Discussion of candidates from a Black left podcast:
6 Likes
5 Likes
Another hot take from an oh so reasonable white guy at the NY Times.
(No link because I don’t wanna.)
14 Likes
I can count on one hand the number of “centrists” who will vote for a centrist democrat who will vote for Trump rather than a progressive. There are literally millions of people who get excited enough to vote for a progressive candidate who can’t be bothered for a centrist.
When it comes down to it, the centrist Democratic base is more prone to Red Team/Blue Team thinking than progressives who have historically been ignored by both.
12 Likes
7 Likes
He is the greenest candidate, for sure.
1 Like
Sanders After Corbyn: The Jewish Question
By Andrew Levine
Before Trump, I used to think that in the United States, being Jewish was of no political consequence whatever. How could it be when, for example, Sheldon Adelson, a character straight out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion , could be all buddy buddy with some of the vilest Republican crackers in all creation, seemingly without objection or even notice from anybody?
Needless to say, it is perilous to be black or brown or Muslim in America; but Jews, it seemed, were safe. I was so sure of this that it didn’t even bother me that my fellow tribesman, Stephen Miller, Trump’s favorite hate monger, evidently thinks so too. It is practically axiomatic that anything that Miller believes is untrue. . .
Nobody really knows how much, if at all, the smear campaign directed at Corbyn contributed to Labor’s defeat; this is not the sort of thing that can be measured precisely or in uncontroversial ways. It very likely did do some harm, however. To the extent that it did, British Zionists have a lot to answer for.
Because they do, because their efforts on behalf of Boris Johnson – a bona fide racist, Islamophobe, and anti-Semite — succeeded at least somewhat, we can predict, with considerable confidence, that if Democrats run Sanders, a comparable smear campaign will be attempted against him.
It will be a case of “monkey see, monkey do.” And it will encourage real anti-Semites to strut their stuff in ways that will likely give even Stephen Miller cause for concern. . . .
As it becomes increasingly difficult for corporate media to treat the Sanders campaign as if it weren’t happening, we should therefore expect that, before long, we will soon be hearing a lot about “self-hating Jews” and other nonsense that not long ago seemed, like anti-Semitism itself, to have gone extinct, but that has now revived as defenders and beneficiaries of the old order feel increasingly anxious and insecure.
This is what must be fought against — this time, though, with more boldness and strategic acumen than Corbyn and his allies were able to muster.
7 Likes
It is likely any candidate the Democrats run in 2020 will be labeled as anti-semitic. The GOP has abandoned facts, and finds themselves free to make up whatever shit they want. The problem is, 98% of it is recognized as lies - but 2% sticks. So the lying pays off, as long as the GOP doesn’t care about credibility.
Look at the campaign against Elizabeth Warren regarding her family claims of Native American heritage. Trump calls her “Pocahontas,” which is 10,000 times worse than Warren’s minor and casual (and factual) claims of Native American ancestry, but Warren is the one who suffered blowback.
13 Likes
For anyone thinking that the donor benchmark proves that the playing field is leveled against billionaires, I have some real estate that is a fantastic deal. A billionaire can afford a bigger outreach. Media presence absolutely does translate into donations. They can afford to buy more, highly-grained data to take a better guess at who to target – it’s harder for someone like Castro whose base doesn’t have money to spare.
My cynical side says it’s also a hell of a lot easier when your friends own large companies and can hint to their employees that it might be a good idea to support you, lest something terrible happen to their health insurance. Who can put your donation link on company-wide blast, straight from the top.
Ain’t nothing even when billionaires are involved.
13 Likes
It’s also flawed logic to say that, because he’s a businessman, he knows how to run an economy. Economy does not equal business. They are different things and require very different skill sets.
13 Likes
Should billionaires be allowed to run for the Democratic nomination? If so, then they need to be able to ask for donations, since that is a prerequisite for the debates. If not where do you draw the line? Two standard deviations above the median US wealth? I’m OK with that, but which candidates does that rule out?
I don’t know why Steyer is running; he’s obviously not going to get the nomination. Norrnally people that run without a chance of success do it either as a spoiler or to to get a platform for their views. As a spoiler Steyer would mainly be a spoiler for the centrist candidates, and I’m OK with that too. As for his views, mainly he’s been on the dais agreeing with Sanders and Warren on things like wealth tax and the idea that corporations have too much money and power, on the green new deal, and he led on impeachment. Honestly, I think there are better people to get angry about than Steyer.
1 Like
Well, as the Wine Cave guy noted, life is so unfair for billionaires (as it is for affluent cisgender white males in general).
6 Likes
Seriously. The election of a progressive President would be as clear a signal as any that voters have decided that the future is more important than the past. And that scares the bejeezus out of that demographic*, because the future definitely won’t be about everyone automatically deferring to the authority of older white men.
[* including certain supposed liberal Dems along with the alt-right guy in the photo]
10 Likes
6 Likes
You are not helping Joe.
14 Likes
Biden can piss off as far as I’m concerned, but wouldn’t it be Repubs who call him to testify? And wouldn’t they be doing so to continue trying to distract from the charges against Trump?
7 Likes
Idiocy. This response entirely undercuts the “obstruction” charge in the articles of impeachment by validating the Republican position “you don’t have to respond to subpoenas if you think they are politically motivated.”
8 Likes
I’ve seen mice who were more clever in avoiding traps than Uncle Joe is.
12 Likes
Absolutely, but one of the key traits that has differentiated high-ranking Democrats from high-ranking Republicans in recent years is that Democrats have generally shown respect for rule of law even when Republicans abuse the law for partisan political purposes. Everyone knew that the Benghazi hearings were a partisan scam designed to hurt Hillary, but she still testified when called to do so.
Trump’s administration recently introduced the novel idea that subpoenas don’t count if the congressional chamber issuing them is controlled by the other party. That idea is absolutely nuts, and is in fact a large part of the basis for the “obstruction” article the House recently passed against Trump. Do we now embrace the idea just because the Senate is now in charge of the trial? Seems like a short-sighted plan at best.
9 Likes
