Biden clenches the nomination.

[Hawki]

You think Trump isn't laughing his ass of about getting people to inject themselves with disinfectant with his friends at the country club or the dinner party or the child brothel or wherever people like him go to unwind?

Probably not.

Trump made an idiotic comment. Everyone could tell it was idiotic. Trump realized it was idiotic and tried to claim he was being sarcastic. Any laughing he's doing would be an attempt to play it off - the whole "laughing with me, not at me" thing.

Trump's an idiot, but he at least recognises his own idiocy, and was smart enough to give up on press briefings. It'll help save his ego, and maybe even save lives - I'm sure there's at least one person in the US who tried pouring bleach down their throat.

 

[Agema]

I'm told that for the USA right to accuse the left of doing exactly the things the that the left accuses them of (sexism, racism) is NOT going to help. Will, for instance, the Tara Reid thing move the needle a nano centimeter ? I honestly don't think so. I've always thought the Democratic party establishment would see to it that Biden doesn't actually run in the general. Now I'm not so sure. The legacy media will circle the wagons around sleepy joe and as long as he doesn't wet himself during the debates with Trump, they will gush over his "masterful" performance.

Oh for a US president who would merely wet himself in public and stumble over half his words. Genuinely, it would be a step up from the current catastrophe, who thinks the main purpose of presidency is get good TV ratings by alternatively burbling incoherently and raging for hours about things he's never bothered to understand and doesn't care whether he accurately describes.

I know there's the saying that voters would back a monkey if they put the right coloured rosette on it, but no-one was supposed to test it. Never mind vote it back in after it's spent four years flinging its shit at everyone.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It'll help save his ego, and maybe even save lives - I'm sure there's at least one person in the US who tried pouring bleach down their throat.

NY poison control says there's been a spike in people ingesting bleach

Over 100 people called an emergency hotline in Maryland about disinfectant. New York poison control saw the number of calls double from usual to about 30 calls in 18 hours.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Mind you, the idea isn't original to Trump, similar "cures" have been tried in Iran for a bit, Trump is just behind the curve as per usual

At least 44 dead from drinking toxic alcohol in Iran after coronavirus cure rumor

A false rumor has circulated throughout Iran that alcohol can prevent the coronavirus. More than 40 have died and hundreds have been hospitalized.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Worgen]

I'm told that for the USA right to accuse the left of doing exactly the things the that the left accuses them of (sexism, racism) is NOT going to help.

They like to do that since minorities especially black people tend to be a very reliable democratic voting block since the democrats championed civil rights/ended segregation so the republicans try to muddy the waters by saying they are the party that most favors minorities, while having a big problem with racism and sexism.

 

[Agema]

Mind you, the idea isn't original to Trump, similar "cures" have been tried in Iran for a bit, Trump is just behind the curve as per usual

At least 44 dead from drinking toxic alcohol in Iran after coronavirus cure rumor

A false rumor has circulated throughout Iran that alcohol can prevent the coronavirus. More than 40 have died and hundreds have been hospitalized.

www.usatoday.com

Maybe, but potentially that's just what the survivors told morality police when they were discovered intoxicated. "No offisher, [hic], it wasn't a party with illelegle booze, I wush trying to cure my coronvirus".

 

[fOx]

a) You're talking about a people who were convinced Christ was coming back imminently and weren't planning for anything long term, and Paul had to write an epistle telling people to get back to work.
b) If your communist utopia depends on selling your land and possessions to someone else to pay for it, I have some rather bad news for you.

This wasn't just a societal structure briefly thrown together by a group of people who were preparing for the world to end. This was a society structured and created by God himself. This is the group that was brought together when they received the holy spirit. When a couple sold their property, but withheld most of the money, they were struck down by god. What we essentially see is what a perfect christian society would look like.

Jesus was quite critical of monetary systems. He said it was easier for a man to pass through the eye of a needle then it was for him to enter heaven. There was a gateway in Jerusalem called the needle, and visitors often had to unpack their horse or donkey in order to fit through. He told a man that, if he wanted to enter heaven, he had to rid himself of all his possessions, and come and follow him. Of course the man left, because his heart was in worldly things. It is of course possible to be a communist, and not be a christian. But it is impossible to be a christian, and not be a communist.

 

[Tireseas]

If this subforum needed a thread to help reintroduce everyone to everyone's general approaches to politics, this is the thread.

Anyways, to go to the original topic and to restate what I said about a dozen times in the V1 forums, Biden won because Sanders didn't put in place a plan B for the potential event that the voters he claimed were there for him didn't turn out and his instead spent the entire race creating unnecessary hostility between his wing and pretty much every potential ally that they could have gotten, which allowed Biden, who was many candidate's supporters 2nd or 3rd choice, to scoop them up despite . Some of these were early stumbles (like not registering with the party before running to be their nominee) that were clearly unforced errors. Messaging, in particular, was filled with problems (reposting from an V1 thread for the sake of time):

Post 599, The Democratic Primary is Upon Us! - Biden is the Presumptive Nominee - POSTED: 14 April 2020 8:32 am

Still, I do think there was an empathy problem for those who didn't already subscribe to Sanders' worldview and were supporting him, though I think tstorm mostly stirring shit. Like, if you liked Obama, Clinton, and Pelsoi, Sanders essentially was trashing them under the banner of "the Establishment," and did little to appeal to their interests, especially older black voters who view the Democratic establishment, and Obama in particular, with pride. Most of them saw GOP efforts to hamper those politicians and the party and don't hold them responsible for not getting more done (though the truth to that varies widely based on when and what policy is at issue). And, as we can see in even lower-stake issues around identity and around even minor celebrities, Sanders trashing those individuals (even if indirectly), primed them to oppose him rather than give him a shot.

At its core, I think Sanders' loss fundamentally is not a failure of policy, but of politics. Sanders' Medicare for All bill in congress got widespread reflexive support from multiple presidential candidates who cosigned on it. Progressive policies are becoming increasingly popular. The biggest problem with Sanders has never been his policies, it's been his politics. It's just not a viable electoral strategy to alienate large portions of the applicable electorate (in this case the primary) by slamming the mainstream establishment politicians they generally support. He also couldn't pull in the voters who the campaign alleged were just waiting in the wings for his style of politics and policy, largely because it doesn't appear they're there in any substantial way, at least in the primary (there's evidence they barely exist at all).

The future for progressive policies remains coalition building and working within the party system to supplant more moderate members without alienating their voting base (i.e. keeping intra-party fights in the primaries and leadership contests rather than in general elections without turning ugly). Reaching voters where they are rather than demanding they come to you, getting them on board with a campaign that feels actually inclusive (Sanders regularly touted diversity and inclusion in his campaign, but had a problem doing with the largest voting blocks of older black voters), and not treating primary voters who aren't aligned with your campaign like trash or puppets so that next time around you can try to convince voters who's last memory of progressives isn't negative. Get them to slowly identify as progressive (or dress up progressives as moderates in some cases, particularly in swing districts) and we can win the political battle that's needed to win the policy battle.

Either way, I'm voting Dem in November.

 

[gorfias]

You've got people in this thread saying they won't vote for Biden because of things like that.

OTOH, the Republican party is full of obviously worse people, so saying "Don't vote for that rapist, vote for this rapist who is much worse and has lots of rapist friends and colleagues" might not be that convincing.

There's already a strong "never Biden" movement on the Left. Sure some are saying that they won't vote for him because of this but I have to wonder if the Tara Reid thing is really what made the difference.

They like to do that since minorities especially black people tend to be a very reliable democratic voting block since the democrats championed civil rights/ended segregation so the republicans try to muddy the waters by saying they are the party that most favors minorities, while having a big problem with racism and sexism.

I don't think a Republican would have survived this. Maybe as policies speak louder than an individual's conduct.

 

[tstorm823]

In the first world, I'd argue, the capitalist class is not only unnecessary for the quality of life and forward development of society as a whole, but actively harmful.

a) "The capitalist class" is a nonsense term. if you're describing people who use their wealth to accumulate more, you're describing literally everyone.
b) Even in a world full of robber barons, you still have to weigh the gains of

This wasn't just a societal structure briefly thrown together by a group of people who were preparing for the world to end. This was a society structured and created by God himself. This is the group that was brought together when they received the holy spirit. When a couple sold their property, but withheld most of the money, they were struck down by god. What we essentially see is what a perfect christian society would look like.

Ha!
"Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God."
Translation: "The money was yours, you didn't have to give it all. Why would you lie and say that you did?" Their crime wasn't having wealth to themselves. Their crime was lying to try and seem more generous than they were.

Don't expect to beat me in a Bible fight.

Jesus was quite critical of monetary systems. He said it was easier for a man to pass through the eye of a needle then it was for him to enter heaven. There was a gateway in Jerusalem called the needle, and visitors often had to unpack their horse or donkey in order to fit through. He told a man that, if he wanted to enter heaven, he had to rid himself of all his possessions, and come and follow him. Of course the man left, because his heart was in worldly things. It is of course possible to be a communist, and not be a christian. But it is impossible to be a christian, and not be a communist.

Jesus also had a whole parable about the immorality of not multiplying the money you have in the time you have it. Jesus wasn't critical of monetary systems. Jesus was critical of greed. You should be able to recognize the difference.

 

[fOx]

Ha!
"Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God."
Translation: "The money was yours, you didn't have to give it all. Why would you lie and say that you did?" Their crime wasn't having wealth to themselves. Their crime was lying to try and seem more generous than they were.

Don't expect to beat me in a Bible fight.

You left out the verse that came, literally, right before it.

"Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds for himself, but brought a portion and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and withhold some of the proceeds from the land?"

Ananias did donate the majority of the money to the church. He withheld a portion of it. He was then punished for his greed, and for lying to the spirit of God. Therefore, your claim that he could have kept part of it is inaccurate. Now, you can claim that the lie was the only sin committed, but earlier the bible says that :

"The multitude of believers was one in heart and soul. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they owned. 33With great power, the apostles continued to give their testimony about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And abundant grace was upon them all.

34There were no needy ones among them, because those who owned lands or houses would sell their property, bring the proceeds from the sales, 35and lay them at the apostles’ feet for distribution to anyone as he had need."

That sounds kind of like communism. Please do not re-frame the scriptures to suit your personal desires.

Jesus also had a whole parable about the immorality of not multiplying the money you have in the time you have it. Jesus wasn't critical of monetary systems. Jesus was critical of greed. You should be able to recognize the difference.

Do you mean the parable of the talents? That was a clear metaphor. It was not literally about making physical money, it was about using the gifts and the privileges that god gave you at birth to achieve his spiritual will on earth. It wasn't about money at all.

 

[fOx]

Truthfully, I don't think there is a solution, at least not at the present time. The options seem to be disaster, not-disaster and hoping for something to magically fix everything. I'm leaning towards the second, with the hope that if things are held together long enough progress can slowly get made. The last hundred or so years in the US didn't see their society being replaced by a better one all of a sudden, but women got the vote, the civil rights movement happened, there's been great improvements in LGBT rights etc. Still a long way short of the goal (whatever an individual personally sees the goal as) and many, many people aren't going to live to see much in the way of improvements for them.

crimson5pheonix accused Saelune of being comfy with the treatment of poor people in the US. While I can't say I'm comfy, it's fair to say I'm fairly resigned. Come back in 4, 8, 12, 16 years later and there might have been some improvements (and that's worth fighting for), but the underlying issues won't have gone away because people don't want them to.

We shouldn't assume there's going to be some magic solution from nowhere. We then have two options. One is disaster, and the other one is maintaining the status quo. Given that we have ten years to change our trajectory on climate change in a radical way, biden is also a disaster. Frankly, I don't think you can claim to be an ally to the left, and support the status quo.

A radical change in our society is absolutely necessary.

 

[Seanchaidh]

(reposting from an V1 thread for the sake of time)

The analysis, such as it is, doesn't improve with a copy and paste. It's very likely Sanders should have gone after Biden much harder than he did, as Sanders probably lost some support for appearing too cozy with the Democratic political establishment. It's tough to have an anti-establishment message when you keep saying you're friends with Joe Biden; it isn't coherent. Now we may get to see what the GOP will do to a candidate who is so obviously senile that his wife has to speak for him on national television. I mean, I guess we're already seeing it, but we'll see if Biden even survives the nominating process. If Jill Biden and the various consultants running the Biden campaign are very, very lucky, we'll get to elect our first Regency President.

Before COVID was as much of a problem, the Democratic primary electorate expanded quite a bit-- both with Sanders supporters and people whose brains have been destroyed by MSNBC and CNN and so believe that opposing Trump means becoming an unhinged xenophobic conspiracy theorist.

The Democratic Party and its media allies specifically decided that they wanted to put stopping Sanders above defeating Trump, and so they've elevated a racist, senile rapist. They made sure that it would be a three person race on Super Tuesday and manufactured a Joe Biden electability narrative that couldn't be further from the truth while utterly failing in their responsibility to vet him or examine his policies. Plenty of people think that Joe Biden supports Medicare for All because mainstream news is utterly worthless. They sat on the Reade story as long as Sanders was still in the race. They are now, of course, smearing Tara Reade as a Russian agent while quietly deleting #MeToo from their twitter profiles.

 

[Seanchaidh]

a) "The capitalist class" is a nonsense term. if you're describing people who use their wealth to accumulate more, you're describing literally everyone.

Some people are rewarded enough for ownership that they don't have to work at all to accumulate more and more and more wealth. That is the capitalist class. They are distinct from the working class.

 

[gorfias]

Some people are rewarded enough for ownership that they don't have to work at all to accumulate more and more and more wealth. That is the capitalist class. They are distinct from the working class.

I think you could make a distinction between a capital and labor class. A member of the capital class makes most of their income from investments. A member of the labor class derives income from labor. So, a great brain surgeon making $3 million a year but also has investments likely still needs that $3 million income from actually performing surgery. Another monkey wrench though. Someone may labor their entire lives but then retire upon investments. An investor could lose his shirt and end up flipping burgers. So, those lines are not concrete.

 

[Worgen]

There's already a strong "never Biden" movement on the Left. Sure some are saying that they won't vote for him because of this but I have to wonder if the Tara Reid thing is really what made the difference.
I don't think a Republican would have survived this. Maybe as policies speak louder than an individual's conduct.

Actually a republican would be better equipped to survive that since the republican base doesn't really care about race issue, hence when they try and say that democrats are racist and they aren't, it comes off hollow. But, people can understand that things were different then and context and actions matter.

 

[gorfias]

Actually a republican would be better equipped to survive that since the republican base doesn't really care about race issue, hence when they try and say that democrats are racist and they aren't, it comes off hollow. But, people can understand that things were different then and context and actions matter.

I think even if the Democratic candidate IS racist... more racist than his Republican opponent, it would not matter as long as the Democratic candidate can be counted on to follow up on preferred policies. For example, I've read Hillary Clinton is a monstrous racist bigot. But if she really would employ the right Democratic programs, spending and appoint the correct judges, she'll get the votes of those that care about such matters, regardless of their personal feelings for that candidate. Policy matters more than individual conduct. And actually, I think it should to the extent that we can count on the candidate to follow through as they have campaigned.

 

[Agema]

I don't think a Republican would have survived this. Maybe as policies speak louder than an individual's conduct.

I think historical stuff like this when everyone knows attitudes were so different back in the day can be forgiven as long as they've kept a clean sheet in more recent time. I mean, the president has sexually assaulted women, but he just signed up with an evangelical pastor (female, blonde and good-looking naturally, because Trump will be Trump) and they all decided that meant it was all okay, bygones will be bygones.

As for Republicans, Trent Lott had quite the history, and only blew it when he chose to openly cheer a segregationist in 2007. Steve King is still there for the Republican Party, despite a pretty much constant stream of iffy comments for over 10 years and an official censure from the House which even his only party near-unanimously voted for.

 

[Trunkage]

I think even if the Democratic candidate IS racist... more racist than his Republican opponent, it would not matter as long as the Democratic candidate can be counted on to follow up on preferred policies. For example, I've read Hillary Clinton is a monstrous racist bigot. But if she really would employ the right Democratic programs, spending and appoint the correct judges, she'll get the votes of those that care about such matters, regardless of their personal feelings for that candidate. Policy matters more than individual conduct. And actually, I think it should to the extent that we can count on the candidate to follow through as they have campaigned.

LBJ is a good example. He wasn't a nice person. But he wanted to live up to the policies of his predecessor

 

[fOx]

I think even if the Democratic candidate IS racist... more racist than his Republican opponent, it would not matter as long as the Democratic candidate can be counted on to follow up on preferred policies. For example, I've read Hillary Clinton is a monstrous racist bigot. But if she really would employ the right Democratic programs, spending and appoint the correct judges, she'll get the votes of those that care about such matters, regardless of their personal feelings for that candidate. Policy matters more than individual conduct. And actually, I think it should to the extent that we can count on the candidate to follow through as they have campaigned.

This is the problem with the social democrats. They assume that the person voted into office will fight for social policies they support through some kind of social pressure. In truth, even Obama never really fought for the social progress of black ameriacans. Why would a frumpy 60 year old white woman who hates gay people, and a dementia ridden racist from the 1970's, care at all about fixing social issues? They don't have to be antagonistic to do massive damage. They just have to be indiferent, because that social or political pressure you imagine doesn't exist in any meaningful way. They can get elected, do nothing, and still pretend to be morally superior. In fact, social justice has become weaponized by a class of wealthy elites to avoid actually instituting social reform that helps minorities in this country, because their wealthy landed corporate owners don't want them to. If you're one of the social democrats supporting biden and hillary, then you are supporting both the right wing billionaire class, and the systematic racism that permeates society. And when confronted with the truth, you shrug your shoulders and say that things are just stuck the way they are, which is what your rich corporate owners tell you. Stop simping for right wing politicians.

 

[Silvanus]

This is the problem with the social democrats. They assume that the person voted into office will fight for social policies they support through some kind of social pressure. In truth, even Obama never really fought for the social progress of black ameriacans. Why would a frumpy 60 year old white woman who hates gay people, and a dementia ridden racist from the 1970's, care at all about fixing social issues? They don't have to be antagonistic to do massive damage. They just have to be indiferent, because that social or political pressure you imagine doesn't exist in any meaningful way.

To some extent, a politician who intends to be reelected will need to reflect the priorities of the broad groups of people who voted them in, and upon whom they would rely to vote them in again (as well as providing volunteers and donations).

This kind of "social pressure", of course, is tremendously diluted for lots of reasons-- the groups that support a candidate have disparate priorities; a certain rump of the voterbase can be counted on to vote tribally regardless; perception often matters more than substance. But to discount it entirely is really unwise and fails to understand the electoral history of the US. Politicians have to, to a (somewhat limited) extent, have to reflect those priorities.

With the Democrats, candidates like Biden and Clinton have shitty track records on progressive issues which are important to a lot of Democratic voters. And yet, they're undeniably better choices than the alternative. Because what limited, muted pressure is placed on them doesn't exist at all on the Republicans. So if a voter wants what little pressure they can exert to be exerted, the Democrats are a better option, because a Democratic politician is at least in some small part answerable to those pressures.

Lots of people seem to have an all-or-nothing mentality, in which voting for the lesser of two evils isn't worth it. I'd certainly agree it's dispiriting, but it's worth it nonetheless. Because allowing the worse of two options to earn an advantage over the lesser is not just a matter of personal principle: it has a dramatic impact on peoples' rights and livelihoods. Biden may not institute any meaningful reform; but Trump will strip away workplace protections from minorities and workers, as he already has been doing, to a degree that a Democratic President simply factually wouldn't. Anybody who believes there isn't meaningful difference isn't paying attention, or doesn't appreciate how devastating differences like that actually are to people's lives.

The Overton Window shifts towards the incumbent, inevitably-- through mere exposure, normalisation, and time. Allowing the worse candidate to get in because there's no good candidate doesn't just impact this election-- it shifts the centre ever further rightward than it would shift otherwise.

In short, a Trump victory over Biden makes the future victory of a Sanders, Warren or AOC less likely.