Election 2020

[Sour Masher]

For the first time in the history of the country, among either Democrats or Republicans, Bernie Sanders is the first to win the popular vote in all 3 first primary states.

Great start. Him having passionate supporters ceetainly helps. No one else in the left has that. The states I care about mist are the swing states. I really want to see who wins those.

[madducks]

For the first time in the history of the country, among either Democrats or Republicans, Bernie Sanders is the first to win the popular vote in all 3 first primary states.

[swampdragon]

While we are arguing over Bernie, Biden, Warren, Pete, Amy etc the entire system is being compromised.

So aeren't we being delusional that our vote is going to be counted correctly in November?

[Sour Masher]

While we are arguing over Bernie, Biden, Warren, Pete, Amy etc the entire system is being compromised.

So aeren't we being delusional that our vote is going to be counted correctly in November?

Can you expand? I wonder how much of a real issue this is versus FUD being spread, to an extent by foreign interests, so that the legitimacy of any result, regardless of who wins, causes chaos and discord.

[heyelander]

Ahh the old lesser of two evils trope, Compromise your ethics so others can be spared the suffering they've brought upon themselves by ignoring theirs...Or that Those who continue to try and use that line of bullshit reasoning continue to cause because they didn't listen and compromised in the first place.

She Lost, Trump is her fault and everyone who was OK with the DNC and HRCs crap during the 2016 election. Own it and kindly get out of the way of the people trying to fix what you fucked up last time.

I guess I don't see two evils... I believe each candidate on the Dem side is in it to make the country better. They may have different ideas about how to go about doing it, and I agree with some more than others, but evil? I'm going to vote for the better of two choices. I also don't see compromise as an evil. I understand that there are more than one person in this country, and all their opinions matter. For the most part, they all have the same end goal, and that's the betterment of society. Again, they disagree on how they think that can be accomplished. I don't think the people here who I disagree with are evil. Even Chance seems like a decent enough fellow. Compromise is necessary for good citizenship and governance. Compromise is necessary for progress. The movement toward complete obstructionism that has been increasingly popular from both sides is making the country worse, not better. You were the one who ultimately was unwilling to work to make the country better last year. At some point you rage quit and took your ball with you. Whatever, your choice. Hillary lost because she ran a shitty campaign and took too many states for granted.

Are all choices other than Sanders this time around Evil?

[GwynnInTheHall]

I guess I don't see two evils... I believe each candidate on the Dem side is in it to make the country better. They may have different ideas about how to go about doing it, and I agree with some more than others, but evil? I'm going to vote for the better of two choices. I also don't see compromise as an evil. I understand that there are more than one person in this country, and all their opinions matter. For the most part, they all have the same end goal, and that's the betterment of society. Again, they disagree on how they think that can be accomplished. I don't think the people here who I disagree with are evil. Even Chance seems like a decent enough fellow. Compromise is necessary for good citizenship and governance. Compromise is necessary for progress. The movement toward complete obstructionism that has been increasingly popular from both sides is making the country worse, not better. You were the one who ultimately was unwilling to work to make the country better last year. At some point you rage quit and took your ball with you. Whatever, your choice. Hillary lost because she ran a shitty campaign and took too many states for granted.

Are all choices other than Sanders this time around Evil?

Listen, you've worked really hard for quite a while (or maybe it's just natural) to try and paint me as some sort of hypocrite, your backhanded comments (some full frontal) a haven't gone unnoticed and now you try and put words in my mouth, yet again in an attempt to try and make me look like something I'm not.

No one's political opinion is going to change in here. No one's opinion of ME is going to change in here. So don't expect me to play this game with you.

[fuhrdog]

Are all choices other than Sanders this time around Evil?

You must be new here.

[heyelander]

Listen, you've worked really hard for quite a while (or maybe it's just natural) to try and paint me as some sort of hypocrite, your backhanded comments (some full frontal) a haven't gone unnoticed and now you try and put words in my mouth, yet again in an attempt to try and make me look like something I'm not.

No one's political opinion is going to change in here. No one's opinion of ME is going to change in here. So don't expect me to play this game with you.

Fair enough. This is a game I hate playing anyway. My girlfriend asked me last night why I has suddenly gone into a shitty mood just in the last 5 minutes, and I realized it was because I was writing this post in my head.

[Teenwolf]

TW, I think the idea that anyone is mocking you based on your knowledge is also a strawman. You are clearly an incredibly knowledge poster that exposes me to many things first before I see them elsewhere. And I appreciate that--the stuff you post is one reason I come here. The only time I've seen anyone say anything negative about you is when you seem to be attacking them, which you have a habit of doing when anyone supports anyone but Bernie. I don't think anyone has questioned your political knowledge or insights. I've given you credit for calling Warren's shift from Med4All, among other things. You know your stuff.

But as I've tried to point out recently, you and some other hardcore Bernie supporters do seek things out that confirms pre-existing biases. You love Bernie and think every other candidate is a pile of garbage. You focus on all their bad points, and I get that to an extent, because these candidates need to be vetted, for sure. But in your mind it is very simple and black and white. Bernie is the man, and the rest of complete garbage. I guess that is why you get frustrated. You don't get why anyone would support piles of garbage in any way. I think in total, the candidates, while flawed, are all better than the alternative.

Yes, they are flawed and I appreciate you pointing out those flaws. But you don't give them any credit for anything, and you don't always call out anything Bernie has said or done that prove that he is human too with the same derisive passion. Where are you on the issue that Bernie advocated for super delegates to vote for the person they deemed most electable rather than going with the one that got the most votes? Will you be enraged if they do that now and push Bernie from the nomination? Would you have been mad if they did that to HRC in 2016?

Building a case of evidence that supports my premise isn't "confirming my bias", its confirming the truth! They are all terrible candidates who would get crushed by Trump, and they are almost all serial liars in their pursuits.

I went back and saw that 2 years ago, I was open to Kirsten Gillibrand becoming the party's nominee, so saying I've been completely closed off to outside candidates is untrue.

Also, I've come to the conclusion that there are only 2 consistently honest candidates. Bernie Sanders... and Amy Klobuchar. Now, I shit all over Klobuchar. I think she has negative charisma, and hate her policies. But she's been honest and upfront about her plans. Can't say that about any of the rest.

So to sum up, I believe I have higher standards than most voters who expect dishonesty from their politicians, but I don't believe I've been unfairly critical. Quite the opposite.

[DMT]

Why isn't Sanders releasing his medical records? How is that getting a pass?

How about the polls showing that "being a socialist" rates as one of least appealing aspects of a candidate?

[Teenwolf]

Why isn't Sanders releasing his medical records? How is that getting a pass?

How about the polls showing that "being a socialist" rates as one of least appealing aspects of a candidate?

This from Shaun King:

"Bernie’s medical records. They were released 51 days ago. 99% of the people demanding them TODAY never read them when they were released and won’t read them now. They did the same thing with Bernie’s tax returns. In the meantime, Bloomberg has released NOTHING."

Did you read the three doctors letters with details on his heart health or are you just echoing media bullshit? Read the letters and tell me why you think he should release more details than the other candidates.

I can't embed the tweet that includes the letters, but they're easy to find.

The "socialism stinks" argument doesn't warrant a response. It's silly corporate fear-mongering. Biden voters 2nd choice is strongly for Bernie. The label thing is way overblown.

[Sour Masher]

Building a case of evidence that supports my premise isn't "confirming my bias", its confirming the truth! They are all terrible candidates who would get crushed by Trump, and they are almost all serial liars in their pursuits.

I went back and saw that 2 years ago, I was open to Kirsten Gillibrand becoming the party's nominee, so saying I've been completely closed off to outside candidates is untrue.

Also, I've come to the conclusion that there are only 2 consistently honest candidates. Bernie Sanders... and Amy Klobuchar. Now, I shit all over Klobuchar. I think she has negative charisma, and hate her policies. But she's been honest and upfront about her plans. Can't say that about any of the rest.

So to sum up, I believe I have higher standards than most voters who expect dishonesty from their politicians, but I don't believe I've been unfairly critical. Quite the opposite.

You focus on the critical stuff--the flaws--of the other candidates. Yes, they all have them. But the articles you read that point them out, do they ever point out the victories, the triumphs, or any of the good works, deeds, words, or actions of any of these candidates? Do you really believe none of them have ever helped pass a good piece of legislation, have never helped people in need, or made a good vote in their lives? Hell, to hear you tell it, they slam door's in the faces of the elderly, steal seats from pregnant women on the subway, and kick stray dogs on their way to work each day. I'm not saying to stop pointing out the flaws, but I hope you do realize that is not the totality of these candidates, or any individual. All of these flawed candidates have good works on the resume, but all that gets focused on is the negative, which just dampens the enthusiasm we should all muster to support whoever the nominee ends up being (and it is looking like it will be Sanders).

I just hope the switch gets flipped and the negativity starts to turn to positivity and a focus on what the nominee brings to the table when it comes time to stand against Trump. I fear there will still be some fractures, bad blood, and negative feelings that might dampen support for the last one standing.

[Sour Masher]

If you take anyone's life, politician or not, and list and define that person by the three or four worst things they have ever said or done, intentional or not, you can make saints look like monsters. What I meant by confirming your bias, or anyone about anything, is when you do this, only focusing on the worst cases prosecuted (thinking Klobuchar here), the worst things said, etc, you are doing it because you already want the outcome you reach. Someone else could only focus on the positives and ignore the negatives and they would be doing the same thing.

And again, I get why folks focus on the negatives--we need to differentiate these candidates, just like looking at a bunch of strong resumes to pick the best person for the job. But if you really think every candidate but Sanders is a piece of crap (except for right now Klobuchar), then I think your focus on just the negative has clouded you to the totality of most of these candidates (I don't think you are super far off on Bloomberg, and even he has a lot of good on his resume).

[Teenwolf]

I think Buttigieg is a completely unqualified candidate with a terrible record. Klobuchar has said the same. His only record is from a tiny town, where his record of supporting racist cops and gentrifying the most affordable neighborhoods to dislocate poor people are hugely problematic, in my mind disqualifying. It came out a few days ago that Buttigieg did indeed have talks with his donors who were used as a pressure point to get him to fire the black police chief. But I don't bring these things up anymore because I'm sick of being called biased and whatever. It's ludicrous that you defend someone like him. Or someone with the record of Biden, lying constantly about huge issues in his record. These are 2 awful candidates. Then you're left with Warren, who is a phony soothsayer, blowing with the political winds. She stands for nothing and it's been laid bare to see. These aren't conclusions based on any preconceived favouritism on my part. If you are fine with the limitations that we've seen, that's fine by me. We can disagree. But I'm not motivated to support a 78 year old because of some cultist mentality. If some other progressive modeled after Sanders came along, maybe if AOC showed better political instincts, or someone like her, I'd support them in a heartbeat. It's not about a cult of personality, it's the ideas he stands for.

[DMT]

Yep, calling Warren a "phony soothsayer" despite her record of actually getting shit done in Congress isn't "preconceived favoritism". It's just astute political analysis.

I'm thrilled to see Bernie doing well but that doesn't make you (and a much too large percentage of his supporters) any less of an asshole.