slightly desperate.
You’d be “slightly desperate” too if you had under $1000 in liquid assets like so so many Americans do.
Too many people live in a bubble of easy money on the coasts to realize how many tens of millions of Americans are one paycheck away from bankruptcy.
What a laugh! Here in the world of reality, or at least more real than simple unsupported statements, all the polls show Bernie wiping the floor with the Agolf.
I hear Sarah Palin is available. According to the NeoLiberal Bible, she’s preferable to Bernie since she’s not a stinky old white man.
This is especially what I was getting at. Thank you for putting it so elegantly.
That is not socialism. In fact, it is the very opposite of socialism. It’s selfishness. “Tax cuts” are not about helping your neighbour, but about keeping it yourself.
Sorry for not being more clear; but I will maintain that “tax cuts” (which usually means that 99% of the benefit goes to the 1%) is “socialism” in the sense of “socialism for the rich” (as stated in one of my first posts in this thread). The 1% buy the legislators, most republicans but also a large number of center and/or corporate democrats. They then get tax cuts passed that benefit them. They ARE helping their neighbor, as long as you understand “their neighbor” is the guy at the next table at the club (the big club that George Carlin talked about )
I see what you are trying to say, but it still doesn’t work. It’s still all about cutting back on the real social contract – the government – and letting the princes keep their gains. All you are doing is using the negative cachet “socialism” has gained in American culture to make a point about plutocratic policies. Or maybe it’s classic Discordian Operation Mindfuck muddling of definitions, which really, really is going off the deep end here.
Look, socialism is explicitly about helping all, and not excluding anyone. The policies you are talking about are all about letting people (especially the well-to-do) avoid helping others. They aren’t so much helping each other as pissing on everyone else. The classic “We got ours, fuck you” worldview.
And what all this has to do with Bernie being chosen by 33% of those who identify as Hispanic? Fuck if I know.
Well, that goes along with my (admittedly simplistic, yet IMHO accurate) definition of socialism above as “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”.
And I know I’m not being 100% accurate in saying that “we already have socialism in America - socialism for the 1%” But I believe it’s correct in its essence, as well as the fact that “massive giveaways to the wealthy” amounts to, basically, “socialism” (for the rich)
But I praised Warren? I’ll definitely try to re-evaluate in the future but I’m beginning to feel like there’s no way to politely disagree without being told my tone is not good enough.
As someone on the spectrum I put a lot of effort into what I say and how… and I have to admit that when I feel someone is taking advantage of my willingness to try to avoid offense and my options are to be silenced or be bold, I revert to what some perceive as an aggressive debate style.
As I’ve repeatedly said I’m also open to other progressives like Warren, and look forward to the debates to finalize my choice
For starters, I’m not an American.
Secondly, the genuine desperation of the (working) poor who are, as you say, living hand to mouth at the edge of destitution, has nothing to do with what I was criticizing. Please read for context.
(What I was criticizing is the tendency of so many Bernie supporters on the internet to keep on loudly talking about how popular and electable he is. Popular and electable people do not need to be constantly boosted by their fans. As I said, it suggests a certain desperation, an insistent fear that Bernie might not be the Progressive Messiah people have convinced themselves he is, and that him winning the primaries, or worse yet the general election, is not nearly as certain as they want to believe.)
What it suggests is a long history of progressive supporters being gaslighted as irrational for not wanting the mainstream candidate, and an emotional pushback against that.
When a person makes the argument that simply supporting a progressive candidate is somehow “desperate”, “fearful” or a belief in a “messiah”, that person is triggering the conditioning. In short, it’s a shitty way to argue. Try discussing policy instead.
Unlike the previous Democratic nominee, who no one "Yas Queeen"ed as she skated into the White House.
They do if:
IOW, nearly every powerful person, and nearly every organ of power, is concentrated on defeating that person - the same person who always polls so well with the 99%.
Even Hispanics! (to get back on thread!!!)
The Iowa caucuses, widely loathed outside of Iowa but appreciated by almost anyone who has ever participated in them (including me, in '88), combines a ranked voting process with a need to actually convince real live people of your position, and has a decent track record of winnowing blocks of candidates. It is how we got Carter and Obama as front-runners. It will be interesting to see what happens, but I think it is unlikely that more than one candidate will survive in each of the three chunks of the party spectrum [four if you include the orthogonal Tulsi]. Meanwhile, I don’t see any reason to stockpile ammo for the GOP against the eventual nominee. Better to keep talking up all 30 or 40 candidates (or however many there are now) so as to draw and dilute the Trumpian fire.
Should work fine until Hillary signs up for her 4th loss.
The same poll (from TFA) has Biden ahead of Sanders with every other sub-group separately polled–men, women, and African-Americans. He’s also ahead 37%-28% among early-state primary voters.
I’m certainly not saying Biden is getting my vote, but boy oh boy is that headline some cherry-picking of the data.
… Or, in the case of this poll, the same person who polls so well with the 33% of the 17%, but not so much with the other chunks of the 99%.
PROTIP: if there’s a candidate’s name in the title, MUTE IT, the primaries are not until NEXT YEAR
Soorry, you need some evidence for that. Oh, wait, I found some on that very subject! Here, I’ll help you out: “Among Declared Candidates, Bernie Sanders Leads Heavily”
Protip: Always check out how they got their numbers.
About the March 21 – 24 Emerson Poll SHOWING Joe Biden Holding a 1% Edge Over Bernie
The sample size was 707 voters. Voters who only had cell phones were not included. Changing sample sizes and who was polled can impact the results in a major way. pic.twitter.com/ISCdjLFBie
— Veterans for Bernie Sanders #vets4bernie (@vets4bernie) March 25, 2019
I really like this idea. I’m seriously considering leaving these topics to the fanbois and trollies until next spring at the earliest.
There needs to be a standard popular-vote primary system (either preference-voting or proportional assignment of delegates) for the Democratic party in all states. The order of state primaries should be set at random in every cycle. The hodge-podge system we have now, including the relic that is the Iowa caucases, is embarrassing and calcified and creates too much room for back-room deals and stupid horse-race handicapping.
