Best ex-president in memory, for sure.
Too bad Scoop Jackson didnt win the nom instead of Carter.
I really think we are talking about two different things.
I am not following your train of thought at all as regards this discussion.
It’s probably me.
There are some phrasings that seem to view politics and economics as morality plays. :smack:
“Billionaires are EVIL.” Or, more commonly, “Liberals think billionaires are EVIL.” “Are stock buybacks EVIL?” “Does that candidate DESERVE my vote? Did he EARN it?”
Politics and economics are NOT morality plays. They are the crafts of achieving better outcomes for human society. Please, let’s not vote against society’s interests because we don’t like the way things are going in our fantasized soap-opera version of reality.
The philosopher William Munny put it best:
I’d take this a whole lot more seriously if you weren’t posting it on a board with a 900-page thread about how evil Trump is. Along with a good half of the front page of that particular page being about Trump in one capacity or another.
Politics and economics are certainly about achieving better outcomes for human society, but don’t think for a moment that doesn’t involve morality on some level. This goes beyond right and wrong; it’s how politics and economics have always worked. Obama beat Romney not just because he was more charismatic: He beat Romney, because he was genuinely morally superior. When Clinton was caught with his pants down in a clear-cut case of sexual harassment, the Democrats suffered mightily in 2000 against a man who, regardless of his other faults, seemed like someone who knew how to keep it in his pants.
Economics works for or against morality, too. Economic sanctions against South Africa helped bring about the end of Apartheid. On the other hand, Roman Polanski isn’t exactly starving, because people still go to see his movies. He might be morally shamed–or he would if he had a conscience–but economically, he’s doing fine.
In other words, you’re a little late with this sentiment, and even if you weren’t, be careful what you wish for. Politics and economics have always been morality plays on one level or another. Maybe forgetting that is the reason we’re in this situation to begin with.
In your scenario, in the primary, I would pick A.
However, if the majority of people in my party did not agree with my impressions of candidate B, and voted for him even though they should know very well that I didn’t like him, making him the nominee, I would not continue to fight about it.
And that’s where we are at. The time to ask your question is during primaries. That’s the time to vote for the person that inspires you the most. That’s the time to make your preference known to the party.
We are past the primaries, now. Now you no longer have the choice of candidate A or B, now you have a a choice between candidate B and Trump.
As far as voting your conscience, voting for the person that best represents your views, you are not doing that either. Why are you choosing between A and B? There are a few hundred million people that are eligible for president, I’m sure one of them represents your views better than Sanders does. If you are eligible, why not run yourself? Who could possibly better represent your views than you?
Linty, I share your frustration about the obvious political decay within our system. I don’t even know if I really disagree with you all that much, but I just ask you to reconsider your feelings about voting for Biden. You needn’t feel like holding your nose or taking a shower.
If the upcoming general election were really a choice between a slow, incremental reformer and a bold progressive, you’d have an option that’s better than Biden and you’d do well to vote for that option. But as it is, you’re voting for a progressive coalition, of which Biden is a part, against a regressive coalition, which consists not only of Trump, but Mitch McConnell, the Supreme Court justices, Lindsey Graham, and many, many oligarch supporters.
Institutional decay occurs gradually. We’ve had 4 inspectors general removed in just the past 6 weeks or so. Trump is weaponizing the Department of Justice. He is threatening to withhold money from states who are led by members of an opposition party. This is not the US tradition; this is what you see in former Soviet states.
Biden may have some bad votes to his record - I won’t disagree. But he’s also malleable, and that’s not always bad. He can be pushed to the left. Maybe not as far as you’d like, maybe not to support Medicare for All or a national $15 minimum wage, but perhaps pushed enough to support a public health insurance option and a $10-12 minimum wage. I think it’s realistic. But more than anything, Biden needs supporters. If Democrats as a party don’t get enough support, then they won’t encourage Biden to achieve those incremental goals.
You know what doesn’t occur gradually? Aggressive dementia.
Biden tells black radio host that black voters ain’t black if they consider voting for Trump.
:smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
Sorry to interrupt, asahi, you were busy telling me how in theory there could be an upside to this guy?
Again, spot on. But I want to emphasize that even if a President Biden wouldn’t support M4A or a $15+ minimum wage or a guaranteed basic income, which I only concede in the hypothetical here (I think he’s incorporating quite a few Sanders-Warren-economic left ideas lately and is open to more), even if he didn’t push for those things, he will sign the legislation a hypothetical Dem-controlled legislature sends to him. Give the Dems a larger House majority and give them the Senate and you’ll see how false the “status quo Joe” meme actually is.
And we also have to take into account the actual nuts and bolts of government: Hypotheticals about Option B candidates who “will do absolutely nothing” to repair the damage from Trumpism don’t apply here. That wouldn’t have been true for Sanders and for most of the other several dozen Dem candidates we’ve gone through, and it won’t be true for a President Biden, who will of course try and reverse the departmental chaos caused by President Trump’s gang of sabot-wielding maniacs. Why anyone with any awareness or attention to American politics over the last quarter century would think differently, I can’t imagine.
Taken in context, that was meant in jest. And if you listen to the tape, it is very clear that Biden is quite sharp here.
OMG, Biden might have gaffed!
That’s never happened before! Must be senile dementia…
Woe is us.
I’ll wager twenty quatloos that remark doesn’t cause a blip in support for Biden in any demographic, and especially not among POC.
Getting back to the OP, I am assuming he isn’t asking about whether voting 3rd party makes electoral sense, but rather, is just asking for feelings/opinions - whether third party voters ***feel ***responsible if we let the bad guy win.
Personally, my answer is, no, I don’t feel responsible.
Because as we all know, nothing said during an election year is ever taken out of context. And it’s never a good sign when your adviser interrupts to tell the host that you’re running out of time.
The hashtags have already started, DrDeth. The word is already out. And I challenge you to find one single unbanned poster on these boards that doesn’t realize that you DON’T. JOKE. ABOUT. RACE!!! And that goes about quadruple if you’re running for president of the US in the 21st century.
At least when Hillary called herself the Latino voters’ abuela, she didn’t go the extra mile and negate their entire heritage for not towing the goddamned Democrat line.
Yes, that “abuela” remark was the killer comet to Hillary’s presidential ambitions. To this day it remains a mark of infamy for dozens of 2016 voters.
[ul]
[/ul]
I know, right, xenophon? Remember when Hillary said that, and everyone laughed it off just like they did with all the other stupid stuff she said and did, and we all brushed it aside for the good of the country, and she won the election in a landslide? I don’t know who the Republican challenger is in 2020, but man, I don’t favor his odds. If VP Kaine doesn’t win in '24, he’s just not trying!
Are those goalposts heavy, man? You keep trucking them all over the damned field. Need a handtruck or something?
Listen, pick a side. If you don’t think people should vote for Biden, argue away. If you think it’s better if they do vote for Biden, maybe stop listing reasons you think he sucks/
If you don’t think the 2020 election outcome is important either way, maybe spend your energy on something you care about. I obviously can’t convince you the current GOP is the existential threat to American democracy I believe it is, but maybe I can get you to reconsider this exercise in undercutting the better of the only two candidates with a shot and the political party he’ll need to make any progress at all.
When did I move the goalpost one inch? I’ve maintained the same standard since I came back on in March, certainly all the way through this thread.
You’re right about one thing, though: I do not, in fact, think that the current GOP is an existential threat to American democracy. They’re just a bunch of stupid old men doing the same stupid old thing. They’re not wise, canny, insightful, or much more forward-thinking than we are. This year, we just happen to suck more, that’s all.
And if you’re so hot and bothered about me undercutting the current nominee and reminding everyone that he sucks, then put me on ignore. Just remember: It isn’t going to get any nicer or any more easygoing than me. I am, after all, a Democrat. The people you’re actually going to be fighting–assuming you do anything at all this election year–are going to be far, far worse, and if I don’t hold back, they aren’t even going to attempt to be fair.
Maybe you’re mad at the wrong people, xenophon.
That’s not an example of institutional decay; it’s a joke.
Joe Biden supported expanding healthcare to millions; Trump and McConnell have repeatedly tried to take it away.
Joe Biden has been on record as arguing in favor of protecting the institutions that uphold democracy - perhaps to a fault. Trump is trying to dismantle the checks on his power.
Well thanks Linty Fresh. We seem to be back to your “Umadbro? I’m not as good at depressing voter turnout as the Republicans” argument, with an added dose of “they’re just stupid old men doing the same stupid old thing” which tells me you are not the keen observer of politics you’ve been trying to portray.
(By the way, the “goal post moving” is when you’ve been shifting the focus of the remarks you get push back on (not just from me) from the specific to the general and vice versa in order to dodge the point of the rebuttal. If you stop doing that, you’ll be less likely to derail good faith argumentation.)
Linty, the next part of this post is for anyone who might be swayed by your arguments, so you don’t need to respond; I believe we’re done. You may go now.
The US Executive branch of government, as led by Donald J. Trump, has abandoned the norms of governmental practice in a way and to a degree that no previous administration has ever done. This abandonment of executive norms, and the disregard for governmental ethics it is intended to obscure or assist, has been enabled and given cover by the President’s party in the Congress. The volume and degree of the Republican skullduggery in providing that cover is almost unprecedented as well, but only insofar as it reflects the unusually virulent pathology of the Republican leader. The checks and balances built into our system of government require earnest adherence to the USC and good faith involvement on the part of all government actors; this no longer exists within the party currently in power.
You may take the above information as an opinion (as Linty certainly will), but it has a broad basis in fact and is an observation that has wide support even outside of US liberal or left politics. The current Presidential administration is not “bad” in a normal way; the practices of this administration and the perfidy of the Republican party are not “the same stupid old thing.” This is not a drill and your chances to participate in the American experiment are not guaranteed to outlast this regime.
There is only one political party that has a chance of countering the antidemocratic, authoritarian path our federal government is now following, and only one Presidential candidate with a chance to displace the current occupant of the White House. You should vote for that party and that candidate.
I know Trump has said more racist things than that about Mexicans, and I know Trump has said more racist things than that about Muslims, but has Trump ever said anything that racist about Black Americans specifically? I mean, there’s the birther stuff, of course, which is racist as hell. But at least with the birther stuff the racism was veiled by a fig leaf of (barely) plausible deniability, wherein Trump could say (untruthfully but still, he could say it) that he was legitimately “concerned” about Obama’s heritage. What Joe said doesn’t even have the fig leaf. It’s just nakedly racist. In all seriousness, has Trump ever said anything that racist about Black Americans? I genuinely don’t know.