What Would It Take for You to Vote for Biden?

[South Odreria 2]

Why so many effort-shitposts in here what’s even the point

[The Black Forrest]

Why so many effort-shitposts in here what’s even the point

Hmmmm? Not liking them doesn’t make them so.

Better yet? Point out their flaws.

[Auristania]

I would have to be a USA citizen AND trust Biden.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Frankly the Greens should disband their party and all join the Democratic party.

As moderates.

All their platform about social justice and anti-corporatism is a smiling face on hard-left policy. Anyone who's with the Green mainly for that should go join the Socialists instead. So much leftism has made the Greens a fringe group and worse it's keep the ecological and climate action part of the platform at the fringes of national politics.

Ecology is a broad church with its core in the center-left. Protecting the environment puts restrictions on business (and trade) and there's no getting around it. But even some Republicans would be on board with it: it's broad as in all the way from the left into the moderate right. Republicans voted for the Clean Water Act in 1972 for instance.

Climate Change should be a centrist issue. Mainly because partisan politics will not provide solutions: partisan politics is always focused on achievements within the term of government (2years, or 4 or 6). And both sides deeply distrust binding legislation which either side will be unable to reverse without the supermajority. Dealing with a problem so long-term as climate change requires sustained bipartisanship, and that can only be led by the center.

Take for instance a carbon tax. Suppose you pass it the partisan way, with a Dem president who won't veto, and you either nuke the filibuster or use the budget reconciliation trick. It would definitely help, by directly reducing emissions, and by giving an advantage to non-emitting sources. But you lose in the next few rounds of elections, now it's a Republican president and Republican congress. They can't repeal your carbon tax BUT they can pass a new law refunding all carbon tax paid. Just to be extra nice to the polluters, they might make the refund more than the actual tax!

I just want to mention another reason you should become moderate Democrats. If you're moderate you can win districts or states that a mainstream Democrat can't. Swing seats. If you enter Congress a winner, who beat an incumbent Republican, you'll be welcomed and listened to, far more than those Progressives who only win in seats that no Democrat could lose.

Greens have other policies that aren't instantly identifiable as Far Left. They're for forestry and planting trees, that's OK providing you don't forget to mention jobs for loggers. Maybe subsidies for renewables, just not on the aggressive timeline of 100% renewable by 2030. Social justice, well you could get broad agreement that cops shouldn't shoot civilians. Maybe even UBI, providing it's at a low "experimental" level. Cut to Defense, but not drastic ones. Remember you're a moderate though: you never bring these things up, you wait for a real lefty to do it then quietly vote in favor.

I know, I know, asking Greens to give up their vast dreams, just so they individually can get elected and have a share of power, it's not reasonable. Except it is: if anyone who values the environment above the other concerns were to just leave and the join the Democrats, the remainder would no longer have a unifying principle, they'd have a blazing row about whether or not homeschooling should be allowed ("it allows religious parents to indoctrinate children!" versus "hey I homeschool because They wanted to vaccinate my kids!") and then more public rows until they weren't a party any more.

And I wonder how many members and voters for Green don't believe in any of it. Not the green stuff, not the social justice stuff, not the economic intervention stuff, not the anti-war stuff. They just want to recreate Nader's great performance in 2000 to stick it to the Dems again?

You talk as if socialists invaded the Green Party. The Green Party in the U.S. was actually a single organization until it split into the political party the Green Party US (GPUS), and other non-electoral grassroots organizations (which avoids acting as an electoral spoiler). The Green Party US is part of a global movement of Green Polotics started in the 80s. Anything that is environmental, or eco-friendly, or addresses climate change, or is involved in wildlife conservation can be labeled green, but that is not the same as green politics.

OK, but I want to change that. Those specifically environment-centered policies (minus the anti-nuclear junk, I'm pro-nuclear) I want to move to the center, it requires severing the link to social justice etc.

Green Politics is it's own ideology, it views issues such as environmentalism, social justice, and the economy as being interconnected and it is impossible to address one successfully without also addressing the others.

That's what I'm against. Environmentalism is already a pretty wide slate of policy positions, it's enough for one minor party in a power sharing arrangement (where the system allows that eg. Germany) or for one faction of the Democratic party (where the system makes minor parties impractical).

Green Politics has four main pillars: (1) ecological wisdom, (2), social justice, (3) grassroots democracy, (4) non-violence;

These are the four principles of the first Green Party, that of Germany.

which are a part of their ten key values: (5) decentralization, (6) community-based economics, (7) post-patriarchial values, (8) respect for diversity, (9) global responsibility,

Well I'm on the left, but more and more I've come to realize that my old leftist beliefs aren't really that far left now. I'm center left, and 5, 6, 7 and to some extent 9 actually bother me a bit. They're kinda paleo don't you think?

(10) future focus; which all make up their guiding principles along with (11) participatory democracy, and (12) sustainability.

11 could be good or bad, 12 is mainstream environmentalist, I have no problem with it ... except it being bundled up with so much leftism.

My point is that while environmentalism is at the core of the Green Party and Green Politics, they have always had tendencies of Eco-Socialism, Eco-Feminism, Social Ecology, Green Social Democracy, and Ethics of Care.

And as long as that continues, the environmental vote will mostly go untapped. Despite your claims that the other policies are fundamentally linked to them, what I see is a very large set of environmental voters, and a much smaller set of far left voters, and the modern green parties get only the overlapping set of those.

P.S. If the major parties really cared about spoilers then they would eliminate the spoiler effect by switching to ranked choice voting which would allow people to vote for third parties without spoiling the major parties. Not to mention it would help build a more democratic society (democratic defined as rule by the people, not just ballot box majoritarianism).

Yeah, I've wondered for years what it would take to get both parties onboard with ranked choice. Perhaps serious splitting threat from the left and right minor parties.

But after all, neither Greens nor Libertarians actually do that. Libertarians take from Dems as well as Pubs, and Greens to a lesser extent ... but not negligible imo. Say a moderate Republican suddenly becomes concerned about climate change, they might go all the way over to the party that wants to stop teachers calling students He or She. Because at that time, for that election, climate change matters more to them.

[Sundiata]

Ultimately, I want to see Joe Biden do more for America's poorest but the kind of change I want isn't likely.

I understand that Joe Biden isn't an outsider to politics. Like most American politicians, including Donald Trump, he has elite donors. He has to placate those donors as well as the progressive wing of his party. From Joe Biden I expect business as usual, standard economic neoliberalism.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Imagine seeing people starving and filthy all over the streets, police officers regularly murdering innocents in cold blood, the United Sates going into endless wars for profit, the U.S. army turning a blind eye to torture rape, and mass murder, corporations systematically laying waste to the environment, companies using child slavery, people being caged in crowded concrete cells, and workers being exploited for labor only to believe the status quo is anything but a nightmare.

Trump may be arguably worse than Biden in some regards but for every difference they have, they have 100 similarities. I will never support anything other than leftist reform, and the Democrats blew their chance at Sanders, who was a compromise in himself. Biden is a poorly disguised neocon with a history of support for all these policies.


So to everyone saying that "a vote not for Biden is a vote for Trump", you have no idea what you're saying.

[The Black Forrest]

Imagine seeing people starving and filthy all over the streets, police officers regularly murdering innocents in cold blood, the United Sates going into endless wars for profit, the U.S. army turning a blind eye to torture rape, and mass murder, corporations systematically laying waste to the environment, companies using child slavery, people being caged in crowded concrete cells, and workers being exploited for labor only to believe the status quo is anything but a nightmare.

Trump may be arguably worse than Biden in some regards but for every difference they have, they have 100 similarities. I will never support anything other than leftist reform, and the Democrats blew their chance at Sanders, who was a compromise in himself. Biden is a poorly disguised neocon with a history of support for all these policies.


So to everyone saying that "a vote not for Biden is a vote for Trump", you have no idea what you're saying.

What do you expect from four more years of Trump vs four years of Biden?

[Gormwood]

Imagine seeing people starving and filthy all over the streets, police officers regularly murdering innocents in cold blood, the United Sates going into endless wars for profit, the U.S. army turning a blind eye to torture rape, and mass murder, corporations systematically laying waste to the environment, companies using child slavery, people being caged in crowded concrete cells, and workers being exploited for labor only to believe the status quo is anything but a nightmare.

Trump may be arguably worse than Biden in some regards but for every difference they have, they have 100 similarities. I will never support anything other than leftist reform, and the Democrats blew their chance at Sanders, who was a compromise in himself. Biden is a poorly disguised neocon with a history of support for all these policies.


So to everyone saying that "a vote not for Biden is a vote for Trump", you have no idea what you're saying.

What do you expect from four more years of Trump vs four years of Biden?

Validation and smugness?

[South Odreria 2]

Ultimately, I want to see Joe Biden do more for America's poorest but the kind of change I want isn't likely.

I understand that Joe Biden isn't an outsider to politics. Like most American politicians, including Donald Trump, he has elite donors. He has to placate those donors as well as the progressive wing of his party. From Joe Biden I expect business as usual, standard economic neoliberalism.

I'm under no illusions about who he is, but I genuinely think that if we the people put enough pressure on him and his government, we could start to see some change in the right direction.

[Gormwood]

Ultimately, I want to see Joe Biden do more for America's poorest but the kind of change I want isn't likely.

I understand that Joe Biden isn't an outsider to politics. Like most American politicians, including Donald Trump, he has elite donors. He has to placate those donors as well as the progressive wing of his party. From Joe Biden I expect business as usual, standard economic neoliberalism.

I'm under no illusions about who he is, but I genuinely think that if we the people put enough pressure on him and his government, we could start to see some change in the right direction.

More likely to bend under progressive pressure than Trump ever will be.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Imagine seeing people starving and filthy all over the streets, police officers regularly murdering innocents in cold blood, the United Sates going into endless wars for profit, the U.S. army turning a blind eye to torture rape, and mass murder, corporations systematically laying waste to the environment, companies using child slavery, people being caged in crowded concrete cells, and workers being exploited for labor only to believe the status quo is anything but a nightmare.

Trump may be arguably worse than Biden in some regards but for every difference they have, they have 100 similarities. I will never support anything other than leftist reform, and the Democrats blew their chance at Sanders, who was a compromise in himself. Biden is a poorly disguised neocon with a history of support for all these policies.


So to everyone saying that "a vote not for Biden is a vote for Trump", you have no idea what you're saying.

What do you expect from four more years of Trump vs four years of Biden?

It doesn't matter who wins, the U.S. will continue on the path it's been on for the past century.

[-Astoria]

What do you expect from four more years of Trump vs four years of Biden?

It doesn't matter who wins, the U.S. will continue on the path it's been on for the past century.

So, the "same taxi, different driver" approach?

[Nazis in Space]

I will never support anything other than leftist reform, and the Democrats blew their chance at Sanders

I mean, sure. But I'd advise you to be prepared for a lifetime of disappointment if you're unwilling to settle for incremental change.

The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primariess). This ain't winning elections as demonstrated by Sanders, well, losing the primaries.

The reforms you want don't have popular support. The only way to get them is to eliminate the democratic process (which, admittedly, is something the Sandernistas seem fond of doing, what with them trying to fuck around with superdelegates in 2016, and likewise wishing for something like that now, coincidentally invalidating the ~ 90% of the black vote that went to Biden). Your choices are either some change in the direction you want, or no changes in the direction you want and quite possible changes in the opposite direction.

This is, incidentally, something the supporters of Warren, Buttigieg or Klobuchar understand. Only supporters of one candidate don't understand this. Coincidentally, it's supporters of a candidate who have termed the sole more left-wing candidate than their own (Warren) a traitor and a snake.

Warren does, coincidentally, actually have a respectable track record in the Senate, while, if we were to take a look at Sanders' track record...

... well...

... why exactly do you believe that Sanders would bring change? He has the highest absentee rate in the Senate, his legislative track record is utterly pathetic relative to Warren and Biden alike, he voted against progressive legislation that was supported by Biden (CHIP comes to mind; and then there's fun like his fundraising gig keeping him from casting the decisive vote to eliminate the patriot act. Convenient, that. Don't have to vote nay if you're simply not around), he refuses to compromise with farther right democrats, rendering him a lame duck.

The President isn't a wizard. If Senate/Congress say 'No', he ain't getting shit done. Electing Sanders would change literally nothing because he can't actually pass anything.

Unless one were to propose eliminating the Senate/Congress as obstacles of the revolution. But y'know. You can try to do that without getting someone elected first, too.

And all of this together - Sanders' pathetic track record of getting nothing done, the Sandernistas' rejection of a candidate with a practically identical program as a traitor and neoconservative snake, the flat-out desire to to eliminate democracy in favour of installing their favoured candidate - is the reason why I don't believe for a second that you, or any other Sandernista, actually has a progressive agenda (targeted at benefitting young white men above all others, as those dearies are clearly most in need of our help. And if the blacks and women that overwhelmingly voted for other candidates can't see that, well, we'll have to ignore the votes of these low information voters, don't we? All for the progressive cause, of course).

You're following your Messiah. You're beyond reason, a cult. You're ready to see the world burn, as long as it's other people's neighbourhoods.

Mind, I do agree that the Democrats blew their chance.

Biden's being way too reconciliatory towards the Sandernistas. His outstreched hand keeps being rejected. The Sandernistas continue their firebrand rhetoric, make it blatantly obvious that they reject democracy in favour of Sanders.

These people shouldn't be, cannot be woo'd. They know no reason, no limits, they just plain don't get politics as the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best. They cannot be worked with, therefore they shouldn't be worked with.

They need to be excised like the cancer they are.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primariess). This ain't winning elections as demonstrated by Sanders, well, losing the primaries.

You got 3% by dividing Sanders' primary vote by the entire US population? Or even vote-eligible population?

That's not how you measure anyone's electoral support. Use his percentage of the people who actually vote.

If we did it your way, actual elected presidents would have something like 12% support (ie primary divided by vote-eligible). It would make no sense.

[Nazis in Space]

The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primariess). This ain't winning elections as demonstrated by Sanders, well, losing the primaries.

You got 3% by dividing Sanders' primary vote by the entire US population? Or even vote-eligible population?

That's not how you measure anyone's electoral support. Use his percentage of the people who actually vote.

If we did it your way, actual elected presidents would have something like 12% support (ie primary divided by vote-eligible). It would make no sense.

It does make sense for two reasons:

• it's a primary, meaning that everyone (okay, there are a handful of states with open primaries, so almost everyone) who isn't registered/is registered republican is not part of the pool. These same people are also immensely unlikely to vote Sanders even if they could. Excluding people who'd very much vote against Sanders in the actual presidential election when it's about Sanders' support within the overall population makes no sense
• Sanders specifically claimed that he'd be able to bring out a shitton of normally not-voting people (most notably the youth vote). Since he made this claim, he ought to be measured by it, meaning that we have to include these people that Sanders thought would vote for him but nobody else, yet just... plain didn't vote

You'll note that I'm not going around and claim that 70% of the United States population support a 'moderate democrat'* agenda (aka, all the votes not going to Sanders in the primary), either. Again, this would include the Republican voter block, which is obviously nonsense.

And you'll likewise note that this is specifically about active support. People that don't vote don't care. Note, again, that I didn't claim that the non-voters supported Biden, or Donald or whoever. All I'm saying is that they don't support Sanders. If you don't vote Sanders, you don't support him. Not exactly a difficult concept.

* I really wanted to write 'Sane democrat' here

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You got 3% by dividing Sanders' primary vote by the entire US population? Or even vote-eligible population?

That's not how you measure anyone's electoral support. Use his percentage of the people who actually vote.

If we did it your way, actual elected presidents would have something like 12% support (ie primary divided by vote-eligible). It would make no sense.

It does make sense for two reasons:

• it's a primary, meaning that everyone (okay, there are a handful of states with open primaries, so almost everyone) who isn't registered/is registered republican is not part of the pool. These same people are also immensely unlikely to vote Sanders even if they could. Excluding people who'd very much vote against Sanders in the actual presidential election when it's about Sanders' support within the overall population makes no sense
• Sanders specifically claimed that he'd be able to bring out a shitton of normally not-voting people (most notably the youth vote). Since he made this claim, he ought to be measured by it, meaning that we have to include these people that Sanders thought would vote for him but nobody else, yet just... plain didn't vote

You'll note that I'm not going around and claim that 70% of the United States population support a 'moderate democrat'* agenda (aka, all the votes not going to Sanders in the primary), either. Again, this would include the Republican voter block, which is obviously nonsense.

And you'll likewise note that this is specifically about active support. People that don't vote don't care. Note, again, that I didn't claim that the non-voters supported Biden, or Donald or whoever. All I'm saying is that they don't support Sanders. If you don't vote Sanders, you don't support him. Not exactly a difficult concept.

* I really wanted to write 'Sane democrat' here

"The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primaries)"

Show your working please.

[Blargoblarg]

I will never support anything other than leftist reform, and the Democrats blew their chance at Sanders

I mean, sure. But I'd advise you to be prepared for a lifetime of disappointment if you're unwilling to settle for incremental change.

The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primariess). This ain't winning elections as demonstrated by Sanders, well, losing the primaries.

The reforms you want don't have popular support. The only way to get them is to eliminate the democratic process (which, admittedly, is something the Sandernistas seem fond of doing, what with them trying to fuck around with superdelegates in 2016, and likewise wishing for something like that now, coincidentally invalidating the ~ 90% of the black vote that went to Biden). Your choices are either some change in the direction you want, or no changes in the direction you want and quite possible changes in the opposite direction.

This is, incidentally, something the supporters of Warren, Buttigieg or Klobuchar understand. Only supporters of one candidate don't understand this. Coincidentally, it's supporters of a candidate who have termed the sole more left-wing candidate than their own (Warren) a traitor and a snake.

Warren does, coincidentally, actually have a respectable track record in the Senate, while, if we were to take a look at Sanders' track record...

... well...

... why exactly do you believe that Sanders would bring change? He has the highest absentee rate in the Senate, his legislative track record is utterly pathetic relative to Warren and Biden alike, he voted against progressive legislation that was supported by Biden (CHIP comes to mind; and then there's fun like his fundraising gig keeping him from casting the decisive vote to eliminate the patriot act. Convenient, that. Don't have to vote nay if you're simply not around), he refuses to compromise with farther right democrats, rendering him a lame duck.

The President isn't a wizard. If Senate/Congress say 'No', he ain't getting shit done. Electing Sanders would change literally nothing because he can't actually pass anything.

Unless one were to propose eliminating the Senate/Congress as obstacles of the revolution. But y'know. You can try to do that without getting someone elected first, too.

And all of this together - Sanders' pathetic track record of getting nothing done, the Sandernistas' rejection of a candidate with a practically identical program as a traitor and neoconservative snake, the flat-out desire to to eliminate democracy in favour of installing their favoured candidate - is the reason why I don't believe for a second that you, or any other Sandernista, actually has a progressive agenda (targeted at benefitting young white men above all others, as those dearies are clearly most in need of our help. And if the blacks and women that overwhelmingly voted for other candidates can't see that, well, we'll have to ignore the votes of these low information voters, don't we? All for the progressive cause, of course).

You're following your Messiah. You're beyond reason, a cult. You're ready to see the world burn, as long as it's other people's neighbourhoods.

Mind, I do agree that the Democrats blew their chance.

Biden's being way too reconciliatory towards the Sandernistas. His outstreched hand keeps being rejected. The Sandernistas continue their firebrand rhetoric, make it blatantly obvious that they reject democracy in favour of Sanders.

These people shouldn't be, cannot be woo'd. They know no reason, no limits, they just plain don't get politics as the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best. They cannot be worked with, therefore they shouldn't be worked with.

They need to be excised like the cancer they are.

If you want to drive us away from the Democratic party, by all means keep saying stuff like this. But don't blame us when the terrible candidates the Democrats keep picking lose to the Republicans repeatedly.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I mean, sure. But I'd advise you to be prepared for a lifetime of disappointment if you're unwilling to settle for incremental change.

The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primariess). This ain't winning elections as demonstrated by Sanders, well, losing the primaries.

The reforms you want don't have popular support. The only way to get them is to eliminate the democratic process (which, admittedly, is something the Sandernistas seem fond of doing, what with them trying to fuck around with superdelegates in 2016, and likewise wishing for something like that now, coincidentally invalidating the ~ 90% of the black vote that went to Biden). Your choices are either some change in the direction you want, or no changes in the direction you want and quite possible changes in the opposite direction.

This is, incidentally, something the supporters of Warren, Buttigieg or Klobuchar understand. Only supporters of one candidate don't understand this. Coincidentally, it's supporters of a candidate who have termed the sole more left-wing candidate than their own (Warren) a traitor and a snake.

Warren does, coincidentally, actually have a respectable track record in the Senate, while, if we were to take a look at Sanders' track record...

... well...

... why exactly do you believe that Sanders would bring change? He has the highest absentee rate in the Senate, his legislative track record is utterly pathetic relative to Warren and Biden alike, he voted against progressive legislation that was supported by Biden (CHIP comes to mind; and then there's fun like his fundraising gig keeping him from casting the decisive vote to eliminate the patriot act. Convenient, that. Don't have to vote nay if you're simply not around), he refuses to compromise with farther right democrats, rendering him a lame duck.

The President isn't a wizard. If Senate/Congress say 'No', he ain't getting shit done. Electing Sanders would change literally nothing because he can't actually pass anything.

Unless one were to propose eliminating the Senate/Congress as obstacles of the revolution. But y'know. You can try to do that without getting someone elected first, too.

And all of this together - Sanders' pathetic track record of getting nothing done, the Sandernistas' rejection of a candidate with a practically identical program as a traitor and neoconservative snake, the flat-out desire to to eliminate democracy in favour of installing their favoured candidate - is the reason why I don't believe for a second that you, or any other Sandernista, actually has a progressive agenda (targeted at benefitting young white men above all others, as those dearies are clearly most in need of our help. And if the blacks and women that overwhelmingly voted for other candidates can't see that, well, we'll have to ignore the votes of these low information voters, don't we? All for the progressive cause, of course).

You're following your Messiah. You're beyond reason, a cult. You're ready to see the world burn, as long as it's other people's neighbourhoods.

Mind, I do agree that the Democrats blew their chance.

Biden's being way too reconciliatory towards the Sandernistas. His outstreched hand keeps being rejected. The Sandernistas continue their firebrand rhetoric, make it blatantly obvious that they reject democracy in favour of Sanders.

These people shouldn't be, cannot be woo'd. They know no reason, no limits, they just plain don't get politics as the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best. They cannot be worked with, therefore they shouldn't be worked with.

They need to be excised like the cancer they are.

If you want to drive us away from the Democratic party, by all means keep saying stuff like this. But don't blame us when the terrible candidates the Democrats keep picking lose to the Republicans repeatedly.

You hate Biden for his mental state and private-life behaviour. I'm quite sure it's that, not his policies, that you hate.

But when Sanders was a prospect, it was ALL ABOUT the policies.

Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?

[Blargoblarg]

If you want to drive us away from the Democratic party, by all means keep saying stuff like this. But don't blame us when the terrible candidates the Democrats keep picking lose to the Republicans repeatedly.

You hate Biden for his mental state and private-life behaviour. I'm quite sure it's that, not his policies, that you hate.

But when Sanders was a prospect, it was ALL ABOUT the policies.

Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?

It's literally always been the policies for me, and Biden's are terrible. Though his mental state and his sexual harassment of women don't help.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You hate Biden for his mental state and private-life behaviour. I'm quite sure it's that, not his policies, that you hate.

But when Sanders was a prospect, it was ALL ABOUT the policies.

Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?

It's literally always been the policies for me, and Biden's are terrible. Though his mental state and his sexual harassment of women don't help.

Here's a list of policies with one-word summaries

For me it's:

1. Not supporting Medicare For All. This list doesn't give details of how else to expand coverage, unfortunately.
2. Increasing military spending. No, restore the sequester and don't put it back up until the matching sequester is undone.
3. Holding social media companies legally responsible for user content.
4. Don't use tariffs to pressure countries

But everything else is either good or meh. Which policies do you find most "terrible"?

[Nazis in Space]

I mean, sure. But I'd advise you to be prepared for a lifetime of disappointment if you're unwilling to settle for incremental change.

The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primariess). This ain't winning elections as demonstrated by Sanders, well, losing the primaries.

The reforms you want don't have popular support. The only way to get them is to eliminate the democratic process (which, admittedly, is something the Sandernistas seem fond of doing, what with them trying to fuck around with superdelegates in 2016, and likewise wishing for something like that now, coincidentally invalidating the ~ 90% of the black vote that went to Biden). Your choices are either some change in the direction you want, or no changes in the direction you want and quite possible changes in the opposite direction.

This is, incidentally, something the supporters of Warren, Buttigieg or Klobuchar understand. Only supporters of one candidate don't understand this. Coincidentally, it's supporters of a candidate who have termed the sole more left-wing candidate than their own (Warren) a traitor and a snake.

Warren does, coincidentally, actually have a respectable track record in the Senate, while, if we were to take a look at Sanders' track record...

... well...

... why exactly do you believe that Sanders would bring change? He has the highest absentee rate in the Senate, his legislative track record is utterly pathetic relative to Warren and Biden alike, he voted against progressive legislation that was supported by Biden (CHIP comes to mind; and then there's fun like his fundraising gig keeping him from casting the decisive vote to eliminate the patriot act. Convenient, that. Don't have to vote nay if you're simply not around), he refuses to compromise with farther right democrats, rendering him a lame duck.

The President isn't a wizard. If Senate/Congress say 'No', he ain't getting shit done. Electing Sanders would change literally nothing because he can't actually pass anything.

Unless one were to propose eliminating the Senate/Congress as obstacles of the revolution. But y'know. You can try to do that without getting someone elected first, too.

And all of this together - Sanders' pathetic track record of getting nothing done, the Sandernistas' rejection of a candidate with a practically identical program as a traitor and neoconservative snake, the flat-out desire to to eliminate democracy in favour of installing their favoured candidate - is the reason why I don't believe for a second that you, or any other Sandernista, actually has a progressive agenda (targeted at benefitting young white men above all others, as those dearies are clearly most in need of our help. And if the blacks and women that overwhelmingly voted for other candidates can't see that, well, we'll have to ignore the votes of these low information voters, don't we? All for the progressive cause, of course).

You're following your Messiah. You're beyond reason, a cult. You're ready to see the world burn, as long as it's other people's neighbourhoods.

Mind, I do agree that the Democrats blew their chance.

Biden's being way too reconciliatory towards the Sandernistas. His outstreched hand keeps being rejected. The Sandernistas continue their firebrand rhetoric, make it blatantly obvious that they reject democracy in favour of Sanders.

These people shouldn't be, cannot be woo'd. They know no reason, no limits, they just plain don't get politics as the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best. They cannot be worked with, therefore they shouldn't be worked with.

They need to be excised like the cancer they are.

If you want to drive us away from the Democratic party, by all means keep saying stuff like this. But don't blame us when the terrible candidates the Democrats keep picking lose to the Republicans repeatedly.

You were never a part of the democratic party, you tried to hijack it. It's not driving you away, it's defending it from you.

If you understood the concept of 'Big tent', it'd be different. But since you don't, and since you likewise don't understand that sacrificing, say, the (actual) black vote for the (hypothetical) Sandernista vote sacrifices 20% of the vote share for 2% of the same and is therefore a losing proposition, you're not worth coddling to (Biden coddles, anyway, which I believe is a mistake since Sanders will almost assuredly backstab him, but that's an aside).

Really though. Why are Sandernistas all so terrible at math? Sanders lost the primary. He collected less than a third of the vote. That makes him objectively one of the terrible candidates who lost.

In what kind of magic fairy tale land is the guy who gets less votes the better candidate?

The candidate you would've supported, fine. That's a personal decision.

But the better candidate? That's objectively nonsense. If he was the better candidate he would have won!

And the idea that the guy whose legislative history over thirty years amounts to a blank paper with the names of a couple post offices on it, the guy who praises Castro (super popular in Florida, I'm sure), the guy who is on record stating that nobody cared about MLK until King started talking social justice, the guy who asked 'But don't black guys sell drugs?' after Charlotteville, the guy who lost the Vermont democrat congressional primary in 1990 against a black woman advocating drug decriminalisation and then ran as an independent, the guy who didn't run for the Senate until he reached an agreement with Schumer that the dems wouldn't put up anyone against him would have a better shot in the general than the guy who actually won the primary?

That's insane. That's less connected to reality than basing one's political agenda on Lord of the Rings.

[Jakker]

You're following your Messiah. You're beyond reason, a cult. You're ready to see the world burn, as long as it's other people's neighbourhoods.

They need to be excised like the cancer they are.

I'm seeing this conversation getting a bit heated so just wanted to note that these lines are on the cusp of getting into rule-breaking territory. Just want to proactively step in so that we can focus on delivering perspective without escalating things to a point where rule breaking does occur. Something to keep in mind moving forward.

[Ngelmish]

You hate Biden for his mental state and private-life behaviour. I'm quite sure it's that, not his policies, that you hate.

But when Sanders was a prospect, it was ALL ABOUT the policies.

Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?

It's literally always been the policies for me, and Biden's are terrible. Though his mental state and his sexual harassment of women don't help.

Is that why you consistently hit other politicians for discrepancies in their records, by repeat propaganda about Sanders' consistency? Like flip-flopping on gun regulation (which, either if you want more gun regulation or more gun proliferation is particularly empty of principle as a stance), changing his position on immigration reform to run for president, voting for Balkan intervention which proves that he's not actually an anti-interventionist candidate and voting for any number of landmark "neoliberal" legislation over the years including the maligned '94 crime bill.

At the very least, I'm sure you can build at least a semi-plausible case that any problems in Sanders' policy record, which you love to cite, are still magnitudes of order better than comparable politicians, but you don't even do that. You just trot out the, "He consistently supports the right policies!" line. Look, I can understand his virtues outweighing his flaws for you, but when your grasp of progressive politicians in America leads you to conclude that you can only vote for Democrats if Bernie Sanders is their VP nominee, as you've posted repeatedly, then your interest is primarily in neither policy nor reform. It's in the guy.

[Fahran]

More likely to bend under progressive pressure than Trump ever will be.

That's not really helped by the fact that the progressive response to Trump's election was to melt down. They could have probably gotten infrastructure programs out of him at least. The man's an egomaniac but that works to the favor of the opposition when it comes to doing very visible and historically well-regarded things like rebuilding roads.

[Alcala-Cordel]

I will never support anything other than leftist reform, and the Democrats blew their chance at Sanders

I mean, sure. But I'd advise you to be prepared for a lifetime of disappointment if you're unwilling to settle for incremental change.

The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primariess). This ain't winning elections as demonstrated by Sanders, well, losing the primaries.

The reforms you want don't have popular support. The only way to get them is to eliminate the democratic process (which, admittedly, is something the Sandernistas seem fond of doing, what with them trying to fuck around with superdelegates in 2016, and likewise wishing for something like that now, coincidentally invalidating the ~ 90% of the black vote that went to Biden). Your choices are either some change in the direction you want, or no changes in the direction you want and quite possible changes in the opposite direction.

... well...

... why exactly do you believe that Sanders would bring change? He has the highest absentee rate in the Senate, his legislative track record is utterly pathetic relative to Warren and Biden alike, he voted against progressive legislation that was supported by Biden (CHIP comes to mind; and then there's fun like his fundraising gig keeping him from casting the decisive vote to eliminate the patriot act. Convenient, that. Don't have to vote nay if you're simply not around), he refuses to compromise with farther right democrats, rendering him a lame duck.

The President isn't a wizard. If Senate/Congress say 'No', he ain't getting shit done. Electing Sanders would change literally nothing because he can't actually pass anything.

Unless one were to propose eliminating the Senate/Congress as obstacles of the revolution. But y'know. You can try to do that without getting someone elected first, too.

And all of this together - Sanders' pathetic track record of getting nothing done, the Sandernistas' rejection of a candidate with a practically identical program as a traitor and neoconservative snake, the flat-out desire to to eliminate democracy in favour of installing their favoured candidate - is the reason why I don't believe for a second that you, or any other Sandernista, actually has a progressive agenda (targeted at benefitting young white men above all others, as those dearies are clearly most in need of our help. And if the blacks and women that overwhelmingly voted for other candidates can't see that, well, we'll have to ignore the votes of these low information voters, don't we? All for the progressive cause, of course).

You're following your Messiah. You're beyond reason, a cult. You're ready to see the world burn, as long as it's other people's neighbourhoods.

Sanders was a compromise. I don't follow Sanders as a leader, he was just a politician. My political views aren't based off his, they're based off Karl Marx. Sanders was the "incremental change".

Biden may claim to support different progressive policies in his campaign, but the entirety of his political career shows otherwise. He's a warmongering neocon/sexual predator no matter what he claims to be.

Ignoring the fundamental flaws in the political compass, this might help you.

Sanders kinda sucks, but I was willing to vote for him. He was the "incremental change".

You made the same mistakes in 2020 as you did in 2016.