Trump vs. Bernie

[Jaguar]

Hence, Trump isn't the problem itself. He's the face of the problem, but he's not the problem itself. The problem itself is that half of the population is disaffected and looking for an end to "business as usual," particularly as exemplified by today's "woke" mainstream democrats.

But the folks on the left side of the aisle don't want to hear that. So they focus on Trump as the face of the problem and beat him up over the fact that he is a populist, a spoiler, a blowhard, and a hustler. It's their way of not facing up to the problem itself: The disaffection of half of the population with "business as usual." So the lefties howl about what a scumbag Trump is, and they search high and low for "Reasonable Republicans" who aren't pro-Trump; meanwhile they politely ignore the 48% or 49% of the population that disagrees with them. By attacking Trump, they attack the face of the problem, while conveniently ignoring the problem itself.


Just my two cents. I'm not planning on getting into all political debating happening here at TypoC; I'm just registering an outsider opinion: To me, Trump and Bernie are pretty much the same phenomenon, and I for one would welcome a Trump vs Bernie match-up as a win-win scenario. As I said: I'm kind of into protest votes these days.

Face the problem.
Face the problem.
Face the problem.

But no mention of what the alleged problem actually is.

To me, Trump and Bernie are pretty much the same phenomenon

They both create an enemy to hate, which is what populists do. The Right makes Immigrants their piñata to beat with a stick and the Left makes big corporations and people with money their piñata to beat with a stick. It also makes for an entire country turning to shit. And don't tell me Trump isn't to blame - I could play you a video from 30 years ago with Trump saying "We're getting screwed! We're getting screwed! They're laughing at us!" No one was laughing at the USA - just Donald. You see, if one can generalize a personal problem in terms of "we" or "us," guess what you can avoid dealing with your entire life?

The real problem - you.

 

[highlander]

When the question comes up in relation to healthcare, we're already paying for it, two times over, yet still not getting our money's worth. Restructuring the healthcare system is about better allocation of the funds so that big insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations aren't price gouging us into oblivion.

I agree with restructuring it - just not the radical solution Sanders is offering.

 

[á´…eparted]

The thought has occurred to me, but I remember in high school hearing that we could never have a black President because they would be assassinated. It's not something I'm prepared to let stop me.

Always in motion, the future is.

Times are different. Back them fascists weren't in power and their supporters weren't validated aware and emboldened. The right hasn't yet come to collectively realize that bernie could actually oust them in the election. When that clicks we all need to pay even closer attention.

If it happens I suspect it would be from a civilian, enabled by intentionally weakned security.

 

[Coriolis]

I agree with restructuring it - just not the radical solution Sanders is offering.

Alot of Americans agreed with the need to restructure government, just not the radical and often destructive way Trump has gone about it. What's good for the goose elephant is good for the gander donkey?

 

[SearchingforPeace]

@SearchingforPeace

I see that you liked the above post. What is odd to me is that up until this point I was under the impression that Sanders was among the few Democratic candidates you might support in the upcoming election. Though it has since been deleted in the great politics subforum purge, back when you started an earlier thread on potential 2020 candidates I asked you pointedly whom you might support and you mentioned Sanders and Gabbard as a few contenders. I asked you because, though you created that thread talking about potential 2020 candidates, you seemed to only post negative things about many of them...so I was curious whether you really wanted anyone to actually do well.

Now that Sanders is doing well, you seem to be posting things about how his support is weak, and liking posts that dismiss him as divisive and offer support of the other candidates you'd derided as part of the corrupt system.

What's your intention? Is your heuristic something akin to "I'd never trust or support any candidate who could possibly win the democratic nomination."?

I'm genuinely curious...would you vote for Sanders in the general election over Trump? Would you vote 3rd party/abstain?

@highlander Would you vote for Sanders, Trump or 3rd party/abstain?

@Jaguar Would you vote for Sanders, Trump or 3rd party/abstain?


Edit: Full disclosure, I'm pretty motivated by my anti-Trump sentiment now, so I'd take almost anyone over him. When this election cycle started, I was originally drawn to Buttigieg for his eagerness/willingness to bridge the divide and heal the country. Then, after listening to Warren and hearing more about her ideas and preparation, felt that she would make a great president (though I was still uncomfortable with the polarized nature of her support). Really though, I was happy with many of the major candidates with the exception of Harris and Biden. Now that Sanders is the most likely nominee (which I did not expect) I'm happy to support him too. At this point, the only viable candidate who I would really struggle to support is Bloomberg, because the likely path to his nomination is through corrupting the system with his massive spending and leveraging the spot via a contested convention. He's like the democrat's version of Trump...smarter than Trump when it comes to actual critical thought, but nowhere near as gifted politically. I think I might actually sit that election out.

Always fun to see people try to read meaning in a "like", which can mean many different things, including "I like how you made your point even though I disagree with your points".

Anyway, glad you recognize that you are overcome with anti-Trump hostility. Generally, people can't be rational when blinded by hatred. It was very difficult during the Obama years trying to get Obama haters to see he wasn't the devil incarnate for similar reasons.

I did like the 2016 Sanders, but the version 2.0 is a far inferior product. At last I looked, it seems that he had only 38k votes in Nevada (pop approx 3 million), so he underperformed yet again his 2016 number.

It looks like he has a hard ceiling, that a substantial part of the Democratic electorate opposes him. I suspect much of this is due to the hostility to Bernie of the media and neoliberal Democratic party establishment.

This is unfortunate, as I would love to have him as the Democratic nominee. He would push Trump to adopt more social democratic policies. A Trump-Sanders contest could actually cause the media to be neutral or even pro-Trump.

I always look at the Democratic Party candidates and consider them I voted Obama in 08. I voted for Nader in 04 (though he wasn't a Democrat, of course). I have never voted for a Bush in my life.

I have been a political junkie since elementary school, so I very much care about the process and find it very interesting.

I ultimately see the neoliberal oligarchy as the greatest threat to the country. Big business in all its forms is choking the people and preventing real improvements. One of its greatest tools is the old classic "Divide and Conquer", which aims to stir up division and get people full of hatred for opposing groups.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I don't think Bernie is a blowhard or hustler (although I'll grant you that he is a populist).

I lived in both Massachusetts and Vermont for 30 years. When I lived in Vermont, I never voted for Bernie. Hillary recently described Sanders perfectly--she said that the guy is a detestable opportunist. I'll grant that he's consistent. But he's a Trotskyite blowhard. What is going to kill him in the general election run-off is when they start dredging up all the positive things he's said about communist dictatorships in the past, for example. He has a long record of being a hard-core socialist; no one cared in the past except voters in Vermont, and they kind of embraced that stuff. So he could say any wacky thing he wanted.

Anyway, the main point is that you have *populist* leaders appearing on both sides of the aisle now. Too little is made of that fact by pundits. When people in other countries are disaffected with politics, they vote third party. But when voters in the US are disaffected with politics, they vote *populist*. The level of populist politics in the US is a strong signal, to me at least. That's got to be addressed by the mainstream parties at some point, or we're just going to keep seeing idiots and blowhards and hustlers elected to the presidency from both sides of the aisle.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Times are different. Back them fascists weren't in power and their supporters weren't validated aware and emboldened. The right hasn't yet come to collectively realize that bernie could actually oust them in the election. When that clicks we all need to pay even closer attention.

If it happens I suspect it would be from a civilian, enabled by intentionally weakned security.

It doesn't do any good to curl up in a fetal position. You either do something about the problem, or you don't. Me, I prefer to do something.

Any candidate who can get me up off my cynical ass to canvass these days is a powerful force indeed.

 

[Jaguar]

Guy starts a business in his garage as a nobody. Becomes a big business. Now he's "choking people" because he's doing well. Ridiculous. Go to Starbucks. Drown the inner hate with mocha.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Guy starts a business in his garage as a nobody. Becomes a big business. Now he's "choking people" because he's doing well. Ridiculous. Go to Starbucks. Drown the inner hate with mocha.

He's strangling people because he complains about how we can't pay for things like M4A when he never raised such an objection when they cut his taxes. Maybe the deficit isn't just a spending problem but a revenue problem?

It seems like people who hate government spending were fine with expanding the federal deficit when it benefited them in the form of tax cuts.

 

[Jaguar]

He's strangling people because he complains about how we can't pay for things like M4A when he never raised such an objection when they cut his taxes. Maybe the deficit isn't just a spending problem but a revenue problem?

You're complaining. You. When aren't you?

 

[Maou]

When the question comes up in relation to healthcare, we're already paying for it, two times over, yet still not getting our money's worth. Restructuring the healthcare system is about better allocation of the funds so that big insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations aren't price gouging us into oblivion.

Id actually disagree, being someone who pays out of pocket consistantly. If you compare the price of healthcare, to the cost of a car. Healthcare is a lot cheaper. Its cheaper than student loans at times. All three have a significant impact on your life. I pay on average 50$ for healthcare, as a copay. I have a total of 150$ of outstanding debt. I have recieved numerous treatments, including therapy without being in debt. I had more debt at the vet, for giving my cat chemotherapy. Which was upward of 3k. But preventative care in people, is cheap as fuck out of pocket. Its only when you wait for the ER that it is expensive. Dont wait for the ER, and it isnt expensive for the average healthy adult.

The problem.is having a system for critically ill, that suits healthy people. Why isn it so hard to make multiple systems?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You're complaining. You. When aren't you?

I was complaining about the state of this country even before the investment bankers that wrecked the economy upon my graduating from college were rewarded in spite of doing so (because they were too big to fail) and I had to endure constant lectures about how hard those people worked.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I don't see why it's so unethical that people in charge of banks "too big to fail" pay more taxes when they were the prime beneficiaries of the taxpayer bailout.

They expect us to spend money on them but refuse to pay for M4A? GTFO.

 

[Jaguar]

I was complaining about the state of this country before the investment bankers that wrecked the economy upon my graduating from college were rewarded in spite of doing so and I had to endure constant lectures about how hard those people worked.

It takes two to tango, and I predicted the catastrophe before it even hit when my real estate broker in Chicago told me a bunch of rookie, greedy assholes were taking out 2 and 3 mortgages to try and make a quick buck by flipping houses with shit credit scores. They had no business getting mortgages to begin with. Just because you see a pool water doesn't mean you have to take off your clothes and jump in. Show some self-control. If someone makes it easy to get a credit card, should you blame the card issuer for you racking up debt? No. Am I pleased with the bankers selling all that sub-prime paper? No. But they're not the only ones to blame. Consumers are guilty as well.

 

[Jonny]

Always fun to see people try to read meaning in a "like", which can mean many different things, including "I like how you made your point even though I disagree with your points".

Right, which is why I reached out and asked you to clarify rather than assume. I disclosed my baseline assumption because it was based on your past forum posts, so to the extent that you were interested in improving your clarity of communication it could be helpful. After all, communication requires skill on both the part of the speaker and the listener.

Anyway, glad you recognize that you are overcome with anti-Trump hostility. Generally, people can't be rational when blinded by hatred. It was very difficult during the Obama years trying to get Obama haters to see he wasn't the devil incarnate for similar reasons.

This is a great example of a miscommunication, but this time poor listening rather than poor communicating. Saying "Full disclosure, I'm pretty motivated by my anti-Trump sentiment now, so I'd take almost anyone over him." does not necessarily imply that I'm "overcome with anti-Trump hostility," though this accusation is a typical refrain from you, and I think based on your mindset it makes sense you'd paint me in that light. I just wish you'd have asked a question to clarify rather than come to a conclusion with insufficient information...again not unexpected from you. I'm patient with this so it's OK, just thought I'd let you know so you can learn.

To clarify, I should say that at this point I've witnessed so many unacceptable behaviors/actions from this president that, based on my observations of all other people throughout my life I believe that a random person would be preferable to him. That's what I meant by "my anti-Trump sentiment." Obviously there would be some people who would be worse than Trump, but it just doesn't seem likely given the current Democratic candidates. I hope this helps you understand. Let me know if you're still confused.

I did like the 2016 Sanders, but the version 2.0 is a far inferior product. At last I looked, it seems that he had only 38k votes in Nevada (pop approx 3 million), so he underperformed yet again his 2016 number.

It looks like he has a hard ceiling, that a substantial part of the Democratic electorate opposes him. I suspect much of this is due to the hostility to Bernie of the media and neoliberal Democratic party establishment.

Would you support more head-to-head polls between him and the other candidates to shed light on this? The recent set that came out showed him beating every other candidate:

New Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows Sanders'''s strength going head-to-head with rivals


I hope you're not confusing people not voting for him as opposition rather than them simply voting for another candidate they slightly prefer more. I do agree though, as with Trump in 2016, there are certain parts of the party that might end up being never-Sanders-ers.

Also, at this point Sanders received 41,075 votes in Nevada vs 34,531 for Trump in 2016 primary. In 2016, Trump received 512,058 votes in Nevada in the general election, which means his share of primary voters represented 6.74% of that number. In 2016, Clinton got 539,260 votes in Nevada in the general election, and 41,075 is 7.62% of that. That he under-performed his 2016 number should be no surprise given that there are many more viable candidates now than there were in 2016. I'm not sure how familiar you are with numbers, but hopefully these comparisons make sense to you.

Here is a comparison from RealClearPolitics Polling averages from 2/24/2016 versus 2/24/2020:

Trump	33.2		Sanders	29.3
Cruz	20.3		Biden	17.2
Rubio	16.7		Bloomberg	15.3
Kasich	9.3		Warren	13.2
Carson	7.5		Buttigieg	9.8
Bush	5.8		Klobuchar	6.3
			Steyer	2.2
			Gabbard	1.4
Uncommitted	7.2		Uncommitted	5.3

This is unfortunate, as I would love to have him as the Democratic nominee. He would push Trump to adopt more social democratic policies. A Trump-Sanders contest could actually cause the media to be neutral or even pro-Trump.

I always look at the Democratic Party candidates and consider them I voted Obama in 08. I voted for Nader in 04 (though he wasn't a Democrat, of course). I have never voted for a Bush in my life.

I have been a political junkie since elementary school, so I very much care about the process and find it very interesting.

I ultimately see the neoliberal oligarchy as the greatest threat to the country. Big business in all its forms is choking the people and preventing real improvements. One of its greatest tools is the old classic "Divide and Conquer", which aims to stir up division and get people full of hatred for opposing groups.

Thank you for being so candid about some of your motivations/positions, though you still haven't mentioned whether you would support Sanders in a one-on-one with Trump. You keep going back to the number of votes Sanders is getting, which actually has nothing to do with whether you'd vote for him over Trump in the general. If you believe that:

• neoliberal oligarchy as the greatest threat to the country
• Big business in all its forms is choking the people and preventing real improvements
• One of its greatest tools is the old classic "Divide and Conquer", which aims to stir up division and get people full of hatred for opposing groups.

Then it seems likely that you'd pick Sanders over Trump. But the only thing you can say about Sanders is that he isn't performing as well in a multi-way primary as he did against Clinton in 2016. Oh well.

Anyways, I hope your family is doing well, and everyone is happy and healthy...I haven't read your blog in a while so I'm not sure if things have gotten better for you or not.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It takes two to tango, and I predicted the catastrophe before it even hit when my real estate broker in Chicago told me a bunch of rookie, greedy assholes were taking out 2 and 3 mortgages to try and make a quick buck by flipping houses with shit credit scores. They had no business getting mortgages to begin with. Just because you see a pool water doesn't mean you have to take off your clothes and jump in. Show some self-control. If someone makes it easy to get a credit card, should you blame the card issuer for you racking up debt? No. Am I pleased with the bankers selling all that sub-prime paper? No. But they're not the only ones to blame. Consumers are guilty as well.

That's fine. Just stop whining about the possibility of those fuckers in charge of those banks getting taxed and how unfair that would be, and I'd leave you alone. I am sick of them always getting their tax cuts and then whining at the possibility that anyone but them might be able to benefit from this system.

 

[Jaguar]

That's fine. Just stop whining about the possibility of those fuckers getting taxed and how unfair that would be, and I'd leave you alone. I am sick of them always getting their tax cuts and then whining at the possibility that anyone but them might be able to benefit from this system.

I couldn't care less about bankers getting taxed. Why do you make up so much stupid shit? It's absurd.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I couldn't care less about bankers getting taxed. Why do you make up so much stupid shit? It's absurd.

You constantly go on and on about how wealthy people "work harder" and that it's unfair that people are accusing them of "strangling people" by hiring lobbyists to get lawmakers to write laws and create policies that benefit them.

Tell me, did your break with the Republican party happen when they cut your taxes even though there was a deficit? If not, your complaining about how we "can't pay" for M4A rings a little hollow.

 

[Stigmata]

Guy starts a business in his garage as a nobody. Becomes a big business. Now he's "choking people" because he's doing well. Ridiculous. Go to Starbucks. Drown the inner hate with mocha.

Well, for an individual example of someone who managed to succeed while operating ethically, a perfect counter-example would be one such as the Walton family who have amassed a fortune by reaping the benefits of paying people less than livable wages, looking for every loophole to not have to provide benefits, while having the government subsidized the needs of a sizable percentage of their employees. When everyone bawks at the idea of socialistic ideologies in this country, they often forget we're already adopting certain socialistic policies (tax cuts and incentives, bailouts, ect) yet those are only reserved for the ultra rich.

 

[Jaguar]

Well, for an individual example of someone who managed to succeed while operating ethically, a perfect counter-example would be one such as the Walton family who have amassed a fortune by reaping the benefits of paying people less than livable wages, looking for every loophole to not have to provide benefits, while having the government subsidized the needs of a sizable percentage of their employees. When everyone bawks at the idea of socialistic ideologies in this country, they often forget we're already adopting certain socialistic policies (tax cuts and incentives, bailouts, ect) yet those are only reserved for the ultra rich.

If they are treating the people who work for them like shit, they should be thrown off a fucking cliff and run over with a Range Rover. Twice.