I note that you also look at the scene through emotion-laden lenses instead of assessing it mechanically — frank

What makes you say this? I have emotions, sure, but I'm aiming to do practical things to bring about the ends I think should be brought about. My actual political philosophy is completely outside the Overton window of electoral politics, so I'm not unequivocally in favor of anybody in the field; the whole system is undesirable to me, and I'm looking to vote (and encourage others to vote) however is most likely to move it as much as possible (which is not very much) in the direction of where I want things to actually be.

What makes you say this? — Pfhorrest

Because instead and standing beside me to assess the landscape, you directed a sermon at me.

Instead of noting how people think and act, you signalled how they should do so.

You're differentiating between prescriptive and descriptive activities. Those are not mutually exclusive: anyone can and should do both.

You also asked me which side of a divide about a prescriptive question I fall on ("supporting" is a prescriptive thing), so I gave my answer to that prescriptive question. A descriptive answer to such a question would have been nonsense. And it wasn't "a sermon" "directed" at you. I wasn't telling you in particular what to do. I was saying what I generally encourage anyone to do, because that's what the question was about.

You're differentiating between prescriptive and descriptive activities. Those are not mutually exclusive: anyone can and should do both. — Pfhorrest

Yes, but the post you drew my question from was about aesthetics. I mentioned the Nixon/Kennedy TV appearance and Reagan. I was assessing charisma.

How on earth do you see prescriptions having a bearing on that?

You also asked me which side of a divide about a prescriptive question I fall on — Pfhorrest

I was asking if you understand that if Bernie loses the nomination, you should still vote for a Democrat if want RBG's seat to go to a freaking liberal. I was not asking for you to virtue signal.

And it wasn't "a sermon" "directed" at you. — Pfhorrest

It was a sermon all the same.

I was saying what I generally encourage anyone to do, because that's what the question was about. — Pfhorrest

It most certainly wasn't. Your confusion is an indication of your inability to remove emotion from your mind long enough to look at anything mechanically.

How on earth do you see prescriptions having a bearing on that? — frank

I gave you my impression of Bernie's aesthetics directly without mentioning anything prescriptive. Then you asked me which side of a divide about supporting or not-supporting a non-Bernie candidate I would fall on. Supporting is a prescriptive thing.

I was asking if you understand that if Bernie loses the nomination, you should still vote for a Democrat if want RBG's seat to go to a freaking liberal. I was not asking for you to virtue signal. — frank

"Should" is a prescriptive thing. And I clarified that for me personally, living in a state where all electoral votes are going to whoever gets the Democratic nomination regardless of how I personally vote, the "should" statement you make above is actually false, but that I do understand that it is true for people who live in swing states. That's the entire "sermon" that apparently triggered you so hard.

Your confusion is an indication of your inability to remove emotion from your mind long enough to look at anything mechanically. — frank

Straw Vulcan is not a good look (just to bring things back to aesthetics for you).

ok

:up:

Fine. He's the all American boy. He's still dividing the Democratic party. — frank

As did Trump with the Republicans. Now it's the Trump Party. In three years. Things can change rapidly if the voters are behind a candidate. Yes, Bernie is splitting the Democratic establishment. His policies are also supported by majorities of Americans (which is often forgotten).

I saw this in the Atlantic and actually laughed out loud. They're fucking terrified, and it's hilarious. The article itself is mind-bending too: it compares Warren to Sanders on transgender issues, and disfavourably knocks Sanders for emphasising healthcare over - wait for it - Warren's promise to read out names in a fucking rose garden. Bsvakdvzjclcgsusks. Words actually fail — StreetlightX

This is the one that had me laughing out loud:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/bernie-sanders-electable-trump-2020-nomination-popular-socialism.html — Xtrix

Yea, David Frum, who was a speechwriter from George Bush, was a big War on Terror cheerleader, and coined the term 'Axis of Evil' wrote The Atlantic article. Jonathan Chait, who wrote the New York Magazine article, argued that liberals should support Donald Trump for GOP nominee because Clinton would have easily beaten him. He also supported the War in Iraq.

These are just people paid to tell certain groups what they want to hear. I mean anyone who cheerlead the Iraq War or a Trump nomination should have quit their jobs in shame and found a new line of work.

Yea, David Frum, who was a speechwriter from George Bush, was a big War on Terror cheerleader, and coined the term 'Axis of Evil' wrote The Atlantic article. — Maw

Oh, him. I was too flabbergasted by the title and the content to read who actually wrote the damn thing lol. But yeah, that makes total sense. And Chait is a fucking joke too.

No kidding? I'm not familiar with either of them, but it makes perfect sense now.

Jonathan Chait said back in the last Presidential Election that he hoped Trump got the Republican nomination because he would obviously lose to Clinton. lol

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/02/why-liberals-should-support-a-trump-nomination.html

The American Postal Workers Union, which represents 200,000 members, has endorsed Bernie Sanders

Another win.

If Bernie can win Iowa, his momentum will be hard to stop. Only 4 more days...

So I keep hearing how Bernie has now pulled ahead of Biden, but FiveThirtyEight still shows Biden in the lead. I don't know enough about electoral predictions to know why those two things don't line up. Can anyone explain?

Bernie is ahead of Biden in Iowa, but slightly behind him nationally

Iowa can't get here fast enough

How's everyone leaning now? I think Biden is going to just barely pull it out, unfortunately. Second place goes to Bernie, but it'll be close.

Missouri, if you're listening ...

Congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs on a great game, and a fantastic comeback, under immense pressure. You represented the Great State of Kansas and, in fact, the entire USA, so very well. Our Country is PROUD OF YOU! — Very Stable Covfefe, 02.02.2020

The American Postal Workers Union, which represents 200,000 members, has endorsed Bernie Sanders — Maw

Wow. 200 000 in an 300 million country.

Btw, American Postal Service has 644 000 employees, so if even in a government organization you have only 31% belonging to a union, things aren't well for organized labor. But it isn't even so: in the 200,000 members there are also retirees.

The Big Picture:

In 2019, the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of unions--the union membership rate--was 10.3 percent, down by 0.2 percentage point from 2018, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported

Man, what happened in 1994?

Bill Clinton.

NAFTA.

The Internet Boom (early 1990's to 2000) was in full swing.

The prosperity of the 1990s was not evenly distributed over the entire decade. The economy was in recession from July 1990 - March 1991, having suffered the S&L Crisis in 1989, a spike in gas prices as the result of the Gulf War, and the general run of the business cycle since 1983. A surge in inflation in 1988 and 1989 forced the Federal Reserve to raise the discount rate to 8.00% in early 1990, restricting credit into the already-weakening economy. GDP growth and job creation remained weak through late-1992. Unemployment rose from 5.4% in January 1990 to 6.8% in March 1991, and continued to rise until peaking at 7.8% in June 1992. Approximately 1.621 million jobs were shed during the recession. As inflation subsided drastically, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to a then-record low of 3.00% to promote growth.

For the first time since the Great Depression, the economy underwent a "jobless recovery," where GDP growth and corporate earnings returned to normal levels while job creation lagged, demonstrating the importance of the financial and service sectors in the national economy, having surpassed the manufacturing sector in the 1980s.

See 1990s United States boom

Wow. 200 000 in an 300 million country.

Btw, American Postal Service has 644 000 employees, so if even in a government organization you have only 31% belonging to a union, things aren't well for organized labor. But it isn't even so: in the 200,000 members there are also retirees. — ssu

Imagine thinking that receiving the endorsement of the union representing the third largest employer in the country isn't important or noteworthy.

His policies are also supported by majorities of Americans (which is often forgotten). — Xtrix

I would lean towards intentionally neglected to be mentioned by opposing candidates... not forgotten.

Bernie Sanders is very good at drawing clean clear lines in the sand and making people choose a side... on the one side is what's best for the overwhelming majority of Americans... and on the other, what's not.

Choose a side, or better yet...

Let's look at what you've already chosen(in cases where it applies)... Bernie was right at the time, and sometimes he was the only one(the only nay).

An astute observer will have noted how Trump picked up some of Bernie's talking points after Hillary received the nomination in 2016. The only reason he could, is because she couldn't.

:wink:

But he's done nothing to correct the trade problems. Despite all his blather. American manufacturing and building trades are no better off from anything he has done. Bernie will be quick to point this out and point it out clearly.

That dynamic(adopting Bernie's talking points) is no longer available if Bernie receives the nomination. If he does not, and he loses to Biden, then the same dynamic will apply again, because Biden cannot pick up those talking points any more than Hillary could.

Bernie 2020!

ssu is not an American, and based upon his/her participation on these forums, has absolutely no vested interest in the success of the USA, but rather seems to be more interested is sewing discord. So...

Touche.

An astute observer will have noted how Trump picked up some of Bernie's talking points after Hillary received the nomination in 2016. The only reason he could, is because she couldn't. — creativesoul

This is an important point. Especially things like "rigged system." Trump wanted to appear to be an outsider running against the establishment, and saw the excitement of the Bernie crowd. He also said over and over how badly Bernie was being screwed. Since it was a rare moment of telling the truth, you have to question the motives -- in this case, it was to sow discord in the Democratic party. He even encouraged Bernie to run as an independent, if you recall. I think we all know why that was.

How hard is it to direct a caucus?

Maybe this stupidity will be the death knell for Iowa, a state with no reason for being the first.

An astute observer will have noted how Trump picked up some of Bernie's talking points after Hillary received the nomination in 2016. The only reason he could, is because she couldn't.
— creativesoul

This is an important point. Especially things like "rigged system." — Xtrix

Actually, I think that was Warren's phrase of choice.

Bernie was more about disclosing the fact that neither of the two parties had successfully introduced and/or passed legislation that was good for the average American manufacturing and/or building trades worker. Hence, he is an independent, and has said on more than one occasion that there is very little difference between the two parties for the last fifty or so years. He is spot on.

The Clinton's prided themselves upon "reaching across the aisle" and "getting things done", when all that really amounted to is conceding to Republican financial, ethical(regarding crime and government assistance), and globalization(trade agreements). All of those positions caused demonstrable financial harm to a very very large portion of the American population... and in more than one way. The only thing that separated the Clinton's from the republican party was better lip service to gun control, gay rights, and abortion... They were more than anything... political convenience seekers.

He was one of the first people(candidates) in recent times to divulge the truth about all of the trade agreements and their "disasterous" affects/effects upon all American blue collar workers. While standing for civil rights, he doesn't allow racial problems to distract us from these socio-economic ones... which also underlie many of the racial ones.

We can fix both.