I'd like to blow up that system too. It's part of the neoliberal consensus. The global elite suck the wealth of the world upwards from the middle classes. "Davos man." There is much merit in the socialist critique. Marx predicted most of what we know of as late stage capitalism. He saw the inevitable disaster that capitalism must become.

It's not the socialist theorizing I object to. It's the authoritarianism of leftists that I oppose. With Bernie the cure would be much worse than the disease. — fishfry

I feel like I am going to regret asking, but how do you figure Bernie is an authoritarian, or that his election would lead to authoritarianism?

That in a nutshell is the unholy neocon/neolib alliance that's destroying this country; that both Trump and Bernie oppose — fishfry

I think the unholy alliance is that of big business with the politicians. Trump is hardly opposed to that. Bernie won't really be either, I suspect.

(Let’s play a little game of “What If...” :chin: Warning: potential speculation / wishful thinking / hallucinations follow below.)

Barack Obama has obviously not so far given his endorsement to any of the Democratic candidates as of yet. He has said something like he is waiting to see how the process turns out, he doesn’t want to interfere, blah, blah... Ok, that’s fine. Completely understandable. Mr. Obama has a lot to potentially lose, if he makes the slightest miscalculation or says a (perceived) wrong word. He is perhaps viewed as a “Mr. Moderate”, and is best known for giving form to what became “Obamacare”, and lately, mildly criticizing people who call themselves “woke”.

But... Maybe... What if Mr. Obama, after almost 4 years out of public office, with some time to reflect on the current political landscape, and his role in creating it, is perhaps having some second thoughts? What if, come DNC convention time, Bernie Sanders is still alive and twitching, and just needs the slightest breeze to push him into the nomination?

And what if Mr. Obama, sitting is his chair of eminence as a respected (if perhaps not universally beloved) ex-president like a wise King Solomon, is asked to give his blessings on a candidate? What if he still harbors, in his heart of hearts, the slightest bit of that fire and idealism he showed in 2008? What if he thinks the times and circumstances have changed? What if maybe he has some tiny bitterness about the way his administration turned out or might be perceived now, especially with regard to the healthcare plan which (like it or not) still bears his name?

And what if he wants to be remembered as a bold trailblazer, rather than somewhat unfairly as a corporate team-player who played his part, got paid, and then comfortably retired? Isn’t that kind of anticlimactic? Is there a crucial second act left in this particular American life?

Would it then be worth it to Mr. Obama to bless Bernie with his endorsement, despite the almost certain grief and vicious criticism it would engender, even from Democrats?

Only if he really believes that it is the right move at the right time. And if he really wants to make a lasting change.

Or you can stop wanting to be saved by "leaders".

FiveThirtyEight's interactive Super Tuesday model suggests that if Texas can be won for Bernie and everything else goes as predicted, there might still be hope left.

Looks like they decided to hand the election to Trump. Nice.

Bloomberg's a cunt: he'll (probably) drop out - Wednesday(?) — 180 Proof

Good call, I imagine the Democrats will likely ask him to drop out to consolidate around zombie Biden, animated by the DNC necromancers and the sudden (and calculated) endorsement of Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Beto.

Biden has shot up in the polls and he's now ahead of Bernie on the betting sites. Total insanity. It's such a generational thing too - my parents (mid to late 50s) like Biden because he's more middle of the road and he'll do what the establishment tells him unlike Bernie who they consider too far left and in their opinion is likely to be less cooperative. It's like the total opposite of what I hear you hear on reddit and other social media sites mostly run by young people.

I'm starting to think there's a deep generational divide. I don't even think I know any younger people who support Biden.

Meanwhile I'm just sitting over here as someone who's right of center and watching the left duke it out.

This is going to get very interesting...

The delegate count will not reflect the voting. The super delegate count will most certainly not. We'll see. This is the time(these states) when Hillary pulled away only for Bernie to pull closer in the end. If Biden does not get too far ahead as a result of today, Bernie will be fine... as far as votes in the remaining states go. The convention could be quite a circus though.

There's no way Obama or Hillary or Warren lend support to Bernie. No way. No how.

We'll see what happens.

There's no way Obama or Hillary or Warren lend support to Bernie. No way. No how. — creativesoul

Well that is easy for Obama and Hillary. Warren, on the other hand, would be a complete hypocrite. "Taking down the billionaires is important, but I don't really like Bernie" :yikes:

This may be why she is sticking it out for the super-delegates...she knows she can't win, but if she drops out, she MUST endorse Bernie or everything she stood for was a lie.

my parents (mid to late 50s) like Biden because he's more middle of the road and he'll do what the establishment tells him unlike Bernie who they consider too far left and in their opinion is likely to be less cooperative — BitconnectCarlos

Wise people, your folks. :smile:

FiveThirtyEight is showing Texas so far (at 39% reporting) leaning toward Bernie, which as I mentioned earlier shifts the predicted outcome toward a Bernie plurality.

However, unexpectedly, Massachusetts and Minnesota are currently (at 30% and 42% reporting respectively) leaning toward Biden, which shifts the predicted outcome even further in Biden's favor than it was prior to today. :-(

A probably-trivial wildcard though: American Samoa, predicted for a Biden win, went to Bloomberg. 538's model didn't account for any timelines where that happened, so it's not able to tell me what the probable outcome of the whole primaries will be accounting for that. But it probably makes only a trivial difference (six delegates).

From 538 themselves:

Lol Americans are stupid

lol Warren came in third in Massachusetts and it looks like Biden might emerge in 1st, complete traitor to the progressive cause.

:sweat:

Lol Americans are stupid — StreetlightX

Moderaters... moderate.

Progressives... progress.

If Warren dropped out last night and emphatically endorsed Sanders then the map would be looking pretty different right about now. Unfortunately, after coming in 3rd in her own state she has announced that she will continue to stay in the race.

There's no way Obama or Hillary or Warren lend support to Bernie. No way. No how.
— creativesoul

Well that is easy for Obama and Hillary. Warren, on the other hand, would be a complete hypocrite. — ZhouBoTong

Maybe. I've not enough reliable true information at my fingertips in order to draw such a conclusion. Namely, I do not know what will be the determining factor guiding Warren's decision, on way or the other.

I will say that when she threw her support to Clinton, it showed beyond all reasonable doubt that the primary issue is not fixing the broken/rigged system. Clinton refused to produce the evidence at her disposal which would be the strongest evidence we have to render judgment about her true intentions regarding both the public and the private financial sector.

People wanted to know what she said to those people who have tremendously benefitted at the expense of everyday American citizens, voters, and/or consumers. The exact words she used as a means to compel the movers and shakers of the financial sector to go out and vote for her are the strongest evidence possible for making informed decisions about whether or not she is the kind of candidate who can get the overwhelming majority of poor people the opportunities that every American deserves simply by being American.

I would say that a trustworthy government does everything in it's power to make sure it is able to provide trustworthy money lenders.

Failing to actually provide the entire unedited paid speaking engagement to 'wall street' is adequate ground to temper the amount of trust one places upon Clinton to do what needs to be done in order to correct the grave injustices that have been done in the aforementioned economic sector.

Either Warren did not fully grasp this situation for what it is, which shows poor judgment, or correcting the issues which have led and will continue to lead to an enormous financial wealth gap between the richest and the poorest Americans.

One measure of what a government is worth to it's people is the inverse proportion to the size of the aforementioned wealth gap. The greater the gap between the least and the most fortunate circumstances an American can be born into the less worthy the government is... especially when we're talking about a representative form of like the American republic.

Fixing that requires reversing and/or correcting all of the previous pieces of legislation that paved the road. That requires electing and keeping enough individuals focusing upon the right sorts of change...

You see...

Not just any change will do, and that's what really chaps my ass about a long standing pronouncement of "getting things done". No one has batted that shit into the stands as it ought and need be.

Where's Rodman when you need him?

This may be why she is sticking it out for the super-delegates...she knows she can't win, but if she drops out, she MUST endorse Bernie or everything she stood for was a lie.

It's rather hard to claim to be a champion of the people if you also lend public support to one who can be clearly and demonstratively shown to have played a key personal role in harming so many...

Interesting post with some thought put into it. Thanks. — 0 thru 9

Thank you! Tell that to my many critics ...

But getting to the fine print... Ok, fair enough. You either don’t think Bernie can win, or if the unthinkable happened, it would be like having a former Hippie as president, throwing dollar bills and big doobies (marijuana) out of the Federal Reserve window to his crazed, brainwashed snowflaky fans. With Bob Dylan and the remnants of the Grateful Dead (including some holy relics from Jerry Garcia), Snoop Dogg with a reformed Public Enemy, performing a free concert on the White House lawn in some bizarre combination of Woodstock and the March on Washington. Bernie is inaugurated wearing a tie-dyed shirt, with Noam Chomsky standing next to him. (Ok, maybe that is going too far for a joke, lol. Anyway...) — 0 thru 9

Ok no totally I would love that. It's his Marxism not his hippiedom. I wasn't an official hipped but I certainly identified with them. And we were all against the war. I marched on Washington. I loved the hell out of this paragraph. You reached right into my forgotten past and hit the nail on just about every point. I saw Chomsky speak against the war. I love the crazed hippie president image. I'm imagining Bernie as Fat Freddy from the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers. I was so into those comics. If Bernie was promising an actual return to the hippie ethos I'd put on my tie-tie and beads and sign up for the whole program.

You are not a “democratic socialist”. That is fine. Yes, obviously Bernie calls himself that. And his opponents do also, but use “scare quotes”, make clucking noises of disapproval, and warn of dire consequences. — 0 thru 9

Even if I concede the poin[ that Bernie is not a Stalin socialist but more like a Mr. Rogers socialist, I would not change a word of what I wrote. Because Bernie has many followers who ARE Stalin socialists or worse. The #CancelCulture out there is like Chairman Mao's cultural revolution, complete with public shaming sessions. struggle sessions, they use to call them. The far left scares the shit out of me lately and they're all way into Bernie.

We have all seen the juicy sound bites. (Though I’m not sure what exactly these terms are supposed to mean anymore. I know in general what they are intended to mean. But words, labels, ideologies, and especially political philosophies have been ever so slowly drained of whatever meaning they once had. It all seems to be advertising, propaganda, and personal branding. Like how Christianity has somehow mutated into an apologist for the war machine. Oh pardon me, “national defense system”. Anyway, please excuse this tangential philosophical point). — 0 thru 9

Bernie has a lengthy track record of making statements in support of the most appalling regimes. I'm taking the man at his word and you want me make excuses for him. I'm not buying that.

But whatever other valid points you make, it is an extreme exaggeration to say Sanders “wants to destroy” the whole system. — 0 thru 9

His plans would double the annual spending of the Federal government. Doing that would blow up the world's economy. Now we could be here all night arguing THAT particular claim, but it's what I believe and you should take that for an indication of where I'm coming from. If someone did have that belief, then it would be rational for them to say that Bernie is going to blow up the country's economy -- even if you disagree with the premise. Fair?

Come on now. Let’s be fair. That is practically calling him a communist, or something worse, but without the directness to do so openly. — 0 thru 9

It was Bloomie who called Bernie a Communist. I'm not calling Bernie names. I'm pointing out that his policies, as outlined on his website, would blow up the US economy and almost certainly take the rest of the world economy with it. That is my considered opinion. I'm not calling anyone names. I like Bernie as a person. Wish he'd hit Hillary harder on the emails in 2016, he could have been president. He would have beaten Trump then. Not now, unless there's a huge economic crash -- which could happen.

Because it is a totally unfounded cheap shot, either implied or explicit. Like calling Sanders “ignorant”. Ok, sure.. Par for the course in an election campaign, “sticks and stones”, etc. Hyperbole and humor. I do it too. (Like this silliness for example. Trump’s new slogan: “Four more years! Let’s Have Another Orangasm!” :snicker: Although come to think of it, Joe Biden has been looking a little orange lately. Is there a tariff-caused shortage of natural-looking makeup for men? Bernie is pale and proud, lol). — 0 thru 9

It is not a cheap shot. It's my informed opinion having glanced at Bernie's plan on his website, and verified in several different places that he will double the annual spending of the federal government. If anyone did that there are certain disastrous economic consequences that would follow. I don't want to spend time arguing this particular point. I'd like you to acknowledge that this is my opinion, and agree to the validity of the argument that IF I believe as I do, THEN it is rational for me to state that Bernie would destroy the world economy virtually overnight.

There are no personal attacks or cheap shots whatever in my comments.

But most observers can see these type of ploys as a desperate attempt to trip up the runner who is 50 yards ahead of everybody in this preliminary track meet. Tackling is not officially allowed in a foot race. Just because it happens and often goes unpunished, doesn’t mean nobody notices or cares. Ok, maybe this is just some sideline forum of internet opinion, mixed with some occasional philosophical insight. But if one wants to stand on their words, they have to have some kind of rational foundation. (Or even a relatively honest emotional one. That is acceptable, if expressed fairly. Emotions are part of who we are, of course). — 0 thru 9

I hope I have outlined my rational foundation with sufficient clarity. It is as follows:

P1: Bernie's own detailed plan on his website would, according to most fair observers, would double the annual spending of the federal government.

P2. That would be a Very Bad Thing; for reasons I don't feel like enumerating because it would amount to spending the time to boil down my thoughts and draft a good response and I don't want to do that at the moment. So I ask you to simply accept that I believe doubling spending is a Very Bad Thing.

C: Therefore electing Bernie would be a Very Bad Thing.

I hope, as I've tried to explain, that if you accept that if I hold P2, then it's valid to conclude C. Even if you disagree about P2. I hope you regard this as an exercise in rationality. In fact you may be confusing me with other people, because I've never disparaged Bernie personally. I really like the crazy old coot. I just don't want him to be president.

Now look... (Just kidding. Don’t you hate when debaters start with that bossy-sounding introduction? It’s like... LOOK... (pregnant pause... either signifying depth of thought, or perhaps an unspoken insult. Such as: LOOK... ya big goofball etc... Almost as bad is someone saying “LISTEN... blah blah...” I’m waiting for the first debater to go all in with “LOOK... LISTEN... and LEARN...” ) Sorry for the rant. — 0 thru 9

Did not follow that para.

Anyway, I am disillusioned (or perhaps “realistic”) about the Democratic Party. — 0 thru 9

It's hard not to be. Over the years they've lost their moral center and what we see today is the end result. At least I hope it's the end, if they get any worse they'll have to be designated a terrorist organization. [That's hyperbole for the purpose of intended humor; not a point on which you need to accuse me of name calling].

(I refuse to say I’m “woke”. Nor am I a “Bernie Bro”. Nor any other kind of “bro”. Buzzwords are as annoying as flies). But I had hopes for the Obama presidency. I thirstily sipped the Kool-aid, but only a little. I thought maybe, somehow he would understand, hoped he would care, figured he would at least try to make some little thing fairer. — 0 thru 9

As a symbol he was revolutionary and much needed. As a president, his greatest trick was to convince people he was a leftist. His foreign policy was Bush's 3rd and 4th term. Instead of apologizing for and prosecuting Bush's torture regime, he institutionalized it. He had many many scandals but gets away by saying he was scandal-free because the medial lets him get away with it. He had his foot on the brake of the economy. Trump's economy would have been Obama's if Obama had a clue.

Great symbol, so-so president. I liked his no-drama approach, we all prefer that over Trump's bombast.

Maybe he was slightly better than the alternative. — 0 thru 9

Oh no. McCain would have blown up the world. I am not on Team McCain, all the people who want to make a saint out a corrupt warmonger. Between Obama and McCain I'd take Obama 100 times out of 100, even in hindsight. All in all Obama was a pretty good president but he had a lot of flaws that his defenders don't admit, and the reaction to his flaws led to Trump.

Maybe the Middle East would have exploded with 4 more years of Neo-Con meddling (and that’s putting it very politely). Maybe not. What do I know? Very little probably. My point is that the Democratic Party (which is neither democratic, nor much of a party) is NOT “liberalism” or even “the left wing” in its entirety. Not even close. The two-party system is an effective monopoly, a good cop/bad cop routine. Two sides of the same coin. They speak for no one except themselves mostly. — 0 thru 9

On that we agree wholeheartedly. I hate partisanship. I believe the worst the Dems say about the GOPs and the worst the GOPs say about the Dems. I hate both parties. They both deserve to die.

In fact that's why we had a Trumpian populist insurgency in 2016 and now a Bernie populist insurgency in 2020. The centrist consensus isn't working and people are starting to notice.

And this week we see the establishment fighting back ... with Joe Biden? This senile and corrupt warmongering, civil-liberties-hating, tool of the banking industry? Do people even know who Joe Biden is? You can be sure Trump will remind us.

If Bernie were any more independent, he’d be on the sidelines with the rest of us. If he were any less independent, he’d be another gravy train rider looking for the path of least resistance. He definitely is NOT Frodo Baggins trying to destroy the evil Ring, nor Luke Skywalker trying to blow up the Death Star. He is not even trying to “level the playing field”... whatever that means. There is no playing field. There is a pyramid and a ladder, with those at the top of it pouring boiling oil on those below. Maybe at one time, the middle-class dreamed that there was room for more at the top of the pyramid, but there never was. Not a pretty picture. At best, Bernie Sanders SEEMS to be TRYING to go in a new direction that is at least a little tiny bit fairer for most people. I’ll take that chance, and hold him to his wager. — 0 thru 9

You're right. Bernie's just an old leftist who's been spouting the same slogans for 40 years and finally the country has become ripe for his message. He's more of a symbol than an individual for his followers. But what a character ... there's something about him, the crazy old uncle with the hair and the hands waving and the delivery and the cadence ... he's got his act down really well. He's actually a very effective speaker. Like I say, I like the guy. Just not his ideas.

The casino has stacked the odds against us, and rigged the slot machines. Even the glittering showgirls are picking our pockets. Now it seems the only way to win... is to leave. — 0 thru 9

If by that you mean that this country's going down, sooner rather than later, there's a good chance. The spending and the stupidity on both sides are out of control, probably past the tipping point.

I think the tl;dr is that you think doubling federal spending is a good idea and I think it will be the end of civilization as we know it. Or perhaps you disagree with that number. That also could explain our difference of opinion. It actually comes down to this point I think.

There's no way Obama or Hillary or Warren lend support to Bernie. No way. No how.
— creativesoul

Well that is easy for Obama and Hillary. Warren, on the other hand, would be a complete hypocrite. — ZhouBoTong

Maybe. I've not enough reliable true information at my fingertips in order to draw such a strongly expressed conclusion. Namely, I do not know what will be the determining factor guiding Warren's decision, one way or the other.

I will say that when she threw her support to Clinton in 2016, it showed beyond all reasonable doubt that the primary motivating factor for her was not 'fixing the broken/rigged system'.

Secretary Clinton refused to produce evidence readily at her disposal that was and is needed for developing sound judgment about her true intentions regarding both the public and the private financial sector.

A well informed electorate is absolutely imperative to any and all free and fair elections. So many of the most vulnerable people are taken advantage of by those who are able and willing. Clinton has ties to the 2008 financial scam. She also had their(the financial sector) full support... as does president Trump... as did president Obama... as did president Bush Jr... as did president Clinton... as did president Bush Sr... as did Ronald Reagan...

...as does vice-president Biden...

All of them bragged about geting things done... look at the results for the poorest and most unfortunate people...

"In the spirit of transparency"...


Given that a financial loan is absolutely necessary for pulling oneself up by their own bootstraps if they find themselves in all sorts of unfortunate circumstances; given that nearly all poor people require a loan in order to even take some of the first steps towards a happy, healthy, rewardingly successful life; given that many many people in financial sector deliberately and knowingly crafted financial instruments for the sole purpose of immediate tremendous financial gains despite knowing that in doing so many many other people would be forced to face some of the most difficult and trying financial times of their lives; given that Hillary Clinton was paid to compel/convince these very same people to vote for her; given her propensity to hold belief that move her towards policies that are very favorable to the financial sector; given the absence of any attempt at correcting all those past mistakes; given these and so many other things of this very nature...

Either Warren did not fully grasp this situation for what it is, or something else compelled her decision to lend support to Hillary instead of Bernie. A band of sisters... perhaps? I'd be ok with that. In her circles, very few predicted Trump's victory, and even fewer thought he had a chance. The timing of the surprise breaking news stories shortly before the election was/is curious though. Those seemed to damage Clinton far more than Trump. Particularly the ones about the corruption in the DNC. Couple that news with the broadly held belief that Hillary was going to beat Trump, and many of the people who would have voted if they thought it was needed... probably would have.

So, I would buy that claim from Warren regarding her choice between Bernie and Clinton. Biden is not a sister though.

Bernie's just an old leftist who's been spouting the same slogans for 40 years and finally the country has become ripe for his message. He's more of a symbol than an individual for his followers. But what a character ... there's something about him, the crazy old uncle with the hair and the hands waving and the delivery and the cadence ... he's got his act down really well. Like I say, I like the guy. Just not his ideas. — fishfry

Like his ideas about which pieces of legislation resulted in harming the most vulnerable members of American society? Like his ideas about what actually caused the tremendous disparity in wealth that we see today? Like his ideas about not continuing to allow money lenders to peddle misleading predatory and/or damaging financial instruments to everyday trusting Americans? Like his ideas about doing what it takes, over the long haul, to cultivate a politics that benefits nearly everyone across the board?

:brow:

Yeah, I can see how someone would not like those...

I think he means his socialist ideas, the ones that have proven ruinous to all the despotic regimes he once championed.

Like his ideas about which pieces of legislation resulted in harming the most vulnerable members of American society? Like his ideas about what actually caused the tremendous disparity in wealth that we see today? Like his ideas about not continuing to allow money lenders to peddle misleading predatory and/or damaging financial instruments to everyday trusting Americans? Like his ideas about doing what it takes, over the long haul, to cultivate a politics that benefits nearly everyone across the board? — creativesoul

Late night on Tuesday. Biden beat Bernie decisively. Looks like Dem voters aren't buying what Bernie's selling. Biden will be a disaster of course as a candidate but these results are certainly interesting. A big Bernie win was predicted but instead the Dems got Amy and Pete to quit and endorse Bernie and all the Dem voters fell into line. Rarely if ever have the Dems been this organized recently.

Regarding your questions, I am not arguing with Bernie's idealistic beliefs; only his specific policies, their costs, and his highly unrealistic plans to pay for them.

Most of the Western world has those policies and has no problems paying for them. There's nothing unrealistic about them.

Even if I concede the point that Bernie is not a Stalin socialist but more like a Mr. Rogers socialist, I would not change a word of what I wrote. Because Bernie has many followers who ARE Stalin socialists or worse. The #CancelCulture out there is like Chairman Mao's cultural revolution, complete with public shaming sessions. struggle sessions, they use to call them. The far left scares the shit out of me lately and they're all way into Bernie. — fishfry

Bernie's weakest point is his most fundamentalist supporters.

Biden will be a disaster of course as a candidate but these results are certainly interesting. A big Bernie win was predicted but instead the Dems got Amy and Pete to quit and endorse Bernie and all the Dem voters fell into line. Rarely if ever have the Dems been this organized recently. — fishfry

Actually thanks to Trump, Americans can believe that they can make a change to their party by participating in the primaries. Yet normally political parties usually have a leadership which decides on the candidates.

If (when) Biden gets the candidacy, will Bernie supporters go and vote for him? Got to stir up that Trump hatred!

Most of the Western world has those policies and has no problems paying for them. There's nothing unrealistic about them. — Benkei

The US is different in many ways, Benkei.

That doesn't make the plans unrealistic though. It's a matter of political will and saying something is unrealistic is an excuse for people not to try.

Late night on Tuesday. Biden beat Bernie decisively. Looks like Dem voters aren't buying what Bernie's selling — fishfry

Bernie is right behind Joe, with a less than a million vote difference, and we still have about 60% of delegates left to go.

A Socialist won the 5th largest economy in the world

Socialist won the 5th largest economy in the world — Maw

Yep, and he has successors. But I think it would take an economic crisis to put the Democratic party behind them.