I think Trump will narrowly beat Warren. I also think you should vote for her, if she's the candidate. The fact she might win and tepid attempts to slow the climate crisis can then resume, without Trump, is worth voting for. Tepid attempts will save many lives.
Nah if that was the case, Marianne Williamson will be higher in the polls.My highly scientific analysis is that America elects the one they find most interesting.
The main thing Hillary, Romney, McCain, Kerry and Gore have in common is they were dull as feck.
Bernie is objectively the most interesting of the candidates. He has a personality that is easy to remember and his views aren't things Americans are used to.
Warren needs to make herself interesting. Start claiming her ancestors spoke to hear in a dream about how she had to save America from the white man. Something like that.
campaign trump being the GOAT again
Only works in the general, is my theory. Cause normal people don't give a shit about primaries.Nah if that was the case, Marianne Williamson will be higher in the polls.
I like your theory.Only works in the general, is my theory. Cause normal people don't give a shit about primaries.
Marianne would totally win. She's fecking insane.
By your utopian standards, there has never been a Democratic party. You'd probably call every Dem president of the 20th century a corporatist.The Democratic party is hollowed out.
It has long ago abandoned the voters it claims to represent.
It is fully owned by corporations. Their preferred candidate has promised to work with Republicans who are currently supporting a traitor.
As for Bernie, he will recover and be out there fighting again for the people in a week.
I understand where you are coming from.
But Bernie is far from done.
Those who speak the truth are free.
Warren does not understand this.
A dollop of Catholic fanaticism.What the feck does this even mean? feck sake
I guess that Sanders platform is largely him being honest about what he wants whereas Warren's is not. She's running in a complicated position where she has to both appear somewhat radical without freaking out the moderates. You can't be honest about things when that's your position. Sanders campaign is mainly him telling everyone they're capitalist pigs which is much easier to do honestly.What the feck does this even mean? feck sake
The fact that only one of Sanders’s arteries was stented is likely meaningful, too. If multiple blood vessels are involved, the disease is usually more serious, and sometimes requires open-heart surgery for coronary-artery bypass grafts. Many people have undergone bypass surgery and continued to work for decades, including David Letterman and Bill Clinton. This is not apparently what’s happening in Sanders’s case, which bodes well for him.
The statement also noted that Sanders is currently “conversing and in good spirits.” If Sanders had suffered a major cardiac arrest and were sent to the intensive care unit, he would not be chatty.
Still, the campaign said it would be canceling Sanders’s public appearances until further notice. This would be expected for anyone undergoing coronary stenting. It’s important for doctors to monitor the patient in the days after the procedure to assure that symptoms improve and that no complications have been introduced. But there is no reason to suspect that, if all goes as well as expected, Sanders would be unable to appear on a debate stage in 12 days—and much less that he would be unable to campaign or perform the duties of the office of the president.
I guess that Sanders platform is largely him being honest about what he wants whereas Warren's is not. She's running in a complicated position where she has to both appear somewhat radical without freaking out the moderates. You can't be honest about things when that's your position. Sanders campaign is mainly him telling everyone they're capitalist pigs which is much easier to do honestly.
By your utopian standards, there has never been a Democratic party. You'd probably call every Dem president of the 20th century a corporatist.
That's what I think as well. So hopefully, the left or the liberals don't go for 100% purity or out policy and let a 99% evil win. That level of purity should be an ambition but realistically not the expectation.A man who understands.
Its the easiest thing to be honest.
To the second point. You cannot compromise with the devil. (A bit of Catholicism there )
Do you really believe Warren can then dictate to the people who funded/own her? The American people will still be screwed....again.
But I do understand the danger of Trump. If it is any comfort. It will be difficult for him to win again.
But never discount the idiotic Democratic party to feck it up.
As for me I am still betting on Bernie.
Get better mate.
You'd probably call JFK a corporatist if you were there. With his deep anti-communism (and use of the FBI for such purposes), investment in the military and space programs, initial involvement in Vietnam. I like JFK, but these things should remind you that you shouldn't be looking for a candidate based on passing some sort of 100% purity test.FDR and JFK ring a bell?
That's what I think as well. So hopefully, the left or the liberals don't go for 100% purity or out policy and let a 99% evil win. That level of purity should be an ambition but realistically not the expectation.
You'd probably call JFK a corporatist if you were there. With his deep anti-communism (and use of the FBI for such purposes), investment in the military and space programs, initial involvement in Vietnam. I like JFK, but these things should remind you that you shouldn't be looking for a candidate based on passing some sort of 100% purity test.
yeah thats gonna solve it, thanks liz
I don't see what it has to do with what I said about Kennedy, but I do notice that again you are quoting a man that didn't end up with the responsibilities of president. Its easy to write or to say the most perfect and progressive words about any issue, for a column or in a speech. Its much harder when you have to actually compromise in order to pass an imperfect version of your legislation rather than none at all. That's what you continue to hold against Warren, Biden and others that have actually been involved in governing for the past decades while Sanders mostly delivered rousing speeches and stayed on the sidelines of actual policy-making.FDR was against the capitalists. I will look up the video I have seen of his speech later.
If his VP Henry Wallace had been the next President instead of the mass murderer Truman, the trajectory of this country would have been far better.
What Henry Wallace said.
“The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."
JFK simply did what was right when he could have taken an easier path.
That is simply we should expect our leaders to do.
I don't see what it has to do with what I said about Kennedy, but I do notice that again you are quoting a man that didn't end up with the responsibilities of president. Its easy to write or to say the most perfect and progressive words about any issue, for a column or in a speech. Its much harder when you have to actually compromise in order to pass an imperfect version of your legislation rather than none at all. That's what you continue to hold against Warren, Biden and others that have actually been involved in governing for the past decades while Sanders mostly delivered rousing speeches and stayed on the sidelines of actual policy-making.
What's also interesting is that FDR, JFK and Henry Wallace were all rich men (which I think there's nothing wrong with). FDR and JFK were essentially aristocrats. Again, I'm not so sure you'd hail them as progressive champions if you were living in their times.
Don't forget the dozens of assassination attempts on Castro during his presidency.It takes astounding ignorance in this day and age to hail JFK as some sort of moral pillar and example a president should aspire to.
The JFK whose political career was funded and orchestrated by his very wealthy, extremely conservative father (who also was Nixon’s patron).
The JFK who in his bid to appear tough on communism to counter red baiting, escalated a war in South East Asia, costing millions of lives and created deep schisms in American society for decades to come.
The JFK who, as a Senator, wrote a book extolling the virtues of a corrupt as feck 19th century Republican Senator who acquitted Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, arguably quashing any hope of a fair reconstruction and undid the fruits of the Civil War
The JFK who, flexing his muscles, moved nuclear warheads into Turkey, bumbling as a result into the worst crisis mankind has ever faced regarding nuclear Armageddon, then freaked out and ended up having his brother cutting a secret deal with Moscow to have them extracted quietly while publicly painting himself as the saviour of mankind.
That JFK?
Yes, which ties into the nuclear crisis as well. Had he been really courageous and ‘honest’, acknowledging a legitimate state backed by the Cuban people instead of the Batista regime would’ve avoided much of the troubles, not to mention contributing to the welfare of the Cubans, not subjecting them to decades long embargoes, but of course his political survival took precedent, and he followed the US foreign policy consensus on that deal to a T.Don't forget the dozens of assassination attempts on Castro during his presidency.
By your utopian standards, there has never been a Democratic party. You'd probably call every Dem president of the 20th century a corporatist.
That is not what I was arguing against. I don't think that a publicly funded and operated healthcare system is utopian. I think that arguing that the democratic party today has lost its way vs its "real" version of the 40s is distorted.Is it really "utopian" to want the US to adopt policies that Europe implemented 50 years ago?
Calling the most beneficial, pragmatic plans "utopian" has been quite a marketing and PR success for the top 1%
White people are bad.
That is not what I was arguing against. I don't think that a publicly funded and operated healthcare system is utopian. I think that arguing that the democratic party today has lost its way vs its "real" version of the 40s is distorted.