Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3151  
Old 01-19-2020, 04:02 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
The only thing I'm taking away from this is that these candidates are really shitty candidates if TRUMP'S derisive nicknames for them are sticking with DEMOCRATIC voters. ...
I have a hard time believing you are this naive.

I am 100% sure that if Trump had gotten Ukraine to announce an investigation, supporters of D candidates other than Biden would have been all over it. And if Warren was on top there would be some Ds all over whatever oppo research Trump and Putin had to dump on her.

The circular firing squad is reliable.

The top four and several not in that group are all fine D candidates. The knee jerk "gloves off" of trying to tear down the ones above your choice rather than elevate your favorite by their merits is a shame, and while those who do that may not be officially Team Trump they do serve as Team Trump assets.
  #3152  
Old 01-19-2020, 04:55 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,146
I was one of the only people I know, and I know a LOT of people, who predicted that Donald Trump would win the 2016 election. NOBODY else believed me.

I am not naive when it comes to politics. I am a layman, not an expert, but I have an intuitive sense and I can read people.
  #3153  
Old 01-19-2020, 05:02 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
So I am a Trump fan and a Sanders fan?

Right now I would vote for Yang. If he drops out I would vote for anyone but Biden. Possibly Warren. If it's Biden vs. Trump I would hold my nose and vote Biden. Of course I would vote for dead Charles Manson over Trump.
  #3154  
Old 01-19-2020, 06:59 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
Joe Biden agrees with Paul Ryan?

The Paul Ryan who was taken to the cleaners by Joe Biden in the 2012 debate?
  #3155  
Old 01-19-2020, 07:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
The only thing I'm taking away from this is that these candidates are really shitty candidates if TRUMP'S derisive nicknames for them are sticking with DEMOCRATIC voters. ....
This is exactly what the GOP and the Kremlin want you to believe.


Bijou Drains is clearly a Sanders fan and they are fed with nonstop lies from the Kremlin, the GOP and yes- Bernie himself.
  #3156  
Old 01-19-2020, 07:42 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
To the (pretty significant, AFAICT) extent that billionaires want to preserve the incredibly imbalanced atate of wealth in this country and use their influence to do so, yes, billionaires are the enemy.

Laid-off coal miners might be assholes too, but their assholism doesn't have consequences beyond their circle of friends.
Yet there are billionaires who value a democratic and equitable society and there are coal miners who vote against their own interests and fall in love with kleptocrats. Judge the billionaire not by his wealth but by his positions and actions.

FDR came from the socioeconomic elite and yet he was arguably a man of the people, as was most of the Kennedy clan. You can be rich and value equality, just as you can be poor and value inequality.
  #3157  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:03 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
Should I post screen shots of my donations to Yang? Not worth the trouble. Maybe you can find posts where I said I was a Sanders guy? I posted I was a Yang guy at least once.
  #3158  
Old 01-19-2020, 09:03 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Yet there are billionaires who value a democratic and equitable society and there are coal miners who vote against their own interests and fall in love with kleptocrats. Judge the billionaire not by his wealth but by his positions and actions.

FDR came from the socioeconomic elite and yet he was arguably a man of the people, as was most of the Kennedy clan. You can be rich and value equality, just as you can be poor and value inequality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
To the (pretty significant, AFAICT) extent that billionaires want to preserve the incredibly imbalanced atate of wealth in this country and use their influence to do so, yes, billionaires are the enemy.

Laid-off coal miners might be assholes too, but their assholism doesn't have consequences beyond their circle of friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
The point is, they're arrogating to themselves the right to make choices personally that we ought to be making as a democracy.

Like I said, to the extent that they want to keep it that way, they're the enemy. It's one thing if they're saying, "we're giving away our money and we're also lobbying for laws that would redistribute wealth downward," but if they're fine with how things are, it doesn't matter how much they're giving away. They're still in favor of our being a society where an overclass makes all the big decisions. If they're against small-d democracy itself, they're the enemy.
Just because DSeid elides it out when he's quoting me, doesn't unsay it. It's still there.

Yet here you are, believing you're taking issue with what I said by saying something that's largely in agreement with what I've said. If we diverge on anything, it's that you appear to regard the assholishness of poor people and billionaires as being of equal consequence - but I don't believe you actually believe that.
  #3159  
Old 01-19-2020, 09:17 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
if you go back to the 1800s some of those guys like John D. Rockefeller were actually richer, based on share of GDP, than Gates , Buffet, etc. today. Based on inflation adjusted dollars Gates would be richer than Rockefeller.
  #3160  
Old 01-19-2020, 10:55 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
Bloomberg might be 'buying' the nomination but it needs to be said that he's the only candidate - the only one - who's actually putting out attack ads against Trump. He's the only one fighting the propaganda war that needs to be fought. I don't care how 'pure' the Dems are: if they're not waging information warfare against the republicans, they lose. And we can't afford to lose again.
  #3161  
Old 01-19-2020, 11:03 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Bloomberg might be 'buying' the nomination but it needs to be said that he's the only candidate - the only one - who's actually putting out attack ads against Trump. He's the only one fighting the propaganda war that needs to be fought. I don't care how 'pure' the Dems are: if they're not waging information warfare against the republicans, they lose. And we can't afford to lose again.
I do appreciate that, and the money he is bringing in. And, he's not a bad candidate. I just wish he'd thrown his hat in earlier and gotten blooded in the debates.

Last edited by DrDeth; 01-19-2020 at 11:03 PM.
  #3162  
Old 01-19-2020, 11:03 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,759
I clicked the link and read about Biden and SocSec. As part of budget-balancing efforts, he proposed forgoing (or deferring?) the automatic cost-of-living increase. It's hard to quibble with calling that a "cut." He proposed means-testing SocSec, or raising the age. That would certainly be a "cut" for those who lost to the test, or wanted to retire in their mid-60's. But he explained at the time that he supported all this to AVOID cuts in more progressive programs like food stamps, Head Start, education grants. Moreover, he supported all this ONLY in the context of negotiating a deal with the GOP. When GOP refused to restore taxes on the rich, that was the end of Biden's support for SocSec cuts.

Was it appropriate for Biden to aggressively try to balance the budget? This digression is a hijack, so I'll summarize this in a Spoiler.
SPOILER:
Clinton's D's in the 1990's battled hard to balance the budget, succeeding but spending a HUGE amount of political capital to do so. This was erased and then some by Bush's R when they took over.

Obama inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, yet still managed to fight the deficit back to a reasonable level by 2016. Again Trump and the R's responded by ballooning the deficit as much as they could.

It's worth remembering that, independent of funneling money to their rich cronies, the R's like to increase the debt simply as an excuse to block any spending they disapprove of. After giving trillions to the super-rich, the D's want to add vegetables to schoolchildren's diet? "Oh no; they would cost MILLIONS! We can't afford it."

I'm afraid I have to agree with Paul Krugman. Until Republican malice is a thing of the past, there is no progressive purpose to budget balancing: The GOP will plunge the country back into deficit as soon as they get the power again.

Ike, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, Bush Sr. — these Presidents were admired, or at least respected, by people of both parties. Even Bush Jr. was respected until his lies and incompetence were on full view.

But many MANY millions of Americans absolutely detested Barack Obama. (Most of the haters knew nothing about him. Spoiler alert: they hated his wife too.) Many MANY millions of Americans hate Donald Trump. (Include me in this group; indeed I hate all Americans too stupid NOT to hate Trump.) But having most of the other party disrespect the President is NOT the path to restoring domestic tranquility, if such a path is still possible. Are there many millions of Republicans who would hate Sanders or Warren but give Biden some respect? Probably so, and I can't blame Democratic primary voters for focusing on this idea. (I'm more pessimistic myself, worrying that Lies and Hatred are the new norm for the New America.)
  #3163  
Old 01-19-2020, 11:08 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I clicked the link and read about Biden and SocSec. As part of budget-balancing efforts, he proposed forgoing (or deferring?) the automatic cost-of-living increase. It's hard to quibble with calling that a "cut." He proposed means-testing SocSec, or raising the age. That would certainly be a "cut" for those who lost to the test, or wanted to retire in their mid-60's. But he explained at the time that he supported all this to AVOID cuts in more progressive programs like food stamps, Head Start, education grants. Moreover, he supported all this ONLY in the context of negotiating a deal with the GOP. When GOP refused to restore taxes on the rich, that was the end of Biden's support for SocSec cuts.

Was it appropriate for Biden to aggressively try to balance the budget? This digression is a hijack, so I'll summarize this in a Spoiler.[SPOILER]Clinton's D's in the 1990's battled hard to balance the budget, succeeding but spending a HUGE amount of political capital to do so. This was erased and then some by Bush's R when they took over.
...
....
... (I'm more pessimistic myself, worrying that Lies and Hatred are the new norm for the New America.)
If you are freezing the entire federal budget, no that's not a cut. If my boss comes to me and says "Doc, no one, including CEO and myself, is getting a raise this year." I wouldn't consider that a pay cut.

But yeah, lies and hatred. Not so much by the Dems, but we arent immune by any means.
  #3164  
Old 01-19-2020, 11:28 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,916
The NY Times has just endorsed Warren and Klobuchar.
  #3165  
Old 01-20-2020, 12:08 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
The NY Times has just endorsed Warren and Klobuchar.
What the actual fuck?
  #3166  
Old 01-20-2020, 12:27 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Just because DSeid elides it out when he's quoting me, doesn't unsay it. It's still there...
And does not change the meaning.

"to the extent that they want to keep it that way, they're the enemy."

"to the extent Jews control the banks and the media, they're the enemy."

"to the extent Blacks are violent thugs, they're the enemy."

"to the extent Mexican immigrants are rapists, they're the enemy."

Basic formulation "to the extent [X] is [negative stereotype of X], they're the enemy" is a means of reinforcing the negative stereotype and defining X as "the enemy."

If, in response to "It's garbage nonsense from The Left like "billionaires are the enemy" that helps motivate confused right-wing thinking" you want to communicate "there are billionaires who value a democratic and equitable society and there are coal miners who vote against their own interests and fall in love with kleptocrats. Judge the billionaire not by his wealth but by his positions and actions." you say something, well, that communicates it. You did not.

Glad that you in fact just chose your words badly (we all do sometimes) and that you actually have no problem with the statement you were arguing against, and that you instead do NOT believe in painting with broad brushstrokes and instead believe that all should be judged by their positions and actions, not by their wealth.
  #3167  
Old 01-20-2020, 12:38 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,048
Idiotic move by the NYTimes. The whole idea of an election is that you have to choose one. You can choose not to vote at all but if you do vote you have to choose only one. So what sense does it make to endorse two candidates for an election. At the least they should have announced a winner and a runner-up.
  #3168  
Old 01-20-2020, 01:14 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,048
The NYTimes write-up isn't bad but I noticed this:
"The four front-runners are bunched together both in national polls and surveys in states holding the first votes, so small shifts in voter sentiment can have an outsize influence this early in the campaign."

The top four are indeed polling quite closely in IA and NH but nationally, as per the NYTimes, they are 26,19,16, and 9 which is not close at all. This is an embarrassing mistake to make in an important editorial and reinforces my impression that many people who write about US politics for a living don't much understand their subject.
  #3169  
Old 01-20-2020, 07:14 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
If Biden does not win IA or NH he likely will start going down in national polls and other state polls and the race will be much closer. When you are the frontrunner any loss is bad.
  #3170  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:00 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
And does not change the meaning.

"to the extent that they want to keep it that way, they're the enemy."

"to the extent Jews control the banks and the media, they're the enemy."
Yeah, conflate a pernicous myth about Jews surreptitiously controlling everything, with a reality of an overclass of billionaires having way outsized power in our society.

And to think I once had respect for your opinions.
  #3171  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:30 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
The agreement is on the outsized power of the class and that such is a problem.

Bijou maybe if he doesn’t place in the top three but it is about expectations and he hasn’t been expected to win those states. Him winning NH in particular would be exceeding expectations.
  #3172  
Old 01-20-2020, 09:39 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
Noticed as of now Nate Silver says nobody gets enough delegates on first ballot, not even Biden. Of course things could change quickly once voting starts.
  #3173  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:18 AM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
Idiotic move by the NYTimes. The whole idea of an election is that you have to choose one. You can choose not to vote at all but if you do vote you have to choose only one. So what sense does it make to endorse two candidates for an election. At the least they should have announced a winner and a runner-up.
Here's their rationale:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Paper of Record
The board announced on Sunday that it is supporting both Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren for the Democratic presidential nomination, a departure from convention that is meant to address the party’s “realist” and “radical” models.
While arguing that President Trump must be defeated, the board did not take a position on the best path forward for Democrats, writing that both approaches “warrant serious consideration".
The endorsement essay itself is behind a paywall.

Last edited by jsc1953; 01-20-2020 at 11:19 AM.
  #3174  
Old 01-20-2020, 01:24 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,451
2020 campaign headlines:
LGBTQ bar ‘very disappointed’ at Pete Buttigieg’s campaign for canceling fund-raiser over dancing pole

The managers of an LGBTQ club in Providence, R.I. are “very disappointed” with the last-minute cancellation of a fund-raiser for the openly gay presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg.

The event, which was scheduled for Friday evening at the Dark Lady, had been widely promoted on social media. It was supposed to feature Buttigieg’s husband, Chasten, as its headliner.

But after representatives for the Buttigieg campaign arrived at the bar “20 minutes before our staff was scheduled to arrive, they came in and asked us to remove the dancer pole,” Buck Asprinio, the bar’s general manager, told local news station WPRI 12.

The Dark Lady refused to do so. The poll has been part of the bar since it opened its doors, and “it’s not going anywhere,” he said.

The Buttigieg campaign felt they didn’t want to be connected to it, and decided to move the event over to the Hotel Providence, a non-LGBTQ bar across the street.
  #3175  
Old 01-20-2020, 02:05 PM
Folacin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North of the River
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I do appreciate that, and the money he is bringing in. And, he's not a bad candidate. I just wish he'd thrown his hat in earlier and gotten blooded in the debates.
Unless/until he starts accepting donations (I believe he is currently entirely self-funded?), he won't qualify for a debate, which all have donor count and dollar amount bars.
  #3176  
Old 01-20-2020, 02:16 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 88,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
2020 campaign headlines:
LGBTQ bar ‘very disappointed’ at Pete Buttigieg’s campaign for canceling fund-raiser over dancing pole

The managers of an LGBTQ club in Providence, R.I. are “very disappointed” with the last-minute cancellation of a fund-raiser for the openly gay presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg.

The event, which was scheduled for Friday evening at the Dark Lady, had been widely promoted on social media. It was supposed to feature Buttigieg’s husband, Chasten, as its headliner.

But after representatives for the Buttigieg campaign arrived at the bar “20 minutes before our staff was scheduled to arrive, they came in and asked us to remove the dancer pole,” Buck Asprinio, the bar’s general manager, told local news station WPRI 12.

The Dark Lady refused to do so. The poll has been part of the bar since it opened its doors, and “it’s not going anywhere,” he said.

The Buttigieg campaign felt they didn’t want to be connected to it, and decided to move the event over to the Hotel Providence, a non-LGBTQ bar across the street.
Oh, come on. It's not like anyone would insist that Chasten do a routine with it.
  #3177  
Old 01-20-2020, 02:34 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The agreement is on the outsized power of the class and that such is a problem.

Bijou maybe if he doesn’t place in the top three but it is about expectations and he hasn’t been expected to win those states. Him winning NH in particular would be exceeding expectations.
538 polling average currently has him in second, only 0.7% behind Sanders. Warren and Buttigieg are about 5 points behind. So a third place finish or worse would definitely be a failure to meet expectations. And as of today he's actually four points ahead in Iowa, though it's generally been much closer.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 01-20-2020 at 02:37 PM.
  #3178  
Old 01-20-2020, 02:54 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Folacin View Post
Unless/until he starts accepting donations (I believe he is currently entirely self-funded?), he won't qualify for a debate, which all have donor count and dollar amount bars.
Zach Montellaro agrees that it's unlikely that Bloomberg makes this next debate, but the DNC created the rules for the next debate taking place on Feb. 7, so it's possible that Bloomberg could make it to a debate without donors. The DNC added another option to make it to a debate by getting 1 delegate in Iowa. Bloomberg isn't campaigning in Iowa, so it not likely, but it's possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zach Montellaro from Politico
We have the thresholds for the Feb. 7 debate, per @kendallkarson

Option A: Get at least 1 delegate out of Iowa

Option B: 5 percent in 4 polls (or 7 percent in 2 early states), and 225k donors. Polling window is Dec. 13-Feb. 6; Iowa polls are excluded
. . .
@MikeBloomberg will probably miss out. He's hit the polling, but isn't taking donations and is skipping Iowa
ETA: Is it possible to buy a delegate in Iowa without campaigning there? I guess we're about to find out.

Last edited by Heffalump and Roo; 01-20-2020 at 02:58 PM. Reason: what can money buy?
  #3179  
Old 01-20-2020, 03:11 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
Bloomberg is not accepting donations but Steyer is.
  #3180  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:28 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
I'm starting to question whether Sanders is actually aware of what his staff are up to online. Those people like David Sirota, Brie Joy and Nina Turner are running a very mean-spirited campaign as the first vote gets near. Jeff Weaver who was the 2016 campaign manager has a more informal role now too and he was front and center at smearing Hillary in 2016. They're editing clips out of context about Biden and Warren, one retweeted a post a week ago from a Jacobin writer mocking Buttigieg's military service as a prop for a political career, and now a newsletter by the campaign is using Trumpian language by saying Biden has a corruption problem. Yet whenever Sanders himself is asked by a reporter he is actually quite complimentary and calls Biden a good friend and never demonstrates such bitterness himself.
  #3181  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:34 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
I'm starting to question whether Sanders is actually aware of what his staff are up to online. Those people like David Sirota, Brie Joy and Nina Turner are running a very mean-spirited campaign as the first vote gets near. Jeff Weaver who was the 2016 campaign manager has a more informal role now too and he was front and center at smearing Hillary in 2016. They're editing clips out of context about Biden and Warren, one retweeted a post a week ago from a Jacobin writer mocking Buttigieg's military service as a prop for a political career, and now a newsletter by the campaign is using Trumpian language by saying Biden has a corruption problem. Yet whenever Sanders himself is asked by a reporter he is actually quite complimentary and calls Biden a good friend and never demonstrates such bitterness himself.
Well, here's how I see that.

Either he's too clueless to understand what his staff is up to and is therefore certainly not up to running a country, or he's fully aware of what they're doing and wants to appear to keep his hands clean -- in which case, he's a bastard who doesn't deserve the presidency.

One way or the other... is this the guy you want in the job? Not me.
  #3182  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Well, here's how I see that.



Either he's too clueless to understand what his staff is up to and is therefore certainly not up to running a country, or he's fully aware of what they're doing and wants to appear to keep his hands clean -- in which case, he's a bastard who doesn't deserve the presidency.



One way or the other... is this the guy you want in the job? Not me.
Actually, the latter quality is exactly the kind of political ruthlessness that I think is probably necessary to win presidential elections today. One must be fluent in dirty politics, but skillful enough to stay above the fray and keep one's hands clean with plausibly deniability. Hopefully the eventual nominee has this skillset.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #3183  
Old 01-20-2020, 09:04 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Actually, the latter quality is exactly the kind of political ruthlessness that I think is probably necessary to win presidential elections today. One must be fluent in dirty politics, but skillful enough to stay above the fray and keep one's hands clean with plausibly deniability. Hopefully the eventual nominee has this skillset.
Actually, I think it's going to backfire on Bernie, as it has on every other Democratic primary candidate who has tried to inartfully dirty up their opponents. Bernie has been no more skillful than Kamala Harris was when she tried it against Biden. You'll recall how that worked out for her.
  #3184  
Old 01-20-2020, 10:08 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
I'm starting to question whether Sanders is actually aware of what his staff are up to online. Those people like David Sirota, Brie Joy and Nina Turner are running a very mean-spirited campaign as the first vote gets near. Jeff Weaver who was the 2016 campaign manager has a more informal role now too and he was front and center at smearing Hillary in 2016. They're editing clips out of context about Biden and Warren, one retweeted a post a week ago from a Jacobin writer mocking Buttigieg's military service as a prop for a political career, and now a newsletter by the campaign is using Trumpian language by saying Biden has a corruption problem. Yet whenever Sanders himself is asked by a reporter he is actually quite complimentary and calls Biden a good friend and never demonstrates such bitterness himself.
Where are you seeing this stuff? I follow Bernie on FB and it’s all positive stuff, rarely even mentioning his opponents.
  #3185  
Old 01-20-2020, 10:09 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Actually, I think it's going to backfire on Bernie, as it has on every other Democratic primary candidate who has tried to inartfully dirty up their opponents. Bernie has been no more skillful than Kamala Harris was when she tried it against Biden. You'll recall how that worked out for her.
Well, hopefully that shameful lie Warren told about Sanders last week will drop her out of the race pronto, then.
  #3186  
Old 01-20-2020, 10:20 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
I don’t do Twitter, but I just went and checked Bernie’s feed there, and no personal attacks on rivals there, either. Most of it focuses on his own policies and campaign. A few tweets contrast his policies with Biden’s, but nothing attacking Biden personally.
  #3187  
Old 01-20-2020, 10:20 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Where are you seeing this stuff? I follow Bernie on FB and it’s all positive stuff, rarely even mentioning his opponents.
It's on the Twitter feed of those people I've mentioned and get retweeted a lot so that's how I saw it. I don't use Facebook. The newsletter was a screenshot by a media reporter who presumably subscribed to an email list.
https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/...88163409190912

Anyway Sanders has just disavowed the newsletter.

Quote:
"It is absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way. And I'm sorry that that op-ed appeared," Sanders said.
https://t.co/O7pL3hefnP?amp=1

Last edited by Boycott; 01-20-2020 at 10:22 PM.
  #3188  
Old 01-20-2020, 10:25 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
I don’t do Twitter, but I just went and checked Bernie’s feed there, and no personal attacks on rivals there, either. Most of it focuses on his own policies and campaign. A few tweets contrast his policies with Biden’s, but nothing attacking Biden personally.
Not Bernie himself. Some of the people who work on his campaign who themselves have a relatively big following on Twitter.
  #3189  
Old 01-20-2020, 10:57 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
Checked Sirota’s feed. Definitely a saltier tone, but no personal attacks. Lots of stuff about Biden’s long record of trying to cut Social Security and Medicare. Many links to multiple videos and articles documenting same.

Sounds as though the Biden campaign is trying to avoid debating the issues and would rather talk about whether one particular video clip was taken out of context.

Also, I’ll note that he has about 1.5% as many followers as Bernie does. With all due respect, I’m not too concerned about how Bernie’s doing with the “people who follow campaign consultants on Twitter” demographic.
  #3190  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:03 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
Actually, looks like Biden is going further and saying that the video was “doctored” (again, not sure which of the multiple videos, taken over several decades, showing him calling for SS/Medicare cuts he was talking about). As far as I can see, he offers no evidence for this claim. So who’s practicing dirty politics again?

Last edited by Thing Fish; 01-20-2020 at 11:03 PM.
  #3191  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:20 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
This is what he was referring to.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-social-secur/

Did Biden laud a Paul Ryan proposal to cut Social Security as Bernie Sanders’ campaign said?

Quote:
Sanders campaign newsletter said, "In 2018, Biden lauded Paul Ryan for proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare."

That stems from a speech Biden gave in 2018 in which he spoke about Ryan. Biden appeared to be mocking Ryan, not praising him.

The Sanders campaign omitted what Biden said next: the importance of protecting Social Security and Medicare and to change the tax code, which he said benefitted the mega rich. Overall, the point of Biden’s speech was to criticize tax cuts for the rich and call for more help to the middle class.

The Sanders campaign plucked out part of what Biden said but omitted the full context of his comments.

We rate this statement False.
  #3192  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:21 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Actually, looks like Biden is going further and saying that the video was “doctored” (again, not sure which of the multiple videos, taken over several decades, showing him calling for SS/Medicare cuts he was talking about). As far as I can see, he offers no evidence for this claim. So who’s practicing dirty politics again?
It was doctored. (Reuters) I posted this link in Post #3130. Please read the story to the end, where PolitiFact rates what was asserted in Sanders's newsletter as false.

How do you know the other videos, taken over several decades, weren't also doctored in the same ways?

Again, I have no problem with Sanders calling Biden out on his actual record. That's fine. But there is no need to resort to Trumpian tactics like doctoring a video to completely twist the context of Biden's words, as Sanders's staff did. That is dirty politics. Biden wouldn't do it to Sanders, that's sure.

Re the Warren thing, some actual cites demonstrated her "guilt" would be nice. If you have them, I mean.

ETA: Ninja'd by Boycott, I'm happy to concede.

ETA again: Thing Fish, you might want to review septimus's excellent Post #3162 to better understand the nuances of Biden's positions on SSI and Medicare.

Last edited by Aspenglow; 01-20-2020 at 11:25 PM.
  #3193  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:23 AM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
The clip was not doctored or faked in any way, and the article you linked to doesn't claim that it was. It may have been taken out of context, but Biden is lying when he says it was "doctored". So basically, you're parroting Biden's lies and then using them to pre-emptively reject any other evidence that would look bad for Biden. Nice. Apparently one can't link videos from Twitter, but you can check Sirota's feed, watch multiple clips of Biden on the Senate floor bragging about his efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare, and then tell yourself that C-Span is part of the big meanie Bernie conspiracy.

Biden's surrogates are pushing that 'But Politico said it was false!" line. But all Politico said was false was the specific assertion that Biden was praising Ryan in that one particular video. It didn't deny that Biden has a record of working with Republicans for the last 40 years in efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare. And even then, their only source for their assertion that Biden was being sarcastic is...the Biden campaign! Pretty crappy journalism.

Ooh, here's a linkable video from a Meet the Press interview in 2007.


Here is the Motley Fool describing Biden's decades of efforts to cut these vital social programs. Of course, he thinks that's a good thing.

Here's a quote from another brainwashed Bernie bro unfairly attacking Biden:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
“Bernie Sanders and I established the ‘Expand Social Security Caucus’ in the Senate,” Warren said in a quick interview as she hopped into her car outside a candidate forum in Iowa. “As a senator, Joe Biden had a very different position on Social Security, and I think everyone's records on Social Security are important in this election.”
Here's an article summarizing Biden's record on the issue, sourced mainly from the work of that well-known partisan hack Bob Woodward. But hey, maybe Woodward's book was "doctored"!

Here's a NYT analysis of the brouhaha, pointing out that Biden has misrepresented the Politifact finding. Money quote:

Quote:
Throughout his decades in public life, Mr. Biden has at times supported freezes and backed proposals that have alarmed some who worry about the effect on the program.
  #3194  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:31 AM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I clicked the link and read about Biden and SocSec. As part of budget-balancing efforts, he proposed forgoing (or deferring?) the automatic cost-of-living increase. It's hard to quibble with calling that a "cut." He proposed means-testing SocSec, or raising the age. That would certainly be a "cut" for those who lost to the test, or wanted to retire in their mid-60's. But he explained at the time that he supported all this to AVOID cuts in more progressive programs like food stamps, Head Start, education grants. Moreover, he supported all this ONLY in the context of negotiating a deal with the GOP. When GOP refused to restore taxes on the rich, that was the end of Biden's support for SocSec cuts.

Was it appropriate for Biden to aggressively try to balance the budget? This digression is a hijack, so I'll summarize this in a Spoiler.
SPOILER:
Clinton's D's in the 1990's battled hard to balance the budget, succeeding but spending a HUGE amount of political capital to do so. This was erased and then some by Bush's R when they took over.

Obama inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, yet still managed to fight the deficit back to a reasonable level by 2016. Again Trump and the R's responded by ballooning the deficit as much as they could.

It's worth remembering that, independent of funneling money to their rich cronies, the R's like to increase the debt simply as an excuse to block any spending they disapprove of. After giving trillions to the super-rich, the D's want to add vegetables to schoolchildren's diet? "Oh no; they would cost MILLIONS! We can't afford it."

I'm afraid I have to agree with Paul Krugman. Until Republican malice is a thing of the past, there is no progressive purpose to budget balancing: The GOP will plunge the country back into deficit as soon as they get the power again.

Ike, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, Bush Sr. — these Presidents were admired, or at least respected, by people of both parties. Even Bush Jr. was respected until his lies and incompetence were on full view.

But many MANY millions of Americans absolutely detested Barack Obama. (Most of the haters knew nothing about him. Spoiler alert: they hated his wife too.) Many MANY millions of Americans hate Donald Trump. (Include me in this group; indeed I hate all Americans too stupid NOT to hate Trump.) But having most of the other party disrespect the President is NOT the path to restoring domestic tranquility, if such a path is still possible. Are there many millions of Republicans who would hate Sanders or Warren but give Biden some respect? Probably so, and I can't blame Democratic primary voters for focusing on this idea. (I'm more pessimistic myself, worrying that Lies and Hatred are the new norm for the New America.)
Checked this because of Aspenglow's recommendation. So, according to this generous interpretation, he did support cutting Social Security, but he has excuses. Cool. Bernie Sanders has never supported any cuts to Social Security, so need not make excuses.

And WRT the last paragraph...so millions of Americans irrationally hated Barack Obama, and the way to restore national unity is to elect Barack Obama's Vice-President, because those Americans will respect him? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
  #3195  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:59 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Checked this because of Aspenglow's recommendation. So, according to this generous interpretation, he did support cutting Social Security, but he has excuses. Cool. Bernie Sanders has never supported any cuts to Social Security, so need not make excuses.
...
No. At no time has Biden ever suggested a cut to SocSec.


If you are freezing the entire federal budget, no that's not a cut. If my boss comes to me and says "Doc, no one, including CEO and myself, is getting a raise this year." I wouldn't consider that a pay cut.

A freeze is not a cut, especially when everything is frozen.
  #3196  
Old 01-21-2020, 01:18 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
The clip was not doctored or faked in any way, and the article you linked to doesn't claim that it was. It may have been taken out of context, but Biden is lying when he says it was "doctored". So basically, you're parroting Biden's lies and then using them to pre-emptively reject any other evidence that would look bad for Biden. Nice. Apparently one can't link videos from Twitter, but you can check Sirota's feed, watch multiple clips of Biden on the Senate floor bragging about his efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare, and then tell yourself that C-Span is part of the big meanie Bernie conspiracy.
The portion that gave the quote context was cut out, making it look like Biden supported (or "lauded," in the words of the newsletter) Paul Ryan's views on SSI. That's "doctored" in my book. You make it sound like people just spontaneously took the video out of context. They didn't. They were led to believe something that is false through manipulations of the video by Sanders's team.

Having lived through those years when Republicans were pushing hard to balance the budget and each side considered it honorable to work with each other, I remember Biden's arguments. In context of the times. Context matters. Republicans used to pretend that huge budget deficits were a problem. They're not wrong. Currently, they have zero interest in fixing it. Biden's positions on SSI and Medicare have evolved with the times, and I understand that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Biden's surrogates are pushing that 'But Politico said it was false!" line. But all Politico said was false was the specific assertion that Biden was praising Ryan in that one particular video. It didn't deny that Biden has a record of working with Republicans for the last 40 years in efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare. And even then, their only source for their assertion that Biden was being sarcastic is...the Biden campaign! Pretty crappy journalism.
Did you watch the entire unedited video in question? I think you should. It speaks for itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Ooh, here's a linkable video from a Meet the Press interview in 2007.
Do you agree that something must be done to fix SSI/Medicare so it can be preserved for people over the long term? If yes, then how dare Joe Biden be willing to actually consider solutions to the problem? I certainly never heard him say he was cutting either program in that clip. I heard him say he would consider raising the eligibility age, and I heard him say Medicare is the far greater concern but he offered no particular solution, saying only that he would consider any proposal. Oooohhh. Is he wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Here is the Motley Fool describing Biden's decades of efforts to cut these vital social programs. Of course, he thinks that's a good thing.
I see nothing that supports your assertion that the Motley Fool article describes Biden's "decades of efforts to cut these vital social programs." I saw an article with a headline that makes an assertion for which they offer exactly zero supporting proof. I guess you liked the headline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Here's a quote from another brainwashed Bernie bro unfairly attacking Biden:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
“Bernie Sanders and I established the ‘Expand Social Security Caucus’ in the Senate,” Warren said in a quick interview as she hopped into her car outside a candidate forum in Iowa. “As a senator, Joe Biden had a very different position on Social Security, and I think everyone's records on Social Security are important in this election.”
I have highlighted the relevant word in Warren's quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Here's an article summarizing Biden's record on the issue, sourced mainly from the work of that well-known partisan hack Bob Woodward. But hey, maybe Woodward's book was "doctored"!
Do you remember the context of 2010? First, Biden was pursuing compromise with Republicans on behalf of Barack Obama and in accordance with Obama's agenda to find a way forward to a "grand bargain" with Republicans, after they swept the 2010 mid-terms. It was Biden's job to carry out the Obama Administration's wishes.

Second, we were still in a hell of a financial mess created by Republicans during the Bush the Lesser years. Obama/Biden were tasked with finding a way out of that gawd awful wilderness. Remember? It seems you did, since you left out all that context mentioned by Woodward in relating to Biden's position at that moment in time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Here's a NYT analysis of the brouhaha, pointing out that Biden has misrepresented the Politifact finding. Money quote:

Quote:
Throughout his decades in public life, Mr. Biden has at times supported freezes and backed proposals that have alarmed some who worry about the effect on the program.
Wow, you really got me there. Biden has at times supported proposals that might... <gasp> fix a problem! Funny; the only solutions I ever hear offered by Sanders is, "tax the rich!" No disagreement from me, but I doubt it's going to get him elected if he wins the primary.

Just to be clear, I'm on SSI. This issue matters to me a great deal. It's not something abstract that is happening at some distant point in the future for which I can make adjustments. For me, this issue is here and now. I pay very close attention to what is happening to SSI and Medicare. Again, I have no problem with Sanders or Warren offering valid criticisms based on Biden's actual record. But when Sanders's people twist the context, that's reprehensible in my book.

And if Sanders's gambit was so innocent, why did he apologize?
  #3197  
Old 01-21-2020, 01:41 AM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
Your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired. Here are the relevant excerpts from the Motley Fool article:

1. Raising the full retirement age

For those of you who may not recall, this isn't Joe Biden's first go-around as a presidential hopeful for the Democratic ticket. Prior to Barack Obama winning the Democratic nomination in 2008, Biden was one of Obama's competitors for that nomination. Of the many proposals Biden brought to the table in 2007, arguably none was viewed with greater scrutiny than his ideas on buoying retirement savings plans, including Social Security.

2. Orchestrating a $112 billion payroll-tax holiday.
Although it was a cut that beneficiaries wouldn't tangibly see in their benefit checks, Biden was a key figure behind $112 billion worth of Social Security cuts during the early part of this decade.

As detailed by Bob Woodward, an investigative journalist who's worked for the Washington Post for the past 48 years, in his 2012 book The Price of Politics, then-President Obama leaned on Vice President Biden to be his key negotiator at the congressional level between Democrats and Republicans regarding Social Security and other revenue-generating and expenditure-cutting initiatives. The final tax deal that reached Obama's desk in 2010 extended the George W. Bush-era tax cuts and, most notably, created a payroll-tax holiday that cut payroll tax collection by $112 billion.

In 2017, payroll taxes accounted for more than 88% of the just over $1 trillion collected by the Social Security program. By providing a partial payroll-tax holiday, lawmakers hindered the revenue collection potential of the Social Security program's workhorse.

It's also worth noting that when Biden helped to orchestrate this tax deal, it was well known that Social Security was in deep trouble. In 2010, the Trustees had been forecasting an eventual depletion of Social Security's asset reserves by 2037, and the report has been alluding to a long-term cash shortfall since 1985. Thus, even with Social Security short on long-term revenue, Biden led the creation of a tax plan that further reduced the program's income for a short amount of time.


While not focusing strictly on cutting benefits, Biden's noted approach, according to NBC News, was to work on a bipartisan solution that would include discussing options such as raising the full retirement age and increasing the earnings cap associated with the payroll tax.

3. Means-testing for benefits

Lastly, as recently as May 2018, Biden has argued for the idea of means-testing for both Social Security and Medicare benefits, which is actually something that President Trump casually suggested while on the campaign trail for the presidency.
  #3198  
Old 01-21-2020, 01:56 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,556
Answered none of my questions, I see, regarding the need to address long-term viability of SSI/Medicare, or why Sanders felt the need to apologize.

Your post also ignores (again) the context of 2007/2008 financial crisis left behind by Republicans for Obama/Biden to deal with. What do you think that payroll tax holiday was all about?

I see an ideological argument prepared to support Sanders no matter what. Nothing more. That's sad. If the situation was reversed, I'd be as willing to call out Biden for ugly tactics.

For the record, I'll vote for Sanders if he wins the nomination. But I'll sure hate it, after this caper.

Fortunately, I don't think I'll have to.
  #3199  
Old 01-21-2020, 01:59 AM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
And nice job there, dishonestly trying to twist Warren's quote. Massive hypocrisy, anyone? Clearly, she used the past tense because Biden is no longer a Senator, not because they no longer hold differing views.

Bernie Sanders, throughout his entire career, has steadfastly fought against all efforts to cut Social Security, whether it be by eliminating COLA, means-testing, raising the retirement age, or any such shenanigans. He has rejected Republican efforts to claim that adequately caring for our elderly is "too expensive". Joe Biden has consistently been willing, in the name of "bipartisanship", to treat the welfare of elderly and disabled people as a bargaining chip. If you want to argue that cutting benefits to poor people in order to prevent rich people from having to pay their fair share of taxes is a good thing, go for it. If you want to argue that Joe Biden's record isn't what it in fact is, good luck with that. If you just want to keep clutching your pearls about one misleading video instead, you're just revealing that you know you can't win either of those arguments on their merits.
  #3200  
Old 01-21-2020, 02:03 AM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
Missed edit window; the last paragraph of point #2 of the Motley Fool article (beginning "While not focusing...") should be at the end of point 1.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017