Trump vs. Bernie

[á´…eparted]

Warren is a hostile shrew.

What you call hostile I call a breath of fucking fresh air that is badly needed. Finally, finally someone who doesn't pussy foot around and actually calls people out on their bullshit on the political stage, with none of this "respect and civility" bullshit that has resulted in the GOP driving the democrats to compromise everything before negotiating even begins. Civility has been exploited and extorted for decades now, probably even further. We haven't been able to rely on it for a long, long time.

Respect is earned, not given. If someone hasn't actually been respectful, she is indeed righteously angry at them, and expresses it. As should be done.

 

[Jonny]

I have money, but that's not power. Knowledge is power, and knowing what to do with it. But thanks for the Warren talking points.

K

 

[Jaguar]

Warren is a hostile shrew.

Ha!

 

[Jaguar]

You constantly go on and on about how wealthy people "work harder"

Last time you posted bullshit like that you mixed up my posts with Tellenbach's.

Hiring lobbyists to get lawmakers to write laws and create policies that benefit them.

Wrong person, again.

your complaining about how we "can't pay" for M4A rings a little hollow.

Wrong person, again.

Go find the person who is making those posts rather than waste my time talking gibberish.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Last time you posted bullshit like that you mixed up my posts with Tellenbach's.

K

Wrong person, again.

Go find the person who is making those posts rather than waste my time talking gibberish.

Ooops, sorry, you never actually said yourself we can't pay for Medicaer4all, you just said that we can't give people free shit and we can't just give it away and we have to pay for it somehow. Quite a subtle distinction there that escaped me; I must be utterly insane to draw the conclusion that you don't think we can afford M4A.

 

[Jonny]

Why the need for such extreme opposite policies.. Bernie is a zealot and Warren is a hostile shrew. They are the two most unelectable candidates. How about someone in the middle?

Two words: electoral reform

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Two words: electoral reform

protecting norms (and mah $$$$) iz m0re iportant sorry

add to deficit by cutting my taxes please, but don't u dare give people health care.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

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 speaker and the listener.



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.





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. 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.




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.

Thanks for the well wishes.

I sincerely don't believe that the DNC will ever let Sanders be the nominee. If he somehow gets it, I suspect that Trump will win in epic fashion ( 1964, 1972, 1984, or 1988 levels).

Based upon the latest poll numbers, most people are doing better financially than 3 years ago, which is usually the best standard for presidential reelection. The spectacle that is Trump has sunk in and most people believe they are better off, in spite of the spectacle.

Again, I would prefer Bernie as the nominee, mostly because Trump would be forced to embrace things like student loan reform and health care reform. These would be huge helps to the economy, as they are both dragging down everything.

I favor M4A but the initial step of dropping the Medicare age to 50 would be a huge help (and reduce the costs to younger people as 50+ have huge health care costs). We really need price controls all around, but that is another issue.

Would I vote for Bernie? Idk. The safer bet would be stay the course.

I try to imagine the last 3 years without the nonstop hostility from the media and the Democrats. Trump would have worked to make lots of "deals" (like that prison reform bill he signed). Oh, well.

Sanders 2.0 has embraced open borders and Wokism, contrary to Sanders 1.0. That pushes me away as I firmly reject both.

Bernie is correct on economic problems, for sure. But so was Obama in 08 during the primaries. Obama ditched his economic team after he had the nomination and the oligarchy picked his cabinet and dictated his economic policy. Given Bernie conceding on so many formerly long-held issues, I suspect he would pull an Obama.

The best way to get more social democracy is for Schumer to stop fighting his old friend Trump and instead start making deals.

And the ceiling issue is real. In 2016, he was the only option in the primary for leftists or anti- Hillary Dems, outside of sitting out, so his support was somewhat inflated. Only one of his opponents is really fighting for his voters (Warren) and Sanders does not seem to be improving his numbers. He didn't hold on to some of his 2016 voters. The comparison to the 2016 Republican is irrelevant as Trump was a first time candidate taking on almost everyone else (Cruz being the only one close to him in policy).

Last week, one acquaintance I have on Facebook who lives in Nevada (a white 60 year old widow) posted about a bunch of Democratic candidates, but never Bernie positively. I think her final choice was between Pete and Warren. Voters like her are more likely to sit out a Trump vs. Sanders matchup than vote Bernie. Of course, the DNC believes that Bernie supporters will vote for a Bloomberg rather than sit out, even after they steal the nomination again, but who knows.

I now live in a purplish/bluish state. There are a lot of Trump supporters, most of whom dislike him as a person but love the improved economic conditions and have accepted his many faults. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump carried the state.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Would I vote for Bernie? Idk. The safer bet would be stay the course.

So much for being anti-neoliberalism. LOL.

You've just told me I can never take another post you make seriously. And I've been one of your defendeers. This just makes everything you've written about the evils of neoliberalism look like trolling, maybe to trick some people into getting on your side. There is no way somebody can be anti-neoliberalism and support Trump over Sanders. Sorry, but tax cuts for the wealthy is very much a neoliberal policy, and your guy supported that. Likely his stance on immigration is what allows him to win you over and forget about that, which shows me that neoliberalism was never that high of a priority for you.


You probably just hope Trump gets re-elected so he can lock up more kids or something. And no, don't bring up "but Obama!" Unlike you, I was a reluctant Obama voter and did not vote for him or Clinton in the primary. I never bought into the Hope and Change thing very much.


I don't think it's about Bernie changing a few things or being too woke or becoming part of the Democratic establishment (lol) for you now. It's probably just about immigrants.

"we need to change this thing but here's this candidate that actually wants to do that, but we shouldn't vote for him because it's safer to stay the course!" Please.

I favor M4A but the initial step of dropping the Medicare age to 50 would be a huge help (and reduce the costs to younger people as 50+ have huge health care costs). We really need price contr

Let me guess, you're over 50 or will be in a few years.

 

[Jaguar]

I must be utterly insane

I was wondering if you were posting drunk with all the mistakes you've been making.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I was wondering if you were posting drunk with all the mistakes you've been making.

It was the thought of Bloomberg winning the nomination that finally did it to me.

 

[highlander]

What you call hostile I call a breath of fucking fresh air that is badly needed. Finally, finally someone who doesn't pussy foot around and actually calls people out on their bullshit on the political stage, with none of this "respect and civility" bullshit that has resulted in the GOP driving the democrats to compromise everything before negotiating even begins. Civility has been exploited and extorted for decades now, probably even further. We haven't been able to rely on it for a long, long time. Respect is earned, not given. If someone hasn't actually been respectful, she is indeed righteously angry at them, and expresses it. As should be done.

I didnt like her before because of her policy positions. I lost all respect for her after her performance in the last debate. What purpose does it serve to attempt to humiliate Bloomberg in the way she did? From a person who has an estimated net worth of 12M who advertises herself as a former teacher. She is a hypocrite. The thing about demanding him to share NDAs of third parties is pure bullshit grandstanding. As an attorney she knows better. The crap about him not sharing his taxes is also BS. I'm sure he will release them soon. It was all rhetoric plain and simple and when I smell BS and unfairness, it pisses me off. How did Bloomberg react to her cheap shots? Did he come across as arrogant billionaire she referred to? I think he came across with humility and dignity - stating clear and reasonable positions. He talked about how is is giving his money away. Not sexy but true.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I didnt like her before because of her policy decisions. I lost all respect for her after her performance in the las debate. What purpose does it serve to attempt to humiliate Bloomberg in the way she did? From a person who has an estimated net worth of 12M who advertises herself as a former teacher. She is a hypocrite. The bullshit about demanding him to share NDAs of employees is pure grandstandin .

I don't really think Trump's former golf buddy trying to buy the presidency deserves to be treated with kid gloves. He's an adult. He chose to enter the arena of politics.

Bloomberg and Trump love executive power, and are strongman soulmates - Business Insider

The guy gives me the creeps.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

So much for being anti-neoliberalism. LOL.

You've just told me I can never take another post you make seriously. And I've been one of your defendeers. This just makes everything you've written about the evils of neoliberalism look like trolling, maybe to trick some people into getting on your side. There is no way somebody can be anti-neoliberalism and support Trump over Sanders. Sorry, but tax cuts for the wealthy is very much a neoliberal policy, and your guy supported that. Likely his stance on immigration is what allows him to win you over and forget about that, which shows me that neoliberalism was never that high of a priority for you.


You probably just hope Trump gets re-elected so he can lock up more kids or something. And no, don't bring up "but Obama!" Unlike you, I was a reluctant Obama voter and did not vote for him or Clinton in the primary. I never bought into the Hope and Change thing very much.


I don't think it's about Bernie changing a few things or being too woke or becoming part of the Democratic establishment (lol) for you now. It's probably just about immigrants.

"we need to change this thing but here's this candidate that actually wants to do that, but we shouldn't vote for him because it's safer to stay the course!" Please.



Let me guess, you're over 50 or will be in a few years.

Nice rant. Try a few minutes of deep breathing prior to posting and you might do better than such a tirade.

Did you vote for Hillary in 2016? Will you vote for a Democratic nominee that isn't Sanders? Then you support the continuation of the neoliberal order. Do you really believe Sanders would actually be able to do better than Obama at resisting the party bosses, given that Obama didn't roll over for Hillary in 08 like Bernie did in 16?

As to M4A vs. reducing the age: it is a matter of possible fixes. The lowering of the Medicare age was a proposal in 08/09, as a way to gradually expand Medicare. 50+ folks have huge heath care costs that few under 50 folks have. By removing them from the health care pool, it reduces costs for everyone else, without making radical changes.

Most everyone supports Medicare. No one wants to give it up. Adding to it gradually will work better politically than radical change.

To really get M4A, we will need a few years of antitrust enforcement, an idea that is coming back. Break the power of the medical oligarchy and maybe we can get everyone covered.

But go ahead and rant and accuse as you need, instead of addressing policies.

 

[rav3n]

I didnt like her before because of her policy positions.

Can you expand on which policy decisions you disagreed with?

 

[highlander]

I don't really think Trump's former golf buddy trying to buy the presidency deserves to be treated with kid gloves. He's an adult. He chose to enter the arena of politics. If he can't take it, he shouldn't have entered the race. Perhaps he'd be happier playing some golf with his pals.

It's not about being treated with kid gloves. Warren demonstrated a lack of integrity and a demeanor that was most definitely not presidential. I guess we are getting used to such obnoxious behavior -being desensitized after several years of trump. I'm not on that bandwagon. Look at Buttigieg. He does not resort to those kind of antics and comes across with class. Same with Biden.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Nice rant. Try a few minutes of deep breathing prior to posting and you might do better than such a tirade.

Did you vote for Hillary in 2016? Will you vote for a Democratic nominee that isn't Sanders? Then you support the continuation of the neoliberal order. Do you really believe Sanders would actually be able to do better than Obama at resisting the party bosses, given that Obama didn't roll over for Hillary in 08 like Bernie did in 16?

I'd vote for anyone except your "electable" choice of Michael Bloomberg. I can consider anyone else to be better than Trump by some metric, but I can't do that with Bloomberg.

And yes, I do believe that. This campaign isn't even just about him, and his slogan represents that "Not me, us." I never bought it for Obama; I saw him as non-committal at debates and tended to hedge things too much. If you regret swallowing that pill, that's your problem, not mine.

Sanders is genuine. Yes, he'll face opposition, but so fucking what? Anybody who wants to change things is going to face opposition.

I'd say that the person who thinks Trump is going to institute social-democratic policies is the one who is actually mistaken. You probably watched too much The Apprentice. I can't believe I actually read someone type that. I needed the laugh.

As to M4A vs. reducing the age: it is a matter of possible fixes. The lowering of the Medicare age was a proposal in 08/09, as a way to gradually expand Medicare. 50+ folks have huge heath care costs that few under 50 folks have. By removing them from the health care pool, it reduces costs for everyone else, without making radical changes.

It says on your profile you are 49. I was right.

Most everyone supports Medicare. No one wants to give it up. Adding to it gradually will work better politically than radical change.

Sure, gradual change is awesome as long as you're the person who gets to benefit from it first!

To really get M4A, we will need a few years of antitrust enforcement, an idea that is coming back. Break the power of the medical oligarchy and maybe we can get everyone covered.

And you want to convince me that Trump is the guy to do that. Yes, I trust authoritarian narcissistic NY oligarchs to create antitrust enforcement. Sooooo funny.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It's not about being treated with kid gloves. Warren demonstrated a lack of integrity and a demeanor that was most definitely not presidential. I guess we are getting used to such obnoxious behavior -being desensitized after several years of trump. I'm not on that bandwagon. Look at Buttigieg. He does not resort to those kind of antics and comes across with class. Same with Biden.

Bloomberg has a lack of integrity that is certainly not fucking presidential. She took him down, and for that, she won back some of the respect from me that she lost.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Here is a turd with lots of money.

Go ahead guys, talk about how brilliant the turd is. (The best part is that it works for Trump OR Bloomberg).

Maybe the turd can bring social democracy to the U.S!

Let us worship the turd and perform sacrifices to it.

 

[highlander]

Can you expand on which policy decisions you disagreed with?

Most everything that is described in this article. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders: the same or really different? - Vox