Who will be the Democrats' presidential candidate against Trump?

rincon wrote:Romanticizing Castro as someone who helped, or tried to help, Cuba is unacceptable.

Oh, certainly Cuba would've been better off with a democratically elected, legitimate government, for sure, that's out of the question. Just saying that Castro seemed to follow an idea of what he wanted to do with Cuba, instead of just lining his own pocket, like the Kim dynasty does.
Pretty sure he also lined his pocket, though.

went to cuba once and they are some of the nicest people ive ever met. i know its off topic but just saying.

Young Kaz wrote:

Pedram wrote:That audience was weirdly pro Bloomberg, they booed Warren for asking him to release his tax returns.

What was weird about it? This is the south.

It would be like me coming to Iran and being booed for preaching about how freeza and other gay persians should be allowed to marry as they wish. People down here view taxes as tyranny...despite the fact that most of them are too broke to pay almost anything honestly.

Bloomberg is a rich racist. Same way Trump is popular down here is the same way bloomberg is strangely loved.

What even is that analogy?
I’m not even Iranian.

Dude tickets to the debates costed $1750-3000.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/us/politics/south-carolina-debate-audience.amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwjbsueQ--_nAhUdmHIEHZc4BJsQFjAMegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw3kKRmlDLlMGuGVMG-7AYEc&cf=1&cshid=1582745776480

Young Kaz wrote:

Pedram wrote:That audience was weirdly pro Bloomberg, they booed Warren for asking him to release his tax returns.

What was weird about it? This is the south.

It would be like me coming to Iran and being booed for preaching about how freeza and other gay persians should be allowed to marry as they wish. People down here view taxes as tyranny...despite the fact that most of them are too broke to pay almost anything honestly.

Bloomberg is a rich racist. Same way Trump is popular down here is the same way bloomberg is strangely loved.

Too broke yet they had enough money to pay 1700 bucks to watch a debate.

Come off it, that audience was stacked with DNC cronies, of course they were gonna show class solidarity with a billionaire.

I think Bloomberg was well aware he got beat in the previous debate but him and his campaign have been weirdly "Trump-y" in multiple ways and I think this is one of them. I mean, what he said doesn't sound at all surprising coming straight out of Trump's mouth, although it comes off more naturally.

With Bloomberg it was super awkward. He can't be Trump even though he tries to be

VivaStPauli wrote:

Blue wrote:
Castro assisted Nelson Mandela cause to end South Africa apartheid. I am going to post on Fidel Castro on another time and on this discussion. But yeah he was bad, but i do not think you should place him along side Hitler.

Oh sorry, yeah, you're absolutely right on that. That's why I also meant I wouldn't place Castro along the likes of Saddam or Kim. I abhor the authoritarianism of the Castro regime, and there can hardly be any excuse for dictatorships, but as far as I can tell, Castro at least tried to move his country forward, and not just enrich himself.
I just meant it's not very smart to make that point in the idiotic media environment that exists in the US, you can't make nuanced points there.

National leaders don't get to make trial and error . Their decisions impact the future of the country. What castro gave to cuba is terrible political institutions and economy for its future generations.

He took cuba backward. Praising him for some social indicators is like Pakistanis praising their early military dictator Ayub Khan. He also b produced improvement to society in some aspect. But in long term army inspired from Ayub ruled pakistan for 35 years and destroyed their economy, courts, media, political parties and started land grabbing.

Never romanticise dictators. Bernie is a big question mark. Especially he now approves authoritarian government as long as you get 4 loaf of bread, free healthcare and school.

Bernie has the strongest record against authoritarian regimes. I think his praise of literacy program was not a good idea. Then again 2+2 always equal 4.

This is a good article btw, i feel it expresses my thoughts very well.

https://newrepublic.com/article/156670/bernie-sanderss-dumb-defense-fidel-castro

Ultimately it won't matter if he is the nominee, because he is going up against Trump. Fidel Castro is dead; while many of the regimes Trump has praised are very well alive and issues is still relevant.

Biden called Xi Jinping a scumbag, but talk is cheap when he and Obama never really took a stand against him.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/04/remarks-vice-president-joe-biden-and-president-xi-jinping-peoples-republ

When people talk about Cuba and Castro, it is amazing how little is said about Fulbencio Batista the dictator Castro took over. He was the US backed capitalistic dictator who shredded the constitution; very authoritative censored the press, killed and tortured political dissents just like Fidel Castro. Meanwhile the corporations drained Cuban society, creating huge # of poverty. Which allowed another bloodthirsty dictator to rise in Fidel.

In America when we talk about Cuba, it is only to serve as a propaganda against socialism/communism. It has never been about human rights, just like many right wing propaganda in this country. I think we should be more thorough and condemn Castro and US role.

Americans in general need to be much more introspective about the way they’ve acted in foreign affairs since the end of WWII

People have lost their trust in mainstream media. that's why trump got elected. right now, being the odd guy who every news channel demonizes is actually a winning formula.

people, specially young people don't vote for the guy who is in the center. far right like Trump and far left like Bernie. who are not afraid to go over the line. people vote for that.

Bernie in the debate called Netanyahu a reactionary racist. he is defending palestinians. the balls on this guy lol.

you think him saying good things about Castro is bad for him. but he thinks this is the way to get more votes.

I agree in general with this post^

The fact that the US president from the Republican was not actually a Republican says a lot. Then add to it that the front runner of the Democratic party is not actually a Democrat. Both parties (the system) have screwed up to the point that both candidates for the next election may actually be "independent". Both rep and dem establishments look like they will be out of the race for the 2020 election. The republicans chose (were forced to?) reshape their party around Trump, now the democrats may have to do the same around Sanders.

It speaks about the failure of the establishment.

He’s not wrong any of those three points. The angle on the Castro answer should’ve been delivered badly. He could have said “even a murderous dictator like Castro has more compassion for his people than billionaires and politicians have for people in our country”

Blue wrote:When people talk about Cuba and Castro, it is amazing how little is said about Fulbencio Batista the dictator Castro took over. He was the US backed capitalistic dictator who shredded the constitution; very authoritative censored the press, killed and tortured political dissents just like Fidel Castro. Meanwhile the corporations drained Cuban society, creating huge # of poverty. Which allowed another bloodthirsty dictator to rise in Fidel.

In America when we talk about Cuba, it is only to serve as a propaganda against socialism/communism. It has never been about human rights, just like many right wing propaganda in this country. I think we should be more thorough and condemn Castro and US role.

Thank you!
I keep forgetting that this is a context many people are unaware of, or gloss over. While I think it's dangerous and wrong to romanticize partisans like Che Guevara (this is a pet peeve of mine, I fucking hate the left's love affair with this hobby murderer), let's not fucking forget why there was a revolution in the first place.
Our supposedly freedom-loving transatlantic coalition of American and European states did nothing but wreak havoc on South America, ruined Argentina's economy basically intentionally, helped Pinochet into power in Chile, threw all the sea mines we had at Nicaragua... It's a disgrace, and if Bernie Sanders helps to put that into perspective, he gets one or two bumbling comments about Castro for free in my book.

Freeza wrote:Americans in general need to be much more introspective about the way they’ve acted in foreign affairs since the end of WWII

It's not really talked about in schools.

At most we learn Vietnam was a mistake and that's about it. Schools pretty extensively focus on US during revolutionary war (and pre-revolutionary war), the civil war, and to a much lesser extent, the world wars. US history since 1945 is barely talked about. At least in my experience.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/politics/bernie-sanders-turnout-trump-2020/index.html

I found this to be a good article, CNN and clickbait title aside

I have a really hard time getting behind the "all we need is higher turnout" story, mostly for the reasons laid out in the article:

-Turnout is fairly predictable
-Independents and non-voters are split fairly down the middle, increasing turnout by itself would have a neutral effect at most
-Democratic turnout is already expected to be high, as seen in the 2018 elections, even without a Bernie nominee, due to the anti-Trump backlash
-Nominating an equally polarizing figure on the Democratic spectrum would motivate the other side just as much as Trump motivates Democrats to show up to vote
-All elections based on the vote of the young are losers (just ask Yang or Ron Paul). Is here any evidence to hope that this time they will turn out to vote?

I can totally see why the democratic party is freaking out.

Also, just based off anecdotal evidence, I've lost track of how many times I've heard "Trump vs Bernie is my worst case scenario, I might even vote for Trump or not show up to vote" in my very liberal state.

CBarca wrote:

Freeza wrote:Americans in general need to be much more introspective about the way they’ve acted in foreign affairs since the end of WWII

It's not really talked about in schools.

At most we learn Vietnam was a mistake and that's about it. Schools pretty extensively focus on US during revolutionary war (and pre-revolutionary war), the civil war, and to a much lesser extent, the world wars. US history since 1945 is barely talked about. At least in my experience.

Yeah i can hardly remember talking about the civilian casualty in Vietnam, over 200,000 civilians died during that time this i cannot recall learning in American History. The big focus of it; unpopular among the public, US Soldiers killed in the war, and the cultural impact.

No doubt many atrocities have been committed in the name of communism, but one could argue equally if not greater deaths have been committed in the name of fighting communism. US backed and supported many dictators, rebels, insurgents, etc as long as they opposed communism.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/politics/bernie-sanders-turnout-trump-2020/index.html

I found this to be a good article, CNN and clickbait title aside

I have a really hard time getting behind the "all we need is higher turnout" story, mostly for the reasons laid out in the article:

-Turnout is fairly predictable
-Independents and non-voters are split fairly down the middle, increasing turnout by itself would have a neutral effect at most
-Democratic turnout is already expected to be high, as seen in the 2018 elections, even without a Bernie nominee, due to the anti-Trump backlash
-Nominating an equally polarizing figure on the Democratic spectrum would motivate the other side just as much as Trump motivates Democrats to show up to vote
-All elections based on the vote of the young are losers (just ask Yang or Ron Paul). Is here any evidence to hope that this time they will turn out to vote?

I can totally see why the democratic party is freaking out.

Also, just based off anecdotal evidence, I've lost track of how many times I've heard "Trump vs Bernie is my worst case scenario, I might even vote for Trump or not show up to vote" in my very liberal state.

Bernie is the only candidate who's beating Trump in swing states.

Pedram wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/politics/bernie-sanders-turnout-trump-2020/index.html

I found this to be a good article, CNN and clickbait title aside

I have a really hard time getting behind the "all we need is higher turnout" story, mostly for the reasons laid out in the article:

-Turnout is fairly predictable
-Independents and non-voters are split fairly down the middle, increasing turnout by itself would have a neutral effect at most
-Democratic turnout is already expected to be high, as seen in the 2018 elections, even without a Bernie nominee, due to the anti-Trump backlash
-Nominating an equally polarizing figure on the Democratic spectrum would motivate the other side just as much as Trump motivates Democrats to show up to vote
-All elections based on the vote of the young are losers (just ask Yang or Ron Paul). Is here any evidence to hope that this time they will turn out to vote?

I can totally see why the democratic party is freaking out.

Also, just based off anecdotal evidence, I've lost track of how many times I've heard "Trump vs Bernie is my worst case scenario, I might even vote for Trump or not show up to vote" in my very liberal state.

Bernie is the only candidate who's beating Trump in swing states.

Bernie stands no chance in PA with his anti fracking stance.

Blue wrote:

CBarca wrote:

Freeza wrote:Americans in general need to be much more introspective about the way they’ve acted in foreign affairs since the end of WWII

It's not really talked about in schools.

At most we learn Vietnam was a mistake and that's about it. Schools pretty extensively focus on US during revolutionary war (and pre-revolutionary war), the civil war, and to a much lesser extent, the world wars. US history since 1945 is barely talked about. At least in my experience.

Yeah i can hardly remember talking about the civilian casualty in Vietnam, over 200,000 civilians died during that time this i cannot recall learning in American History. The big focus of it; unpopular among the public, US Soldiers killed in the war, and the cultural impact.

No doubt many atrocities have been committed in the name of communism, but one could argue equally if not greater deaths have been committed in the name of fighting communism. US backed and supported many dictators, rebels, insurgents, etc as long as they opposed communism.

So, just to be clear, I am completely opposed to US intervention in the cold war and beyond to topple regimes it did not agree with in the name of stopping communism.

But this is such a ridiculous statement. If you add up all the casualties from the wars the US supported directly or indirectly in the fight against communism, you get nowhere near the amount of deaths that communist governments caused for their own citizens. If you take the famines & political executions of the USSR and the Cultural Revolution in China alone you get somewhere between 10-30+m deaths depending on who you ask. The Vietnam war alone (one of the most prolonged conflicts) was "just" 1.3m, and only half of those were civilians.

Pedram wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/politics/bernie-sanders-turnout-trump-2020/index.html

I found this to be a good article, CNN and clickbait title aside

I have a really hard time getting behind the "all we need is higher turnout" story, mostly for the reasons laid out in the article:

-Turnout is fairly predictable
-Independents and non-voters are split fairly down the middle, increasing turnout by itself would have a neutral effect at most
-Democratic turnout is already expected to be high, as seen in the 2018 elections, even without a Bernie nominee, due to the anti-Trump backlash
-Nominating an equally polarizing figure on the Democratic spectrum would motivate the other side just as much as Trump motivates Democrats to show up to vote
-All elections based on the vote of the young are losers (just ask Yang or Ron Paul). Is here any evidence to hope that this time they will turn out to vote?

I can totally see why the democratic party is freaking out.

Also, just based off anecdotal evidence, I've lost track of how many times I've heard "Trump vs Bernie is my worst case scenario, I might even vote for Trump or not show up to vote" in my very liberal state.

Bernie is the only candidate who's beating Trump in swing states.

I suppose we will have a chance to see how it plays out. Florida and Texas are potentially in play with Biden, not so much with Bernie.

You are right if you include Russia and China, i was thinking more about the death toll committed by the Soviet Union and US where they backed different factions in the cold war.

Young Kaz wrote:

Pedram wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/politics/bernie-sanders-turnout-trump-2020/index.html

I found this to be a good article, CNN and clickbait title aside

I have a really hard time getting behind the "all we need is higher turnout" story, mostly for the reasons laid out in the article:

-Turnout is fairly predictable
-Independents and non-voters are split fairly down the middle, increasing turnout by itself would have a neutral effect at most
-Democratic turnout is already expected to be high, as seen in the 2018 elections, even without a Bernie nominee, due to the anti-Trump backlash
-Nominating an equally polarizing figure on the Democratic spectrum would motivate the other side just as much as Trump motivates Democrats to show up to vote
-All elections based on the vote of the young are losers (just ask Yang or Ron Paul). Is here any evidence to hope that this time they will turn out to vote?

I can totally see why the democratic party is freaking out.

Also, just based off anecdotal evidence, I've lost track of how many times I've heard "Trump vs Bernie is my worst case scenario, I might even vote for Trump or not show up to vote" in my very liberal state.

Bernie is the only candidate who's beating Trump in swing states.

Bernie stands no chance in PA with his anti fracking stance.

Well, I certainly hope any Democratic candidate would have an anti-fracking stance, so none of them should stand a chance

Lets goooooo!

BREAKING: Joe Biden wins the South Carolina Democratic Primary, @NBCNews projects. #SCPrimary https://t.co/mnwur284xe

Results data: https://t.co/YRT07WLOkk pic.twitter.com/khf33nrF0C

— NBC News (@NBCNews) March 1, 2020

Dont call it a comeback baby!

Biden is over 70% rn in SC.

Hope signal boosting Joe "Planet of the Apes" Rogan was worth it Bernie.

Biden banking on southern conservatives to get him the nominee.

He needs a surge in Virginia and Texas, currently Bernie leads the polls. If Bernie wins those states, it will be bloodbath when late in the day California results come in. Cali has the highest # of delegates, and Bernie could take all of the delegates.