Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[Rome]

Comfortable white people in the burbs are why the '18 & '19 elections went so well for Dems.

This is actually the one thing that prevents me from losing all hope entirely. 

I think running Sanders against Trump is a massive mistake because his policies are too radical for those same comfy whities, but you never know...

[Diomedes]

yo...leave me out of the 'burbs.  Baltimore CITY, motherfarger...ain't no County boy

as for comfortable...if you mean drunk and/or high, I'm your huckleberry

otherwise, I find this experience pretty uncomfortable

[MDS]

Comfortable white people in the burbs are why the '18 & '19 elections went so well for Dems.

i understand this mentality but isolely going after this voters is not the only strategy to winning. there is no candidate that can obtain these voters AND inspire idiot 18-24 year olds AND hold weight with hispanics and blacks. with sanders you get 2/3. gotta go to work on the final 3rd.

joe biden was never ever getting college age kids to vote. wasnt happening. you *can* convince brenda and mark to vote for sanders, mostly as a vote against trump.

[Diomedes]

I'm tired of hearing Bernie's too radical anyway....who the farg thinks he's actually going to get any of the "radical" things he wants?  will his election suddenly render all the moderates and fascists in Congress powerless?  They wont' have a vote anymore??


Anyone really think Bernie would be able to, for example, eliminate the private health care industry??  Come on now

[Rome]

I don't think he's too radical.  Comfy suburban whites clutch their pearls whenever someone screams omgsocialism(!).

Trump and his minions have to be licking their chops at the prospect of facing Sanders. 

[General_Failure]

People should be able to go to the doctor is too radical for the United States of Freedom.

[Munson]

Comfortable white people in the burbs are why the '18 & '19 elections went so well for Dems.

And young, young black, latino, and disaffected folks will be why '20 elections go so well for them.

[Munson]

https://twitter.com/benwikler/status/1231603892162572290

[Eagles_Legendz]

Comfortable white people in the burbs are why the '18 & '19 elections went so well for Dems.

i understand this mentality but isolely going after this voters is not the only strategy to winning. there is no candidate that can obtain these voters AND inspire idiot 18-24 year olds AND hold weight with hispanics and blacks. with sanders you get 2/3. gotta go to work on the final 3rd.

joe biden was never ever getting college age kids to vote. wasnt happening. you *can* convince brenda and mark to vote for sanders, mostly as a vote against trump.

I'm not proposing a mentality - I just desperately want Trump out of office as a first priority due to the authoritarian conversion he's implementing writ large in our society. 

My second priority is having someone who is closely aligned with my own outlook (as is the case for everyone).  Bernie isn't that for me.  I'm anti-populist.  Free trade is good.  Tariffs are bad.  Working to protect jobs that aren't economically viable hurts the country long term (Trump also has this policy, in part).  He also has little chance to actually have his agenda implemented because there isn't a stomach for his overall policies in the elected Dems.  I also think he's hypocritical about his DNC stance in 2016 versus now, with the only difference being that now he's going to get the nomination.  Finally, his loudest online supporters are Trump-like in the way they shout down discourse and attack anyone who isn't them.   That being said, like I said with Bloomberg, I will vote for Bernie in a heartbeat over Trump even if I'd rather he not be the nominee.

I also get what the polls say right now.  I hope they're right.  There are a certain degree of rural voters without degrees and/or young voters who will turn out for Bernie and who probably wouldn't vote for any other D candidate.  I just have serious doubts, as real clips and quotes of Bernie are dumped throughout the summer that Mr & Mrs Smith who make $150k in the suburbs are going to vote for Bernie.  You have a LARGE faction of moderate republican and/or independents who normally would vote R but are so pissed off at Trump and/or the way he carries himself that they will vote for almost any normcore Dem to send a message.  Bernie isn't that.  Maybe at the end of the day they'll vote for him anyway.  I think the other voters (younger, minority, urban) are going to vote D in the end of the day anyway.  The group I'm talking about I think is critical to defeat Trump and I have concerns about where they vote (or don't vote) in Trump v Sanders.  The question is whether Bernie turns out enough of the former group to offset potential loss of the latter.  I have my doubts but admit no one can say for sure right now.

[Munson]

I think it's important to understand that tariffs and trade agreements (or lack thereof) aren't all one in the same. It's hard to deny that a lot of trade agreements made in the 80s/90s/00s have been both bad for low wage workers and union workers both here and abroad in certain ways, and also devastating for environmental issues/climate change. Trump is bull in a china shopping tariffs and trade deals with no real plan other than yapping "America first!" and trying to use them to prove it.

Like it or not, if you want to address climate change, you're going to have to use some strong arm tactics in trade deals, and maybe even some tariffs, to force action from some other countries. We don't have to pretend that they'll be the same on that front.

Who gives a shtein about his loudest supporters online. They're iceholes, ignore them.

[General_Failure]

https://twitter.com/robdelaney/status/1231561371722100736

[Eagles_Legendz]

I think it's important to understand that tariffs and trade agreements (or lack thereof) aren't all one in the same. It's hard to deny that a lot of trade agreements made in the 80s/90s/00s have been both bad for low wage workers and union workers both here and abroad in certain ways, and also devastating for environmental issues/climate change. Trump is bull in a china shopping tariffs and trade deals with no real plan other than yapping "America first!" and trying to use them to prove it.

I agree with most of this (the environmental aspect is more complicated because you need to get into reasons why China & India pollute to the extent they do and how to rectify that in concert with reducing American emissions.

The conclusion as to the first point (how free trade agreement impact certain segment of society) is undeniable but we disagree about the overall benefits. We shouldn't be fighting to artificially keep certain jobs domestic.  I just disagree with that as a broad policy initiative from a macro standpoint.  The only tariffs I support are to force compliance with trade agreements.  I also think it's undeniable that free trade has been an undeniable force for good in reducing war.  Globalization is a positive.  The greater intertwined the economies the less incentive to fight.   Don't need a whole policy discussion on this but there are ways to positively impact unions and low income workers without tariffs.  Just my opinion.

[Diomedes]

Warren the moderate, lol.

[Munson]

I think it's important to understand that tariffs and trade agreements (or lack thereof) aren't all one in the same. It's hard to deny that a lot of trade agreements made in the 80s/90s/00s have been both bad for low wage workers and union workers both here and abroad in certain ways, and also devastating for environmental issues/climate change. Trump is bull in a china shopping tariffs and trade deals with no real plan other than yapping "America first!" and trying to use them to prove it.

I agree with most of this (the environmental aspect is more complicated because you need to get into reasons why China & India pollute to the extent they do and how to rectify that in concert with reducing American emissions.

The conclusion as to the first point (how free trade agreement impact certain segment of society) is undeniable but we disagree about the overall benefits. We shouldn't be fighting to artificially keep certain jobs domestic.  I just disagree with that as a broad policy initiative from a macro standpoint.  The only tariffs I support are to force compliance with trade agreements.  I also think it's undeniable that free trade has been an undeniable force for good in reducing war.  Globalization is a positive.  The greater intertwined the economies the less incentive to fight.   Don't need a whole policy discussion on this but there are ways to positively impact unions and low income workers without tariffs.  Just my opinion.

Just for clarification I'm not talking about coal mining or steel mill jobs here, I'm thinking more about things like auto and other manufacturing type jobs. We agreed to a lot of trade deals that allowed other countries to continue to pay and treat their workers like dirt which really hurt workers here and of course created problems for workers there. I'm not saying we need to be dropping 25% tariffs on the EU cars out of no where because Putin wants us to, but it would definitely be a good idea to start forcing higher worker standards and pay for foreign grunts IMO.

[Geowhizzer]

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd there goes that childhood memory.

https://twitter.com/1980MiracleTeam/status/1230990713954783232

(Not terribly surprising... but disappointing nonetheless.)