- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,279
- Reaction score
- 5,991
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
According to the results of the 2020 election. The subsequent stuff RE: 2016 I've already addressed.According to whom? You?
What I'm saying that if it were true and accurate, and frankly I don't invest much value with singular polls, nevermind aggregates that have proven to be wildly wrong as of late, 'reactive anger' in the immediate aftermath of the primary kind of plays a significant role in exaggerating the malcontent that evidently was not sustained by the time of the actual election in 2020.Well it's both true and accurate. And any "reactive anger" would be totally irrelevant to the FACTS. Sanders wasn't the first candidate to fall just short of a party nomination. But some of his voters sure do make a bunch of excuses for themselves.
Yes, but that is not America, whether under Democrats or Republicans, and under a more holistic standard for the developed world, AOC and Sanders are not remotely on the lunatic fringe of the left, nor am I. We are as stated effectively European/Scandinavian centrists. If anything, establishment Dems are closer to a lunatic fringe on the right by said standards (they literally are more conservative on the economy in many respects than Canadian Conservatives, and Canada's general political frame of reference isn't nearly as left as West/Northern Europe.Well-regulated capitalism, as imperfect as it will always be...is the best economic model we humans have been able to come up with.
I mean I already stated several important issues: Medicare for All, Housing as a Human Right, College Debt Cancellation and Marijuana Legalization are huge differences alone, just off the top of my head.Such as...??
Then of course taking corporate PAC money in explicit contradiction of the Squad's standards which is among the most potent and consistent litmus tests.
You do realize those were donations for Sanders were from individuals working for those corporations, and not corporate bundling right? And that he didn't accept or court super PACs. So too is this the case for Turner. Meanwhile, Sherrod explicitly went out of her way to beg for PAC support and corporate cash; that is an explicit and indelible difference which is disqualifying for anyone who would seek to identify as a progressive: https://theintercept.com/2021/05/08/nina-turner-shontel-brown-super-pac/She's taking money from gopers. So did Biden. So did Obama. So did Clinton. So does Sherrod Brown. So did, BERNIE SANDERS, btw. ..
I literally gave you specifics, both before and earlier during this response, and no, Brown does not support Medicare for All; it's not on her website, and it's not part of her official platform (at best she said she would vote for it if it came to the house floor, not that she supports it, or that she would fight or advocate for it; this is a marked difference vs Turner), and most importantly, it's not the only issue she's deficient on.Not really. You mentioned Medicare for All...
I'm trying to get you to offer specifics, but you keep deflecting...
They are, it's possible to agree with someone in the majoritarian yet have substantial, deal breaking differences on the remainder; this is such a case. It's also a question of how vigorously I can expect Brown to fight for my priorities.Simply put, the two are really not different from a policy/platform position.
Yes I would, but Brown indisputably represents the pro-corporate, pro-establishment wing of the party, and even if you're not convinced by the policy discrepancies (and they should certainly be convincing) her endorsements, her funding, and her pursuit of that funding makes this abundantly clear.Fair enough. You wouldn't vote for Brown over Turner.
But would you vote for Brown over her GOP challenger, if she won the primary? I would support either one over a republican. What about you? There is a sizable faction of the Sanders wing that would not. And that's a problem for the party. That's the point of the discussion. I don't think that's even controversial.