a perfectly valid stance to take. These are the people you should be courting, not because they're possible maybe Sanders votes. They're actual Sanders votes. Many of them (in my curated social media, anecdotal) will still vote Sanders assuming the opposite is Trump, but that doesn't mean we can't be cautious of Rogan's worse views (and repeated interviewees) impacting Sanders' progressive base.

Rogan himself had claimed (long before this drama) that Biden and other "centrists" had asked him many times to be on his show, but he declined because he only invites (political?) people he respects*. So let's not act like the Biden/Warren/similar people would hate it if Rogan had endorsed them

I think Rogan is funny - something like a well-meaning average american, with a decent intellect and respect for others. Compared to what media people usually are (utter garbage) he comes across as very good in his job.

*which, of course, doesn't mean he doesn't invite people I personally find hideous. Eg Ben Shapiro. Btw, Ben cancelled the show with Rogan, after Rogan endorsed Sanders,

 

[Gorbles]

Where did I say anything about Biden's or Warren's supporters?

The thing, for me, it isn't as much of a worry for, say, Biden's base (or even Warren's base, though I'd see it as concerning along the same lines). It's the fact it's specifically Sanders, who I believe is the best chance anybody vaguely left-of-centre in the US has this upcoming election. In terms of people willing to vote for him, he has the most to lose if his party (I'm not saying Sanders explicitly endorses every single thing his team runs with, at least at the moment it happens - these things are political and often gambles, I get that) goes off trying to widen the vote at the expense of losing the progressive support that took him this far in the first place.

Honestly, I don't really care if you think Rogan's endorsement will help. I disagree, but it's utter speculation at this stage from either of us. I'm more concerned that people don't seem to see any potential harm, however potential that may be.

 

[Kyriakos]

Where did I say anything about Biden's or Warren's supporters?

The thing, for me, it isn't as much of a worry for, say, Biden's base (or even Warren's base, though I'd see it as concerning along the same lines). It's the fact it's specifically Sanders, who I believe is the best chance anybody vaguely left-of-centre in the US has this upcoming election. In terms of people willing to vote for him, he has the most to lose if his party (I'm not saying Sanders explicitly endorses every single thing his team runs with, at least at the moment it happens - these things are political and often gambles, I get that) goes off trying to widen the vote at the expense of losing the progressive support that took him this far in the first place.

Honestly, I don't really care if you think Rogan's endorsement will help. I disagree, but it's utter speculation at this stage from either of us. I'm more concerned that people don't seem to see any potential harm, however potential that may be.

Think of it this way, Rogan is basically James o' Brien, if James o' Brien wasn't a choleric creep

 

[Gorbles]

Think of it this way, Rogan is basically James o' Brien, if James o' Brien wasn't a choleric creep

I think that's fair, but I don't think it translates as positively for me as you maybe want it to

Regardless, no harm, just trying to share my thoughts and happy that I got a couple of fair responses from it.

 

[Narz]

You believe the best of Rogan, and immediately the worst of any of his unknown detractors. That's dogma.

I call em how I see em.

I've listened to a number of his segments and I've heard enuf of the shrill shaming addicts to come to my conclusion.

He consistently courts alt-right and right-wing personalities, and while he may reach out to centrist and nominally left-leaning folks (when the best examples I can Google involve Russel Brand and Louis Theroux

How about Bernie Sanders?

By courts you mean "willing to interview".

I'm also willing to engage w my nutty, hispanic Trump and Alex Jones loving neighbor now and then as he sits on the porch and kills himself w cigarettes. Not very often but I am curious about people and why they are the way they are.

*which, of course, doesn't mean he doesn't invite people I personally find hideous. Eg Ben Shapiro. Btw, Ben cancelled the show with Rogan, after Rogan endorsed Sanders,

Lol good riddance

Supposedly Biden and Warren both wanted to appear on Rogan's show as well.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why should folks unite around losers and choke artists?

QED

You don't have to be mean-spirited or hateful to be discriminatory against minorities.

Well said.

 

[stinkubus]

Can all the hand wringers in here answer me just one simple question?

How can you build a durable, labor-based coalition that is capable of winning multiple elections in the US that doesn't court the votes of people who have some type of prejudice?

This is realpolitik, not an ethics exam. Winning matters. Go look at the 2016 electoral map. The Dems need to flip back some Midwestern states and that's not happening without engaging and mobilizing more than a few people who might have some less than ideal views on race, gender, etc.

If Bernie doesn't compromise on civil rights while in office getting bigots to vote for him is a massive coup and any attempt to do so should be applauded. I watched Bernie's appearance on Rogan's show and it's not like they were cutting up about trans people. Bernie got an almost uninterrupted hour to discuss his platform with an audience that Dems have ignored for a long time and it's why they keep losing heart-breakers like 2000, 2010, and 2016.

 

[Takhisis]

How can you build a durable, labor-based coalition that is capable of winning multiple elections in the US that doesn't court the votes of people who have some type of prejudice?

This will almost sound like one of Mr. Miyagi's teachings, but you have to court the people without courting their prejudice.

 

[Estebonrober]

Can all the hand wringers in here answer me just one simple question?

How can you build a durable, labor-based coalition that is capable of winning multiple elections in the US that doesn't court the votes of people who have some type of prejudice?

This is realpolitik, not an ethics exam. Winning matters. Go look at the 2016 electoral map. The Dems need to flip back some Midwestern states and that's not happening without engaging and mobilizing more than a few people who might have some less than ideal views on race, gender, etc.

If Bernie doesn't compromise on civil rights while in office getting bigots to vote for him is a massive coup and any attempt to do so should be applauded. I watched Bernie's appearance on Rogan's show and it's not like they were cutting up about trans people. Bernie got an almost uninterrupted hour to discuss his platform with an audience that Dems have ignored for a long time and it's why they keep losing heart-breakers like 2000, 2010, and 2016.

We have brought the American bigot a long way in the past 300 years, lets keep the trend going. Reversing the reversal of the past 4 years or so is a big deal.

 

[Berzerker]

corporate Democrats in charge of the party

its damn near enough to vote for Bernie

 

[cardgame]

corporate Democrats in charge of the party

its damn near enough to vote for Bernie

Bernie is the strongest anti-imperialist you could desire, with your vicious anti-warhawk posting streak I'd have thought you'd be voting for him regardless.

 

[Berzerker]

I dont know much about Bernie's foreign policy, the once or twice I saw him talk about Syria/Iraq was not inspiring, just ambiguous blather about leaving in an orderly fashion with Iraqi cooperation yada yada. Only Tulsi has taken a definite stand on pulling out.

 

[cardgame]

Bernie has always been against getting involved... basically everywhere, AFAIK. His record is pretty consistent on that, to the point where the media has been trying to pull a 'gotcha' for his opposition to US intervention in central america in the 80s

This also just came in on my feed @Berzerker https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...nders-declares-it-time-end-israeli-occupation

Denouncing Trump Plan as 'Unacceptable,' Sanders Declares It Is Time to 'End the Israeli Occupation'
"Trump's so-called 'peace deal,'" warned the White House hopeful, "will only perpetuate the conflict, and undermine the security interests of Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians."

 

[Gorbles]

Can all the hand wringers in here answer me just one simple question?

How can you build a durable, labor-based coalition that is capable of winning multiple elections in the US that doesn't court the votes of people who have some type of prejudice?

This is realpolitik, not an ethics exam. Winning matters. Go look at the 2016 electoral map. The Dems need to flip back some Midwestern states and that's not happening without engaging and mobilizing more than a few people who might have some less than ideal views on race, gender, etc.

If Bernie doesn't compromise on civil rights while in office getting bigots to vote for him is a massive coup and any attempt to do so should be applauded. I watched Bernie's appearance on Rogan's show and it's not like they were cutting up about trans people. Bernie got an almost uninterrupted hour to discuss his platform with an audience that Dems have ignored for a long time and it's why they keep losing heart-breakers like 2000, 2010, and 2016.

a) what Takhisis said, and
b) if you're playing down concerns from marginalised minorities as "hand-wringing", I'm not sure there's a reasonable argument that can convince you of the danger of bringing more problematic voters under Sanders' progressive umbrella. I mean, it's fine if you don't think Sanders should be progressive (I disagree, but at least that's logical). It's fine if you think that any potential harm to minorities as a result of bridging the gap with bigoted people is worth the potential benefit (again, I disagree, but if that's what you find acceptable, just say so). All I want is the concerns to be taken seriously.

Winning absolutely matters. But so does recognising the cost of any gambits enacted for the sake of winning. The ends do not justify the means; they incorporate the means. Otherwise there's no moral platform, no sense of progressivism worth fighting for. It's just "we're better than the other candidate", which is not something that's unique to Sanders outside of some vaguely socialist ideals that will invariably get watered down by the incredibly anti-anything-leftist nature of both American politics but also everyday voters.

I wouldn't mind "winning matters" nearly as much if it didn't come, in pretty much every post, with either a defense of Rogan's views (why? You don't need to in order to argue the increase in voter base) and / or a dismissal of the actual concerns raised. You don't have to do either of those things in order to emphasise the need for the Republicans to lose this election.

 

[Zardnaar]

a) what Takhisis said, and
b) if you're playing down concerns from marginalised minorities as "hand-wringing", I'm not sure there's a reasonable argument that can convince you of the danger of bringing more problematic voters under Sanders' progressive umbrella. I mean, it's fine if you don't think Sanders should be progressive (I disagree, but at least that's logical). It's fine if you think that any potential harm to minorities as a result of bridging the gap with bigoted people is worth the potential benefit (again, I disagree, but if that's what you find acceptable, just say so). All I want is the concerns to be taken seriously.

Winning absolutely matters. But so does recognising the cost of any gambits enacted for the sake of winning. The ends do not justify the means; they incorporate the means. Otherwise there's no moral platform, no sense of progressivism worth fighting for. It's just "we're better than the other candidate", which is not something that's unique to Sanders outside of some vaguely socialist ideals that will invariably get watered down by the incredibly anti-anything-leftist nature of both American politics but also everyday voters.

I wouldn't mind "winning matters" nearly as much if it didn't come, in pretty much every post, with either a defense of Rogan's views (why? You don't need to in order to argue the increase in voter base) and / or a dismissal of the actual concerns raised. You don't have to do either of those things in order to emphasise the need for the Republicans to lose this election.

Big difference between a bigot and not being woke.
Read an article earlier in the day and around 70-80% of people are sick of PC culture, cancel culture and accusations etc. Numbers were over 70% of minorities as well so even they're sick of it.

So the ones doing it are actually undermining their own goals. Not only losing the middle but a good chunk of the left as well.

Far left making all the noise probably only make up 5-10% of the population.

People don't like being lectured, preached at and insulted as it turns out. Who would have thunk it.

See Warren's idiotic sexist attack on Sanders.

 

[stinkubus]

a) what Takhisis said, and
b) if you're playing down concerns from marginalised minorities as "hand-wringing", I'm not sure there's a reasonable argument that can convince you of the danger of bringing more problematic voters under Sanders' progressive umbrella. I mean, it's fine if you don't think Sanders should be progressive (I disagree, but at least that's logical). It's fine if you think that any potential harm to minorities as a result of bridging the gap with bigoted people is worth the potential benefit (again, I disagree, but if that's what you find acceptable, just say so). All I want is the concerns to be taken seriously.

Winning absolutely matters. But so does recognising the cost of any gambits enacted for the sake of winning. The ends do not justify the means; they incorporate the means. Otherwise there's no moral platform, no sense of progressivism worth fighting for. It's just "we're better than the other candidate", which is not something that's unique to Sanders outside of some vaguely socialist ideals that will invariably get watered down by the incredibly anti-anything-leftist nature of both American politics but also everyday voters.

I wouldn't mind "winning matters" nearly as much if it didn't come, in pretty much every post, with either a defense of Rogan's views (why? You don't need to in order to argue the increase in voter base) and / or a dismissal of the actual concerns raised. You don't have to do either of those things in order to emphasise the need for the Republicans to lose this election.

I didn't defend Rogan's views. You made that up. I didn't say the ends justify the means. You made that up. If I thought a Sanders administration wouldn't stay 100% committed to civil rights I wouldn't have made my post.

edit - I'm going to add one last point before I go to work: Bernie Sanders appearing on the Joe Rogan Experience, and Rogan's later wishy-washy "endorsement" does not, in and of itself, cause any harm to any minorities.

 

[Gorbles]

I didn't defend Rogan's views. You made that up. I didn't say the ends justify the means. You made that up. If I thought a Sanders administration wouldn't stay 100% committed to civil rights I wouldn't have made my post.

I didn't say you did defend Rogan's views. If I have to specify the generic "you" in every post I'm going to eat a hat, because as someone relatively up on English linguistics every time I go full grammar nerd people don't like that either. You're (as in you, personally, are) not taking what I say in good faith. My exact statement was that the positive aspect of the endorsement (in the theoretical future it actually helps Sanders win) always seems to come with either an unnecessary defense of Rogan and / or a dismissal of concerns as something like "hand-wringing". You were the latter.

As for the ends justify the means, I'm sorry, but what else does "winning matters" mean? You even bolded it for emphasis. You even invoked the incredibly trite comparison to purity politics by saying this wasn't an "ethics exam". What reasonable interpretation should I make, except that winning matters more than any harm done to minorities in the process?

You believe a Sanders administration would stay committed to civil rights - I respect that. I do. All I want for you to consider, in this thread, when Rogan's endorsements aren't even votes yet (it's a completely theoretical positive at this stage), is the possibility that it might not, and that might be because of the influence of bringing people who think bigotry is okay, or somehow related to "cancel culture", or whatever generic anti-leftist point Zardnaar was trying to make was.

 

[Ironsided]

*snip*

corporate Democrats in charge of the party

its damn near enough to vote for Bernie

Judging by theses DNC nominations (and the last 30 years prior) “moderate” democrats don’t want democrats (or even liberals) - they want the old republican party back.

Anyway, the Rogan semi-endorsement for Bernie is great news. Any working class to the movement should be warmly welcome, warts and all. Flow with the Dao, read Dostoyevsky, reflect in the mirror, accept this current DNC, vote blue no matter who, and then throw your stones at your perceived bigotry and injustice of a podcast host and his audience (if you still have any).

Also, I recommend the episode with Bernie (and the one with Brian Cox – because gentleman science scholar and rugged street smarts is a great combination).

 

[Zardnaar]

I didn't say you did defend Rogan's views. If I have to specify the generic "you" in every post I'm going to eat a hat, because as someone relatively up on English linguistics every time I go full grammar nerd people don't like that either. You're (as in you, personally, are) not taking what I say in good faith. My exact statement was that the positive aspect of the endorsement (in the theoretical future it actually helps Sanders win) always seems to come with either an unnecessary defense of Rogan and / or a dismissal of concerns as something like "hand-wringing". You were the latter.

As for the ends justify the means, I'm sorry, but what else does "winning matters" mean? You even bolded it for emphasis. You even invoked the incredibly trite comparison to purity politics by saying this wasn't an "ethics exam". What reasonable interpretation should I make, except that winning matters more than any harm done to minorities in the process?

You believe a Sanders administration would stay committed to civil rights - I respect that. I do. All I want for you to consider, in this thread, when Rogan's endorsements aren't even votes yet (it's a completely theoretical positive at this stage), is the possibility that it might not, and that might be because of the influence of bringing people who think bigotry is okay, or somehow related to "cancel culture", or whatever generic anti-leftist point Zardnaar was trying to make was.

The hard left here has a tendency to strawmanning and putting words in people's mouths.

Moderator Action: Unsourced accusations about political affiliations are not appreciated at CFC. ~ Arakhor

Hell I live in a way more liberal country and some if the demands won't fly here let alone the US or anywhere in the world.

Thing with outrage is you can't sustain it long term. People get tired of it. Or it's the old cry wolf scenario.

 

[amadeus]

This is realpolitik, not an ethics exam. Winning matters. Go look at the 2016 electoral map. The Dems need to flip back some Midwestern states and that's not happening without engaging and mobilizing more than a few people who might have some less than ideal views on race, gender, etc.

The problem for somebody like Sanders is, even if they are palatable to the public in a general election, they still need to win their party’s nomination first.

In the case the Democrats, that means building a coalition strong enough to have enough delegates at the convention.

A few of these candidates have moved to bolster their subpar percentages by shifting to the radical social left, much to their own demise; I’m talking specifically about Bob O’Rourke who went full confiscation on gun control after the more photogenic Pete Buttigieg passed him in the polls. O’Rourke had been, until this point, the supposed second coming of John F. Kennedy to the Democrats. Now who’s eating dirt again?

Overall, I’m not disagreeing with you in principle, just that there are arguably far more difficulties in building a nomination coalition within the Democrats. To be fair, in the early stages of the GOP nomination in 2015, I initially wrote Trump off as running to promote his “brand” but he was ultimately able to eliminate any threats to his path to the nomination. Regardless of intraparty dynamics, Sanders totally lacks the charisma of a Trump and is in my opinion once again headed for a silver medal behind Joe Biden.