Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[faint]

Few thoughts:

About me - late 20s black male.

My heart and vote will go to Elizabeth Warren, but I sincerely hope and think she doesn’t win the nomination. Why? She’s amazing on policy but has terrible political instincts. She will lose to Trump. But her ideas will find their way into the 2020 Dem platform.

The winning ticket is Biden / Harris. If we want to beat Trump it’s a slam dunk.

Bernie will never win a Dem primary. Bernie supporters need to get past that idea.

The only serious candidates are Biden, Beto, Mayor Pete, Kamala Harris, and unnamed establishment white male Democrat in the event Biden doesn’t run (think Terry McAuliffe).

EDIT: Terry McAuliffe officially announced he's not running. IMO, that puts Biden's odds at 95% he's in.

EDIT 2 - Prediction:

Bernie retains his 25% base in the primary, while the 4 other serious contenders mention remain relevant through the first few states. Harris has underwhelming support in early states with the exception of California, which causes her support among black voters in the South to tip towards Biden. Mayor Pete has a surprisingly strong showing through the primary. Beto, despite fundraising never catches enough fire and drops out early. That leaves Biden, Sanders, Harris, and Mayor Pete. Harris sees no path to victory, cuts a deal with Biden for an endorsement and promise of VP slot and drops out. Biden runs the table with 40%, eventually climbing towards a solid majority. Bernie refuses to concede without more concessions in the party platform and primary process.

You're clearly a newbie to politics. Your arguments are perfectly logical.

However, politics are not logical.

Biden enjoys loyal approval among the Democratic establishment, black voters, and working class white union Democrats. That's the coalition needed to win a Democratic primary.

Liberals do not decide the Democratic primary.'

In fact, even in deep blue states such as New York and California, liberal candidates consistently lose to establishment Democrats. If you're a liberal, your best bet is a center-left Democrat like Kamala Harris or Barack Obama.

I agree with you but I don't think that should discourage progressives from running a progressive campaign. If you think the population believed Trump felt closer to the center than Clinton, just imagine what her campaign would have been without Bernie consistently pushing her to the left. Does that mean she had a better shot at winning had Bernie not been involved? Maybe. Ultimately, as long as democrats/liberals/progressives/never-Trumpers/etc fall in line when the primary candidate is established, they have a strong chance of winning.

The left has a tendency to eat their own, come up with pointless purity tests, and split their votes in a way the right does not. If Biden is the primary candidate, I will vote for him. I won't want to, but I will. The same goes for any other candidate. But if a more progressive candidate wins the primary and loses to Trump, I don't think that's indicative of the narrative that we needed to run someone closer to the center. I feel like we tried that in 2016 and that's what got us Trump. Obama appealed to the exact same working-class white vote that Trump did and yet Clinton's policies were essentially 4 more years of Obama. The American people decided they did not want that (at least from Hillary).

 

[RaikouLover]

I agree with you but I don't think that should discourage progressives from running a progressive campaign. If you think the population believed Trump felt closer to the center than Clinton, just imagine what her campaign would have been without Bernie consistently pushing her to the left. Does that mean she had a better shot at winning had Bernie not been involved? Maybe. Ultimately, as long as democrats/liberals/progressives/never-Trumpers/etc fall in line when the primary candidate is established, they have a strong chance of winning.

The left has a tendency to eat their own, come up with pointless purity tests, and split their votes in a way the right does not. If Biden is the primary candidate, I will vote for him. I won't want to, but I will. The same goes for any other candidate. But if a more progressive candidate wins the primary and loses to Trump, I don't think that's indicative of the narrative that we needed to run someone closer to the center. I feel like we tried that in 2016 and that's what got us Trump. Obama appealed to the exact same working-class white vote that Trump did and yet Clinton's policies were essentially 4 more years of Obama. The American people decided they did not want that (at least from Hillary).

I agree with everything here except this notion among progressives that Hillary Clinton was a centrist candidate. The broader electorate thought Trump was closer to the center than Clinton. Progressives have a tough time accepting that America is still has a pretty conservative electorate.. even among Democrats.

 

[Ampharos]

I agree with everything here except this notion among progressives that Hillary Clinton was a centrist candidate. The broader electorate thought Trump was closer to the center than Clinton. Progressives have a tough time accepting that America is still has a pretty conservative electorate.. even among Democrats.

In terms of an actual political spectrum, Clinton is fairly centrist. In terms of America's Overton window, she's leftist, but America's Overton window is objectively terrible and needs to be dragged kicking and screaming to the left anyways. Clinton (and going back further, Obama) had perception of their policies skewed wildly by the conservative propaganda machine. None of Obama's policies were anywhere near "socialist", but try telling that to your average suburban mother in Texas or whatever.

Speaking as someone who would probably identify as a "progressive" if you put a gun to my head (closer to socialist, really, but we won't sweat details), I have no issue accepting that the American electorate is fairly conservative. Where I might disagree with the conventional wisdom that this makes centrist democrats more "electable" than progressives is in that I believe the conservatism of the American electorate is largely due to a combination of lack of exposure to progressive policies and abject tribalism (thanks, Fox News!)

The best thing we can do for the long-term future of this country is give the progressive platform a stage. Now, obviously the best thing we can do for the short-term future of this country is to elect someone other than Donald Trump in 2020, but I would argue the two ideas are nowhere near incompatible.

 

[RaikouLover]

In my opinion, the best thing progressives can do for the long term health of the country is adopt a win-at-all costs mentality like the right coupled with a large dose of retribution. What this means is defeating Donald Trump in 2020 won’t slow this country’s demise. The Republican Party has to be punished.

 

[Chou Toshio]

In my opinion, the best thing progressives can do for the long term health of the country is adopt a win-at-all costs mentality like the right coupled with a large dose of retribution. What this means is defeating Donald Trump in 2020 won’t slow this country’s demise. The Republican Party has to be punished.

That I completely disagree with, and taking such a strategy is near-pointless.
It is the DNC establishment, Democratic political class, and liberal media that play a far more instrumental roll in maintaining oligarchy. Hell, you are more likely to see Glen Greenwald or a Socialist professor brought on as an expert on Fox News than you are on MSNBC. It’s the faux-liberal side that guards the discourse from going “No further left than this!!” and that’s how they manufacture our consent.
You are never going to destroy the Republican party or conservatives as a group. There will always be a right wing in politics, because there are actual interests and concerns that a right wing represents and should represent.

The problems we have now stem from having TWO right wing parties and NO left wing party. The grievances of the broader majority of people go without any representation-- and the mechanics of how that happens has about 20% to do with the GOP and 80% to do with the DNC.

Trying to "punish" the GOP or destroy the GOP is a fool's errand because they literally cannot be destroyed-- there will always be a right wing party; there will always be powerful interests that create a right wing party.

Not only can you not destroy them, but there is no point in trying to if when you elect a Democratic President and Democratic majorities in both sides of Congress they bail out the banks and leave them BIGGER, INCREASE the number of countries we are bombing, implement a right-wing healthcare plan for executive enrichment, refuse to enforce antitrust, never move to increase min wage, crack down on whistle blowers, design a trade deal bigger and more abusive than NAFTA (thank God TPP failed), put children on the boarder in cages, cozy up to Saudi Arabia and renew their position on the UN Human Rights council, preside over the decline of American life expectancy and an expanding corporate-made opioid crisis, etc. etc. etc.

We could be here all day listing the crimes against America and humanity at large by Obama and Clinton. If you don't reform the Democrats or make a progressive 3rd party viable, you've accomplished nothing.

The Democrats and liberal establishment are terrified now because they know they are the real safeguard put in place by elites to protect the oligarchy—but that also means that they are the target that is genuinely vulnerable to real reformation.

What are they afraid of? They are afraid of the time when following the Great Depression, the Socialists, and the Communists, and the Unions came together and demanded of FDR that he work for them… and he did. He went to work on the New Deal and Great Society. FDR won almost all 50 of the states, and in his 4th term he only left the office in a coffin. He had power and untouchable popularity, and he made the rich pay… and that’s why when he died the oligarchs went to work. Turning all the power of media, secret police, and a witch hunt in congress itself—they implemented a brutal and violent purge that destroyed the labor movement; and the trauma of it still lives on today in the irrational fear we all have for thinking about socialism or even joining a union.

That’s the real reason American’s don’t want to be considered “progressive”; because older generations were made to be terrified of the label, and younger ones have been systematically prevented from learning about Socialism in our own history or abroad.

But the safeguards and power structure enforced in holding Socialists down comes from a genuine fear—and that fear comes from a reality that real populist reform, a rising of the will of the people in democracy is actually possible. It happened before, it could happen again.

Obviously that is a lot to fight against. Realistically any one of these oligarchs could hire a hitman to kill Bernie tomorrow... and while the progressive movement would be enraged and activated, I don't think they would have the focus to find an heir to unite behind. I guess Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard are Bernie's kind-of-iffy Life Insurance policies, as I'm not sure if Americans would rise to elect one if Bernie was assassinated. I'm also iffy on whether either have what it takes to lead us to real social democracy.
A generation later Bernie's message could be re-written as MLK’s was to reflect the interest of the ruling elite... our power really is limited.

Even so, no matter how things are stacked against the people, I’m not going to pretend that going after the GOP means anything. Real talk, people like Bernie and Tulsi and AOC are not just public servants—they are putting their bodies on the line to fight the only political fight worth fighting.

 

[Laurel]

i listened to Bernie speak for 5 minutes about taxes and i had enough.

judging from the support he gets even by conservatives i do think he would kick trumps ass, but i'm not about to pay 52% of my money to the government. my city is already unaffordable, you don't need to take even more from me.

 

[Myzozoa]

i listened to Bernie speak for 5 minutes about taxes and i had enough.

judging from the support he gets even by conservatives i do think he would kick trumps ass, but i'm not about to pay 52% of my money to the government. my city is already unaffordable, you don't need to take even more from me.

lol
look at big dick energy over here with their 10m/year income

pathetic illiteracy on display as usual by (nouveau, I assume) rich ppl having palpitations the gov is gonna take away their precious dollars and leave them urban housing ppl can actually afford

 

[atomicllamas]

Even if you made $10,000,000 a year you wouldn’t pay 52%. Energy, US tax brackets are marginal so someone making $10,000,001 they would only pay 52% on the last dollar.

 

[RaikouLover]

That I completely disagree with, and taking such a strategy is near-pointless.

I'm not surprised that someone who voted for either Trump or Jill Stein would disagree.

It is the DNC establishment, Democratic political class, and liberal media that play a far more instrumental roll in maintaining oligarchy. Hell, you are more likely to see Glen Greenwald or a Socialist professor brought on as an expert on Fox News than you are on MSNBC.

Someone who endorses the right-wing propaganada outlet of an authoritarian president is most likely a troll themselves. Are you working for the Russians?

It’s the faux-liberal side that guards the discourse from going “No further left than this!!” and that’s how they manufacture our consent.

The prerequisite to governing is actually winning elections.

You are never going to destroy the Republican party or conservatives as a group. There will always be a right wing in politics, because there are actual interests and concerns that a right wing represents and should represent.

The problems we have now stem from having TWO right wing parties and NO left wing party. The grievances of the broader majority of people go without any representation-- and the mechanics of how that happens has about 20% to do with the GOP and 80% to do with the DNC.

The second endorsement of the Republican Party in this post, coming from a faux progressive. Who are you to speak for the majority of people that you claim don't have representation? You have representation right now that you just don't agree with it. Rather than complaining, take your grievances up with your representatives. Do you not participate in primaries?

Trying to "punish" the GOP or destroy the GOP is a fool's errand because they literally cannot be destroyed-- there will always be a right wing party; there will always be powerful interests that create a right wing party.

The Republican Party in 2019 is not a conservative party, it is an authoritarian party. In order to defeat authoritarianism, you have to understand what moves behavior. Acceptance, appeasement, or compromise with authoritarian followers is the fool's errand. Authoritarian followers understand behavior from the lens of moral simplicity and reward / punishment. The best way to hold the authoritarian Republican Party accountable for their misdeeds is retribution.

Not only can you not destroy them, but there is no point in trying to if when you elect a Democratic President and Democratic majorities in both sides of Congress they bail out the banks and leave them BIGGER, INCREASE the number of countries we are bombing, implement a right-wing healthcare plan for executive enrichment, refuse to enforce antitrust, never move to increase min wage, crack down on whistle blowers, design a trade deal bigger and more abusive than NAFTA (thank God TPP failed), put children on the boarder in cages, cozy up to Saudi Arabia and renew their position on the UN Human Rights council, preside over the decline of American life expectancy and an expanding corporate-made opioid crisis, etc. etc. etc.

Your third endorsement of the Republican Party in this post comes in blaming the last Democratic administration for the failures of Republican policy while regurgitating right-wing falsehoods. Which right-wing sites have you been frequenting?

We could be here all day listing the crimes against America and humanity at large by Obama and Clinton. If you don't reform the Democrats or make a progressive 3rd party viable, you've accomplished nothing.

The right-wing narrative that Obama and Clinton are guilty of criminal behavior fell flat through 10 years of investigations. You are irrationally fixated on Democrats while the current president has 448 pages of unethical and potentially criminal behavior for you to sift through. Reforming the Democratic party requires more work than mindless tirades on the internet.

The Democrats and liberal establishment are terrified now because they know they are the real safeguard put in place by elites to protect the oligarchy—but that also means that they are the target that is genuinely vulnerable to real reformation.

Now you're engaging in misdirection. Let's ignore than $1.5 trillion dollar GOP tax giveway to corporations last year so we can attack the "liberal establishment."

What are they afraid of? They are afraid of the time when following the Great Depression, the Socialists, and the Communists, and the Unions came together and demanded of FDR that he work for them… and he did. He went to work on the New Deal and Great Society. FDR won almost all 50 of the states, and in his 4th term he only left the office in a coffin. He had power and untouchable popularity, and he made the rich pay… and that’s why when he died the oligarchs went to work. Turning all the power of media, secret police, and a witch hunt in congress itself—they implemented a brutal and violent purge that destroyed the labor movement; and the trauma of it still lives on today in the irrational fear we all have for thinking about socialism or even joining a union.

Fear is not what is at work. Thanks for your endorsement of my suggestion to sock the oligarchy with a vengence for their misdeeds. The Democratic Party in 2019 is the big tent out-group for everyone who isn't part of the white, authoritarian ethnocentric hoarde that has taken over the Republican Party. What you perceive as fear is Democrats naturally having many competing interests within a single party.

That’s the real reason American’s don’t want to be considered “progressive”; because older generations were made to be terrified of the label, and younger ones have been systematically prevented from learning about Socialism in our own history or abroad.

But the safeguards and power structure enforced in holding Socialists down comes from a genuine fear—and that fear comes from a reality that real populist reform, a rising of the will of the people in democracy is actually possible. It happened before, it could happen again.

You're not interested in democracy. So far you have endorsed state-run propaganda, destroying the current anti-authoritarian Party, and bucked suggestions to work within the system.

Obviously that is a lot to fight against. Realistically any one of these oligarchs could hire a hitman to kill Bernie tomorrow... and while the progressive movement would be enraged and activated, I don't think they would have the focus to find an heir to unite behind. I guess Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard are Bernie's kind-of-iffy Life Insurance policies, as I'm not sure if Americans would rise to elect one if Bernie was assassinated. I'm also iffy on whether either have what it takes to lead us to real social democracy.
A generation later Bernie's message could be re-written as MLK’s was to reflect the interest of the ruling elite... our power really is limited.

Conspiracy theories about assassination must be the icing on the cake. You can't seriously talk about social democracy while hoping for a violent revolution.

Even so, no matter how things are stacked against the people, I’m not going to pretend that going after the GOP means anything. Real talk, people like Bernie and Tulsi and AOC are not just public servants—they are putting their bodies on the line to fight the only political fight worth fighting.

Again you want us to ignore misdeeds from the GOP to satisfy some sort of accelerationism fetish you have. Politicians are not Messiahs. AOC rose to power by actually putting in the work to primary her representative that she was dissatisfied with. You might want to look into that.

Thanks for your tirade. When you're ready to seriously take tangible, political action we can have a more fruitful discussion.

 

[Myzozoa]

yeah I think yall are losing the plot, Chou isn't advocating for violent revolution in (what i think is a not v serious) a remark about oligarchs assassinating Sanders nor endorsing fox news by pointing out that Sanders performed on that platform. And were chou advocating for armed revolution, why are you so sure that makes him uninterested in democracy? Maybe there is something continually disappointing about electoral politics that suggests we invest our energy into organizing or at least advertising/preaching outside the structures of the oligarch's electoral apparatus. That organizing, though not for the sake of an election, is still democracy.

Now, it is true that the republican party is authoritarian, and it is also true that even if Obama's presidency did nothing illegal by the deteriorated standards of 2019, it did plenty of messed up things that were legally controversial (deportations, drones, war on drugs, bro Obama was a moderate republican, so where does that leave the authoritarian-liberal axis you're using as a slight crutch in place of a detailed historical analysis of ideological changes?), all of which have served the spectacle of distraction that keeps the electorate from caring if cheeto administration does anything messed up.

If people want to talk about the viability of centrists candidates, remember 2016, they didn't even campaign in florida or michigan or w.e. I'm p. sure we agree that AOC won her campaign by doing the hard work of organizing, so is your idea that going on Fox, as state run TV, is not doing the hard work? I guess I agree with that criticism, but it stands against the whole field imo since they'll all be pandering to try to win some of those fox news votes, and they'll all be using representative forms of engagement rather than community organizing. I don't see it as credible that a more centrist candidate will work harder or better to campaign or organize, and I am not sure how you envision punishing the GOP outside of winning an election and holding power for years. Most remedies will be blocked by the new conservative-dominated judiciary so it seems like the only remedy is going to begin with entrenched left-wing power, but that closes the door on expecting the FBI or w.e (the cops) to arrest Cheeto or punish the GOP, that isn't going to happen we're too far gone and the window for that has closed when Obama left office so telling us to look for criminal conduct seems like a dead end.

And I do not work for russia, despite what I'm sure the GOP lawyers will happily say at my show trial in 2021

edit: of course, i agree that invoking 'Obama administration did it first' ignores some historical details and the overall context of GOP obstructionism, but I think those historical details also contradict the idea that we can 'work within the system' to 'punish' them, as a substantive political strategy that is more than just rhetorical/euphemism for winning an election, which is all of our goals imo. Maybe, telling ppl to channel all of our energies into the machinations of electoral politics will have a longer term opportunity cost due to a decline in emphasis on the community level.

 

[Laurel]

lol
look at big dick energy over here with their 10m/year income
View attachment 172088


pathetic illiteracy on display as usual by (nouveau, I assume) rich ppl having palpitations the gov is gonna take away their precious dollars and leave them urban housing ppl can actually afford

i am mistaken, bernie's plan is lit AF.

 

[Chou Toshio]

The point: Attacking the GOP does nothing to change the dynamics of the game. They will always be there, they will always wreck shit after the Dems fuck up.

And the Dems will inevitably fuck up, because they are an authoritarian right wing party and have proven so by measurable policy and outcome even when holding all 3 Federal branches... Trump is not a departure of the Obama presidency— he is a continuation, escalation, symptom and outcome of the Obama presidency.

The Dems can get so thoroughly dominated by the right at all levels of gov because they aren’t favored by donors and don’t serve the people.



Violent revolution? Dude we’re just talking about making it so that there IS a left wing party in the US— through Democratic elections.


Dude even if Democratic Socialists could snap their fingers and get what they want tomorrow it would just be social democracy with robust safety nets, a peace and foreign aid centric foreign policy, and majority businesses are worker coops. That would require election reform and mandates that make democratic work places advantaged— but you’re talking about society with FAR MORE democracy; not less.

Even the ultimate goal is not radical at all— but it would be radically better for the majority of people. It will also be fought against tooth and nail by the establishment; especially the Democratic one— using authoritarian means.

 

[Chou Toshio]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html
They are desperately afraid.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

And the Dems will inevitably fuck up, because they are an authoritarian right wing party and have proven so by measurable policy and outcome even when holding all 3 Federal branches... Trump is not a departure of the Obama presidency— he is a continuation, escalation, symptom and outcome of the Obama presidency.

What? What's with Trump rolling back all Obama-era provisions then? How about the attempted and failed repeal of Obamacare? How about the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement? How about the gutting of the EPA? I suppose some aspects of the Obama presidency was continued such as drone strikes, appointing rich assholes to positions of power, and stalling on climate action, but it's a big stretch to say Trump is just a continuation of Obama.

 

[Chou Toshio]

What? What's with Trump rolling back all Obama-era provisions then? How about the attempted and failed repeal of Obamacare? How about the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement? How about the gutting of the EPA? I suppose some aspects of the Obama presidency was continued such as drone strikes, appointing rich assholes to positions of power, and stalling on climate action, but it's a big stretch to say Trump is just a continuation of Obama.

There is politics, aesthetic difference, and some real policy consequence but at the birds eye level either way is government by oligarch and imperialist.

The GOP is the most dangerous organization to the continuation of humanity, but the neoliberal DNC is not the solution but an enabler. And most importantly, they are the one fighting hardest from actually prescribing the cure.

The GOP didn’t rig the DNC primary.

The GOP doesn’t have super delegates.

The GOP isn’t responsible for the DCCC threatening political professionals and vendors from working with progressive primary challengers.

Fox didn’t block Bernie from achieving name recognition in 2016 and their smears of him then and now are not his main media inhibitors. That would be MSNBC, WP, NYT, etc.


And oddly now it isn’t the GOP or conservatives primarily responsible for escalating a New Cold War with Russia— Trump is escalating, but he’s doing that because the media, DNC and stupid Democratic voters are attacking him FROM THE RIGHT.

Yes the a Republicans are awful. No you can’t actually stop their agenda until you reform the left.

Elect another Obama and you only ensure that the next Trump will be worse. Ask Macron.

 

[Myzozoa]

not quite Chou Toshio, i think thats a quite hasty analysis that veers off into some wild territory with your suggestion that trump is being pushed to the right by 'the media', which is especially insidious because it implies the media has all this power and is acting towards some end or function in a homogenous sense. This suggestion obfuscates how Trump rose to power through the backing of conservative advocacy networks manipulating the masses. Honestly he just had all mainstream news for the prols together: dying local news bought up by what I call 'the external advocates club' and you call 'the wealthy GOP that will always exist in some form', combined with the Murdoch conservative advocacy network (fox) and surely some others I'm likely forgetting, finish it all off with rural places only having social services provided by conservative churches and you have a perfect storm (dw it's gonna be like mike pence's son or something that gets to be the actual dictator). IMO msm has been in the hands of the corporate right for a while. It's been that way for a couple decades, the masks just finally fell off in 2016 and we learned how ignorant Americans are (as RaikouLover pointed out, they believed Trump was closer to the center than Clinton, and the electorate abhors thinking of themselves as outside the mainstream).

For the rest, I pretty much sympathize and agree: the neoliberal establishment scares me shitless because their egos and the way they seem far removed from the implications of their policies, but I don't think anyone was prepared for how Trump would be able to tap into people's moods after Obama and if they don't figure it (affective politics) out, I hate to be doomsday in an online political thread, but the planet is toast. 'Punishing the GOP' gets at the desperate need to address conservative affective politics, but if the substance of that is just 'add some more states to stack the senate' or 'this list of electoral politics agenda items' I'm not convinced it can come to fruition in a system now rigged against it happening. So, I'm (we're?) back to democratic socialism, or vacating electoral politics as a path invested in to fix problems, but this is not the place for discussion of the later imo.

 

[Chou Toshio]

not quite Chou Toshio, i think thats a quite hasty analysis that veers off into some wild territory with your suggestion that trump is being pushed to the right by 'the media', which is especially insidious because it implies the media has all this power and is acting towards some end or function in a homogenous sense. This suggestion obfuscates how Trump rose to power through the backing of conservative advocacy networks manipulating the masses. Honestly he just had all mainstream news for the prols together: dying local news bought up by what I call 'the external advocates club' and you call 'the wealthy GOP that will always exist in some form', combined with the Murdoch conservative advocacy network (fox) and surely some others I'm likely forgetting, finish it all off with rural places only having social services provided by conservative churches and you have a perfect storm (dw it's gonna be like mike pence's son or something that gets to be the actual dictator). IMO msm has been in the hands of the corporate right for a while. It's been that way for a couple decades, the masks just finally fell off in 2016 and we learned how ignorant Americans are (as RaikouLover pointed out, they believed Trump was closer to the center than Clinton, and the electorate abhors thinking of themselves as outside the mainstream).

For the rest, I pretty much sympathize and agree: the neoliberal establishment scares me shitless because their egos and the way they seem far removed from the implications of their policies, but I don't think anyone was prepared for how effectively Trump would be able to tap into people's moods after Obama and if they don't figure it (affective politics) out, I hate to be doomsday in an online political thread, but the planet is toast. 'Punishing the GOP' gets at the desperate need to address conservative affective politics, but if the substance of that is just 'add some more states to stack the senate' or 'this list of electoral politics agenda items' I'm not convinced it can come to fruition in a system now rigged against it happening. So, I'm (we're?) back to democratic socialism, or vacating electoral politics as a path invested in to fix problems, but this is not the place for discussion of the later imo.

Agreed, and good stuff man. I hadn't even thought about the churches.

About media pushing Trump from the right, I only meant in the topic of Russian relations specifically.

Until recently I thought the Russia/Mueller stuff was just idiotic and not worth paying attention to, but listening to a recent debate between Glen Greenwald and Sam Seder changed my mind. Glen thought the media Russia obsession was dangerous and negligent, Sam in favor of anything that infringed on Trump’s ability to act.

Glen outlined that we’re now living in a world where the base of the LEFT in the world’s biggest super power now holds heightened aggression against the world’s other biggest nuclear power. Despite the efforts of Chelsea Manning and the release of the Iraq papers, we’ve completely devolved to a state where the base of the LEFT now sees the intelligence community and military and people like Mueller (who was another voice who lied us into Iraq!!) as respected truth tellers. That is TERRIFYING. That scares me shitless.

And we have real policy where the US President is being overtly aggressive to Russian allies, pulling out on nuclear treaties, sanctioning Russia, and recommitting to nuclear arms all while the media and LIBERALS push him to do so and demand he be more hawkish on Russia.

This is just terrifying and idiotic and that is the only point I was referring to (though there are definitely other places where mainstream liberalism attacks Trump from the right and it’s awful).

 

[Chou Toshio]

I mean for those who don’t believe that it’s the liberal establishment that is the bigger obstacle for progressives—

Go watch the Bernie Sanders Fox Town Hall. Then contrast it to the new CNN one. They ain’t playin’

Every single question absolutely loaded; and this student Town Hall featured questioners exclusively from elite schools— in other words those of the privileged class. Whatever CNN did, they made sure that that audience would not be people who felt the Bern. It was pretty disgusting; as were all the articles about giving voting rights to sex offenders and Boston bombers.

Look people, we know people who don’t have voting rights are vulnerable to human rights violations and abuse. If you don’t want people to be abused by your tax dollars— don’t make prisoners more vulnerable in the country with the greatest number of inmates in the world.

I’m not complaining by the way. All progressives knew that the game would be played like that. If Bernie was not awake enough for battle mode before, I hope this townhall woke him up. He has to take on the fight against the establishment full stop; and do what Trump did— delegitimization the media attacks because the attacks really are illegitimate. When he does that, these tactics will boost him more than hurt him.

 

[atomicllamas]

The left has a problem with Russia because they’re a right wing authoritarian regime that interferes in other countries elections (including our own) and annexes land from and invades sovereign countries (Crimea, Georgia). The Russian oligarchy is not our ally and our relationship is already adversarial. I don’t think anyone on the left has said we should go to war with Russia, but I don’t see how pretending Russia is friendly is anything but idiotic?

And we have real policy where the US President is being overtly aggressive to Russian allies

Chou Toshio I genuinely do not know who you are referring to by this, can you elaborate?

 

[Chou Toshio]

The left has a problem with Russia because they’re a right wing authoritarian regime that interferes in other countries elections (including our own) and annexes land from and invades sovereign countries (Crimea, Georgia). The Russian oligarchy is not our ally and our relationship is already adversarial. I don’t think anyone on the left has said we should go to war with Russia, but I don’t see how pretending Russia is friendly is anything but idiotic?


Chou Toshio I genuinely do not know who you are referring to by this, can you elaborate?

Withdrawal from the IFN treaty would be the biggest piece, but again we've also enhanced our sanctions on Russia directly. Our policies in Iran, Syria, and Venezuela are all escalations, as is our push to compete with Russia as an energy exporter in Europe. We have seen time and again during this Presidency; whether the President pushing more aggressive action or Congress pushing him to do more agreesive action-- this administration has been nothing but escalations.

...over election interference that is nothing compared to what the US has done all over the world, or even what Israel and Saudi Arabia do in and around our elections.

And whatever you think about Russia, there is no way that the left should be in love with Mueller or the intelligence community.

 

[atomicllamas]

Withdrawal from the IFN treaty would be the biggest piece, but again we've also enhanced our sanctions on Russia directly. Our policies in Iran, Syria, and Venezuela are all escalations, as is our push to compete with Russia as an energy exporter in Europe. We have seen time and again during this Presidency; whether the President pushing more aggressive action or Congress pushing him to do more agreesive action-- this administration has been nothing but escalations.

No I understand that (and disagree with our actions in Iran and Syria at the very least, but I think Western Europe probably appreciates being less reliant on Russia energy). My question was, are you implying that Russia, as a country, is our ally? Because I believe that is fundamentally untrue, their goals are not aligned with either the US in general or the goals of the left.

 

[Chou Toshio]

No I understand that (and disagree with our actions in Iran and Syria at the very least, but I think Western Europe probably appreciates being less reliant on Russia energy). My question was, are you implying that Russia, as a country, is our ally? Because I believe that is fundamentally untrue, their goals are not aligned with either the US in general or the goals of the left.

How am I at all implying Russia is an ally? I am implying that we don't needlessly escalate with the other nuclear super power, and it certainly shouldn't be the left that is pushing that escalation.

Russia has been decimated repeatedly in its history by forces coming through Germany, and yet it allowed Germany to re-unite and join a hostile military alliance that now reaches its very door step over broken promises. Imagine if Russia did now have Nuclear missiles pointed at the US mainland from Cuba or Venezuela? That is literally the situation Russia puts up with.

And I mean dude, about Iran and Syria you understand what this is all about right dude? Syria's got no oil but the West and Saudi Arabia are hell bent on connecting a pipe through Syria to Europe that SYRIA DOESN'T WANT. And its external powers that are funding terrorists and trying to get regime change there.

Of course Russia is dead set against it because its economy is extremely dependent on the business with Europe, and the European dependency on Russian energy is also part of what keeps the peace-- that despite having hostile powers on its very border, Russia has energy reliance as something to increase its influence.

Not to mention in Iran's case we've previously regime-changed democratically elected government there, and our main reason for going after them is the cold war they have with Saudi Arabia. We're not the good guys here, and escalating these tensions is not what's in the best interest of Americans, nor Russians, nor people in Syria, Iran, Yemen, or Venezuela. We are on the wrong side of history on all those fronts.

 

[atomicllamas]

...over election interference that is nothing compared to what the US has done all over the world, or even what Israel and Saudi Arabia do in and around our elections.

And whatever you think about Russia, there is no way that the left should be in love with Mueller or the intelligence community.

You edited this in after my last reply so... Yes? And don’t you think that it’s bad that the US interferes in other countries elections? Our interference in Central America in the 20th century (and even today) is causing issues that still impact us. Same with Iran. I don’t particularly care for Saudi Arabia or Israel either (again right wing authoritarian regimes). The left in the US should (and I believe does?) think we should interfere less in the politics of other countries. Therefore the left should (and I believe they do) have a problem with Russia doing the same. Do you not?

I’m not going to comment on Mueller as an individual because I can’t say I know enough about him as one. But I agree it’s wise to be somewhat skeptical of the us intelligence community.

What I don’t understand is why you think liberals and the left shouldn’t be hostile to Russia given their interference in other countries to make them more right wing and to expand their own geopolitical power. I don’t think we should go to war with Russia but I don’t think sanctions or making it so Europe isn’t dependent on Russia for power is a bad thing.

How am I at all implying Russia is an ally? I am implying that we don't needlessly escalate with the other nuclear super power, and it certainly shouldn't be the left that is pushing that escalation.

I literally quoted where you used the words “Russian allies”. I guess you didn’t imply it, you literally stated it?

Is competing with Russia to supply power to Europe an unnecessary escalation? Is implementing sanctions on a country that is annexing parts of other countries an unnecessary escalation? Should we just let Russia do whatever they want at the expense of other countries and ourselves? I’m very unsure of what you think the best course of action is.

You also continue to blame the media for his actions but in the case of, at least the Iran deal, and depending on which thing you have issues with in Syria (that situation is too messy for me to be sure). The push seemed to come from congressional Republicans. When Trump pulled out of the Iran deal the news programs I watched did not imply that it was a good thing, and I never saw any push for it beforehand. Which makes your point about the media pushing trump right on Russia wrong? Cause it was Congress (often both Democrats and Republicans, but for the Iran deal just republicans).

Edit @ below, gotcha, I misinterpreted what you were saying, my bad. Granted I literally asked who you were referring to, and you didn’t answer in your reply :thinking:

 

[Chou Toshio]

I literally quoted where you used the words “our Russian allies”. I guess you didn’t imply it, you literally stated it?

I said we are aggressive to allies of Russia. "the US President is being overtly aggressive to Russian allies" (countries that are allied with Russia, namely Syria, Iran, Venezuela)


I agree the Iran deal has nothing to do with the media, but much of the rest is in part emboldened by the narrative. Certainly Russia itself sees the narrative as an escalation. We are doing nothing to help. If the left pushes a right wing government in a Hawkish direction, the right will definitely become more hawkish.

It is hard for Russia to act better if the US is not willing to lead, and if we're not willing to be a better world citizen that can speak from moral authority.

 

[Chou Toshio]

FBI Director Robert Mueller: "...presented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical, or nuclear material."

Thank you for lying us to go to Iraq. And thank you "liberal" mass media. Truly, a truth teller and hero of the #resistance.