Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce

[HarthorneWingo]

While Joe Biden has invited his good buddy John Kasich to speak on his behalf at the DNC Convention, he has not even spoke to AOC like at all. Right.

wrong.

She's shaping Biden's climate policy.

Bernie seems very pleased with the conversations that he, Biden, and AOC have been having

Read on Twitter

?s=20

“could be”

Biden deserves credit for what appears to be solid climate change and tax plans. I also expect that he’ll put together a sound national infrastructure plan.

But there are many other things to be concerned about. Healthcare and the Defense budget/foreign policy (how much longer will he keep us in the Middle East?), college tuition.

We’ll just have to wait to see who he identifies as he cabinet choices to get a better sense of where his head is at. With respect to how hard he’ll fight for these programs, that will remain to be seen. Remember, this is the guy who wanted to cut Medicare and Social Security.

[duetta]

As for the nature of this big tent, I get the feeling that you and the other neoliberals on the board want to reach out to the right rather than our own base of voters 45 years old and younger. So if Biden loses bc we didn’t get enough of that demographic, are you all then going to blame the “Bernie Bros”?

Wingy, you makes assumption at your peril.

I am a realist. I see the world as I believe it is, not as I would like it to be. I'm getting the strong feeling that you don't.

Remember, my candidate was Warren. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to have to report to an investment bank, in order to fulfill their financial compliance regulations, that you gave large sums of money to a candidate on record with wanting to break them up? Do you have any idea how difficult that is? But that's what I did.

I've described myself as a "spiritual progressive" for more than 20 years. I don't see a conflict between authentic spirituality and acknowledging facts on the ground - like the need to form broad coalitions. The facts on the ground are that you win elections by counting votes - and the hard left isn't going to have close to enough votes to win general elections in America any time soon, if ever. And neither do they have a clue as to how economies really work. Every country in Europe with a robust safety net has a strong capitalist economy underpinning it. That how they generate the revenues necessary to pay for their safety nets.

I just finished 24 lectures at The Teaching Company on comparative economics. Did you know that no country that has tried collectivist agriculture has ever been able to properly feed its people? There's not enough pure altruists in society to make that kind of model work. They all discovered, China most of all, that they needed to channel the selfishness within most people.

The only model that makes sense for America and humanity in the 21st will be a hybrid model - one where there are both functioning markets and robust safety nets. That's where I see the human future going, assuming we even survive. For that future to come into existence, you're going to need a collaboration between a wide variety of economic interests - just like there is today in a country like Germany. In my wet dream of America, workers and management have the same collaborative relationship here as they do there. IMHO, the other stuff is just fairy tales.

[HarthorneWingo]

As for the nature of this big tent, I get the feeling that you and the other neoliberals on the board want to reach out to the right rather than our own base of voters 45 years old and younger. So if Biden loses bc we didn’t get enough of that demographic, are you all then going to blame the “Bernie Bros”?

Wingy, you makes assumption at your peril.

I am a realist. I see the world as I believe it is, not as I would like it to be. I'm getting the strong feeling that you don't.

Remember, my candidate was Warren. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to have to report to an investment bank, in order to fulfill their financial compliance regulations, that you gave large sums of money to a candidate on record with wanting to break them up? Do you have any idea how difficult that is? But that's what I did.

I've described myself as a "spiritual progressive" for more than 20 years. I don't see a conflict between authentic spirituality and acknowledging facts on the ground - like the need to form broad coalitions. The facts on the ground are that you win elections by counting votes - and the hard left isn't going to have close to enough votes to win general elections in America any time soon, if ever. And neither do they have a clue as to how economies really work. Every country in Europe with a robust safety net has a strong capitalist economy underpinning it. That how they generate the revenues necessary to pay for their safety nets.

I just finished 24 lectures at The Teaching Company on comparative economics. Did you know that no country that has tried collectivist agriculture has ever been able to properly feed its people? There's not enough pure altruists in society to make that kind of model work. They all discovered, China most of all, that they needed to channel the selfishness within most people.

The only model that makes sense for America and humanity in the 21st will be a hybrid model - one where there are both functioning markets and robust safety nets. That's where I see the human future going, assuming we even survive. For that future to come into existence, you're going to need a collaboration between a wide variety of economic interests - just like there is today in a country like Germany. In my wet dream of America, workers and management have the same collaborative relationship here as they do there. IMHO, the other stuff is just fairy tales.

You’re trying to prove to me that you are a noble spirit when I never attacked it or even mentioned it. My point is quite specific and has nothing to do with your outside interests and schooling.

Moreover, if that’s the society you envision then you and are in the same page. Just please explain to me how joining forces with Republican Trump haters who do not believe in our vision for the future is helpful to our cause? How can you have that vision and embrace Kasich and Hogan while shunning the leading progressive voices in Congress? Republicans will NEVER join with us on the programs we need to legislate.

[Clyde_Style]

Read on Twitter

[Clyde_Style]

Read on Twitter

[HarthorneWingo]

Trump bashing Republican Senator from Utah Mitt Romney’s prognostication of the upcoming Presidential election.

Free in-state college education and tuition debt forgiveness sounding better each day.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mitt-romney-trump-election-2020_n_5f19bdf6c5b6f2f6c9f31c6f

Yet the Utah lawmaker, who was his party’s presidential standard-bearer in 2012, believes Trump is likely to win reelection this November.

Asked why he foresees that outcome, especially with most public polls showing Trump trailing badly behind presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, Romney offered three reasons.

There are enormous advantages to being the incumbent, number one,” Romney told HuffPost on Thursday. “Number two, I think [Trump] will tack more towards the middle in his communication than he has so far.”

“And number three, I think the voters that are most animated in opposition to the president tend not to come out to vote ― and that’s young people and the minorities. They’re active in polls, but not necessarily active at actually getting out to the polls,” the senator said.

[duetta]

You’re trying to prove to me that you are a noble spirit when I never attacked it or even mentioned it. My point is quite specific and has nothing to do with your outside interests and schooling.

Moreover, if that’s the society you envision then you and are in the same page. Just please explain to me how joining forces with Republican Trump haters who do not believe in our vision for the future is helpful to our cause? How can you have that vision and embrace Kasich and Hogan while shunning the leading progressive voices in Congress? Republicans will NEVER join with us on the programs we need to legislate.

You described me as a neo-liberal. If anything, I am a liberal nationalist - a nationalist who believes that we should be unafraid to use the potentially awesome power of a people's Union to solve the problems of those people. Like FDR, I'm willing to borrow from any school of economics to address a pressing issue. If I thought the average human being was up to being a utopian socialist, I would be one myself. But I fear that utopian socialism requires a level of personal evolution far beyond the average human being, at least at this stage of our species development. If we survive long enough, maybe that equation will one day change...

My argument would be this: in our Fox-infested world, in which truly repugnant human beings like Rupert Murdoch are content to brainwash as large a segment of Americans as they can to order to protect their financial advantages, you need as broad a temporary coalition as possible calling out the extraordinary break with our values that Trumpism represents.

Obviously, Bill Kristol is not going to be a long-term member of our coalition - not unless he completely changes his view on the reckless interjection of American power around the world; nor will John Kasich, who I well remember being part of the Clinton-lynch mob in the 90s, and seeking to stick medical instruments up women's vaginas in order to keep them from having an abortion. But if FDR and Churchill could get into bed with Stalin to defeat Hitler, then we can temporarily ally with a much lesser evil than Stalin to defeat Drumpf and his repugnant enablers - especially at a moment when a lack of progress on combatting climate change would lead to a human (and animal) tragedy on an epic scale.

[robillionaire]

You’re trying to prove to me that you are a noble spirit when I never attacked it or even mentioned it. My point is quite specific and has nothing to do with your outside interests and schooling.

Moreover, if that’s the society you envision then you and are in the same page. Just please explain to me how joining forces with Republican Trump haters who do not believe in our vision for the future is helpful to our cause? How can you have that vision and embrace Kasich and Hogan while shunning the leading progressive voices in Congress? Republicans will NEVER join with us on the programs we need to legislate.

You described me as a neo-liberal. If anything, I am a liberal nationalist - a nationalist who believes that we should be unafraid to use the potentially awesome power of a people's Union to solve the problems of those people. Like FDR, I'm willing to borrow from any school of economics to address a pressing issue. If I thought the average human being was up to being a utopian socialist, I would be one myself. But I fear that utopian socialism requires a level of personal evolution far beyond the average human being, at least at this stage of our species development. If we survive long enough, maybe that equation will one day change...

My argument would be this: in our Fox-infested world, in which truly repugnant human beings like Rupert Murdoch are content to brainwash as large a segment of Americans as they can to order to protect their financial advantages, you need as broad a temporary coalition as possible calling out the extraordinary break with our values that Trumpism represents.

Obviously, Bill Kristol is not going to be a long-term member of our coalition - not unless he completely changes his view on the reckless interjection of American power around the world; nor will John Kasich, who I well remember being part of the Clinton-lynch mob in the 90s, and seeking to stick medical instruments up women's vaginas in order to keep them from having an abortion. But if FDR and Churchill could get into bed with Stalin to defeat Hitler, then we can temporarily ally with a much lesser evil than Stalin to defeat Drumpf and his repugnant enablers - especially at a moment when a lack of progress on combatting climate change would lead to a human (and animal) tragedy on an epic scale.

I can't speak for wingo, I'm not a liberal or nationalist, or "utopian" socialist. I don't believe that american lives are any more important than other people's lives. I mean, from my perspective, (and probably from a global perspective in general) the democrats are effectively a right wing party. I would think that for a civic nationalist it probably wouldn't even be much of compromise to embrace the rogue republicans, a party that themselves are nationalists except they are trending more towards ethno-nationalism and by extension fascism as opposed to civic nationalism. But for those on the left giving any sort of applause even temporarily to anybody in the GOP is going to be a bridge way too far. It's a big enough ask to get us to try to temporarily ally with biden, who I don't see myself as politically aligned with. But with all that said, I get the strategy of it all. Dems are banking that they will be able to gain more votes from the rogue republicans than they will lose from people taking principled stands against their coddling of the GOP and they are probably right. So I mean, yeah I get it.

[GONYK]

You’re trying to prove to me that you are a noble spirit when I never attacked it or even mentioned it. My point is quite specific and has nothing to do with your outside interests and schooling.

Moreover, if that’s the society you envision then you and are in the same page. Just please explain to me how joining forces with Republican Trump haters who do not believe in our vision for the future is helpful to our cause? How can you have that vision and embrace Kasich and Hogan while shunning the leading progressive voices in Congress? Republicans will NEVER join with us on the programs we need to legislate.

You described me as a neo-liberal. If anything, I am a liberal nationalist - a nationalist who believes that we should be unafraid to use the potentially awesome power of a people's Union to solve the problems of those people. Like FDR, I'm willing to borrow from any school of economics to address a pressing issue. If I thought the average human being was up to being a utopian socialist, I would be one myself. But I fear that utopian socialism requires a level of personal evolution far beyond the average human being, at least at this stage of our species development. If we survive long enough, maybe that equation will one day change...

My argument would be this: in our Fox-infested world, in which truly repugnant human beings like Rupert Murdoch are content to brainwash as large a segment of Americans as they can to order to protect their financial advantages, you need as broad a temporary coalition as possible calling out the extraordinary break with our values that Trumpism represents.

Obviously, Bill Kristol is not going to be a long-term member of our coalition - not unless he completely changes his view on the reckless interjection of American power around the world; nor will John Kasich, who I well remember being part of the Clinton-lynch mob in the 90s, and seeking to stick medical instruments up women's vaginas in order to keep them from having an abortion. But if FDR and Churchill could get into bed with Stalin to defeat Hitler, then we can temporarily ally with a much lesser evil than Stalin to defeat Drumpf and his repugnant enablers - especially at a moment when a lack of progress on combatting climate change would lead to a human (and animal) tragedy on an epic scale.

I can't speak for wingo, I'm not a liberal or nationalist, or "utopian" socialist. I don't believe that american lives are any more important than other people's lives. I mean, from my perspective, (and probably from a global perspective in general) the democrats are effectively a right wing party. I would think that for a civic nationalist it probably wouldn't even be much of compromise to embrace the rogue republicans, a party that themselves are nationalists except they are trending more towards entho-nationalism and by extension fascism as opposed to civic nationalism. But for those on the left giving any sort of applause even temporarily to anybody in the GOP is going to be a bridge way too far. It's a big enough ask to get us to try to temporarily ally with biden, who I don't see myself as politically aligned with. But with all that said, I get the strategy of it all. Dems are banking that they will be able to gain more votes from the rogue republicans than they will lose from people taking principled stands against their coddling of the GOP and they are probably right. So I mean, yeah I get it.

If this is what is at play here, which I agree with, doesn't the party have the obligation to pursue this strategy if the goal is to win the election?

Who put who in this position is the larger question. It's kind of a chicken/egg thing.

[HarthorneWingo]

When there’s talk about working with, hopefully, a Republican minority in the Senate that means Mitch McConnell. That’s what this all comes down to. Are you willing to bend to Mitch McConnell?

When have Republicans ever showed any interest in working with Democrats? How soon people forget about Obama’s two terms when Mitch said on day 1 that “Our goal is to make Barack Obama a one-term President” and then went and blocked him for 6 of those years.

[robillionaire]

When there’s talk about working with, hopefully, a Republican minority in the Senate that means Mitch McConnell. That’s what this all comes down to. Are you willing to bend to Mitch McConnell? Haha.

Well, we already know from experience that he won't ever bend an inch. they've given the dems absolutely no quarter for decades

[GONYK]

When there’s talk about working with, hopefully, a Republican minority in the Senate that means Mitch McConnell. That’s what this all comes down to. Are you willing to bend to Mitch McConnell? Haha.

Nobody is talking about that.

Having Kasich speak at the convention to try and lure Republican voters in the general election does not mean that you know work with Republicans for your legislative agenda after the election.

[HarthorneWingo]

When there’s talk about working with, hopefully, a Republican minority in the Senate that means Mitch McConnell. That’s what this all comes down to. Are you willing to bend to Mitch McConnell? Haha.

Nobody is talking about that.

Having Kasich speak at the convention to try and lure Republican voters in the general election does not mean that you know work with Republicans for your legislative agenda after the election.

Biden has said it many times.

[GONYK]

When there’s talk about working with, hopefully, a Republican minority in the Senate that means Mitch McConnell. That’s what this all comes down to. Are you willing to bend to Mitch McConnell? Haha.

Nobody is talking about that.

Having Kasich speak at the convention to try and lure Republican voters in the general election does not mean that you know work with Republicans for your legislative agenda after the election.

Biden has said it many times.

In what context?

[HarthorneWingo]

Nobody is talking about that.

Having Kasich speak at the convention to try and lure Republican voters in the general election does not mean that you know work with Republicans for your legislative agenda after the election.

Biden has said it many times.

In what context?

He was asked during the debates, as I recall. It was in the context of getting legislation passed during this divisive political climate and Joe went on about how he “knows these folks” and “these are good folks” ... Joe was harkening back to the time when Tip O’Neill and Reagan became good friends and worked on legislation in an amicable spirit.

I’ll see if I can find video.

[HarthorneWingo]

Let’s try these on for size

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/24/joe-biden-tax-cuts-mitch-mconnell/

JOE BIDEN SAYS HE CAN WORK WITH THE SENATE. THE LAST TIME HE TRIED, MITCH MCCONNELL PICKED HIS POCKETS BADLY.

[GONYK]

Let’s try these on for size

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/24/joe-biden-tax-cuts-mitch-mconnell/

JOE BIDEN SAYS HE CAN WORK WITH THE SENATE. THE LAST TIME HE TRIED, MITCH MCCONNELL PICKED HIS POCKETS BADLY.

He was speaking to the reality of the situation at the time.

One video was from 2016, so that's not relevant to today in the slightest.

The other ones are from 2019, when it looked like Trump had a relatively strong standing heading into the 2020, and the Senate would not be in play.

Now that Biden is up ~10 pts nationally, and the Senate looks like it can be flipped back to Dem control, I don't think anyone is talking about a need to compromise with Republicans if we retake the upper chamber.

[HarthorneWingo]

Let’s try these on for size

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/24/joe-biden-tax-cuts-mitch-mconnell/

JOE BIDEN SAYS HE CAN WORK WITH THE SENATE. THE LAST TIME HE TRIED, MITCH MCCONNELL PICKED HIS POCKETS BADLY.

He was speaking to the reality of the situation at the time.

One video was from 2016, so that's not relevant to today in the slightest.

The other ones are from 2019, when it looked like Trump had a relatively strong standing heading into the 2020, and the Senate would not be in play.

Now that Biden is up ~10 pts nationally, and the Senate looks like it can be flipped back to Dem control, I don't think anyone is talking about a need to compromise with Republicans if we retake the upper chamber.

Watch on YouTube

[GONYK]

Let’s try these on for size

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/24/joe-biden-tax-cuts-mitch-mconnell/

He was speaking to the reality of the situation at the time.

One video was from 2016, so that's not relevant to today in the slightest.

The other ones are from 2019, when it looked like Trump had a relatively strong standing heading into the 2020, and the Senate would not be in play.

Now that Biden is up ~10 pts nationally, and the Senate looks like it can be flipped back to Dem control, I don't think anyone is talking about a need to compromise with Republicans if we retake the upper chamber.

Watch on YouTube

That's still from last year, when the reality was that we would have to work with Republicans.

Anything from the last 6 weeks, when the Senate was put in play?

[robillionaire]

You described me as a neo-liberal. If anything, I am a liberal nationalist - a nationalist who believes that we should be unafraid to use the potentially awesome power of a people's Union to solve the problems of those people. Like FDR, I'm willing to borrow from any school of economics to address a pressing issue. If I thought the average human being was up to being a utopian socialist, I would be one myself. But I fear that utopian socialism requires a level of personal evolution far beyond the average human being, at least at this stage of our species development. If we survive long enough, maybe that equation will one day change...

My argument would be this: in our Fox-infested world, in which truly repugnant human beings like Rupert Murdoch are content to brainwash as large a segment of Americans as they can to order to protect their financial advantages, you need as broad a temporary coalition as possible calling out the extraordinary break with our values that Trumpism represents.

Obviously, Bill Kristol is not going to be a long-term member of our coalition - not unless he completely changes his view on the reckless interjection of American power around the world; nor will John Kasich, who I well remember being part of the Clinton-lynch mob in the 90s, and seeking to stick medical instruments up women's vaginas in order to keep them from having an abortion. But if FDR and Churchill could get into bed with Stalin to defeat Hitler, then we can temporarily ally with a much lesser evil than Stalin to defeat Drumpf and his repugnant enablers - especially at a moment when a lack of progress on combatting climate change would lead to a human (and animal) tragedy on an epic scale.

I can't speak for wingo, I'm not a liberal or nationalist, or "utopian" socialist. I don't believe that american lives are any more important than other people's lives. I mean, from my perspective, (and probably from a global perspective in general) the democrats are effectively a right wing party. I would think that for a civic nationalist it probably wouldn't even be much of compromise to embrace the rogue republicans, a party that themselves are nationalists except they are trending more towards entho-nationalism and by extension fascism as opposed to civic nationalism. But for those on the left giving any sort of applause even temporarily to anybody in the GOP is going to be a bridge way too far. It's a big enough ask to get us to try to temporarily ally with biden, who I don't see myself as politically aligned with. But with all that said, I get the strategy of it all. Dems are banking that they will be able to gain more votes from the rogue republicans than they will lose from people taking principled stands against their coddling of the GOP and they are probably right. So I mean, yeah I get it.

If this is what is at play here, which I agree with, doesn't the party have the obligation to pursue this strategy if the goal is to win the election?

Who put who in this position is the larger question. It's kind of a chicken/egg thing.

Yeah, but hopefully they have some other goals in addition to winning this election. I mentioned I understand as it pertains to the short term electoral strategy, and perhaps they really do need to do whatever it takes to get trump out. So I won't complain too much. But there could be long term consequences. You don't want to gain short term support at the expense of long term support. That's what the knicks did for 20 years when they traded all their draft picks for washed up veterans. Republicans will go back to being republicans after this. But you will have, for example maybe a younger exclusive women's rights voter that sees dems parading around kasich and say you know what? maybe this party isn't for me after all. That's not the kind of exchange you want to be making when you're looking at things in the perspective of a 2-3 decade time frame (what some said it would take to accomplish anything). They're doing what they have to do, but they should probably recognize they're on thin ice. Figuratively and literally since the ice caps are melting