• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should we fear the Democratic Party?

Venom said:
How did you feel about Obama lauding Cuba's literacy program without even qualifying saying that Cuba was a dictatorship?

Because Sanders prefaced his "defense of Castro" by saying Cuba was an authoritarian state.
Click to expand...
I don't remember that. Regardless, Bernies answer was incredibly foolish.
 
Shadowdweller said:
WRONG. And that is one of the most puerile and destructive forms of jingoism. Real-world historical figures are not cartoonish superheroes or villains; praising Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of passive resistance does not require sugarcoating his racism and sexism. Nor does acknowledging Napoleon Bonaparte's legal and social reforms equate to ignoring the fact the he caused the needless and senseless deaths of millions.
Click to expand...
All besides the point, that being the rank stupidity to latch onto Cuba in terms of electability . That may as well have been a campaign ad paid for by Trump.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
All besides the point, that being the rank stupidity to latch onto Cuba in terms of electability . That may as well have been a campaign ad paid for by Trump.
Click to expand...
Cuba wasn't "latched onto". Questions were put to Sanders at debates and Town Halls about Cuba and then his responses were misrepresented - including most recently by yourself. Maybe YOU think the jingoistic oversimplification of an issue is a laudable character trait in a candidate. I don't - and I won't vote for any individual who I perceive does so consistently.
 
Last edited:
Shadowdweller said:
Cuba wasn't "latched onto". Questions were put to Sanders at debates and Town Halls about Cuba and then his responses were misrepresented - including most recently by yourself. Maybe YOU think the jingoistic oversimplification of an issue is a laudable character trait in a candidate. I don't - and I won't vote for any individual who I perceive does so consistently.
Click to expand...
You still don't get it. I'm not bothered by his comments in.terms of accuracy. He should know how to sidestep that sort question so that he's not generating Trump campaign ads. I assure you, that ad will omit Bernie's qualifier.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
You still don't get it. I'm not bothered by his comments in.terms of accuracy. He should know how to sidestep that sort question so that he's not generating Trump campaign ads. I assure you, that ad will omit Bernie's qualifier.
Click to expand...
No, I really get it. I just disagree with you. I don't think anything like that will actually make a whit of difference unless people exactly like yourself keep pretending that it's an issue. (That and I'm personally turned off by such evasions - and I think large sections of the electorate are as well). The conservatives and more specifically Trump's campaign will misrepresent ANYTHING ANY Democrat says for political purposes. That is their modus operandi.
 
Last edited:
Do you think the media is blameless when it comes to overplaying this nonsense, especially CNN and MSNBC, at least nominally sympathetic to Democrats? This is the type of thing conservatives regularly hammer Democrats for and these talking heads go on the defensive.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...a-young-leaders-americas-initiative-town-hall

Barack Obama said:
And I said this to President Castro in Cuba. I said, look, you've made great progress in educating young people. Every child in Cuba gets a basic education -- that's a huge improvement from where it was. Medical care -- the life expectancy of Cubans is equivalent to the United States, despite it being a very poor country, because they have access to health care. That's a huge achievement. They should be congratulated. But you drive around Havana and you say this economy is not working. It looks like it did in the 1950s. And so you have to be practical in asking yourself how can you achieve the goals of equality and inclusion, but also recognize that the market system produces a lot of wealth and goods and services. And it also gives individuals freedom because they have initiative.
Click to expand...
 
Venom said:
Do you think the media is blameless when it comes to overplaying this nonsense, especially CNN and MSNBC, at least nominally sympathetic to Democrats? This is the type of thing conservatives regularly hammer Democrats for and these talking heads go on the defensive.
Click to expand...
They did the exact same thing to Clinton during the 2016 election from what I witnessed; to such an extent that very few of her actual policy positions filtered through to the American populace. It was incredibly disgusting to witness.
 
varwoche said:
You still don't get it. I'm not bothered by his comments in.terms of accuracy. He should know how to sidestep that sort question so that he's not generating Trump campaign ads. I assure you, that ad will omit Bernie's qualifier.
Click to expand...

Because sidestepping a controversial issue doesn't get attacked?

In fact one of the things that "turns me off about politics" is ever more creative ways to not answer questions, not making any firm statements about anything, or when they just start stumping randomly after an awkward segue.

A person who is firmly committed to things you don't entirely agree with is a better bet than someone who agrees with you entirely, and also agrees entirely with the next person they talk to, then puts out a press release denying all of it when some focus group data comes in, then their communications direct has some clarifications...
 
Last edited:
It's not quite nothing, but it is close, so this quite an overreaction. Admitting that there can be something good about an otherwise bad place that we're always being told we have to keep saying is bad at all times just isn't seen as a bad thing by very many people anymore (presuming it ever was). The propaganda that we're just supposed to be all entirely negative about a certain set of black listed countries just comes off as silly and unrealistic now.
 
Shadowdweller said:
No, I really get it. I just disagree with you. I don't think anything like that will actually make a whit of difference unless people exactly like yourself keep pretending that it's an issue. (That and I'm personally turned off by such evasions - and I think large sections of the electorate are as well). The conservatives and more specifically Trump's campaign will misrepresent ANYTHING ANY Democrat says for political purposes. That is their modus operandi.
Click to expand...
I get that you disagree. It's the only thing you've written that makes a whit of sense.

Yes, it's a given they will misrepresent like there's no tomorrow. The question is, who is it most apt to stick to?

I hope you're right.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Because sidestepping a controversial issue doesn't get attacked?

In fact one of the things that "turns me off about politics" is ever more creative ways to not answer questions, not making any firm statements about anything, or when they just start stumping randomly after an awkward segue.

A person who is firmly committed to things you don't entirely agree with is a better bet than someone who agrees with you entirely, and also agrees entirely with the next person they talk to, then puts out a press release denying all of it when some focus group data comes in, then their communications direct has some clarifications...
Click to expand...
During semi-normal times, sure. This election, I don't care one bit unless it translates to votes in PA, MI, and WI.

I view Trump as an existential threat to US democracy. Pretty much all I care about is his defeat. I lack confidence that Bernie will win.
 
uke2se said:
And you joining in on Trumpian misrepresentation of Bernie's points helps make your prediction a reality.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize I have that sort of reach, here in this sleepy backwater.

I interpret this sort of highly inane comment along the lines of: Get into line with my rigid, categorical way of thinking.
 
varwoche said:
I didn't realize I have that sort of reach, here in this sleepy backwater.

I interpret this sort of highly inane comment along the lines of: Get into line with my rigid, categorical way of thinking.
Click to expand...


Honestly, that's a misrepresentation of what uke2se was calling a misrepresentation. It's one thing to have a different opinion, and that's fine. Misrepresenting what Sanders says, however, should be challenged. It's not an attack on your way of thinking, it's an attack on what you claimed.

Big Difference.
 
varwoche said:
During semi-normal times, sure. This election, I don't care one bit unless it translates to votes in PA, MI, and WI.

I view Trump as an existential threat to US democracy. Pretty much all I care about is his defeat. I lack confidence that Bernie will win.
Click to expand...

We're going to win by appealing to moderates in PA, MI, and WI?

"Ok, Schumer."
 
Last edited:
Venom said:
How did you feel about Obama lauding Cuba's literacy program without even qualifying saying that Cuba was a dictatorship?
Because Sanders prefaced his "defense of Castro" by saying Cuba was an authoritarian state.
Click to expand...
I think there are 2 key differences here...

- I could be wrong, but I don't think Obama's comments were done while he was running for office. If Sanders wants to praise Cuba's health care or education AFTER the election, he can go nuts. Doing it BEFORE the election is foolish

- Obama did not have a reputation as a far-left "socialist/commie" that he had to deal with (well apart from the general smears that would be used by the republicans against any Democrat). They couldn't point to him (for example) honeymooning in Moscow or hanging out at a "death to America" rally. On the other hand, they can point to Sanders and say "We thought he was a commie and this confirms it"
 
Cabbage said:
If Sanders is "the candidate we know they will have the toughest time with" then please explain why, in the 2016 primary, Sanders beat Clinton in both Wisconsin and Michigan?
Click to expand...
In the democratic primary, Sanders had only to worry about Democratic voters (where Sander's policies would gain the most traction.)

When it came to the general election, Sanders would have had to worry about both attracting moderate voters AND in minimizing the number of people casting votes for Trump. In general, extreme candidates often have problems with that.

So there is no guarantee that Sanders would have done any better in the General election if he were the candidate.
 
If Sanders is a "communist" he's very bad at it: he's been in office for nearly eighty years and has yet to turn even Vermont into a communist paradise. I doubt he could do the job on the whole country in a mere four years. Sanders is a communist in name only, in action he's more like a French monarch, with his red heels and periwig and massive ermine cape. Wait, that was Louis XIV. I get them confused because they were at school together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom