Yeah, let’s nominate someone EVEN MORE FAR OUT than that. Sure that’ll work out just grand.
See post #149.
Yes I meant disingenuous.
Sure it could be damaging to his campaign, especially if it’s dropped with no context. Hence, people who would like to see an honest campaign feel the need to provide context. I hope that quenches your innocent curiosity.
By the way, the Clintons honeymooned in Haiti, right around the start of the AIDS epidemic. Just a little innocent factoid.
Oh yes, I guess I did ask for an example of who could be so oblivious as to the optics. Thanks for supplying that.
If you think I was pretending any of this was “innocent curiosity”, then no wonder you thought I was being disingenuous! So let me be absolutely clear (one of Bernie’s favorite phrases):
Bernie’s trips to Communist countries in the 1980s, including the one he took with his wife when they were newlyweds which he has repeatedly described as a “honeymoon” until recently, are a big problem for his viability/electability in the general election, and are in themselves disqualifying even if he were a perfect candidate in every other respect (which he is not).
I am making absolutely no pretense that this has anything to do with “innocent curiosity”. I am vigorously prosecuting the case for why Bernie Sanders cannot be our party’s nominee unless we want another McGovern fiasco (and McGovern never went anywhere near as “pinko” as this).
In fact, it occurs to me that this case is being buried in a semi-off topic thread, so I think I will start a new one because this shit is important.
I think you are giving it way too much weight. “Disqualifying” ? It can be softened and spun. A politician visiting Russia is simply not that big a deal.
Not that I think that Sanders is even going to win the nomination.
How about a politician also writing a paean to the Sandinistas’ “heroic revolution” and visiting Cuba for the trifecta?
I guess I am the wrong guy to ask because I think despite their flaws the Sandinistas were better than what came before and certainly better than the Contras the CIA funded. Ugly bit of history for the Republicans to bring up, frankly.
And you got to be pretty damn old to give a crap about Cuba nowadays. A majority of Americans are against the embargo.
Look, if his ties to the old Communist bloc are so killer to Bernie that the USA will actually vote for a GOP President, Hillary needs to use it and she needs to use it now. She needs to start being more anti-Communist than Rubio (who’s actually been pretty low-key about Bernie’s Commie sympathies). Because otherwise Sanders will beat her, because Bernie is more progressive than she is and this is the primary of the more progressive party.
Yes, Hillary has to teach the under-45’s that Communism Is Bad, just like Drugs, mmmkay, because they don’t know! All they see is that Capitalism Laughs At Their Pain, and Bernie offers Hope.
She has to rail against Communism, Socialism, and anti-Americanism. She has to beat it out of the base before it’s too late! She gotta say Commie Commie Commie, and she’s going to have to teach the stupid children what it means. 
[/sardonics]
Me, I think all this is silly. We know that there’s a left-right fight, that comes down to tribal affinities and general economic anxiety in the end.
I think the actual policies of the particular nominee don’t mean all that much to the numbers in the general, the party does, and the Democrats are the “Commies” and GOP are the “Nazis.” Maybe the real fight is over what kind of Democratic Party will win or lose this year, and nominating Hillary or Bernie neither helps nor hurts that much.
We know that elections are predicted by the level of economic growth immediately previous. We know that the Fed got tired of keeping interest rates near zero, and raised them–so the economy is going to lose growth this year.
Most probably, the GOP nominee, whoever that is, will win. But maybe not. Maybe the economy won’t be that bad, or maybe the GOP, since it dominates Congress and statehouses, won’t enjoy the cachet of the reforming outsider this time. But history teaches me that I am voting for the person to lose to the Republican. By that standard, nominating Hillary after a long fight with Sanders makes sense. Moderation will be blamed for the Democratic defeat, and the Democrats will tend to be more social-democratic in the future. But it’s better if it’s a fight that Sanders can almost win, so social democrats look viable enough to wrest the party away from the centrists.
But in the end, Nietzsche taught me to fight without fear and to fight without hope. I still want Bernie to have a shot at the general election, because I want Americans to have a new choice. Not a choice between corruption and other corruption, but a choice between whatever cynical bullhockey we get from the GOP nominee and an idealism not that far from US Grant or Henry Wallace. I want a Democratic Party closer to the New Deal than to the weaselly conservatism of the Clintons.
Let’s have that fight. Let’s put up a Commie against Ted Cruz’s utopian minarchism and false piety. Let’s have that fight.
And if we lose, all right. I’m from the Mighty White Heartland, I don’t expect the hated gay liberal abortionists to win forever anyway. But at least we’ll have tried. And the youth movement will have a party on their side to try again, and maybe American Communism will be rescued from its present smelly hole in the dungheap of popular opinion.
Also, Hillary is wrong on how to design a High-Frequency Trading tax, she was wrong on how to achieve universal health insurance, and the climate scientists called her energy poligy “silly.” I don’t trust her judgment, her loyalties, nor her ethics.
But enjoy your anti-Communism, I hear it was very chic once.
OK, so nominating a Reagan Democrat in 1992 didn’t help hold onto Congress. Nominating a centrist appeaser in 2008 didn’t help hold onto Congress.
If your answer is that we need to move right, OK, fine, let’s dissolve the Democratic Party, I guess. We can have a one-party state. We are all Republicans now, let’s start tattooing an image of the holy Dutch Reagan’s face on your forehead. Or we can be the party of Jefferson Davis again! :rolleyes:
Or, you know, we can offer a bold choice for the future, not an echo of crooked conservatives past.
You didn’t read very closely at all if you thought that was *my *anti-communism. I was pro-Communist when Gorbachev was heading the party! In any event, I created a new thread on the topic.
What married suburban boomer women think is irrelevant to the discussion. What becomes an endless argument on cable television is irrelevant to the discussion as well.
If you don’t acknowledge what I said is true, do you think the statement “Bernie Sanders honeymooned in the USSR.” (with it’s obvious implication that he wanted to go there) is true? If yes, then I’ve already shown that to be incorrect, and I can’t help you any more. If no, then why are you bringing it up?
Bringing up half-truths and then backing away and saying “voters won’t like it” is a truism. Of course suburban boomer mom won’t like that Sanders vacationed in the USSR. That’s not what you’re saying, or at least you seriously need help putting context in your postsm You brought up the statement without hinting at all about it being used in the context of voters antipathy towards it.
Wait, you are arguing that Bernie didn’t *want *to go to the USSR? Uhhh…okaayyyy…
(And yes, I agree with Politifact that it is “Mostly True” that he honeymooned in the USSR.)
I’m arguing that saying he honey mooned in the USSR is intentionally leaving out important context information to further a political point. Did he want to go to the USSR? I dunno, try dropping him a line and asking.
Sure, in a primary it looks bad, because the GOP will intentionally not give the important context. We’re on a left leaning MB. To say that it’s propaganda fodder is a truism. To try to use it to further a political point in the Dem primary is just silly. Other than those two options, both of which I find distasteful, I fail to see why you brought it up.
The answer is simple and I would have thought obvious. I bring it up because it is a prime reason I think nominating Sanders could lead to another McGovern wipe out, and I want other Democrats to wake up and smell the coffee before it’s too late.
Sure. Hell, even I don’t actually really want the guy to win, when you get to the nitty gritty of it. SCOTUS appointments, ACA, etc all need continued Democratic control of the presidency. I’ll admit the guy is almost certainly not electable. So I suppose I’ll cry in the corner for a bit on Election Day, take off my Bernie sweatshirt, and vote for Hillary.
Really too bad Lizzie Warren will be goddamned ancient come 2024 (praying the Dems win 2020). I think if Hillary wasn’t running she really could have done it. Of course, even if she wouldn’t be old, who knows how the electorate would respond to the prospect of 12+ straight years of a women in the Oval Office in 2024.0
Oh Great Electable Progressive Hope, where art thou?
There you go, hug that false dichotomy for all it’s worth. We all know it’s all or nothing, right?
Not obtuse enough to believe that :). Again, it’s very similar to Trump’s Just Asking QUestions over Cruz’s birthplace. You’re not making the cheap shot, you’re just repeating it and saying what a problem it’s gonna be!
Seriously, I’m not nearly obtuse enough to fall for that.
Should he have stuck with “gall,” do you think, or would that have raised objections that he was implying Bernie was French?
I have to question your judgement, then. If Hillary is the least bad option, Bernie is, by default, the second least bad.
Every Republican is absolutely unacceptable.