I’d settle for a plan that actually balances. We can argue about whether or not the taxes needed will be a problem or where insurance should live and even the individual mandate proposition but absolutely, on paper, the damn thing should actually balance.
Sounds like someone has something interesting on him.
I don’t know what the surrender caucus is, so whatever.
The problem is, Sanders is out there, and he’s supposed to be coalition building. But he’s not, because he and his legion of white male followers are unable to place economic populism anywhere else except for the highest altar. I mean, I get it, and I’m all for that new deal populism to a point…
…but the problem is, that populism is aimed squarely at white, working class voters. And that is a demographic that typically votes against women’s reproductive rights, votes to jail 25% of the African American population in the country, votes to deport anyone who can’t present their papers in a timely fashion, etc.
And so the problem is that a big part of the Sanders “platform” involves him telling the very backbone of the Democratic party – women and persons of color – to go ahead and shoulder the weight just a little longer. The civil rights and the women’s rights and the reproductive rights and women’s health protections that Democrats have stood up for for years needs to take a back seat. If Heath Mello in Omaha wants to make women who want abortions look at ultrasounds of the fetus they’re carrying, that’s something we must endure. If Jon Ossoff hasn’t said yet whether his economic beliefs line up with Bernie-ism purity tests? Well. That’s something else entirely.
Are we back to this? Am I still a woman-hater for liking his policies?
I think it was this group that surprised me the most. The number of people who claim to have the money for health insurance but prefer instead to risk going without. I am not talking the 20 something invincible group, I am talking 30-40 year olds.
I would be willing to reduce coverage on the little things if I still knew I was covered for the big things. I don’t know how you go through life knowing one unplanned surgery could wipe you out.
No.
But a recognition might be in order that campaigning for an actively pro-choice candidate in one Republican region because his economics pass the purity test while declining to support another Democrat who may not have kissed the ring yet is a bad look for Senator Sanders.
It amazes me that people are still repeating those talking points.
Does Bernie actually know anything about Ossoff? Because from my reading of his interview question, he didn’t know who the guy was and doesn’t want to blanket support candidates.
As for the new dude, it’s a bad look to support anyone who is against women’s reproductive rights, and I disagree with Bernie on that (on principle and as PR for him). Whether or not his point about the political landscape in Nebraska is correct or not is moot, because if anyone has been/should be unwilling to compromise on things like this, it’s him. And compromising on women’s rights is gross.
But how does Bernie not know anything about Jon Ossoff? I mean legit question. Ossoff may have gotten some publicity across the last 8 weeks, especially within left-leaning caucuses in DC no?
Yes, fucking this.
Look you want to take Sanders to task for valuing certain policies above others? Be my guest. We all have our priorities. For example if someone were to align perfectly with me on economic issues, but was anti vax and had disastrous environmental policies? They can fuck off. You can chose what is most important to you.
And guess what, he lost the Primary. Perhaps not by as much as people expected, but loss none the less. And clearly he has priorities, and there you go. You disagree with where he places them. Know what? So do I at times.
But this?
Is fucking bullshit Trig, and you damn well know it. I voted for Sanders in the Primary. And I can damn well assure you that I have very strong opinions on reform of the criminal justice system. In fact it’s in my personal top 5. I also have not once, once, voted against reproductive rights, and sure as shit reject the xenophobic reaction.
Sure, there were some who fit that bill in the Sanders coalition. But it is disingenuous of you to paint that as his core demographic.
Dunno, he probably should know what’s going on. It’s pretty much his job to know. But I don’t know.
I’m not trying to defend Bernie with this last string of posts so much as arguing that his policies are not “extreme” or “far left”.
Again, I’m just describing the reality of the situation. Yeah, Americans view things differently than other countries. That’s not really my fault, man. But you can’t just pretend it isn’t the case. The fact that the French do something doesn’t mean that it flies in America.
Remember the context of this stuff is that you need to appeal to enough folks to get elected.
Although, that being said, Trump has shown that you can absolutely get elected on bullshit plans that don’t make sense and can’t work, so maybe I’m wrong in that you could just promise all the free stuff and not talk about how to make it work.
I personally know a couple Bernie voters who abstained from voting in the general because they couldn’t align themselves with the Clinton-era criminal reforms that they blame for doing exactly what trig mentioned.
Cause Jeff Sessions is gonna do some good stuff for them, right?
Hahaha I tried my best, man. Couldn’t sway a single one of them. :/
Agree. That he does not know about Ossof is a failing of his, I absolutely give you that @triggercut. If he wants this role as figurehead, do the damn work. If I, as some random guy in Chicago, am able to know enough about Ossof to know he is worth supporting in the Georgia 6th? Bernie should too. It’s kinda his job now. For better or worse, he took that mantle.
And while I do not, by a long shot, accept every criticism that you (Trig) and others have leveled at him, I also agree that some are more than fair. And him supporting the Omaha guy, while not being prepared to support Ossof? I absolutely agree that is a failure on his part.
You need some reading comprehension, dude. Put the paper bag down huh?
I’m a white male. I think you might be, too. That’s our demographic. I do not consider “Bernie supporter” a real demographic. Perhaps others do. Whatever. That song wasn’t about you. Neither was it aimed at you. Or Murbella. Or Adam.
But here’s the thing. White men men tend to vote a certain way? You don’t. I don’t. Lots of people in this thread don’t. If Bernie was the nominee, he’d have us, right? We’d all vote for him.
The problem is, he is, either on purpose or by collateral message delivery, reaching out to the rest of our demographic, sometimes at the expense of women and persons of color who currently form the backbone of the coalition of voters he’d like to be leading. That’s what I was referring to: the part of our demographic who may not think like us in this thread so much… I won’t dismiss them as “economically anxious”, but folks edging into that descriptive seem to also catch into Bernie’s message.
And that’s fine by me. I think that’s a grand strategy. But at some point there needs to be some recognition that appeals aimed exclusively at the white working class have potential to be problematic.
I mean, people can be dumb. Purity over reality. They voted (or not as case may be) on purity, ignoring the reality that the alternative is worse. They are like the person who presented with the titular trolley problem go ‘I chose to do nothing’ as if that is some moral high ground. ‘I didn’t choose to kill the one person, since that is immoral. So by my inaction the trolley killed 10. But that’s not my fault, I had no part in that’.
Which is bullshit. You, through inaction, killed the 10. You made a choice. And in that situation, all things equal, you pull the lever and kill the one to save 10. Not taking an action is still a choice, and you do not escape culpability by choosing not to act.
And both of them think that if trolley safety is improved because people see that 10 people died, then it was worth it.
Sigh.
Look, I’m not the one who started the ‘Revolution eating her children’ by bringing up that tired argument that, and you know it, is used by the DNC core to justify ignoring anyone slightly left of the Overton Window economically. People have complex views, and our two party system does a piss poor job of representing the complexity of American political life.
It has been extremely tiring to see anything remotely ‘Progressive’ shouted down by the triangulation of the Clinton crowd. And the trotting out of the sexist/ racist trope is simply a way to justify not pursuing progressive policies elsewhere. I, for one, am sick and tired of it. Like I said, I agreed with you about Bernie. It was not a good look, or choice. Whether you feel it was right for him to back the guy in Omaha, and I have deep reservations about that but ultimately (lacking knowledge of other D candidates) do find it marginal but ok, I would agree that he has a responsibility to educate himself on Ossof. He took that mantle. He absolutely should be prepared to answer the bell.
And if you want to point out how some of the more left wing, or Progressive wing, of the coalition are up in arms about the centrism ‘and Clinton was economically closer to Republicans’ and how that kind of nonsense isn’t helpful? Well there you have it. The same ‘eating her own’ nonsense that you put out there with your jibe about Bernie voters wanting to roll back reproductive rights. Got tiring, didn’t it, seeing people spout off ill conceived diatribes about the evils of Clinton.
There are absolutely things to criticize Bernie for, just like there are for Clinton. And where you rank their policies in priority? Certainly a matter to debate! But, please, leave the nonsense about the sexism of Sanders supporters out of it? It’s a tired trope, and one I’m sick of reading, especially from someone as knowledgeable as you.