Big Donors are already frustrated and that's why we see a lot of these opinion pieces, but I don't think that relates to the majority of voters.
Official Bernie Sanders HQ: Not Me, Us!
- Thread starter Berniewood Hogan
- Start date
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
Oh OK, I don't agree but that's actually possible. But really he needs to do what the person close to him said he was going to do. Sit out the primary, wait for a winner and help the party unite around that candidate. Interjecting now is unnecessary and really his approach has been rejected by the electorate by electing Trump. Let shyt play out on its own.He's speaking broad. The main critique was that the issue isn't that people have proposed something radical enough.
With that said, Castro - - decriminalization at the border.
AOC - - the push for abolishing ICE.
Yang - - UBI
Beto - - gun buyback
Warren - - breaking up Facebook and Amazon
Williamson - - reparations
Sanders - - Abolishing the electoral college
Multiple candidates - - Supreme Court packing
Tulsi - -
Warren dipped after trying to devise a way that the middle class wouldn't have to pay more for M4A.
Pete at the same time rose while pushing his "M4A" that's incremental.
We saw similar backlash after the first debate when candidates offered up healthcare for illegal immigrants as well as decriminalization of border crossings.
We saw Beto tank out as he went more activist on guns and immigration.
I dont particularly agree that these are even bad policy position s, but it does show examples of his "warning" having value.
I also understand the gravitation towards Warren and Sanders because they are the front runners, but like I said UBI, MMT, and ADOS reparations are probably more radical ideas even though they're also not particularly bad policy either.
storyteller
Veteran
That's literally my point fam. You were out here like "yall ain't down for the civil war" or some dumb shyt. Nah...no one even thinks that's a requirement. Don't fall for those oversimplifications. The Revolution talk is Movement talk which is to say mobilizing voters.
You're a Warren supporter right? Do you think M4A is the only policy that is facing difficult political math in her platform? Have you slept through all of the attacks about her economic rhetoric? I swear the Clinton to Warren pipeline loves to treat everything else as pie in the sky without any self-awareness. The reason everyone characterized this as a rebuke of both Bernie and Warren is that they BOTH have difficult political straits to navigate and BOTH have been considered radically left to their counterparts in the race. Use your big boy brain and apply Obama's comments to everything, not just the one policy you find convenient to take swipes at from the safety of Warren's new Public Option midway point stance.
Here's the problem...literally everybody has come up with the conclusion that it was a rebuke of Warren and Sanders. No one has argued against that except for you. I'm glad you're willing to die on that hill but the "you're all playing victims" crap and then "you're all reaching" stuff could at least use one example of a professional political commentator that took his comments to mean something else. Even you haven't actually done that, you've just tried to justify it.
Basically your entire approach to the subject has been "well I agree with him, so it's not a rebuke like everybody keeps saying it is" as opposed to "which candidates does this rhetoric have potential to hurt and which ones might it help...whose positions do these comments most closely align with?"
Again, Obama in entitled to have his opinions, but if him merely opining these thoughts will shift the field then the initial premise itself fails.
Your position is:
- People are gravitating towards Sanders and Warren as a repudiation of Obama's policies
- Then Obama speaks out against them
- Now people are following Obama again????
Do you not see how illogical that is?
Here's the thing, you've zeroed in on one line and put blinders on to the broader discussion. Cut through the last few pages and I don't think anyone has commented on the support for Sanders and Warren being a repudiation of Obama Policies. The only sentiment being expressed is that he's made comments that are already seen as attacks on certain candidates. People gravitate to Sanders and Warren because they have big ideas, full stop. We don't need to squeeze Obama into the conversation about why that's happening.
So the "Then" isn't a "Then." It's just "Obama issued a rebuke of progressive politics." So here's the logic...Obama has issued comments that aim to push progressives to take a more moderate approach. Therefore his comments are harmful to candidates that are taking a more progressive approach and not a moderate one. Since Warren and Bernie are the most progressive candidates in the race platform-wise, those detrimental comments look like a rebuke of Warren and Bernie. Even if not, they have the same detrimental effect of treating Warren and Bernie as too focused on purity to compromise.
You even fell for it with the one candidate that you don't follow closely. Over here talking about getting in the streets to tear down the system. But you didn't even apply this critique to Warren because you know her well enough to know better. The concern here is for people that aren't as familiar with her or Bernie, they'll come away conflating the two of them with this bizarro narrative that everything must be destroyed and rebuilt.
"Now people are following Obama again?" I'm kinda surprised you don't believe this. Do you really think Joe Biden is the front runner without Obama's halo effect? I disagree with that.
No one has said Obama said those things with the goal of helping Biden. Again, the comment is that he rebuked progressives. Who he helps isn't one candidate, he helps a more moderate mindset period.
The only way your theory works is by disregarding your fundamental premise that people are drawn to leftist candidates because they were unhappy with Obama and his policies.
Otherwise, you're saying the election is nothing more than a cult of personality.
I'ma need you to find this premise being said by me anywhere. It seems to have come from Obama's camp if anywhere. The fundamental premise is a lot more simple to follow:
Obama's comments hurt a more progressive approach to politics.
If you want to refute that or dance around it be my guest, but at least argue with the right points. Otherwise you're just caping in bad faith.
Last edited:
And now you're doing what you're a accusing me of here by cherry picking.
Obama stated that if you run for president your purpose should be to win. Further if you do win you should be able to govern affectively. That's a shot at Trump.
It's also a warning for candidates and those who back candidates that if they are running for higher office and serious about it you are going to need a broad coalition of supporters especially if you intend to win.
Therefore, attempting to push the most radical ideas may fulfill your own indulges and those of your backers it isn't particularly a path to success.
Tldr his message came across as there is a place to push for radical change and there's also a place to be more pragmatic. Failing to grasp that idea and thus falling for purity politics ultimately sets you up to fail.
I posted a list of radical views that candidates have who aren't just Warren and Sanders and I could do more if I took the time to search them out, but the point remains, just because his point applies to Warren and Sanders doesn't mean it doesn't also apply to others - - something you refuse to accept.
people dont know enough about the insurance industry to say bar private insurance. it doesnt mean when you talk to them about healthcare you can't figure out thats exactly what they want. there's a difference. reparations, not so much since its only due to ADOS and america is still mostly white.
abolishing ICe is on the fence since most dont really know what their purpose is to begin with.
a lot of people would be for banning guns and a lot wouldnt be for it.
Obama said a lot of Democrats don't want to tear down the system.
I then said, he's right people aren't actively trying to tear down the system.
If people aren't taking to the streets in protest then they really aren't trying to tear down the system.
They're just participating in the natural ebb and flow of democracy.
If Obama wanted to tip the scale he'd just endorse a primary candidate. The fact is he didn't in 2016 and he hasn't going into 2020.
If your position is so flimsy that Obama pointing out the obvious tips the scales you didn't have a strong position in the first place.
I'm a Warren supporter, but I'm not naive enough to be smug about her chances or Bernie's chances of winning the nomination and that's just based solely on recent election results and current polling.
There's a reason why Biden has been the front runner since he announced, Mayor Pete has seen a surge, and the majority of gains have been moderates.
But I'll let y'all get back to your circle jerk.
The main reason why Biden and the moderates poll so well is because the entire mainstream media is in the corner for that style of governing. when that is the case knowing most people do not watch cspan, nor they look for independent news for their news. the only thing they know is, i saw biden standing next to obama and all i know is the rest of these moderate types are saying what it looks like MSNBC/CNN is saying. The regular joes are easy sheep to herd in any direction you like if you have the ability to market towards them all day and all night like a MSNBC, CNN, FOX NEWS.
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
I agree, open borders and reparations are strategically bad things to run on but as a policy I'm down.
PoorAndDangerous
Superstar
edit: posted in wrong thread
That's your opinion. You're entitled to it.
I agree with you.
But these conversations remind me of why kanban is popular.
Sweeping changes often gain the most resistance because they look to uncertainty and fear. Not because it's warranted.
storyteller
Veteran
No I'm saying you're confused and out of your depth when you claim to know what Bernie supporters think. Talking about civil wars and confused about us thinking M4A is something it's not. You don't know shyt about Bernie supporters and you've built up strawmen to argue against. That's probably why you cut everything out that actually speaks to what the real arguments are...way harder to argue with those points rather than just argue in bad faith.
I did accuse you of cherry picking before though when you cut a paragraph so that the part that blatantly says, "Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him" while quoting the first half of that paragraph. You did the same thing to my post...so I guess that's just how you move. Cut out anything inconvenient and then whine when you get called on it.
You cut out these sections where I alluded to Obama's comments applying to progressive policy at large...
"No one has said Obama said those things with the goal of helping Biden. Again, the comment is that he rebuked progressives. Who he helps isn't one candidate, he helps a more moderate mindset period."
And this
"I'ma need you to find this premise being said by me anywhere. It seems to have come from Obama's camp if anywhere. The fundamental premise is a lot more simple to follow:
Obama's comments hurt a more progressive approach to politics.
If you want to refute that or dance around it be my guest, but at least argue with the right points. Otherwise you're just caping in bad faith."
Obviously, you could take the statement and cherry pick one policy per candidate to claim it works against. But there are only a handful of platforms that it addresses in their entirety. That's Warren, Bernie, Yang and Tulsi. Only two of those candidates actually have a chance though. Hence why EVERYONE but you believes that it was aimed their way. But you've done enough arguing in bad faith and yes, cherry picking, that I'm good to call this a day.
its not an opinion. its a fact. some things are facts and some are opinions.
opinion, Pete speaks well.
facts: Pete doesnt have any real substance when he speaks.
you see the difference?
FACTS: The corporate media will put out shows and put out narratives to promote their own well being not the peoples.
FACTS: The media can and has convinced mass amounts of people to think a certain way about certain people or certain things.
These "sweeping" changes are not new. Thats the big difference here. What bernie is proposing has been done before either right here in the US of A or around the globe. these things are tried and true. These are not guestimates and estimates about what we THINK or PRAY will work. we know they work. This is how you know the ONLY reason we are not pushing in that direction faster is due to the mass media paid for by the ultra rich trying to slow that progress down.
We're playing robin hood. time to go get our money back. they got it, and they wont give it back nicely. so we have to take it back via new rules and regulations. the same way they stole it from us in the first place.
Bernie = FDR + Universal Healthcare. no more and no less. we've done this before and the world has Universal Healthcare. non of these things are rocket science nor are they scary or should be scary. we did super high taxes on the rich and corporations, we did big unions, we did democratic socialism before. shoot even a Yang UBI aint no more than welfare. and i'm not just talking about individual's welfare. i'm talking about corporate welfare too. lets look at the farming industry, how much welfare has the government given to the them over the past few decades?
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
Tulsi is talking about pulling out the Middle East entirely, ending war adventures, and directly engaging with dictators and authoritarians.
But people think that's not radical?
But people think that's not radical?