Bernie Sanders drops out of Presidential Race

[Foxi4]

@notimp, you're melting down. Take a good look at what you're posting. @Waygeek already took a step back from the argument and agreed to drop it, meanwhile you keep on prodding. One more outburst and I'll have to penalise you, and I don't like doing that. You two can just agree to disagree and move on, it's not about winning, it's about exchanging ideas. If you can't take the heat, you'll get kicked out of the kitchen - final warning.

 

[notimp]

I'm not dropping the argument, that charity is less preferable than a working state run social system.


Also from what else should I take a step back? From melting down?

From my computer?

From referencing philosophy and social studies? Sigh.

That intervention helped...

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not dropping the argument, that charity is less preferable than a working state run social system.


Also from what else should I take a step back? From melting down?

From my computer?

From referencing philosophy and social studies? Sigh.

That intervention helped...

This is a thread about Bernie's campaign. Unless you have something to say about that, you can take a break now.

 

[notimp]

Sanders approach on preferring a more social concept on societal safety nets is structurally correct, if you want societies that dont rely on charitywork - if anything at all goes wrong.

(Like checks in the mail your president insists on printing his name on.)

Charitywork in itself leads to a higher propensity of people being stuck in detrimental positions for longer (higher propensity of generational poverty in the US - optimizes to combat symptoms, not causes).


Insisting that more charitywork and 'emotional attentiveness' (empathy) is needed to better a failing social safety system in the european union (which by most accounts isnt structurally failing), is wrong.

Most of this is argued philosophically, but studies seem to indicate as much, when comparing the US with the EU.

Sanders wants a concept of society thats more like those of european states.

Sorry I dind't manage to get this across without signaling mental breakdown to you. But I wanted to get away from the personal accusations, and wasnt in the best state of mind, after none of the actual arguments where even considered for several pages of the exchange.

Thank you for letting me state this and not shutting down the thread earlier.

(edit: Oh, and the checks from the government example is wrong as well, because thats state spending. Great. )

 

[Foxi4]

Sorry I dind't manage to get this across without signaling mental breakdown to you.

Ain't that the truth, buddy.

 

[notimp]

Good. Picked myself up again. (Wasnt so fun either hearing the 'insane babble' line twice.)

 

[FAST6191]

So let me get this straight

DNC
2016. By a quirk of the rules, that you know and play to, you gain majority support but lose the overall contest. Also lose control of a branch (though gain it back later)
Fair enough. Lick your wounds, prepare for round 2. Not the worst starting position for a political party by any means. Your party has diverged over the decades but even the crazy wing of your party is not likely to stay home or shoot themselves in the foot leaving you free to go for the swing votes.
Apparently one of the reasons for the loss was your chosen candidate was disagreeable and the other guy... even his most ardent supporters mostly went with "he is my president now so I will see what happens, don't care what happened before", and you know you can show him saying and doing some utter bollocks without even provoking him (which you can also do safely and predictably enough). I am still not sure how the candidate was so disagreeable (she seemed like a boring bog standard politico) but that matters little as it is what it is and you can use that, assuming you can figure out why that might be which should not be too hard as everybody seems ready to share opinions these days.
Your job in this case is to note and/or highlight the failures of the administration (not hard) and find in your little book of senators, representatives, possibly high ranking judges, governors and maybe mayors of big cities a candidate under say 50 that will serve as bog standard politico unlikely to offend anybody, and possibly even be broadly agreeable to those in the states you lost or could plausibly win (most of your people under 50 probably have a nice computerised list of all they have said and voted for which makes this even easier).

Nobody outside of the state they do things in/for has ever heard of any candidate before so that is OK. Boost said candidate(s) on the national, and possibly international stage. Make them a quasi ambassador for some kind of purpose or project.

Instead you screech, act like morons on several occasions, depart in many cases from ideals of your country, elevate the crazy wing of your party (or at least fail to contain them or show them as fools yourself), call for utter nonsense, frequently stymie any progress on agreeable policy to do said nonsense, tell stupid tales that anybody with a camera can disprove, flub an investigation/"prosecution" that any law student given a night to study is likely to say would be a tricky ask even under favourable conditions (which you do not have), screech some more, generally act like fools and finally select a senile old duffer, with his closest apparent competition being someone that is unlikely to gain either those swing votes or see turnout high enough to matter?

And they wonder why people say politicians could not organise a piss up in a brewery. If I were more cynical I would note that third parties are often funded in secret by the opposite political party to them so as to spoiler effect their opponents, here though I wonder if they were not outright infiltrated.

If Biden is basically assumed to drop dead at the finish line (never mind likely to be around to do the seemingly important second term, likely to be caught with his hand up a little girl's skirt before then if not) do we know who his running mate is that will take up the mantle/be the actual candidate?

 

[notimp]

Too harsh. (I know, coming from me.. )

Also names would help. First up people didnt like Hillary interestingly enough for being career oriented early on (when she was still a 'governors wife'), this - over time lead to at least a partial cynicism towards populist public values on her part, which still kind of projects and in addition to that many people still remembered her in the old image. That was an issue for her campaign early on - and never quite went away. (People didn't perceive her as personable - the end.) You can watch the Hulu documentary and you get that.

Impeachment was risky, internally it was a struggle between the main wings of the democratic party. Oddly enough it seems to have helped internationally. Perception of the US as a hole changed at least a significant bit (in western europe at least). Could have lead to something, but always was unlikely to.

Also it was ended by the republicans early enough that it seems unlikely that they would make it a topic of debate during the election campaign).

Screeching in the primaries likely also will be forgotten, come campaign time - in the end most pundits were generally surprised how well the 'unifying' play went. That was most what was talked about in the end. (This forum is not representative. )

You go with Biden, because he hits the demographics that you need well. (Elderly voters, racial minorities. Women as a vice presidential candidate ('progressive'?).) And you bet your house on him not flabbing (which still can be accomplished (media training ) ) in a very favorable election climate. (Corona crisis hasnt raised the presidents approval ratings like expected (wonder why.. )).

Targeted voter profiles are only for mobilization of certain demographics (and mostly for them not to leave the house to vote, because its easier than changing their opinion). This is almost independant of candidate, because you can custom craft the messaging.

The groping scandal shouldnt be much of a problem with the older demographic, and in the end never was with President Clinton either - politically thats a tiny thing that surfaced past background checks, repubicans cant profit too much on it either (with a candidate like that). Also shouldnt be a predictor for his future behavior, and even if - you can manage that.

Second term - one step after the other.

Candidates that poll well, dont grow on trees.

Did I forget something?

Most of the impressions you mentioned shouldnt matter come campaign start. Other things we currently dont know of will. Oh, and the presidents handling of the crisis, of course.

Thats how I see it.

Some of the things that are currently being talked about at as new potential deciding factors: Lower voter participation due to the epidemic. Public formats being different due to a lack of audiences (*meh*), economy (of course).

Edit: Oh, and Trump literally saying every possible thing. (Changing 'what should be done' in the crisis very, very frequently - so in the end you have soundbites for everything.) (Latest quote: 'The president should have all the authority' followed by 'the governors have the authority to end or prolong measures' the next day (that was caused by states forming alliances within themselves.))

Also still getting over my 'mental breakdown' so what do I know... Its speculative anyhow. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Waygeek]

If Biden is basically assumed to drop dead at the finish line (never mind likely to be around to do the seemingly important second term, likely to be caught with his hand up a little girl's skirt before then if not) do we know who his running mate is that will take up the mantle/be the actual candidate?

Best case scenario is Biden does just this on his first night as president, he nosebleeds himself to death, and his VP Warren becomes president for the next 4. Hopefully 8. Then AOC is up.

 

[FAST6191]

Too harsh. (I know, coming from me.. )

Also names would help.

You go with Biden, because he hits the demographics that you need well. (Elderly voters, racial minorities. Women as a vice presidential candidate ('progressive'?).) And you bet your house on him not flabbing (which still can be accomplished (media training ) ) in a very favorable election climate. (Corona crisis hasnt raised the presidents approval ratings like expected (wonder why.. )).



Candidates that poll well, dont grow on trees.

No names was a deliberate choice. Abstracted away from any names it does put things into a clearer perspective.

Is he likely to sway the elderly which have either a state or old person bent? Likewise while various people made a big song and dance about black guys voting for one Mr Trump is it still not generally assumed? Is the "real communism has never been tried" group likely to stay home or vote opposite because someone's VP has a set of testicles? Do the centrists/swing voters care there either?

As for candidates that poll well. As a general rule someone might have heard of a governor or mayor if they follow things and most politicos, or the lawyers that become them, generally keep their noses clean. To that end I doubt it is that hard to find a viable candidate.

Best case scenario is Biden does just this on his first night as president, he nosebleeds himself to death, and his VP Warren becomes president for the next 4. Hopefully 8. Then AOC is up.

You would really pick Miss Cortez to lead the country? I mean I know some picked one Mr Trump as a "let's just see how silly this can get" but that is a bold choice.

 

[Waygeek]

You would really pick Miss Cortez to lead the country? I mean I know some picked one Mr Trump as a "let's just see how silly this can get" but that is a bold choice.

Yeah man picking a president who prioritizes people over big business is a pretty weird choice.

 

[FAST6191]

Yeah man picking a president who prioritizes people over big business is a pretty weird choice.

Is that a defining trait? The amount of utter bollocks I have heard come out of her mouth and policies opted for/drawn up, as well as the silly games...
I am all for giving the finger to businesses and forcing to them to work for their money but reading that green new deal stuff (much less the "incorrect" version that "leaked"), her reasoning for the Amazon stuff, that nonsense at the border detainment place, her being someone that seemingly takes the oppression Olympics as cold hard fact and one of the pressing issues of our times... I think I would sooner vote for an uber religious "I can't wait for the end of the world and hope it happens before I die" type.

 

[Foxi4]

AOC is barely qualified to be a barista, let alone a president. I have no idea how she was even elected, she's economically illiterate and an embarrassment to her office. As for Biden, I don't think he'll pose much resistance against Trump. Even if Biden takes his ginkgo biloba going forward and remembers his name, his dentures and most importantly, to even show up to the debates, Donald will run circles around him on the stage. Joe can barely string two words into a sentence, without a teleprompter the poor old man is lost. Four more years seems to be a likely scenario to me, regardless of the result of the popular vote, but we'll see how things go in November. Either way, it's going to be hilarious and I can't wait.

 

[notimp]

Biden has been on tape recently trying to convince donors, by defining his base as white high school educated working class voters. So all the demographics above are just freebies. Thats the important one. (At least when trying to convince donors.) Weither thats true (support base), we'll find out. (Thats his case of why he should be the nominee.)

(src: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV45H08VmHc again, dont watch this source (The Hill) for the content of the commentary (more often than not sensationalistic for little/no reason))


edit: But in this case - watch that clip. There is an attack ad against Biden (Biden and China) in there thats so wrong argumentatively (republicans like free trade ), but thats so filled with symbolism and music cues, that holy smokes, ... it works. (Also according to that attack ad china stole your Covid-19 protective equipment? (No, they didn't. ))

 

[notimp]

I used a metaphor in class and someone reported me:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/the-dreaded-sjw.558739/page-2#post-9018747

 

[Waygeek]

Is that a defining trait?

Sure is.

The amount of utter bollocks I have heard come out of her mouth

Got some specific examples for us chief? Ought to be good.

AOC is barely qualified to be a barista, let alone a president.

America has had an actor for a president. Currently has a sexual assaulting reality tv star for a president. His 'business accumen' is strictly down to several million loans from daddy.

There are more qualities required of a leader than being an economist. Most would argue that's not even a pre-requisite. Trudeau for instance is known to be very weak economically.

Trump also heavily relies on teleprompters if he wants cohesive sentences, otherwise he talks in four word catchphrases that rile up crowds with IQ's in the double digits, @Foxi4.

I used a metaphor in class and someone reported me:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/the-dreaded-sjw.558739/page-2#post-9018747

*snip!*

MLK, Malcom X, Ghandi, Rosa Parks, Rage Against the Machine, Noam Chomsky, damn them 'sjws'.

What would you want with a just society anyway.

*snip!*

 

[Foxi4]

There are more qualities required of a leader than being an economist. Most would argue that's not even a pre-requisite. Trudeau for instance is known to be very weak economically.

Trump also heavily relies on teleprompters if he wants cohesive sentences, otherwise he talks in four word catchphrases that rile up crowds with IQ's in the double digits, @Foxi4.

Economic acumen is not a prerequisite, however it is a desirable quality. Don't worry, AOC has displayed other flavours of stupidity as well, like her intent on dismantling ICE and the DHS, her honest belief that the world will end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and other various blunders. She actually thinks that large swathes of Americans work two jobs and 80-hour work weeks to make ends meet when in reality nothing is further from the truth. Time after time I see her talking with her foot firmly in her mouth because her policy prescriptions are based on her "feelings" and not on facts or statistics.

While we're on the subject of Justin "Blackface" Trudeau, he's also a horrible PM, and a weak leader who inspires zero confidence, so mentioning him doesn't really support your point. He's been a starlet in many cringe compilations, particularly his "hilarious" peoplekind quip. The man is full of self-loathing.

As for Trump, at least his four-word comebacks are funny, which is more than I can say about the other two politicians - they're just sad. The difference here is that Trump's shortcomings are priced into the package - we're not shocked when he says that he can walk down 5th Avenue, shoot someone and get away with it, or that he can grab'em by the the *cough cough*, because we expected that of him from the get-go. We *already know* that's the kind of guy he is, so there's no moment where the Scooby gang is taking the mask off the villain and it turns out to be Old Man Withers - Trump wears his flaws on his sleeve. "Trump scandals" don't severely affect his approval rating specifically because he doesn't sell himself as something he's not - he's a showman, and he runs a show. The same cannot be said about left-wing pundits and politicians who pretend to be holier than thou experts when in reality they often have no clue what they're talking about and they're just trying to rile up their base with some low-hanging fruit.

 

[FAST6191]

[defining trait]Sure is.

Got some specific examples for us chief? Ought to be good.

Perhaps a rephrase. It is a trait unique to her? I see plenty of politicos willing to take companies to task and stand up for people. I find it a positive one but it hardly outweighs the negatives. Even when she did I am not entirely sure of the reasoning behind it either -- Amazon most likely were taking the piss but the comments about subsidies while the subways crumble... it was not like it was a loan or revenue being directed towards them as much as a hypothetical income, to say nothing of spend money to make money.

Chatting bollocks then.
I would again refer to the green new deal thing that came out of her camp. If it was green it was only a token/smokescreen.

I generally find the notion that the minorities are treated worse because of being a minority (be this the gays, the womens (not sure how that works but OK), those with variously greater amounts of melanin and very curiously some religious types seem to have wedged themselves in there despite that nominally being a choice) to be laughable and she seems to have bought into that in a big way, opting for policy and amendments to policy (or blocking because of lack of). That alone would kill any chances of me wanting to vote for her.

Print more money to pay for things. Which as a supposed economist is a rather bold statement. Technically they are right now I suppose but still does not make it a good idea (all the encouragement to save and you essentially go and tax them).

The attempted exclusion of press from public events, and various other things that would likely trouble the first amendment.

The nonsense at the border detention facilities. I find that to be disingenuous at best and displaying a lack of fundamental logic at worst.

This could go on.

I have no idea how she was even elected

Primarying.
Your party picks their choices for candidate in elections nobody really cares about, pick one where you and a few thousand of your mates can shuffle you in (also would not hurt if the incumbent was unpopular). Win the vote in a location with a massive margin in the round of votes that ultimately elect them and you get swept in by default by people doing the party loyalty thing.
It has been popular for years, you have variations on the theme going back to the Romans and Greeks, though in the US the democrats only got hit with it more recently (usually it was a right wing candidate being shuffled off by a further right wing one).

 

[Waygeek]

Trudeau is not a president.

Good job skating over the fact that the US can have, and has had, presidents from any walk of life.

Trump is incredibly unfunny. He has not an ounce of wit in his body. He is the anti-Oscar Wilde.

And let's not bring up cringe compilations, Trump is prime fodder for those.

"Trump wears his flaws on his sleeve."

lmfao no, he's the single most defensive and thin skinned person on the planet. He has literally never acknowledged fault.

 

[Foxi4]

Perhaps a rephrase. It is a trait unique to her? I see plenty of politicos willing to take companies to task and stand up for people. I find it a positive one but it hardly outweighs the negatives. Even when she did I am not entirely sure of the reasoning behind it either -- Amazon most likely were taking the piss but the comments about subsidies while the subways crumble... it was not like it was a loan or revenue being directed towards them as much as a hypothetical income, to say nothing of spend money to make money.

Chatting bollocks then.
I would again refer to the green new deal thing that came out of her camp. If it was green it was only a token/smokescreen.

I generally find the notion that the minorities are treated worse because of being a minority (be this the gays, the womens (not sure how that works but OK), those with variously greater amounts of melanin and very curiously some religious types seem to have wedged themselves in there despite that nominally being a choice) to be laughable and she seems to have bought into that in a big way, opting for policy and amendments to policy (or blocking because of lack of). That alone would kill any chances of me wanting to vote for her.

Print more money to pay for things. Which as a supposed economist is a rather bold statement. Technically they are right now I suppose but still does not make it a good idea (all the encouragement to save and you essentially go and tax them).

The attempted exclusion of press from public events, and various other things that would likely trouble the first amendment.

The nonsense at the border detention facilities. I find that to be disingenuous at best and displaying a lack of fundamental logic at worst.

This could go on.


Primarying.
Your party picks their choices for candidate in elections nobody really cares about, pick one where you and a few thousand of your mates can shuffle you in (also would not hurt if the incumbent was unpopular). Win the vote in a location with a massive margin in the round of votes that ultimately elect them and you get swept in by default by people doing the party loyalty thing.
It has been popular for years, you have variations on the theme going back to the Romans and Greeks, though in the US the democrats only got hit with it more recently (usually it was a right wing candidate being shuffled off by a further right wing one).

Money machine goes brrrr, @FAST6191 - what could go wrong? As for her election, despite the clear advantage you've described, she was still the underdog in that particular case, so there's a degree of luck and populism in that particular mix too. Dumb luck, you could say.