Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:42 pm**

Holman wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:17 pm I think Bernie did a lot of damage in 2016. Some of his delegates actually believed *even at the convention* that he could still get the nomination. Remember when Sarah Silverman (herself a prominent Bernie fan) was at the podium imploring the Bernie-or-Bust folks to get on board with HRC?

You *know* a significant number of Bernie voters stayed home or went third-party under those conditions. And they probably thought that it would make no difference because Clinton was sure to win. Put that together with James Comey, and you get Trump.

Perhaps Bernie supporters didn't think there was much difference between Trump and Clinton.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:05 pm**

Remus West wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:48 pm At the time I was annoyed that he did not whole heartedly endorse HRC after not gaining the nomination himself but I did not think it would make a difference. I just looked at it as petty from someone who isn't even a party member being mad the party didn't nominate him. It wasn't until after the election I really started to dislike him for it. Same reason I dislike Nader. He kept Gore from winning in 2000.

All of these third party candidates running as "spoilers" to make a point end up hurting the causes they actually care about and in doing so hurt all of us. Imagine a world in which we do not launch into war in Iraq. One in which our POTUS started addressing climate change nearly 20 years ago. It is possible we end up the same place due to similar forces but it is nice to imagine we do not.

Difference between Bernie and Nader (or Jill Stein), of course, is that Bernie actually did endorse and campaign for his primary contender (Clinton), and did not run as an independent against her. Problem was, progressive voters weren't too impressed with his endorsement and weren't interested in voting for her anyway.

It's why the whole "centrist has the best chance to beat Trump" idea is intrinsically faulty. You need to excite people enough to want to vote for you, and that includes many kinds of categories of people. Moderates are one demographic, 'tis true, but not the only one. I'd say progressive-leaning voters tend to gravitate toward candidates with policy positions they agree with rather than identity or endorsements.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:16 pm**

Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:42 pm
Holman wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:17 pm I think Bernie did a lot of damage in 2016. Some of his delegates actually believed *even at the convention* that he could still get the nomination. Remember when Sarah Silverman (herself a prominent Bernie fan) was at the podium imploring the Bernie-or-Bust folks to get on board with HRC?

You *know* a significant number of Bernie voters stayed home or went third-party under those conditions. And they probably thought that it would make no difference because Clinton was sure to win. Put that together with James Comey, and you get Trump.
Perhaps Bernie supporters didn't think there was much difference between Trump and Clinton.

You don't think highly of Bernie supporters, eh?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:02 pm**

Alefroth wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:16 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:42 pm
Holman wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:17 pm I think Bernie did a lot of damage in 2016. Some of his delegates actually believed *even at the convention* that he could still get the nomination. Remember when Sarah Silverman (herself a prominent Bernie fan) was at the podium imploring the Bernie-or-Bust folks to get on board with HRC?

You *know* a significant number of Bernie voters stayed home or went third-party under those conditions. And they probably thought that it would make no difference because Clinton was sure to win. Put that together with James Comey, and you get Trump.
Perhaps Bernie supporters didn't think there was much difference between Trump and Clinton.
You don't think highly of Bernie supporters, eh?

I don't think highly of Hillary Clinton.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:31 pm**

Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:02 pm
Alefroth wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:16 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:42 pm
Holman wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:17 pm I think Bernie did a lot of damage in 2016. Some of his delegates actually believed *even at the convention* that he could still get the nomination. Remember when Sarah Silverman (herself a prominent Bernie fan) was at the podium imploring the Bernie-or-Bust folks to get on board with HRC?

You *know* a significant number of Bernie voters stayed home or went third-party under those conditions. And they probably thought that it would make no difference because Clinton was sure to win. Put that together with James Comey, and you get Trump.
Perhaps Bernie supporters didn't think there was much difference between Trump and Clinton.
You don't think highly of Bernie supporters, eh?
I don't think highly of Hillary Clinton.

If you're equating HRC to tRump that is a huge statement and, imo, seriously misguided.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:41 pm**

Remus West wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:31 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:02 pm
Alefroth wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:16 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:42 pm
Holman wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:17 pm I think Bernie did a lot of damage in 2016. Some of his delegates actually believed *even at the convention* that he could still get the nomination. Remember when Sarah Silverman (herself a prominent Bernie fan) was at the podium imploring the Bernie-or-Bust folks to get on board with HRC?

You *know* a significant number of Bernie voters stayed home or went third-party under those conditions. And they probably thought that it would make no difference because Clinton was sure to win. Put that together with James Comey, and you get Trump.
Perhaps Bernie supporters didn't think there was much difference between Trump and Clinton.
You don't think highly of Bernie supporters, eh?
I don't think highly of Hillary Clinton.
If you're equating HRC to tRump that is a huge statement and, imo, seriously misguided.

You're right. If Clinton was your president now, you'd be fighting wars in Venezuela and Iran by now.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:59 pm**

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:45 pm**

Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:41 pm You're right. If Clinton was your president now, you'd be fighting wars in Venezuela and Iran by now.

I don't think you quite understand American politics in general, let alone those of Hillary Clinton.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:51 pm**

Remus West wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:31 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:02 pm I don't think highly of Hillary Clinton.
If you're equating HRC to tRump that is a huge statement and, imo, seriously misguided.

+1

Just one example:

Bernie is a progressive. Trump's policies and appointments are laying the groundwork for a permanently reactionary judiciary. If you think Clinton would have done anything remotely similar, you don't understand our judiciary at all.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:59 pm**

Holman wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:51 pm
Remus West wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:31 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:02 pm I don't think highly of Hillary Clinton.
If you're equating HRC to tRump that is a huge statement and, imo, seriously misguided.
+1

Just one example:

Bernie is a progressive. Trump's policies and appointments are laying the groundwork for a permanently reactionary judiciary. If you think Clinton would have done anything remotely similar, you don't understand our judiciary at all.

I'm being facetious, of course. (Faeces? Poopy? Whatever.) I would have preferred an American President who came on board fighting climate change, for example. I do think Clinton would be better there. And the atrocity of immigrant family separation might have been avoided (although I'm not entirely sure about that one to be completely honest with you. ICE was an Obama invention, yes?).

I'm just pointing out that from the perspective of a democratic socialist, the choice between a corrupted corporate liberal and a religious fanatic conservative isn't all that interesting.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:00 pm**

Sepiche wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:59 pm

Yeah, that's right. Think about that one.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:01 pm**

hepcat wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:45 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:41 pm You're right. If Clinton was your president now, you'd be fighting wars in Venezuela and Iran by now.
I don't think you quite understand American politics in general, let alone those of Hillary Clinton.

Right back at ya, buddy.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:08 pm**

Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:59 pm ICE was an Obama invention, yes?

No.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was formed under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, following the events of September 11, 2001.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:10 pm**

Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:59 pm I'm just pointing out that from the perspective of a democratic socialist, the choice between a corrupted corporate liberal and a religious fanatic conservative isn't all that interesting.

And in the context of American politics in 2016, it was incumbent on Bernie to make the distinction clear to his followers.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:19 pm**

Maybe your perspective would be different if your categorizations weren't so disingenuous.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:20 pm**

Holman wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:10 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:59 pm I'm just pointing out that from the perspective of a democratic socialist, the choice between a corrupted corporate liberal and a religious fanatic conservative isn't all that interesting.
And in the context of American politics in 2016, it was incumbent on Bernie to make the distinction clear to his followers.

And my point remains; Bernie supporters aren't really interested in Bernie. There's precious little he could have done to convince "his followers" to vote for Clinton, because they're not really his followers. Bernie just happens to want the same policy as those who support him, and he has extraordinary credibility on fighting for these policy positions. The moment he comes out waffling on universal healthcare is the moment his base disappears.

One analysis of Warren's recent dip in the polls was that it coincided with her waffling on Medicare for all. Coincidence?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:23 pm**

Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:01 pm
hepcat wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:45 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:41 pm You're right. If Clinton was your president now, you'd be fighting wars in Venezuela and Iran by now.
I don't think you quite understand American politics in general, let alone those of Hillary Clinton.
Right back at ya, buddy.

As others are also now also telling you, you're rather naive when it comes American politics. I meant no insult, but I felt it should be pointed out. Knee jerk summations based on personal bias like "Hillary would've started wars" is the same kind of drivel that Trump deals in. If you want to go down that road, you should expect to be called on it.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:24 pm**

Alefroth wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:19 pm Maybe your perspective would be different if your categorizations weren't so disingenuous.

They're not really, I'm just having some fun at your expense.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:29 pm**

hepcat wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:23 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:01 pm
hepcat wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:45 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:41 pm You're right. If Clinton was your president now, you'd be fighting wars in Venezuela and Iran by now.
I don't think you quite understand American politics in general, let alone those of Hillary Clinton.
Right back at ya, buddy.
As others are also now also telling you, you're rather naive when it comes American politics. I meant no insult, but I felt it should be pointed out. Knee jerk summations based on personal bias like "Hillary would've started wars" is the same kind of drivel that Trump deals in. If you want to go down that road, you should expect to be called on it.

Well, we'll never know what would have happened during a Clinton presidency. But it does seem like Trump has been pressed by hawkish colleagues on Venezuela and Iran, but opted to not go down that road. The attempted pullout of Syria, clumsy as it was and cruel to the Kurds, is another example.
Right-wing nationalism often goes hand in hand with isolationism, after all, and I must concede that American foreign policy has become less aggressive of late.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:36 pm**

Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:29 pm But it does seem like Trump has been pressed by hawkish colleaguesRussia and Saudi Arabia on Venezuela and Iran, but opted to not go down that road. The attempted pullout of Syria, clumsy as it was and cruel to the Kurds, is another example.

FTFY

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:42 pm**

Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:29 pm
Well, we'll never know what would have happened during a Clinton presidency. But it does seem like Trump has been pressed by hawkish colleagues on Venezuela and Iran, but opted to not go down that road. The attempted pullout of Syria, clumsy as it was and cruel to the Kurds, is another example.
Right-wing nationalism often goes hand in hand with isolationism, after all, and I must concede that American foreign policy has become less aggressive of late.

And Hillary backed Obama's Iran deal. It's unlikely she would have gone back on that. Trump has spent his time trying to make things worse with Iran.

As for Venezuela, Hillary recognized Juan Guaido as the interim president, true...but so has a majority of other nations. Including Trump.

So this odd belief that Hillary would have taken the United States to war with these two countries is just not based on any fact. It strikes me more as a personal prejudice.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:44 pm**

gilraen wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:36 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:29 pm But it does seem like Trump has been pressed by hawkish colleaguesRussia and Saudi Arabia on Venezuela and Iran, but opted to not go down that road. The attempted pullout of Syria, clumsy as it was and cruel to the Kurds, is another example.
FTFY

Maybe those Norwegians should award the next Nobel Peace Prize to Putin and King Salman then, eh?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:49 pm**

hepcat wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:42 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:29 pm
Well, we'll never know what would have happened during a Clinton presidency. But it does seem like Trump has been pressed by hawkish colleagues on Venezuela and Iran, but opted to not go down that road. The attempted pullout of Syria, clumsy as it was and cruel to the Kurds, is another example.
Right-wing nationalism often goes hand in hand with isolationism, after all, and I must concede that American foreign policy has become less aggressive of late.
And Hillary backed Obama's Iran deal. It's unlikely she would have gone back on that. Trump has spent his time trying to make things worse with Iran.

As for Venezuela, Hillary recognized Juan Guaido as the interim president, true...but so has a majority of other nations. Including Trump.

So this odd belief that Hillary would have taken the United States to war with these two countries is just not based on any fact. It strikes me more as a personal prejudice.

I hear you. My concern is with Clinton's corporate ties, not personal prejudice however. I don't trust she's not in the pocket of the military industry and big oil, who has all to gain by invading for example Venezuela.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:50 pm**

Well, we certainly wouldn't want a President that was profiting in any way while in office. Or having the appearance of impropriety. Imagine how bad we'd look!

With every day that passes, I think we're more fuct than the day before.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:52 pm**

Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:49 pm
hepcat wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:42 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:29 pm
Well, we'll never know what would have happened during a Clinton presidency. But it does seem like Trump has been pressed by hawkish colleagues on Venezuela and Iran, but opted to not go down that road. The attempted pullout of Syria, clumsy as it was and cruel to the Kurds, is another example.
Right-wing nationalism often goes hand in hand with isolationism, after all, and I must concede that American foreign policy has become less aggressive of late.
And Hillary backed Obama's Iran deal. It's unlikely she would have gone back on that. Trump has spent his time trying to make things worse with Iran.

As for Venezuela, Hillary recognized Juan Guaido as the interim president, true...but so has a majority of other nations. Including Trump.

So this odd belief that Hillary would have taken the United States to war with these two countries is just not based on any fact. It strikes me more as a personal prejudice.
I hear you. My concern is with Clinton's corporate ties, not personal prejudice however. I don't trust she's not in the pocket of the military industry and big oil, who has all to gain by invading for example Venezuela.

Drazzil? That you?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:56 pm**

hepcat wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:52 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:49 pm
hepcat wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:42 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:29 pm
Well, we'll never know what would have happened during a Clinton presidency. But it does seem like Trump has been pressed by hawkish colleagues on Venezuela and Iran, but opted to not go down that road. The attempted pullout of Syria, clumsy as it was and cruel to the Kurds, is another example.
Right-wing nationalism often goes hand in hand with isolationism, after all, and I must concede that American foreign policy has become less aggressive of late.
And Hillary backed Obama's Iran deal. It's unlikely she would have gone back on that. Trump has spent his time trying to make things worse with Iran.

As for Venezuela, Hillary recognized Juan Guaido as the interim president, true...but so has a majority of other nations. Including Trump.

So this odd belief that Hillary would have taken the United States to war with these two countries is just not based on any fact. It strikes me more as a personal prejudice.
I hear you. My concern is with Clinton's corporate ties, not personal prejudice however. I don't trust she's not in the pocket of the military industry and big oil, who has all to gain by invading for example Venezuela.
Drazzil? That you?

I'm just a little Swedish socialist.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:05 pm**

Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:49 pm I hear you. My concern is with Clinton's corporate ties, not personal prejudice however. I don't trust she's not in the pocket of the military industry and big oil, who has all to gain by invading for example Venezuela.

There's no basis for that. If big oil could move Clinton to invade Venezuela, why haven't they moved Trump--whose cabinet has drawn on actual oil executives--to do so?

America's complexities are bigger than reductive cartoons. A Clinton presidency could actually be good--not perfect, I'll give you that--for things you care about in ways that Trump is terrible for them.

At the most basic level, surely a muddled "liberal-corporatist" (or whatever) America is better for you and your issues than a Putinist America can be.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:20 pm**

Holman wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:05 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:49 pm I hear you. My concern is with Clinton's corporate ties, not personal prejudice however. I don't trust she's not in the pocket of the military industry and big oil, who has all to gain by invading for example Venezuela.
There's no basis for that. If big oil could move Clinton to invade Venezuela, why haven't they moved Trump--whose cabinet has drawn on actual oil executives--to do so?

America's complexities are bigger than reductive cartoons. A Clinton presidency could actually be good--not perfect, I'll give you that--for things you care about in ways that Trump is terrible for them.

At the most basic level, surely a muddled "liberal-corporatist" (or whatever) America is better for you and your issues than a Putinist America can be.

Yeah, you're probably right. Lesser of two evils and all that.

The reason I came into this thread to post about Bernie supporters was mostly to illustrate the leftist/socialist culture, which I believe I have some insight into. In my country socialists aren't just a more-or-less marginalized grassroots movement, they're very much part of established politics with strong representation in parliament and actually governing most of the time. And I can tell you that the fatal flaw of the Swedish socialist left is the constant splitting off niche groups who found "their" issue and isn't willing to support the greater movement anymore because they don't perfectly represent whatever issue they've decided to focus on.

Unifying the left is like herding cats, if cats were haughty intellectuals with a penchant for drama. Which I guess they are to some extent.

Anyway, I think that's what happened in 2016. You expected the left to play nice and vote for your shitty candidate. The only way they would have done that would have been if Hillary adopted most of Bernie's platform issues. And even then it might not have been enough.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:28 pm**

Will Rogers (1879-1935) wrote:I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:30 pm**

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:30 pm**

Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:20 pm Bernie just happens to want the same policy as those who support him, and he has extraordinary credibility on fighting for these policy positions.

This wasn't true. IIRC, there was a poll that found that the average views of Sanders and Clinton supporters on a variety of issues were largely the same, and where there were differences on this poll or that, if anything, Clinton supporters were a little to the left of those of Sanders.

A lot of people wanted a Democratic nominee who was "anti-Establishment" (or at least not Hillary).

One analysis of Warren's recent dip in the polls was that it coincided with her waffling on Medicare for all. Coincidence?

And yet, a significant portion of that support went to Buttigieg. Coincidence? (Their supporters are more similar than you might think).

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:34 pm**

gilraen wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:36 pm
Lagom Lite wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:29 pm But it does seem like Trump has been pressed by hawkish colleaguesRussia and Saudi Arabia on Venezuela and Iran, but opted to not go down that road. The attempted pullout of Syria, clumsy as it was and cruel to the Kurds, is another example.
FTFY

Err, I seriously doubt Saudia Arabia wanted the US out of Syria (or Iran). (Russia definitely did, though).

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:39 pm**

Russia and Turkey?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:40 pm**

Yeah, that makes sense.

Posted: **Sat Dec 07, 2019 2:06 am**

Surely farmers cant be this stupid. I grew up on a farm and farmers used to be some of smartest nicest people. This guy in this news story is saying how they cant make money. How the trade war is hurting them. He even says Trump stabbed us in the back. Then when asked if he'd vote for trump again he says "Unless they come up with a better alternative he will vote for Trump again"

MORON. Folks like him deserve to fail and lose their shit. Ive known the US has dumbed down over the last 20 years but goodness.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/201 ... ay-vpx.cnn

Why do these people keep believing what they are told out of DC?

Posted: **Sat Dec 07, 2019 1:48 pm**

Daehawk wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2019 2:06 am

Why do these people keep believing what they are told out of DC?

Echo chambers. There are so many options for information that people tend to find one that fits their beliefs and stick with it. That means that the only thing they're hearing is that Trump is saving the day, that Trump is a hero, and that any alternative wouldn't just hurt their pocketbook, it would destroy their very way of life and their beliefs. If that's the only thing that they hear, then that's what they come to see as reality.

Always, always look for (reliable) sources that disagree with you, and always take a second to wonder if, just maybe, they might have a point.

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:03 pm**

https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/stat ... 1630678016

Many smart people are pretending Biden is dumb when he says "I'm not asking you to stop being Republican, I'm just asking you to vote for me to get rid of Trump." Whether you agree ideologically, it's clearly smart politics. You convert voters by making the smallest possible ask.

Which of these asks is more likely to persuade a Republican to vote against Trump?
1) "You can stay Republican, just vote the boor out"
OR
2) "You need stop being Republican, accept my party's political positions, and also vote Trump out"

I think we all know the answer.

There is this weird reflex on the left which is to acknowledge that Trump represents a fundamental threat to America, but then to set the bar so high for joining the opposition to him that you actually repel potential converts. The emergency situation should dictate the opposite.

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:17 pm**

In Biden's fantasy, a fair and robust GOP contending with a fair and robust Democratic party would be a great thing for America.

In 2020, though, what does "You can stay Republican" even mean? Vote against Trump but for McConnell/Nunes/Jordan/etc? Where does the line get drawn? If he's not asking voters to vote out every Republican they can, why isn't he?

The whole idea is based on the fantasy that Trump somehow singularly corrupted a GOP that before him was willing to debate and govern fairly. It's like Biden somehow only remembers the 1980s and has forgotten everything since Newt Gingrich (including his own Vice Presidency).

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:23 pm**

Holman wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:17 pm In Biden's fantasy, a fair and robust GOP contending with a fair and robust Democratic party would be a great thing for America.

In 2020, though, what does "You can stay Republican" even mean? Vote against Trump but for McConnell/Nunes/Jordan/etc? Where does the line get drawn? If he's not asking voters to vote out every Republican they can, why isn't he?

The whole idea is based on the fantasy that Trump somehow singularly corrupted a GOP that before him was willing to debate and govern fairly. It's like Biden somehow only remembers the 1980s and has forgotten everything since Newt Gingrich (including his own Vice Presidency).

I'd happily pull the lever for a non-Trump Republican candidate of the Weld/Amash/Romney ilk.

Otherwise, for the time being, no thanks.

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:44 pm**

Holman wrote:In Biden's fantasy, a fair and robust GOP contending with a fair and robust Democratic party would be a great thing for America.

While I agree the Republican party seems beyond redemption at this point, I don't know how we reduce tribalism in American politics by digging in on our positions. At some point something's got to give if we want to get out of this "cold Civil War" (as it has been described).

Biden does have the political experience and know-how to work with Republicans in a way Warren, Sanders, etc. don't have a chance in hell of doing. And while it's a bitter pill to swallow, that may be what the country needs to avoid completely ripping itself apart. Maybe that's why he's leading the pack. He's a safe bet in an election year when democracy is literally on the line like no other time in recent history - perhaps in all history.

That's not an endorsement of Biden, just an observation.

Octopus Overlords

Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?