ProfessorPlum
ProfessorPlum's JournalThe "cure" for Bernie Sanders is better Democratic policies
There is a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth here on DU that Sanders is doing very well in the polls.
To that I say, take heart - Sanders (and also the other candidate with big poll numbers, Biden) gets a big boost from early name recognition. His numbers will inevitably drop as other candidates become better known to the electorate (Biden will have an even bigger drop, because not only is he a pretty bad campaigner, he is also a soft touch with the Republican party and the big banks).
BUT
if you really want to beat Sanders, please encourage your candidate of choice to adopt better (anti-corporatist, anti-crony, pro-people, pro-labor, pro-economic equity) policies.
It isn't some magic wand Sanders is waving. He's not popular because of his party affiliation (or lack of one). He's popular because he adopts policies that tell the rich and the elite and the comfortable in the status quo that some changes need to be made. America needs a raise.
America is desperate for a non-status quo leader. So, if you are worried about Sanders winning the democratic nomination, please tell your candidates that they need to get on board for change, not all of which will make their donors ecstatic.
My preferred candidate (and she was in 2016, as well) already is way on board for change.
Gin and Tacos blogger on impeachment
If "The senate won't convict" is the argument against impeachment and "The Senate won't pass it" is the argument against House legislative efforts, what is it exactly that you strategists believe the House Democrats should spend the next 18 months doing?
Is the goal to just...be in the majority, and then sit there? "Yes! We took the House! Now, to hold HEARINGS on stuff for 2 years"?
That's like, Beto-level emptiness. Keep saying stuff like "We all need to come together" without ever saying TO DO WHAT.
https://www.facebook.com/ginandtacos/posts/10156811980101677
Here's the take-home point.
What we confirmed today is that Democrats can never wait for bipartisan buy-in to act against Trump. The GOP has made its deal with the devil and is willing to turn a blind eye to this nakedly corrupt authoritarian clown show in exchange for long-term control of the federal courts.
Either the House Democrats act now, or they just give up and we turn into Putin-era Russia, where the truth becomes so obviously irrelevant and the game so obviously rigged that the public checks out of politics altogether. This really is an important point. What happens next matters. If this isn't impeachable, nothing is impeachable. "But he won't be convicted in the Senate" is a terrible argument, a legacy of the "Let me explain why we can't win and shouldn't try" mindset the Reid-Pelosi-Schumer years have baked into Democratic DNA.
If the current status of our political system is that one party openly abets a corrupt wannabe-dictator and the other party is afraid to challenge him because they think it will make voters mad, then we might as well throw in the towel right now. If not impeachment, then what is the right thing to do? Act "disappointed"? Give pretty speeches?
What if - just maybe - it actually *improved* the party's standing to demonstrate it has basic principles that can't be swayed by amateur theorizing about how it might impact the next election. "We are for the rule of law...unless we worry that White Working Class Diner Customers won't like it" is exactly the kind of spinelessness that those voters detest.
https://www.facebook.com/ginandtacos/posts/10156811256891677
My frustration with the media: they read off of the GOPs ham-handed cue cards
something weird with our corporate media. Whenever there is some incredibly oafish move by warmongers and fascists that they expect the media to react a certain way, the media (almost always) complies.
The latest example is the Barr PR spin. Barr lies to the world about what is in the Mueller report (and even says the report does not exonerate Trump), and the media get that they are supposed to react as if A) Barr is telling the truth and 2) Trump is exonerated. Coverage for weeks afterwards proceeds from these two premises.
Where are contrarians in the media? The people who say "wait, is that really true?" and fact check the rest of the media? I guess they have all been fired (or not promoted) and we are left with dumb, ovine, talking faces who have the sense to detect what it is they are expected to say, but not the additional critical thinking skills to ask the meta questions about who benefits, and what if they are being lied to.
GOP: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. We expect the media to freak out and demand war. Media: will do
GOP: Funding civilization is the same as "socialism" and will lead to collapse. Media: Venezuela, Venezuela, Venezuela, Venezuela!
GOP: John McCain is a noble truthteller (even though his votes are by and large despicably GOP). Media: Saint McCain!!
GOP: Hillary Clinton is *suspicious* and *evil* Media: What is she hiding? How can we trust her?
etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Did you know that arguing about candidates on DU will not affect who will win the nomination?
Just wanted to throw that out there. There is no Democratic Underground primary, we award no delegates, and god knows the rest of the Democratic electorate doesn't give two little poops about how some online community thinks they should vote. Your killer argument about why Hickenlooper is a policy god and about to ignite the party will probably have little to no effect on people's opinions, either here or in the American electorate at large.
On the other hand (and here is the upside), the vehemence of your disagreement with someone here over who is the best candidate, and who is the worst, will have absolutely NOTHING to do with how "unified" Democrats and other decent people will be about getting rid of Trump. All of the calls for unity, and to stop fighting, and to stop being divided, and to "pledge" that you will vote for the eventual nominee, are basically wastes of time as the vast majority of people here are not "divided" about the need to Dump Trump. Rend your garments all you want to, but the level of division here arguing over candidates won't mean much at all when someone sews up the nomination.
So, everyone can stop posting calls for "unity". There will be unity aplenty out in the real world come November 2020. And don't be discouraged if it seems like we disagree with each other. We are supposed to when picking favorite candidates. And also realize that the winner of the primary is probably already determined in the heads of all of the voters in the states who aren't on DU. Our disagreements here mean little . .. and that's a good thing.
Biden seems like a warm and genuine human being. It is his economic policies that turn me away
I lived in Delaware for 11 years, so Joe's political career is one I have watched closely and been familiar with. His family is loved there, and Biden's personal story, including his intense personal losses, resonate and make him both a human and humane figure. Personally, he seems like a sweet avuncular man who was on the right side of history about gay rights in the Obama administration, etc.
The bizarre politics of Justice Thomas's entrance to the supreme court, and Biden's role in effectively minimizing the importance of workplace sexual harassment, was a black eye.
But worse than that is the bankruptcy bill that he championed and voted for in the 2000s. It crushed millions of families under the boot of the financial sector and its rapacious charlatans, effectively ending a way out of devastating financial crises that arose with the Great Recession just a few years later. Biden, like his other Delaware colleagues Carper and Coons, couldn't help those banks based in Delaware enough, at the expense of treating their clients like loan shark victims. That one bill alone has immiserated so many people, even in the time of the "tricks and traps" that Warren was documenting and railing against.
His personal foibles aside (such as they may be), the bankruptcy bill is an action that just kills any hope I have of him reining in the banks at any point. Has he ever apologized for it, or tried to make amends (or repeal it)?
Of all the people running on the Democratic side, I just can't support someone who will most likely continue to be a creature of the financial sector.
Your mileage may vary, of course
Warren rocks
She means what she says, her politics are born of a genuine anger at the way people are victimized by the financial sector, she's incredibly smart and well-learned about financial fraud, she understands demand-side economics, and she responds to political attacks instead of pretending she is above them.
Despite America's well-demonstrated misogyny, I am convinced that she would be the best at navigating the intricacies of political and economic messaging, dealing with the legislative branch, negotiating from positions of strength, and seeing through the schemes of the elite to continue their stranglehold on the wealth of this country.
In short, she is the best in the current field to actually be president. We'll see what the campaign brings.
"Barr claims that Mueller said" is an important construct now, as opposed to "Mueller said"
our media are so fucking gullible, and seem to line up to have their mouths shat in while the Trumpsters claim it is chocolate ice cream.
The next time I hear one of the talking heads say "Mueller said" or "Mueller concluded" about this stupid "summary" from a lackey who has helped at least one other administration skate by a huge impeachment scandal, I think my head will explode. Like in Scanners.
_Barr_ claims that Mueller said. _Barr_ claims that Mueller said. Repeat it. Make them use it.
It kills me that in 2019
a Democratic politician can't point out that having laws that require a pledge not to join an economic boycott of another country is
A) unconstitutional and
B) against the ethos of the country, where protest, speech, and voting with your dollars are common
And she can't point out that human rights abuses can't be spoken of (depending on who the two parties, abused and abuser, are).
I mean, what the hell. Regardless of her gender, color, or religion. These are bedrock positions for this party.
If you'll vote for Sanders if he's the nominee, then he is EXACTLY the same as every other candidate
so you can shut up about his party affiliation.
You will vote for one candidate. You will not vote for any of the others.
You will probably have lots of reasons to vote for one or the other of them. And if the label is completely disqualifying for you, then great, you've eliminated one out of the dozens of candidates. Based on what I think is the dumbest reason possible, but hey, to each their own.
THE ONLY time that Sander's label matters is if you won't vote for him if he's the candidate. That's a de facto vote for Rump.
SO, if you are making a big deal about Sander's party, that means that you will vote for Rump over the nominee if it is Sanders. That's the only reason to even mention it.
Profile Information
Member since: 2001Number of posts: 11,256
