2 Likes
At this point, Sanders does not seem to be and I don’t think he’d hide it if he was.
If this is a deal breaker for you, due to his age, then by all means, support the candidate that you’d like to see win the nomination. I was just pointing out that we do have mechanisms in place to ensure that if something happens to the president, that the entire government doesn’t come grinding to a halt. Even under Trump (despite the shut down and despite his inability to stick with cabinet members) the executive branch has not ground to a halt. And this is an administration that is actively trying to sabotage the government from within.
10 Likes
This is kind of silly. Bernie supporters voted for Clinton. Clinton won the popular vote.
If everyone wants to replay 2016, that’s nice and nostalgic, but it’s not super useful.
15 Likes
A lot of them did, it just wasn’t the Democratic nominee. I think that’s a really important point that people are very dimsissive of because, yeah, the Bernie Bros were dipshits. However, it did show that a “big tent” strategy, even aligned far-left would capture a lot of the swing vote. He definitely needs to quit fence-sitting in the racial justice shit (and it seems he is), but he did show that progressive ideals have a wide base.
3 Likes
I’ll enthusiastically accept AOC in his place.
9 Likes
Absolutely, you can. I’m not talking about multiple Democrats running for President against Trump. I’m talking about the dilution of support for a Democratic candidate among Democrats. I firmly believe we’re closing in on a time to focus support, not to have a half-dozen other popular former candidates throw their hat into the race.
2 Likes
Gabbard is the only one who’s making a big point about ending our eternal wars. I would put up with a lot of other stuff, like the weird religious crap, for a real peace candidate.
Warren is a fine compromise candidate, and I wouldn’t have a problem voting for her, but she’s not in any sense a populist, and I think a populist would have a better chance in the general.
Klobuchar and Gillibrand both voted for Patriot act and FISA extensions, and Klobuchar supported invading Lybia. They’re both pretty solidly in the warmonger/surveillance state camp.
Harris is about the worst of the bunch. She supported increased government powers for extrajudicial asset forfeiture as AG, and did a lot of other incredibly shitty stuff (refused to release prisoners when ordered by a court because the state needed the labor, etc.)
Being “light years better in experience and political skill.” doesn’t help if they’re going to use that skill for more wars and spies and prisons.
16 Likes
9 Likes
You think 12 months is not long enough for people to sort out the candidates and we need to start locking in our choices now?
1 Like
A) No, she’s not
and
B) So is Rand Paul
5 Likes
As I said, we disagree. Hopefully we can agree on the need to win anyway.
3 Likes
I’m confused about what you think has been “debunked.”
I’ve asserted that people who make it to age 87 without suffering significant physical or cognitive decline are the exception rather than the rule. Do you disagree?
1 Like
No, I think that some people, like Sanders, are far better suited to the role of grassroots support than party leadership. I think that if I were Sanders, or Beto, or another politician with a fired-up base, I’d be looking at a gaggle of Democratic candidates and saying to myself, “maybe I should help some of them out rather than choose to be selfish.”
2 Likes
Didn’t you say something about an entire branch of government becoming inoperable?
1 Like
I didn’t say “inoperable,” but I can certainly imagine a scenario in which the executive branch became largely paralyzed. We’ve had situations where Presidents were removed from power, we’ve never had to deal with a situation in which a President gradually lost the ability to govern and was robbed of the cognitive capacity to recognize that fact.
The closest we’ve had so far was Reagan, who lost his marbles late enough in his Presidency that his family and staff were largely able to cover for him and even hide his condition from the public. A dangerous situation I’d rather not repeat.
1 Like
This all reminds me of the Obama/Clinton marathon, where Clinton held on for so long, until beyond when it was clear that Obama had the momentum.
Then, post-Obama’s terms, she had her run and she didn’t do as well as Obama had.
Sanders is great on a lot of things, but he came up short last time on bloodsport politics. This feels like a “I was third last time, this time’s the charm, people know me” in the same way as Clinton’s felt to me then.
(I know there are many examples of people getting multiple chances after losing previous primary runs, Reagan etc., I’m just saying how it feels to me.)
4 Likes
I thought there was a similar situation with Wilson, but it’s not like that went well.
I understand your concern. If Trump and Reagan are the examples then the conclusion is that when a president gets dementia they are not removed from office and the American people are not informed. (Not that I’m sure Trump is suffering from some kind of dementia or real mental decline, this could just be what he has been like under pressure for his whole life)
4 Likes
Unless you count tell-all books, I suppose.
1 Like
The dementia argument does seem pretty silly in an age of Trump.
The executive branch is very important, but it’s just a myth that the person occupying it has to be a physical or mental super-person.
It’s much better if they are, of course, but the floor is much lower than people used to believe.
