Barney Frank calls Bernie Sanders and his supporters wishful thinkers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds about right to me. I'm glad to see people involved in the political process, but Sanders still has zero chance of winning.
 
Arkos said:
That's fine and, well, pragmatic. It's also how the two party system sustains itself.
Click to expand...

Bernie is running as a Democrat. He gets the nomination, I'll vote for him. If Hillary does, I'll vote for her.

I'm not sure how Sanders running as a Dem is going to dismantle the two party system.
 
JesseEwiak said:
No, Duverger's Law does that in FPTP systems.
Click to expand...

...duverger's law is just the name for the tendency of fptp to trend towards two parties. the actual causal mechanism that explains why we observe duverger's law is that people compromise away from more appealing but less electable options to less appealing but more electable ones because a vote for a niche candidate is wasted

i.e. you're both saying the same thing
 
Bernie's game is to move the conversation and American politics in general to the left. Winning the presidential election is a one in a million crapshoot and he knows it.
 
zero shift said:
Bernie's game is to move the conversation and American politics in general to the left. Winning the presidential election is a one in a million crapshoot and he knows it.
Click to expand...

So in similar aspects, do what OWS did for social inequality regarding paper and metal by making it a core element of political discussion?
 
zero shift said:
Bernie's game is to move the conversation and American politics in general to the left. Winning the presidential election is a one in a million crapshoot and he knows it.
Click to expand...

He would do well to brush up on his economics first.

I like the guy, I really do, but his promises are next to impossible to implement in this country.

I fucking wish, just like everyone else.
 
If he can beat Hillary wouldn't that make him pretty damn electable? Are people worried that he'd be able to beat the obvious front runner but then somehow go on to lose to whatever clown the GOP pumps out?
 
Knox said:
If he can beat Hillary wouldn't that make him pretty damn electable? Are people worried that he'd be able to beat the obvious front runner but then somehow go on to lose to whatever clown the GOP pumps out?
Click to expand...
He can't beat Hillary, though. I like Sanders, but yea, I don't see how he can do it. Numbers aren't with him.
 
Foffy said:
So in similar aspects, do what OWS did for social inequality regarding paper and metal by making it a core element of political discussion?
Click to expand...

No because Bernie is actually running for office and thus is encouraging similar candidates to do the same. They won't make the White House, but they can reach the Capitol.

Zabuza said:
He would do well to brush up on his economics first.

I like the guy, I really do, but his promises are next to impossible to implement in this country.

I fucking wish, just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

You have to start somewhere, and that is just getting the message out that these policies are an alternative.

Aaron Strife said:
Someone (here?) described Bernie supporters as politically illiterate and goddamn were they right.

*I'm voting for Bernie and have contributed to his campaign.
Click to expand...

What candidate would you say has "literate" supporters in politics?
 
Thanks for all that illustrious "pragmatism" during your tenure Barney. Looking at how the world has changed in that span of time really drives home how never having a spine and letting the opposition steamroll any genuinely progressive causes can truly lead to a brighter more optimistic future. I can only imagine the horrors of a nation where people actually voted their conscience.

I'm thinking the new Democratic slogan should be: "Give up already, like we have."
 
JHoNNy1OoO said:
You have to change the American people's views of Socialism in order for someone like Bernie to win in the General Election. You know all that Super Pac money thanks to Citizen's United? It will be devoted to nothing but ad blitz's on how Bernie is a socialist and Americans hate socialism and it'll work. It is sad but true.

As a whole America has been making real progress. People are becoming less and less religious and once the baby boomer generation dies off I do believe America will have a very significant progressive future.
Click to expand...

Sanders is, at minimum, two election cycles too early.
 
Barney Frank gets it.

A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for a Republican landslide, a vote for eight years of crushing hard-right policy, a vote for the packing of the Supreme Court with conservative zealots imposing a reactionary vision that will last decades.
 
zero shift said:
Bernie's game is to move the conversation and American politics in general to the left. Winning the presidential election is a one in a million crapshoot and he knows it.
Click to expand...

This. People don't get it, I think. Without a Sanders, Hillary can run a center-right "Clinton" campaign all the way through. Sanders being a threat forces her to take actual progressive stances (aside from the social stuff where the whole Democratic party is finally current on).

As for Barney Frank, sure, Sanders and those of us on the left who'd see the US follow Western European countries are idealists. But we'd rather reach for the sky and fall short than settle for shitty compromise after shitty compromise. That's how we got the current ACA, for instance.
 
My biggest problem with Bernie is he hasn't gone full in for the presidency. If you know him from his tenure as senator you can see clearly he is still balancing his presidential aspirations with playing to his white liberal, Vermont base. He doesnt want to say anything that could potentially cost him his comfortable seat in Vermont.


He needs to build minority support. That means going out of that Vermont comfort zone and risking his senate seat by taking a tougher stance on gun control and making his presence in the minority community known. African American and Latino.

He also needs to reach older Democratic voters. He is struggling mightily. It's a tough nut to crack and in this area Im less certain how to do it but he needs to make in roads.
 
Knox said:
If he can beat Hillary wouldn't that make him pretty damn electable? Are people worried that he'd be able to beat the obvious front runner but then somehow go on to lose to whatever clown the GOP pumps out?
Click to expand...

Considering how poisonous the term 'socialist' is in American mainstream opinion, I think that's a reasonable fear.

Perhaps more importantly, fears of socialism can cause traditionally non-GOP demographics to move towards them. In particular, migrants from communist countries may be persuaded to support the GOP out of fears of leftwing economics that were borne from their birth countries.
 
SolicitorPirate said:
Considering how poisonous the term 'socialist' is in American mainstream opinion, I think that's a reasonable fear.

Perhaps more importantly, fears of socialism can cause traditionally non-GOP demographics to move towards them. In particular, migrants from communist countries may be persuaded to support the GOP out of fears of leftwing economics that were borne from their birth countries.
Click to expand...

I think it would come down to how the Democratic establishment would respond if Bernie started to win.

If they embrace it and put their power behind him they can combine his authenticity with their structural power and some branding and easily take advantage of the ingrained electoral advantage. If they don't....Shit could get real ugly.
 
Crab said:
...duverger's law is just the name for the tendency of fptp to trend towards two parties. the actual causal mechanism that explains why we observe duverger's law is that people compromise away from more appealing but less electable options to less appealing but more electable ones because a vote for a niche candidate is wasted

i.e. you're both saying the same thing
Click to expand...
aka Median Voter Theorem.
Zabuza said:
He would do well to brush up on his economics first.

I like the guy, I really do, but his promises are next to impossible to implement in this country.

I fucking wish, just like everyone else.
Click to expand...
Yup. He and Trump both espousing protectionism in 2015 is ridiculous.
Thanks for all that illustrious "pragmatism" during your tenure Barney. Looking at how the world has changed in that span of time really drives home how never having a spine and letting the opposition steamroll any genuinely progressive causes can truly lead to a brighter more optimistic future. I can only imagine the horrors of a nation where people actually voted their conscience.
Click to expand...
Nixon offered a compromise on Health Care in the'70s. Ed Kennedy turned it down. That decision haunted him for the next 3+ decades as he never got a second shot at it until Obama's election,and even then it took his death to finally get people's asses in gear to pass it.

The liberalizing social changes you are seeing are in large part due to the internet. The world was a much smaller place 20+ years ago.
 
ApharmdX said:
This. People don't get it, I think. Without a Sanders, Hillary can run a center-right "Clinton" campaign all the way through. Sanders being a threat forces her to take actual progressive stances (aside from the social stuff where the whole Democratic party is finally current on).

As for Barney Frank, sure, Sanders and those of us on the left who'd see the US follow Western European countries are idealists. But we'd rather reach for the sky and fall short than settle for shitty compromise after shitty compromise. That's how we got the current ACA, for instance.
Click to expand...

The current ACA actually helped people out. If it it was up to people like you we wouldn't even have that.
 
Ted Kennedy was an over-rated politcian and turned out to be more of a hinderer.

Like you said, turning down that Health Care compromise just because it came from Nixon and later challenging Jimmy Carter in 1979-80 infighting rendering Carter weaker for 1980
 
Jonm1010 said:
I think it would come down to how the Democratic establishment would respond if Bernie started to win.

If they embrace it and put their power behind him they can combine his authenticity with their structural power and some branding and easily take advantage of the ingrained electoral advantage. If they don't....Shit could get real ugly.
Click to expand...

Given how incompetent the Dems have been on selling universal health care, I don't share your confidence in their ability to sell something that Americans have basically been taught is the source of all evil.
 
I can't take a big chance on Bernie, we can't afford another republican potus. Especially from the current roster. They will play the socialist card, no doubt. Hilary has the female and minority vote, until Bernie starts pulling in more than just white liberals, my money is on Hildog. Even considering her flaws.
 
Bam Bam Baklava said:
The current ACA actually helped people out. If it it was up to people like you we wouldn't even have that.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's saying it's shit and didn't help anyone. But is it what every person should sincerely desire in the world's wealthiest nation with a single payer system? Absolutely not. It's still a for-profit pit of poison that has more participants in it is all. We have, for lack of a better term, settled for less. Is it good by itself? No, it's still a have/have not social game, and many of the problems exclusive to American's backwards health care systems are left as firm pillars to the framework. It is still a mess and a rightful cesspit worthy of all criticisms it gets for being so third-world. We are still, hands down, still the worst developed nation when it comes to this issue. All ACA did was raise us slightly off the basement level we naturally laid upon. It has helped people, but we're still talking, fundamentally, about a system that is still absolutely busted. We're helping people in a mess, but not fixing the mess itself, which is why people needed help in the first place.

If Hillary's positions are the establishment, the Democratic party has ran away from a universal system for she no longer thinks we should go for single payer. We're down to one candidate who thinks we should have it, and that's Sanders. The only other candidate to him, who's the one who about-faced after Hillary, was Donald Trump. What's troubling is even Obama has stated ACA should not be an endgame, but single payer should be. Hillary thinks the opposite.
 
gutter_trash said:
Ted Kennedy was an over-rated politcian and turned out to be more of a hinderer.

Like you said, turning down that Health Care compromise just because it came from Nixon and later challenging Jimmy Carter in 1979-80 infighting rendering Carter weaker for 1980
Click to expand...

Eh, even putting aside the actual reality of any of Nixon's compromises actually going through weren't a 100% slam dunk (ie. Nixon is a duplicitous asshole who didn't really care about domestic policy) and that Carter really did seem lost during much of his first term, Teddy did more for the average American than any other non-President in history.

Ted Kennedy: There Went a Man:
Finally, we must take a measure of the man. Not the person, or the legislator, or the family member. No, the man. Ted Kennedy was more of a man's man than any of the brush-clearing, hick-talking, pick-up driving politicians who overcompensate again and again by faking it. No, Kennedy demonstrated, through all the ups and downs, again and again what a real man is. It is a type of masculinity that we rarely see anymore because it is a fearlessness that few are allowed to embrace.

Put aside the money for a moment. Wealth makes life easier but it does not make one happy and it is not a measure of character. Don't you think that Kennedy would have given away his whole fortune to have his brothers back?

For a man does not shy away from the tragedies of his life. When John was assassinated, Kennedy took up the cause of the civil rights movement as his first major action in the Senate. When Bobby was killed, he began to push even harder against the Vietnam War. When his 12 year-old son, Ted, Jr., had to have a leg amputated to prevent the cancer there from spreading in 1973, Kennedy threw himself into the cause of rights for people with disabilities as much as his sister, Eunice, had, a crusade that would last the rest of his life.

A man fucks up again and again, but he owns his mistakes and learns from them. Ted Kennedy wore his flaws openly in his personal life. Some of it was the price of juvenile overindulgence (even as an adult) and some of it was just stupidity. The question is less about fucking up, but how a man reacts to it. He was kicked out of Harvard for cheating on an exam, so he joined the military (although he would achieve none of the glory of John and Joe, Jr.). When the Chappaquiddick incident happened, he nutted up and told the voters to decide on his fate. He was a hard-drinking son of a bitch who screwed around on his first wife, a Dean Martin-like punchline to jokes about alcoholism and a tabloid laughingstock. During that period, among other things, he was getting funding cut off to Chile because of Pinochet's barbarism, pushing legislation to help political refugees, getting sanctions imposed on apartheid-era South Africa, negotiating with Gorbachev on nuclear missiles, stopping Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination, and strengthening the Civil Rights Act. What did you do on your years-long bender? He paid, too, with his presidential ambitions dashed. And when he was slugging 'em back like a frat boy with his nephews on a night that ended with William Kennedy Smith arrested on an accusation of rape, Kennedy made another public reckoning about who he was as a man in a speech in October 1991. And despite all he had accomplished before, he grew up, finally, understanding that to be a man one must become a man.

A man works to help those who need help. A real man is a liberal because a real man is unafraid of change and progress and difference. Let us come back to the money. The Kennedy family has always seen wealth as a privilege, a burden, and an opportunity to do good for others. Yes, it is easier to support charities and to have the time to work for various causes. But Kennedy made it his role in government to level the playing field. Where do you wanna go with this? Other than his work that climaxed with the Americans With Disabilities Act, other than his support for civil rights legislation going back to the 1964 act, we could talk about the Ryan White CARE Act, which gave funds to cities hardest hit by the AIDS crisis; we could talk about his intense support for the rights of workers through raising the minimum wage and supporting union goals; we could talk about his work for housing, for education, for women and children, for the Family and Medical Leave Act. We could talk about how he opposed the Iraq War, how he was working to provide educational opportunities to kids in Muslim countries, how he helped end the war in Northern Ireland. We could talk about how he believed, his entire career, that health care for everyone was a right, not a privilege, with COBRA and S-CHIP having been accomplished because of him. He was an unabashed, proud liberal whose full-throated speeches roared in defense of the whole ideology against the ignorance of those who would keep progress from being achieved.

A man is willing to embrace his enemies. Yesterday, Ron Reagan, Jr. had his mother on his radio show to talk about how much the Reagans loved Ted Kennedy. Kennedy and Nancy Reagan were allies on stem cell research funding, but the former first lady talked about how she and her husband were dear friends with Kennedy. Kennedy worked with Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, both George Bushes, and anyone he could to accomplish his goals. That's called politics. Compromise was a willingness for both sides to move. When George W. Bush dicked him over on No Child Left Behind funding, Kennedy had to know that a tide had shifted in a way that was going to make the entire process of legislating more rancorous and difficult. The political nature of the nation was moving into entrenchment, which was not how Ted Kennedy functioned.

A man knows how to die. A man understands that the end comes and doesn't desperately cling to every millisecond of life that medical science can squeeze out of him. No, a man dies with his family, in a place he loves, having done much, knowing that there was much still to be done, but accepting that there's only so much one can live.
Click to expand...
 
GrotesqueBeauty said:
Thanks for all that illustrious "pragmatism" during your tenure Barney. Looking at how the world has changed in that span of time really drives home how never having a spine and letting the opposition steamroll any genuinely progressive causes can truly lead to a brighter more optimistic future. I can only imagine the horrors of a nation where people actually voted their conscience.

I'm thinking the new Democratic slogan should be: "Give up already, like we have."
Click to expand...

That's half the reason I support Bernie in the first place. People always talk about how we should be "pragmatic" and how we need someone who can "win", but what the fuck is the point if all they do is only push for agenda's you want ocassionally cause reasons/politics and cave any other time. Its like ordering a hamburger hold the beef.

I'm just like most Bernie supporters, if Hillary wins sure I'll vote for her, but I'll damn sure be swallowing hard all the way. Hilldawg is the very definition of an establishment candidate. Its just more of the same spineless slide to the right.

Sometimes I just can't stand the apathy on the left.
 
Well, I will say his reasoning is pathetic. Only the left is asked to be "pragmatic" and moderate. Meanwhile, right wingers stick to their beliefs while stump rolling everyone they don't care for.

Also, It's really funny tho, how much Reagan and Margaret traumatized the left to the point of denying themselves an identity.
 
ApharmdX said:
This. People don't get it, I think. Without a Sanders, Hillary can run a center-right "Clinton" campaign all the way through. Sanders being a threat forces her to take actual progressive stances (aside from the social stuff where the whole Democratic party is finally current on).

As for Barney Frank, sure, Sanders and those of us on the left who'd see the US follow Western European countries are idealists. But we'd rather reach for the sky and fall short than settle for shitty compromise after shitty compromise. That's how we got the current ACA, for instance.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. Many American liberals will respond by saying "well at we will be able to win elections
2Lo8cQ9.gif
" miss the point. Even when the Democrats win they still lose as shown by both Clinton and Obama. Saying that they will lose even more by having a Republican in office doesn't lead to a slamdunk argument but more so points out what is severely wrong with their entire strategy. The country has been going rightward for decades and only seems to be slowing down lately solely due to individual movements that many Democrats wouldn't touch with a ten foot poll (BLM, OWS, MW$15, etc.). We need these groups to grow and people like Bernie and his supporters to speak even louder to point where establishment Democrats can no longer ignore them. This isn't to say that they should change their party's platform to resemble Vänsterpartiet overnight, but at least have the party more entrenched with left wing issues that a lot of the country seems to identify with (case in point raising the minimum wage).

Melkr_ said:
Also, It's really funny tho, how much Reagan and Margaret traumatized the left to the point of denying themselves an identity.
Click to expand...
It's obvious that Reagan left a scare for the left. You can see the disdain many Democratic voters have for Sanders as he will "split the base up" or for the (hilariously stupid) argument have the country get riled up for left wing politics and then get let down and go back to the center or even *gasp* the right wing. The biggest enemy the American left have is themselves.
 
you mean the guy who was directly apart of the committee which took the public option out of the healthcare bill and then said it(the PO) was too anti business? Ok. Even his corporate approved Volker Rule bill was neutered with his blessing.

I swear, some people's "pragmatism" is another word for "let's just let them think we're going to do something later" Corporate apologists the lot of them.

But voting for someone who fully supported 99% of the things she says she's against now including TPP would make that obvious. That's not being 'pragmatic', that's being a liar plain and simple.
 
I thought Sanders' argument is that for him to be elected president, enough people would have to come out to vote for him that it would be enough to change the makeup of the Congress for him to do something.

So you can call him wanting to be president wishing thinking, but him being able to do something if he became president isn't necessarily so, at least according to his argument.
 
linsivvi said:
I thought Sanders' argument is that for him to be elected president, enough people would have to come out to vote for him that it would be enough to change the makeup of the Congress for him to do something.

So you can call him wanting to be president wishing thinking, but him being able to do something if he became president isn't necessarily so, at least according to his argument.
Click to expand...

I mean if that's his argument it's a bad one given how the Electoral college works vs. how so many House seats have been gerrymandered.
 
zero shift said:
Bernie's game is to move the conversation and American politics in general to the left. Winning the presidential election is a one in a million crapshoot and he knows it.
Click to expand...

That sounds great in theory, but everyone who has seen multiple elections knows that once the primaries are over, it's all about appealing to the center - the undecideds and independents. Appealing to your base is just the rudimentary beginning stage.
 
Lol at all these sarcastic responses about Republicans being allowed to get away with voting principled. Because that's working out so well for them? The house majority that can't even elect a speaker, much less say pass legislation advancing the conservative agenda?

If you're interested in actual governance, you're going to need to be pragmatic.
Inuhanyou said:
But voting for someone who fully supported 99% of the things she says she's against now including TPP would make that obvious. That's not being 'pragmatic', that's being a liar plain and simple.
Click to expand...
So about that crime bill Bernie voted yay on despite his vocal opposition to mass incarceration, what a liar
 
teruterubozu said:
That sounds great in theory, but everyone who has seen multiple elections knows that once the primaries are over, it's all about appealing to the center - the undecideds and independents. Appealing to your base is just the rudimentary beginning stage.
Click to expand...

Yes but you can only go so much to the center after you have been pulled so far in one direction during the primaries. Its the reason why the country keeps getting further and further right wing when the center if nowhere near the policies most candidates push. Its how many issues become part of party platforms.

dramatis said:
Lol at all these sarcastic responses about Republicans being allowed to get away with voting principled. Because that's working out so well for them?
Click to expand...

After decades of being on the forefront of legislation and pivoting social change in the country, I'd say they have been incredibly successful. Just because they have been faltering over the past few years doesn't diminish the impact they have had.

dramatis said:
Lol at all these sarcastic responses about Republicans being allowed to get away with voting principled. Because that's working out so well for them? The house majority that can't even elect a speaker, much less say pass legislation advancing the conservative agenda?

If you're interested in actual governance, you're going to need to be pragmatic.

So about that crime bill Bernie voted yay on despite his vocal opposition to mass incarceration, what a liar
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the 1994 crime bill, then this proves his point. To find a single red flag for Bernie you had to dig twenty-one years. For Hillary? You don't have to look long at all.
 
Melkr_ said:
Well, I will say his reasoning is pathetic. Only the left is asked to be "pragmatic" and moderate. Meanwhile, right wingers stick to their beliefs while stump rolling everyone they don't care for.

Also, It's really funny tho, how much Reagan and Margaret traumatized the left to the point of denying themselves an identity.
Click to expand...

Maybe the argument is pragmaticism vs fanaticism? It's like arguing at the edge of a cliff when our solution is to get away from the cliff. The current climate has neither party doing that, really. One works in, but not ultimately solves a mess, and the other wants to make more of one. The people struggle to get any wins in such a model, especially with us no longer being a democracy, but an oligarchy.

Of course, this means the people are fucked in such a climate, but this is already obvious. Real solutions to real problems will take far longer than they honestly need to. I am consistently getting the stronger and stronger feeling it will take America ages to solve a problem parts of the world are dealing with right now because neither side dares to deal with it. The boogeyman of socialism is still strong, even if many of our solutions - say, to ascribed poverty - are found by applying elements of that in our system, which cripples the Democratic party from moving in such a direction. This means we risk not solving a damn thing in a sincere, comfortable way, but left to half-solutions and watered down attempts. Universal health care and basic income, two core necessities of societies that want to be considered 21st century, seem like things America will never, ever get while the rest of the developed world already has the first part accomplished and is working towards the second. We will probably see the developed world get both of these things before America even gets one of them, and people here should be rightfully embarrassed and ashamed about that.
 
Log4Girlz said:
Only conservatives can vote their conscience, you big sillies.
Click to expand...

People advising pragmatism are voting their conscience. Consequentialism is one of the major families of ethical systems.

Some people look at all of the gay marriage cases that have been decided 5-4 in the Supreme Court and think about the fact that 4 justices will be in their 80s during the next term, and 3 of them voted in favor of gay marriage. They wonder what happens if a Republican gets to fill at least one of those seats with a Conservative.

Imagine that Bernie gets the nom, loses in the general, and we end up with an unbeatable Conservative majority on the Supreme court for at least the next 15 years. How does your conscience feel about that?
 
tokkun said:
Imagine that Bernie gets the nom, loses in the general, and we end up with an unbeatable Conservative majority on the Supreme court for at least the next 15 years. How does your conscience feel about that?
Click to expand...
Isn't he beating every Republican candidate in those hypothetical "what if" polls? I'm not so sure now but I remember reading that some time ago.
 
zero shift said:
Isn't he beating every Republican candidate in those hypothetical "what if" polls? I'm not so sure now but I remember reading that some time ago.
Click to expand...

I believe the fear is the PAC propaganda that would be used against him. Wouldn't similar risks apply to Hillary as a large portion of Americans, accountably or not, don't actually trust what comes out of her mouth? People are still hilariously spooked about socialism, and this Iron Age ignorance seems like a pill that would guarantee Republicans a win.

I guess the taboo to socialism is far higher than a candidate people may feel they can't even trust in today's climate. Of course, both claims here have a level of hyperbole and illusion to what they're implying, but it seems the former looks to be an instant killer while the other, somehow, can be fought through. Maybe it's a generational thing, but I would actually imagine the opposite, here.

The bigger issue would be handling regressive ideals, and that's largely every Republican running. They're so anti-reason it's absurd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Grimes calls out Elon Musk on Twitter because he's ignoring his child's medical crisis
2
70
6K
Days like these... replied
And the number one movie in the country was called Ass
8
257
CGNoire replied
Bill Belicheck Rumored to be engaged with his 24-year old girlfriend Jordon Hudson
2
59
757
Woggleman replied
  • Locked
Top Tesla investor calls for Elon Musk to step down as boss
News Business 
42
2K
EviLore replied
Grummz drama after journalists discover his porn folder for article research
Drama Cringe  2 3
109
7K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Top Bottom