Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    21 Sep '15 19:49
    Good article written by Jeff Faux at HuffPo regarding Sanders v. Hillary/Biden. Quotes:

    The politicians, plutocrats and pundits of the Democratic Party establishment have no answer to Bernie Sanders' blistering critique of their failure to defend the interests of the voters who have kept them in power. Neither have they a substantive case against his policy agenda, which would shift government from working for the rich to working for the rest of us. Nor has it been easy for them to mount a personal attack on someone who says what he believes and acts on what he says.

    They have one argument: he can't win. Why? Well... he's too radical, he lacks charisma, he doesn't connect with minorities, he's a secular Jew, etc. Don't waste your vote, they say; the risks of electing a Republican are too high.

    But prematurely presumed losers have won enough elections in our history to make this glib conventional wisdom suspect, especially this year when voter anger at the Washington-Wall Street axis that dominates American politics is so widespread. Even Republicans are, rhetorically at least, trying to distance themselves from being associated with welfare for the rich. In this environment, Sanders' rivals, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden -- whom the Wall Street Democrats are keeping in reserve in case Hillary implodes -- carry a lot of negative baggage. Hillary's recent drop in the polls, driven by a dramatic decline in the support of women, has already undercut her claim to be the Democrats' strongest champion in next year's election.

    More important, those who are Democrats because they believe the Party should be an instrument for building a better country- rather than just a personal career ladder -- need to think through the larger probabilities. Whatever the odds are for Bernie Sanders becoming president, the odds that Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden would, as president, seriously address the issues that the Democratic rank-and-file care about are much longer.

    Both Clinton and Biden have been leaders of the crony network of Democratic Party enablers who have colluded with the GOP on the domestic policies that have relentlessly eroded economic security and opportunity for the vast majority of our people. They both are also major promoters of the reckless foreign interventions that have cost thousands of American lives, trillions of dollars and generated fierce hatred of us throughout the world.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Democrats concerned about the future can apply a similar reality test to foreign policy. Hillary voted for the Iraq War. As Secretary of State, she facilitated its expansion to the rest of the Middle East, pursued a hawkish foreign policy to the right of Obama, and oversaw the inexcusable betrayal of the elected President of Honduras in the interests of the thuggish oligopoly that engineered a military coup. Sanders opposed the war, has long argued against military adventurism and has consistently worked to stop US support of corrupt and brutal Latin American governments.

    Unlike Sanders, Clinton and Biden are comfortably nestled with most of the other Democratic Party leadership in the left hand pocket of the country's military-financial complex. Would either be better for the country than one of the crowd of reactionary clowns running for the Republican nomination? Most probably. But given our experience with them, can we seriously think that Hillary or Biden would stand up to Wall Street? Clean the neo-con networks out of the Pentagon and State Department? Reverse the relentless march to inequality? Most probably, no.

    Thus, Bernie Sanders' candidacy has created a moment of truth for Democratic voters, testing how serious they are about changing the country's direction. We cannot be certain, of course, that even a President Bernie Sanders could loosen Big Money's stranglehold on our democracy. But we can be certain that neither of his rivals would even try.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-faux/bernie-sanders-a-moment-o_b_8163092.html

    Is Faux right?
  2. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    21 Sep '15 19:54
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Good article written by Jeff Faux at HuffPo regarding Sanders v. Hillary/Biden. Quotes:

    The politicians, plutocrats and pundits of the Democratic Party establishment have no answer to Bernie Sanders' blistering critique of their failure to defend the interests of the voters who have kept them in power. Neither have they a substantive case against his ...[text shortened]... tp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-faux/bernie-sanders-a-moment-o_b_8163092.html

    Is Faux right?
    With Hillary it will be politics as usual for sure.
  3. 21 Sep '15 21:13
    Save us Bernie! Your our only hope!!
  4. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    21 Sep '15 22:50
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Good article written by Jeff Faux at HuffPo regarding Sanders v. Hillary/Biden. Quotes:

    The politicians, plutocrats and pundits of the Democratic Party establishment have no answer to Bernie Sanders' blistering critique of their failure to defend the interests of the voters who have kept them in power. Neither have they a substantive case against his ...[text shortened]... tp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-faux/bernie-sanders-a-moment-o_b_8163092.html

    Is Faux right?
    That's why we have the process we do. If democrats are tired of business as usual from Hillary, (like republicans seem to be with Jeb Bush), then Bernie gets the nomination. Frankly, I think a Trump vs Sanders election might just be the first really interesting one in a long time. We'll just have to wait and see.
  5. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    22 Sep '15 16:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Good article written by Jeff Faux at HuffPo regarding Sanders v. Hillary/Biden. Quotes:

    The politicians, plutocrats and pundits of the Democratic Party establishment have no answer to Bernie Sanders' blistering critique of their failure to defend the interests of the voters who have kept them in power. Neither have they a substantive case against his ...[text shortened]... tp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-faux/bernie-sanders-a-moment-o_b_8163092.html

    Is Faux right?
    I'm liking what I see from Martin O'Malley, a long-shot, to be sure. Hopefully, he'll continue to run in more presidential races even if he doesn't get far this time.

    Of course I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination, since they'll no doubt be better for the people (the real people, not the rich) than any Republican, but depending on who it is, I just may be holding my nose as I vote.

    The way I see it is that Sanders and Trump are the 'protest votes', from those who are sick of the way the system perpetuates the same mistakes President after President. They will probably fade out before the nominations, but then again, they may just be able to ride the gravy train a bit longer this election just because resentment of the status quo runs so deep.

    I still like Martin O'Malley. He's neither part of the 'old guard', nor is he part of the 'fringe'. But I'm realistic, he has practically no shot at the nomination, but we still have a long time before the nomination.
  6. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    22 Sep '15 21:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    I'm liking what I see from Martin O'Malley, a long-shot, to be sure. Hopefully, he'll continue to run in more presidential races even if he doesn't get far this time.

    Of course I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination, since they'll no doubt be better for the people (the real people, not the rich) than any Republican, but depending on who it is, I just ...[text shortened]... has practically no shot at the nomination, but we still have a long time before the nomination.
    I know the GOP establishment would be happy to get rid of Trump. They have been trying from the very beginning. They don't like Ted Cruz or Ron Paul either, but they don't see them as a threat to Jeb Bush, who they have put their money behind.

    I am not sure, but I don't see Bernie Sanders as someone that the DNC would be that thrilled about. They would much rather have Hillary Clinton or maybe even Joe Biden who will fall in line at the crack of the whip. However, I may be wrong about all of this. It has become hard to believe anything in politics with all the lies and deceit going on.
  7. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    22 Sep '15 22:12
    Maybe the tide is turning. Jeremy Corbyn is Labor's new opposition leader in the UK. In Australia after our recent leadership coup (5 prime ministers in 5 years...Aussie Aussie Aussie..) our Labor opposition leader is also rebooting core left wing people first policies.

    So you never know your luck!
  8. 23 Sep '15 00:18
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I know the GOP establishment would be happy to get rid of Trump. They have been trying from the very beginning. They don't like Ted Cruz or Ron Paul either, but they don't see them as a threat to Jeb Bush, who they have put their money behind.

    I am not sure, but I don't see Bernie Sanders as someone that the DNC would be that thrilled about. They would ...[text shortened]... this. It has become hard to believe anything in politics with all the lies and deceit going on.
    I think the principled dropping out of the race by Scott Walker will be an example for the low single digit candidates, especially those with no sign of any uptick in the polls.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 Sep '15 00:42
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I think the principled dropping out of the race by Scott Walker will be an example for the low single digit candidates, especially those with no sign of any uptick in the polls.
    What is "principled" about getting people who support you to give your campaign $20 million and then quitting before a single vote is cast?
  10. 23 Sep '15 00:55
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What is "principled" about getting people who support you to give your campaign $20 million and then quitting before a single vote is cast?
    Does the candidate get to keep the contributed money as his personal money? If so, that has to be changed. I think that slimming down the field to the viable candidates is principled.
  11. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    23 Sep '15 02:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Good article written by Jeff Faux at HuffPo regarding Sanders v. Hillary/Biden. Quotes:

    The politicians, plutocrats and pundits of the Democratic Party establishment have no answer to Bernie Sanders' blistering critique of their failure to defend the interests of the voters who have kept them in power. Neither have they a substantive case against his ...[text shortened]... tp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-faux/bernie-sanders-a-moment-o_b_8163092.html

    Is Faux right?
    I think the article is right.

    Another argument against Sanders has been that, even were he to win, he'd never get his policies past Congress. But Sanders himself said it best a month or two ago: any electoral outcome in which he were to win the White House would almost certainly also drastically alter the current composition of Congress in his favor.

    Also: Sanders lacks charisma? Like Bush I has charisma? Or Bush II? EDIT: Or Jeb?
  12. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    23 Sep '15 08:01
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Does the candidate get to keep the contributed money as his personal money? If so, that has to be changed. I think that slimming down the field to the viable candidates is principled.
    The way I understand it, is that he must use it for later campaigning.