OT: Democratic Primary Thread

[Marty McFly]

Lots to unpack there. Sustainable progress requires winning elections and then passing legislation. Medicare for All will not pass without 60 votes in the Senate, and the Democrats will have at most 52-53 votes, with less than half the Democratic caucus on board.

So even if Biden picks a progressive VP and then magically abandons unions that have been a bedrock source of support for him and then backs M4A, it still wouldn’t pass. If there’s another way to practically get it passed, I’d love to hear it.

With regard to the stat that 70% of Americans support M4A, even if I accept that, I find it meaningless since a vast majority of those polled don’t understand what it means or the trade-offs that would be involved. When it’s explained to them that their taxes will go up (a lot) and that it would mean rationing of care because rural hospitals and other health care providers would close permanently since their Medicare and Medicaid margins are negative, they are not quite so supportive.

Lastly, rather than caring so much about who Biden chooses for VP, i suggest we all band together to defeat Trump and his enablers in the Senate, and work collectively to achieve shared goals.

This is really well said.

I don't particularly care about Biden or think Trump is the devil that everyone thinks he is but I'd rather have either of those 2 than have anything to do with any type of socialism. It has never work in the benefit of the people no matter how well meaning it may try to be.

lmao. any type of socialism? like the Armed forces? or public roads? or medicare? or social security? gimme a break. turn off the comcast/newscorp walkie talkies and go read up on the nordic model.

[GONYK]

And it's worth keeping in mind that there can also be no progress with winning elections if you don't do anything once you've won either

People aren't gonna leave Biden if he picks a progressive VP. We're constantly being told that politics is about compromise and meeting in the middle, but when the progressives ask what the moderates will do to meet them in the middle and compromise, we're told "now now, it's not the time for progress, we need to focus on winning over people on the right, you need to fall in line and give us everything we want, and maybe in the future you'll get a couple things"

And that gets frustrating after a while, especially since it's never a good time to be more progressive. Those same people that y'all are so hot to vote for you this election are gonna flip back to red as soon as the Republicans put up a semi coherent candidate, you know. That's why Dems can't keep power ever, cause they're relying on Republicans who will only vote blue when presented with no other option instead of appealing to their progressives, which is what Obama did and he won in a landslide

Progress can't be made if you lose power every 4-8 years either.

I understand if you find that frustrating, but our system requires consensus to build any sustainable progress. It also means accepting less than what you want to get part of the way there, and then building on that over time. It’s hard work, but that’s how it works.

Sanders is receiving less support this cycle than he did 4 years ago. I think it’s clear why: he benefitted in 2016 from being the anti-Hilary candidate. While I liked Hilary, she was very polarizing.

Biden, on the other hand, is not a convenient foil for Bernie. On its own merits, the politics and policies that Sanders represents are simply not broadly popular despite the passions they elicit among his followers.

So, again, if like me. you consider Trump to be a danger to our democracy and freedoms, as well as a crime in progress, supporting Biden as the best vehicle to be rid of him is an easy call,

The "consensus" is an interesting word. There's this line off thought out there about how the media creates consensus. I would highly recommend listening to/reading Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent." It's very informative on the subject. To me, it's Orwellian that the guy who has fought for the circumstances which has helped lead us to where we're at today is now the champion on those very policies we need to implement. And he even had the nerve to lie about it on a national debate stage while the "moderators" just sat there in tacit approval. That doesn't bother you?

Here's a summary:

Watch on YouTube

Here's the feature documentary:

Watch on YouTube

You've mentioned this a couple of times. A moderator's role isn't to provide on the spot truth verification.

The only time I can ever remember it happening was Candy Crowley in the Obama/Romney debate, and she was roundly criticized for that (even though I personally appreciated it), because it was very much against the norm.

Beyond that, the Sanders campaign pounced on Biden's denial, and immediately provided video proof of his transgression through all of their digital channels. This was amplified by Sanders' many supporters. It didn't make one bit of difference.

So what is the difference between "manufactured consent" and simply nobody caring what Joe Biden said 15 years ago?

[HarthorneWingo]

I understand if you find that frustrating, but our system requires consensus to build any sustainable progress. It also means accepting less than what you want to get part of the way there, and then building on that over time. It’s hard work, but that’s how it works.

Sanders is receiving less support this cycle than he did 4 years ago. I think it’s clear why: he benefitted in 2016 from being the anti-Hilary candidate. While I liked Hilary, she was very polarizing.

Biden, on the other hand, is not a convenient foil for Bernie. On its own merits, the politics and policies that Sanders represents are simply not broadly popular despite the passions they elicit among his followers.

So, again, if like me. you consider Trump to be a danger to our democracy and freedoms, as well as a crime in progress, supporting Biden as the best vehicle to be rid of him is an easy call,

The "consensus" is an interesting word. There's this line off thought out there about how the media creates consensus. I would highly recommend listening to/reading Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent." It's very informative on the subject. To me, it's Orwellian that the guy who has fought for the circumstances which has helped lead us to where we're at today is now the champion on those very policies we need to implement. And he even had the nerve to lie about it on a national debate stage while the "moderators" just sat there in tacit approval. That doesn't bother you?

Here's a summary:

Watch on YouTube

Here's the feature documentary:

Watch on YouTube

You've mentioned this a couple of times. A moderator's role isn't to provide on the spot truth verification.

The only time I can ever remember it happening was Candy Crowley in the Obama/Romney debate, and she was roundly criticized for that (even though I personally appreciated it), because it was very much against the norm.

Beyond that, the Sanders campaign pounced on Biden's denial, and immediately provided video proof of his transgression through all of their digital channels. It didn't make one bit of difference.

So what is the difference between "manufactured consent" and simply nobody caring what Joe Biden said 15 years ago?

The media manufactured consent by its tacit approval of Biden's lies. It's really that simple. It wasn't that one incident, of course, it's been going on for years and gets ratcheted up for the elections.

Yes, I think generally you want to keep the moderators just getting the right questions out there and making sure that the candidates stay on topic and don't tread on each other. But those days are long gone. These moderators are like basketball or boxing referees. Ideally, you don't even want to know that they're there. But when a candidate for President of the U.S. lies in a nationally televised debate, you can't let that go. Not when there's video of it. If Biden had an explanation for why he believed what he believed at the time, then he can explain himself. But to lie about it? Really? So, is it okay for him to lie to us when he's president? Should the media not call a President out when he/she lies to us?

[GONYK]

The "consensus" is an interesting word. There's this line off thought out there about how the media creates consensus. I would highly recommend listening to/reading Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent." It's very informative on the subject. To me, it's Orwellian that the guy who has fought for the circumstances which has helped lead us to where we're at today is now the champion on those very policies we need to implement. And he even had the nerve to lie about it on a national debate stage while the "moderators" just sat there in tacit approval. That doesn't bother you?

Here's a summary:

Watch on YouTube

Here's the feature documentary:

Watch on YouTube

You've mentioned this a couple of times. A moderator's role isn't to provide on the spot truth verification.

The only time I can ever remember it happening was Candy Crowley in the Obama/Romney debate, and she was roundly criticized for that (even though I personally appreciated it), because it was very much against the norm.

Beyond that, the Sanders campaign pounced on Biden's denial, and immediately provided video proof of his transgression through all of their digital channels. It didn't make one bit of difference.

So what is the difference between "manufactured consent" and simply nobody caring what Joe Biden said 15 years ago?

The media manufactured consent by its tacit approval of Biden's lies. It's really that simple. It wasn't that one incident, of course, it's been going on for years and gets ratcheted up for the elections.

What do you mean by approval of his lies? When were his lies approved? What do you mean by approved?

I'm not being argumentative, I'm genuinely asking.

From my POV, Biden said a blatant lie, and Bernie blew him up for it. I didn't really see any third party weigh in from either direction.

Yes, I think generally you want to keep the moderators just getting the right questions out there and making sure that the candidates stay on topic and don't tread on each other. But those days are long gone. These moderators are like basketball or boxing referees. Ideally, you don't even want to know that they're there. But when a candidate for President of the U.S. lies in a nationally televised debate, you can't let that go. Not when there's video of it. If Biden had an explanation for why he believed what he believed at the time, then he can explain himself. But to lie about it? Really? So, is it okay for him to lie to us when he's president? Should the media not call a President out when he/she lies to us?

You're asking for the media to do that in real time, which never happens in a forum like that. That would require the moderators having extensive knowledge of Biden's record along with video evidence on hand just in case he happened to lie about something.

A debate is a forum for the candidates to say something, and the other candidates and viewers at home to decide how to respond and evaluate to that information.

Bernie responded by exposing that lie very prominently. That left it up to the viewers and voters to decide how to evaluate and respond to that knowledge that Biden.

Do you have any examples other, than the one I mentioned, of a moderator stepping in in the way you are describing?

[HarthorneWingo]

You've mentioned this a couple of times. A moderator's role isn't to provide on the spot truth verification.

The only time I can ever remember it happening was Candy Crowley in the Obama/Romney debate, and she was roundly criticized for that (even though I personally appreciated it), because it was very much against the norm.

Beyond that, the Sanders campaign pounced on Biden's denial, and immediately provided video proof of his transgression through all of their digital channels. It didn't make one bit of difference.

So what is the difference between "manufactured consent" and simply nobody caring what Joe Biden said 15 years ago?

The media manufactured consent by its tacit approval of Biden's lies. It's really that simple. It wasn't that one incident, of course, it's been going on for years and gets ratcheted up for the elections.

What do you mean by approval of his lies? When were his lies approved? What do you mean by approved?

I'm not being argumentative, I'm genuinely asking.

From my POV, Biden said a blatant lie, and Bernie blew him up for it. I didn't really see any third party weigh in from either direction.

Yes, I think generally you want to keep the moderators just getting the right questions out there and making sure that the candidates stay on topic and don't tread on each other. But those days are long gone. These moderators are like basketball or boxing referees. Ideally, you don't even want to know that they're there. But when a candidate for President of the U.S. lies in a nationally televised debate, you can't let that go. Not when there's video of it. If Biden had an explanation for why he believed what he believed at the time, then he can explain himself. But to lie about it? Really? So, is it okay for him to lie to us when he's president? Should the media not call a President out when he/she lies to us?

You're asking for the media to do that in real time, which never happens in a forum like that. That would require the moderators having extensive knowledge of Biden's record along with video evidence on hand just in case he happened to lie about something.

A debate is a forum for the candidates to say something, and the other candidates and viewers at home to decide how to respond and evaluate to that information.

Bernie responded by exposing that lie very prominently. That left it up to the viewers and voters to decide how to evaluate and respond to that knowledge that Biden.

Do you have any examples other, than the one I mentioned, of a moderator stepping in in the way you are describing?

Like I said, times were different back then. It's only recently that candidates have had the gaul to do something like that. Joe Biden, himself, had to drop out of a previous Democratic Presidential Primary because he gave a speech from plagiarized text. He was shamed into to doing that by the media and Americans' intolerance for that. I don't understand what you do you're understanding. lol

If this doesn't help, then I don't know what else to say.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/politicians-war-on-truth/500282/

You weren't even a gleam in your parents' eyes but this is what debates used to look like.

Watch on YouTube

[DOT]

Two points.
1) How does a mod get away with a response like this when at no point did I ever call out anyone specifically?
2) This is why you guys are licking your wounds sad your champion who is ironically a boomer got mauled in the primaries by a candidate no one would have voted for if there was anyone actually viable. You guys had your hopes up that your bad financial decision would be wiped away by a "boomer" and the adults in unison said "sit down and shut up you idealistic children".

Actually, Bernie's not a boomer

He's a Silent Generation, boomers were born after the war

I mean, Biden's at 41% of the popular vote compared to Bernie's 31%. Not really getting "mauled," I'd say it's pretty decisively in his favor though

And the boomer joke was more on your "everything I don't like is socialism, and socialism bad" meme. What "bad financial decision" exactly are you talking about? Surely it can't be worse than spending 1.5 trillion dollars to pause the stock market collapse for 30 minutes as the president did earlier this week. I mean, yeesh that's a bad financial decision if I ever saw one. But then again, dude managed to bankrupt multiple casinos. Doesn't really have the best financial decision making abilities based on that.

Why is stopping our financial system from collapsing a bad financial decision. Maybe I didn't read that right. Is that what you meant?

Because if that is correct then this conversation ends. I cannot speak to someone who thinks it is ok to spend all that money on college debt forgiveness but not to stop our financial system from breaking down?

The bad financial decision is getting a 200k loan to go to college to get a degree that will pay you 50k a year while topping out at maybe 100k if everything goes right for you at 40 years of age. Maybe just maybe kids and parents need to stop the "college is the only path to success" meme and actually to a cost benefit analysis.

Point blank here is why I don't agree with Bernie or his supporters.
1) You guys call yourself proggresives as if your ideas are 100% proven to be great and toward progress and everyone elses are archaic and dont work. When that is the biggest load of bull ever. There is literally no evidence of that other than in your little minds.

2) You think you have the moral compass on eveything that has to do with society. Newsflash you don't. You are just as flawed as the next guy.

3) You make the assumption that any person who is in a bad spot was put there due to government and not through dumbass decisions they made. That all poor people are good. All rich people are bad and didn't get there through hard work. It was all passed down. Which is further from the truth.
Newsflah some poor people are scumbags who just like some rich people are scumbags. The problem you guys have is thinking 100% of rich people are scumbags and close to 0% of poor are scumbags when in reality the % are probably close to identical.

Mate, it didn't stop it from breaking down. It paused the breakdown. For 30 minutes.

And the rest of that sounds like some out of touch boomer sh*t to me. Someone who took advantage of the system when it was rigged in their favor but doesn't want other people to have those advantages

That's how I know you're a Trump supporter. That and, of course, I can see your IP address so I know who you really are. So, adios again, Bill.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[god shammgod]

Actually, Bernie's not a boomer

He's a Silent Generation, boomers were born after the war

I mean, Biden's at 41% of the popular vote compared to Bernie's 31%. Not really getting "mauled," I'd say it's pretty decisively in his favor though

And the boomer joke was more on your "everything I don't like is socialism, and socialism bad" meme. What "bad financial decision" exactly are you talking about? Surely it can't be worse than spending 1.5 trillion dollars to pause the stock market collapse for 30 minutes as the president did earlier this week. I mean, yeesh that's a bad financial decision if I ever saw one. But then again, dude managed to bankrupt multiple casinos. Doesn't really have the best financial decision making abilities based on that.

Why is stopping our financial system from collapsing a bad financial decision. Maybe I didn't read that right. Is that what you meant?

Because if that is correct then this conversation ends. I cannot speak to someone who thinks it is ok to spend all that money on college debt forgiveness but not to stop our financial system from breaking down?

The bad financial decision is getting a 200k loan to go to college to get a degree that will pay you 50k a year while topping out at maybe 100k if everything goes right for you at 40 years of age. Maybe just maybe kids and parents need to stop the "college is the only path to success" meme and actually to a cost benefit analysis.

Point blank here is why I don't agree with Bernie or his supporters.
1) You guys call yourself proggresives as if your ideas are 100% proven to be great and toward progress and everyone elses are archaic and dont work. When that is the biggest load of bull ever. There is literally no evidence of that other than in your little minds.

2) You think you have the moral compass on eveything that has to do with society. Newsflash you don't. You are just as flawed as the next guy.

3) You make the assumption that any person who is in a bad spot was put there due to government and not through dumbass decisions they made. That all poor people are good. All rich people are bad and didn't get there through hard work. It was all passed down. Which is further from the truth.
Newsflah some poor people are scumbags who just like some rich people are scumbags. The problem you guys have is thinking 100% of rich people are scumbags and close to 0% of poor are scumbags when in reality the % are probably close to identical.

Mate, it didn't stop it from breaking down. It paused the breakdown. For 30 minutes.

And the rest of that sounds like some out of touch boomer sh*t to me. Someone who took advantage of the system when it was rigged in their favor but doesn't want other people to have those advantages

That's how I know you're a Trump supporter. That and, of course, I can see your IP address so I know who you really are. So, adios again, Bill.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[robillionaire]

Actually, Bernie's not a boomer

He's a Silent Generation, boomers were born after the war

I mean, Biden's at 41% of the popular vote compared to Bernie's 31%. Not really getting "mauled," I'd say it's pretty decisively in his favor though

And the boomer joke was more on your "everything I don't like is socialism, and socialism bad" meme. What "bad financial decision" exactly are you talking about? Surely it can't be worse than spending 1.5 trillion dollars to pause the stock market collapse for 30 minutes as the president did earlier this week. I mean, yeesh that's a bad financial decision if I ever saw one. But then again, dude managed to bankrupt multiple casinos. Doesn't really have the best financial decision making abilities based on that.

Why is stopping our financial system from collapsing a bad financial decision. Maybe I didn't read that right. Is that what you meant?

Because if that is correct then this conversation ends. I cannot speak to someone who thinks it is ok to spend all that money on college debt forgiveness but not to stop our financial system from breaking down?

The bad financial decision is getting a 200k loan to go to college to get a degree that will pay you 50k a year while topping out at maybe 100k if everything goes right for you at 40 years of age. Maybe just maybe kids and parents need to stop the "college is the only path to success" meme and actually to a cost benefit analysis.

Point blank here is why I don't agree with Bernie or his supporters.
1) You guys call yourself proggresives as if your ideas are 100% proven to be great and toward progress and everyone elses are archaic and dont work. When that is the biggest load of bull ever. There is literally no evidence of that other than in your little minds.

2) You think you have the moral compass on eveything that has to do with society. Newsflash you don't. You are just as flawed as the next guy.

3) You make the assumption that any person who is in a bad spot was put there due to government and not through dumbass decisions they made. That all poor people are good. All rich people are bad and didn't get there through hard work. It was all passed down. Which is further from the truth.
Newsflah some poor people are scumbags who just like some rich people are scumbags. The problem you guys have is thinking 100% of rich people are scumbags and close to 0% of poor are scumbags when in reality the % are probably close to identical.

Mate, it didn't stop it from breaking down. It paused the breakdown. For 30 minutes.

And the rest of that sounds like some out of touch boomer sh*t to me. Someone who took advantage of the system when it was rigged in their favor but doesn't want other people to have those advantages

That's how I know you're a Trump supporter. That and, of course, I can see your IP address so I know who you really are. So, adios again, Bill.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[robillionaire]

so now that this is over my split endorsement is gloria la riva/howie hawkins, i prefer la riva but she won't be on the ballot in NYC and I don't like write-ins so I'm giving the nod to howie. either way i'm voting socialist

[Kampuchea]

If he is not banned why not post under the original screen name?

[Clyde_Style]

Bill seemed to have adapted and was now able to contribute minus his past dramatics. His posts now were of a better quality than before and I was enjoying reading them this time around even if I did not agree with everything he said. He was not creating any problems. I would rather have him post now than ban him FWIW

[Knickfan1982]

I always get this response from people who have never even touched down on scandinavian countries. I've lived in stockholm. I don't want to be sweden. The US could never be sweden. We are a melting pot.

You can't compare two countries with no similarities together and say see "it works there". Because unless you didn't realize culturally in sweden its always about the team. If you do project and boast about I did this they look at you weird. Just culturally speaking. That is the opposite of here.

Just to play devil's advocate but that whole "you can't compare two countries with no similarities together and say see it works there" and change it to see "it didn't work there" wherever socialism failed. That doesn't stop people capitalists from bringing up Venezuela every since time socialism is discussed.

[Knickfan1982]

so now that this is over my split endorsement is gloria la riva/howie hawkins, i prefer la riva but she won't be on the ballot in NYC and I don't like write-ins so I'm giving the nod to howie. either way i'm voting socialist

Since I live in NY I will be writing in Jimmy "The Rent is Too Damned High" McMillan. He is the Chuck Norris of political candidates.

[Knickfan1982]

Point blank here is why I don't agree with Bernie or his supporters.
1) You guys call yourself proggresives as if your ideas are 100% proven to be great and toward progress and everyone elses are archaic and dont work. When that is the biggest load of bull ever.

Its not that we're certain it will work its that we're certain the status quo doesn't work. Donald Trump may be very much a destroyer of the status quo in some ways but in terms of taxation and income inequality he is very much status quo. Joe Biden is very much status quo. Maybe he's a little more to the left than Trump but not in a meaningful way. Wall Street, big corporations and billionaires are no more scared of a Joe Biden presidency than they are of a Trump presidency. They know that no matter who wins they will be fine. On the other hand if Bernie or Elizabeth Warren won the election they would be crapping bricks.

You make the assumption that any person who is in a bad spot was put there due to government and not through dumbass decisions they made. That all poor people are good. All rich people are bad and didn't get there through hard work. It was all passed down. Which is further from the truth.

That's a really silly assumption. First of all, many of those you consider extreme leftists would actually be considered centrists in Europe. Secondly, no rational person thinks the poor are all just victims of circumstances outside of their control or that no rich person has ever worked hard to get where they are. But Republicans are just as likely to believe the converse which is also stupid.

[Clyde_Style]

I always get this response from people who have never even touched down on scandinavian countries. I've lived in stockholm. I don't want to be sweden. The US could never be sweden. We are a melting pot.

You can't compare two countries with no similarities together and say see "it works there". Because unless you didn't realize culturally in sweden its always about the team. If you do project and boast about I did this they look at you weird. Just culturally speaking. That is the opposite of here.

Just to play devil's advocate but that whole "you can't compare two countries with no similarities together and say see it works there" and change it to see "it didn't work there" wherever socialism failed. That doesn't stop people capitalists from bringing up Venezuela every since time socialism is discussed.

It is probably better to use the term Democratic Socialism when referring to policies most of us would like to see and when referring to the Scandinavian countries.

As a person with close family ties to Sweden, I can say he was entirely correct about the cultural differences being of huge consequence. Sweden began educational reforms about a century ago that raised the education level of the population as a whole and part of that curriculum was instilling in people from an early age the need to sacrifice for the common good. It was a homogenous population then. It is less so now, but that remains the dominant cultural ethics. Variants on this ethos is found in Denmark next door and other close by nations.

Support of community and family is how those countries function and it manifests in the workplace. Not every situation is harmonious because of inevitable human conflicts, but on the whole people know how to get along better there and self-aggrandizement is not really present in their culture. Now, they are not fully socialist countries, just democratic socialists and even they have challenges to keep the social fabric there now.

Just getting started here what a country like Sweden started a hundred years ago is more than a fractured, selfish culture like America can handle in one swallow. You do need to move progressive agendas through mud here, because our culture is not adapted to self-sacrifice any longer. We rallied during WWII, but whatever unity was found then is long gone now.

Their point was spot on about the cultural differences and why you can't graft one social experiment on to another. Cultural DNA predicates how you approach these agendas. No idea gets implemented solely due to its intellectual or moral validity alone. It has to go through a complex political strainer and come out the other end. America is a mess which makes it more tempting to grab on to holistic visions, so I can appreciate that desire, but the more messier situation is the more patience and strategy you need to navigate the path of change. All or nothing is not a strategy for success in American politics. You have to build coalitions or you condemn yourself to another generation howling in the wilderness.

[Marty McFly]

I always get this response from people who have never even touched down on scandinavian countries. I've lived in stockholm. I don't want to be sweden. The US could never be sweden. We are a melting pot.

You can't compare two countries with no similarities together and say see "it works there". Because unless you didn't realize culturally in sweden its always about the team. If you do project and boast about I did this they look at you weird. Just culturally speaking. That is the opposite of here.

Just to play devil's advocate but that whole "you can't compare two countries with no similarities together and say see it works there" and change it to see "it didn't work there" wherever socialism failed. That doesn't stop people capitalists from bringing up Venezuela every since time socialism is discussed.

Rest assured he would have brought up vuvazela if I hadn’t brought up the the Nordic model.

[Marty McFly]

So, the mega rich donor who funded warren’s super pac maxed out Contributions for joe arpaio re-election in 2018. I’m sure the white Supremacists on this board who virtue signal about beating trump won’t give a rats ass though.

[Knickfan1982]

I always get this response from people who have never even touched down on scandinavian countries. I've lived in stockholm. I don't want to be sweden. The US could never be sweden. We are a melting pot.

You can't compare two countries with no similarities together and say see "it works there". Because unless you didn't realize culturally in sweden its always about the team. If you do project and boast about I did this they look at you weird. Just culturally speaking. That is the opposite of here.

Just to play devil's advocate but that whole "you can't compare two countries with no similarities together and say see it works there" and change it to see "it didn't work there" wherever socialism failed. That doesn't stop people capitalists from bringing up Venezuela every since time socialism is discussed.

Rest assured he would have brought up vuvazela if I hadn’t brought up the the Nordic model he would have brought up.

Its good to get out ahead of these things lol

[Knickfan1982]

I always get this response from people who have never even touched down on scandinavian countries. I've lived in stockholm. I don't want to be sweden. The US could never be sweden. We are a melting pot.

You can't compare two countries with no similarities together and say see "it works there". Because unless you didn't realize culturally in sweden its always about the team. If you do project and boast about I did this they look at you weird. Just culturally speaking. That is the opposite of here.

Just to play devil's advocate but that whole "you can't compare two countries with no similarities together and say see it works there" and change it to see "it didn't work there" wherever socialism failed. That doesn't stop people capitalists from bringing up Venezuela every since time socialism is discussed.

It is probably better to use the term Democratic Socialism when referring to policies most of us would like to see and when referring to the Scandinavian countries.

As a person with close family ties to Sweden, I can say he was entirely correct about the cultural differences being of huge consequence. Sweden began educational reforms about a century ago that raised the education level of the population as a whole and part of that curriculum was instilling in people from an early age the need to sacrifice for the common good. It was a homogenous population then. It is less so now, but that remains the dominant cultural ethics. Variants on this ethos is found in Denmark next door and other close by nations.

Support of community and family is how those countries function and it manifests in the workplace. Not every situation is harmonious because of inevitable human conflicts, but on the whole people know how to get along better there and self-aggrandizement is not really present in their culture. Now, they are not fully socialist countries, just democratic socialists and even they have challenges to keep the social fabric there now.

Just getting started here what a country like Sweden started a hundred years ago is more than a fractured, selfish culture like America can handle in one swallow. You do need to move progressive agendas through mud here, because our culture is not adapted to self-sacrifice any longer. We rallied during WWII, but whatever unity was found then is long gone now.

Their point was spot on about the cultural differences and why you can't graft one social experiment on to another. Cultural DNA predicates how you approach these agendas. No idea gets implemented solely due to its intellectual or moral validity alone. It has to go through a complex political strainer and come out the other end. America is a mess which makes it more tempting to grab on to holistic visions, so I can appreciate that desire, but the more messier situation is the more patience and strategy you need to navigate the path of change. All or nothing is not a strategy for success in American politics. You have to build coalitions or you condemn yourself to another generation howling in the wilderness.

Which is why I preferred Elizabeth Warren to Bernie when the two were options. She's a bonafide progressive without coming off as too much of an ideologue to get things done. Bernie does come off like that.

But that is also what troubles me about these lame Centrists like Biden and Obama. It seems like they are more focused on building a consensus than actually solving the problem. I think that's a__backwards. You should focus on trying to solve the problem and then working on building a consensus to get as much of the plan passed as possible. Doing things Biden's way will lead us to lame, half hearted policies like Obamacare that don't resolve the problem enough to justify the extensive time it took to craft and pass the bill. That way is more than pushing a progressive agenda through the mud. Its putting an elephant on top of the agenda and while having someone else pull in the other direction at the same time.

[Clyde_Style]

Just to play devil's advocate but that whole "you can't compare two countries with no similarities together and say see it works there" and change it to see "it didn't work there" wherever socialism failed. That doesn't stop people capitalists from bringing up Venezuela every since time socialism is discussed.

It is probably better to use the term Democratic Socialism when referring to policies most of us would like to see and when referring to the Scandinavian countries.

As a person with close family ties to Sweden, I can say he was entirely correct about the cultural differences being of huge consequence. Sweden began educational reforms about a century ago that raised the education level of the population as a whole and part of that curriculum was instilling in people from an early age the need to sacrifice for the common good. It was a homogenous population then. It is less so now, but that remains the dominant cultural ethics. Variants on this ethos is found in Denmark next door and other close by nations.

Support of community and family is how those countries function and it manifests in the workplace. Not every situation is harmonious because of inevitable human conflicts, but on the whole people know how to get along better there and self-aggrandizement is not really present in their culture. Now, they are not fully socialist countries, just democratic socialists and even they have challenges to keep the social fabric there now.

Just getting started here what a country like Sweden started a hundred years ago is more than a fractured, selfish culture like America can handle in one swallow. You do need to move progressive agendas through mud here, because our culture is not adapted to self-sacrifice any longer. We rallied during WWII, but whatever unity was found then is long gone now.

Their point was spot on about the cultural differences and why you can't graft one social experiment on to another. Cultural DNA predicates how you approach these agendas. No idea gets implemented solely due to its intellectual or moral validity alone. It has to go through a complex political strainer and come out the other end. America is a mess which makes it more tempting to grab on to holistic visions, so I can appreciate that desire, but the more messier situation is the more patience and strategy you need to navigate the path of change. All or nothing is not a strategy for success in American politics. You have to build coalitions or you condemn yourself to another generation howling in the wilderness.

Which is why I preferred Elizabeth Warren to Bernie when the two were options. She's a bonafide progressive without coming off as too much of an ideologue to get things done. Bernie does come off like that.

But that is also what troubles me about these lame Centrists like Biden and Obama. It seems like they are more focused on building a consensus than actually solving the problem. I think that's a__backwards. You should focus on trying to solve the problem and then working on building a consensus to get as much of the plan passed as possible. Doing things Biden's way will lead us to lame, half hearted policies like Obamacare that don't resolve the problem enough to justify the extensive time it took to craft and pass the bill. That way is more than pushing a progressive agenda through the mud. Its putting an elephant on top of the agenda and while having someone else pull in the other direction at the same time.

I agree about Warren.

As far as the Bidens, Obamas and Clintons of the world, we can't expect any of them to do jack if you have a reptile like McConnell filibustering you into the ground. Obama was always compromised by inheriting a massive crisis without prior experience and then having the GOP undermine him the rest of the way. He was more status quo than I had hoped, but I also feel Biden has a much better context if we take both houses since the historical moment is going to work in the favor of progressive ideas.

As far as your expectations are concerned I've been the one in this thread saying "Yes, push your agenda, but do it now, inject it into the Dem's platform and shift the policy in the direction you want."

I don't know how anyone can flame a pragmatist for encouraging this, but that's what we're seeing on this board. A whole lot of disrespect for those who espouse compromise and strategy as the way forwards. It has nothing to do with being less invested in progressive beliefs, but everything to do with getting something actually done.

The priority has to be to push out the white nationalists and their enablers. Fail at that and every other idea will get scuttled anyway.