@blatham,
Quote:That really says, "Anyone but Sanders" and that just pisses me off.
Why? Sanders is the purest of the pure and has championed democratic socialism since the '60s. He's been very consistent. That makes him the easiest to categorize and evaluate. Let's get real:
Quote:Mr. Sanders would be 79 when he assumed office, and after an October heart attack, his health is a serious concern. Then, there’s how Mr. Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is anathema to him. Only his prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive. He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda. Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.
The difference between Sanders and some of the others who didn't get the nod is that Sanders actually has a chance to win the nomination.
@McGentrix,
To be fair, if Clinton had not given in to his weakness with Lewinsky when he knew the republicans were hot after him, the impeachment of him would never had happened. It was arrogant and stupid of such a smart man. Worse, he displayed that arrogance up until he could no longer do so with the proof out in the open as it were with the blue dress. Always was suspicious of Lewinsky for saving that dress. Hillary should have kept quiet and either left and just should have said she forgave him and left it at that. IMO
Speaking of the comparisons of then and now.
The Trial That Would Be a Template
@hightor,
Quote:Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.
It takes a certain level of smugness to equate Trump and Sanders like that.
@Olivier5,
In what they want to achieve, there is no daylight. However, in rigidness and a go it alone attitude and thinking he knows all the answers, there is a
comparison. Just a statement of fact.
@Olivier5,
Smugness? No, I think it's more like pained realism. Sanders's appeal is significant but not broad.
@revelette3,
That guy Adolf Hitler was also a bit like that, I think. Certainly he was one of these types who knew all the answers... I hate them. Much better to be lead by dudes who know none of the answers, if you ask me.
@hightor,
Realism? That's a funny term. I wouldn't call a comparison between Sanders and Trump a "realist" outlook. Highly ideological, rather. Note that the NYT endorsed one candidate that they called "
realist" (Klobuchar) and one "
progressive" candidate (Warren). Interesting semantics, which imply that it is unrealistic to expect progress... :-)
@Olivier5,
Much better to be led by people willing to gain views outside of his or her own while still having their own answers. You know a balance. Also a willingness to adapt to circumstances
to obtain progressive aims.
@revelette3,
Quote:Much better to be led by people willing to gain views outside of his or her own
Yes, that is true. And from that POV, the NYT journalists won't lead me nowhere, because they just proved how unwilling they were to gain views from outside their own clique.
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Realism? That's a funny term. I wouldn't call a comparison between Sanders and Trump a "realist" outlook. Highly ideological, rather. Note that the NYT endorsed one candidate that they called "realist" (Klobuchar) and one "progressive" candidate (Warren). Interesting semantics, which imply that it is unrealistic to expect progress... :-)
I suspect the reason may be that most policies advocated by self-proclaimed Progressives" here prove to have been unrealistic failures in practice. The reason is simple: human nature is far more complex and filled with contradictions than are allowed for in the rather abstract conceptions of the Progressive politician who enact them. It turns out that people of all classes and types are generally very adept at acting to protect their self-interests, by fair means and foul. It's only a matter of time before they have thoroughly gamed and co-opted the new system. I suspect this is why most such reformers end up in various forms of repression or restrictions to human freedom to preserve the operation of their generally ill-conceived systems.
@georgeob1,
So you agree that "progress is unrealistic"?
I think otherwise, needless to say.
Not so long ago, the ideas that races are unequal by divine decree, and that men ruled over women for the same obvious reason were deemed realistic, and the opposite idea that all human beings are equal was seen as naïve, at best utopian.
And maybe the equilatarian idea IS just an ideal still. Maybe even it will never be achieved in this valley of tears, but it's a good ideal to hold, and aim to, at least some of the times, e.g. when inequalities become too glaring and problematic.
Sanders' ideals point in the right direction. For now at least. He is not naïve about implementation, has been in the senate for decades. He's no utopian millennial. He knows the ropes and he will fight the good fight.
@hightor,
Quote:Why? Sanders is the purest of the pure...
As you might have gathered, Sanders isn't my personal choice for the post and the rationale the Times offers isn't much different from mine. Also, as I've expressed for some time, I would very much like to see a female as candidate and as President. So I should be pleased with their dual endorsement. And I am, though I think it of no great importance.
But placing Sanders at the very bottom with Bloomberg plays into a narrative of victimization of Sanders by the media and a matching narrative of elite rejections of progressive candidates (even given the placement of Warren). There's a severe cynicism lurking in the pro-Sanders camp and this endorsement (with it's odd attached ratings list) will surely have repercussions which will prove harmful up the road.
So funny. The candidates are all in Columbia, SC, honoring MLK. I have seen some heinous stuff, but Bernie me me howl.
Steyer sidles up to Bern, starts whispering to Bern, Bern smacks Steyer in the stomach with his Kmart-gloved hand. Steyer is left staring at Bern. DISMISSED!
I’m so here for Bern.
I was a little more than pissed when Liz sidled up to Bern and linked his arm without his permission. She’s using him for votes and as a prop—after famously refusing to shake his hand after she gravely insulted him.
Grrr.
@blatham,
Quote:Last yr, the Violence Against Women Act expired—& the House passed its reauthorization *290* days ago. Sen Republicans have blocked it.
Freedom-loving Americans have blocked all sorts of freedom hater legislation:
passed by House, ignored by Senate
Bipartisan Background Checks Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr8
Enhanced Background Checks Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1112
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1585
passed out of committee, NOT passed by either House or Senate
Keep Americans Safe Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1186
Extreme Risk Protection Order Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1236
Disarm Hate Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2708
not even passed out of committee
Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1296
blatham wrote:Dear Republican types
**** I hate your guts.
Progressives are hatemongers.
@Olivier5,
Quote:So you agree that "progress is unrealistic"?
Depends on
how "progressive". The USA is a conservative country. Any progressive gains are tentative, just awaiting the next wave of reactionaries who are voted in after some progressive raises the tax on gasoline. We've seen fifty years of environmental progress undone in three years. Yes, the idea of steady progress toward an egalitarian sustainable future is unrealistic.
EDIT: note the post directly above this one.
@blatham,
Quote: There's a severe cynicism lurking in the pro-Sanders camp and this endorsement (with it's odd attached ratings list) will surely have repercussions which will prove harmful up the road.
Interesting observation. But don't all those Saint Sanders types already despise and dismiss anything the establishment press says?
@hightor,
Quote:But don't all those Saint Sanders types already despise and dismiss anything the establishment press says?
However it has come about, there's something of a sinkhole for delusional revolutionaries who think in binary terms within that camp. But I see this as a gradient from sincere and thoughtful activism to juvenile idiocy (along with a hefty troll contingent). The fewer of the good folks we can disaffect, the better. We need everybody pushing the same direction (my own manifestation of likely delusion).
@hightor,
When you look at the history of progressisme, the idea of steady progress sometimes needed centuries in some parts of the world.
In Europe, starting with a kind of step back (Renaissance) over struggling nearly two centuries (Age of Enlightenment) until progress really was visible.
