Unfortunately, it isn’t. One of the fine lines to walk with climate change communication is sounding urgent without sounding too alarmist. People will either dismiss doom & gloom talk, or just figure we’re fucked anyway and do nothing.
2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates: Do They Have Policies? What Are Their Policies? Let's Find Out!
There are clearly a lot of different POVs in this thread, so I apologize if I’m mischaracterizing any.
But to be clear, from someone who will fully admit to lacking knowledge on the specifics of the situation, I think it’s pretty reasonable to agree that intervention and US imperialism are capital-B Bad, recognize that Venezuela’s current situation is the result of a confluence of factors (said-imperialism large among them), while also not going as far as to discount the experiences of actual Venezuelans when they report that in fact, no, that leadership should not be a model for foreign leftists to elevate.
I also don’t think that’s a particularly centrist position to hold, partially because being critical of the products of your own ideology and belief system is not something centrists are particularly regarded for.
Thought I’d comeback and say this state of the union response speech is really putting her out there. I agree she should take a Senate seat to take control of Congress, but this could easily pivot into a primary campaign.
I think as long as politicians are gunning to take the reins of the largest imperialist machine on the planet, I want their opinions on different states known. Especially states that this machine has had a history with fucking with.
As far as all this other discussion, I never said the Maduro government was perfect, but they certainly care more about their people than the US government. Sanders in his position can stand against US-imperialism but instead he isn’t. I wish he was.
At the risk of turning this thread into a “US and also Venezuela Election Thread” and also with the same caveat you gave that I am also certainly no expert, I just want to poke a hole in the “Listen to actual Venezuelans” thing.
Obviously, you’re right, we should listen to Venezuelans. But if you only talk to Venezuelans in America (yes, I realize that’s not explicitly what you said. I’m making an assumption here), then you’re talking to a very specific type of Venezuelan. You’re talking to Venezuelans who had the resources to leave. And you’re talking to Venezuelans who chose to use those resources to move, not to a nearby country with a similar culture, but to a completely different hemisphere of the world. None of that should discount the opinions of those people. But it will color those opinions.
At the same time, I’m hesitant to trust polls in Venezuela due to accusations that those polls are being manipulated. I guess all I’m saying is that this is a complicated situation.
I can’t speak for diglett, but what I learned was from people living in Venezuela I’ve known for years who hang around the same online circles I do.
Nobody said anything about people from Venezuela who left Venezuela and I’m not sure where you got that from. Honestly this whole discussion seems to have the feeling we’re talking about other conversations elsewhere, because a lot of what I’m reading seems to be assuming that we’re all arguing completely different things (someone higher up in the thread seemed to think just because some of us don’t back Maduro that means we were for US military intervention, for example).
I think we all just need to let this topic rest and get back on track on dunking on the Starbucks guy who’s running for president as a third party so he doesn’t have to pay more taxes and calling Kamala Harris a monster who laughs when she remembers she used to threaten poor people with jail for misnomers.
It feels a bit like the Labour leadership contest in 2015. You’ve got a bunch of ostensibly progressive politicians who all suck once you scratch under the surface a little bit and ultimately just want things to carry on as normal. Then you’ve got Sanders who’s the Corbyn esque figure. Has plenty of problems of his own but at least seems to have some good ideas, is unafraid to stand for some policies that everyone else won’t commit and wants to change actively things.
Genuine question, since afaik there isn’t an easily looked for platform for him yet: what are Sanders’ leftist policies people are excited about? There only things I see thrown around are higher minimum wage, antitrust, and M4A, which are all part of for example Warren’s platform.
This article does a good job explaining the main differences between the two candidates. I am definitely more of a fan of Bernie, but I would not be mad if Warren got the nod.
I could take Warren. She’s not great but she’s looking like the most solid option of the non-leftist wing of the branch (especially next to Harris, who would probably be down with the return of debters’ prisons).
I would begrudgingly vote for Warren over Harris (y’all see that clip yet of her mocking protesters who chanted “open more schools and less prisons”? She seems lovely), even though I can’t shake the feeling that the policies she’s adopting aren’t really ones she’s passionate about.
There’s one quote from her that just ruins my trust: "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore. I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role.” Fucking yikes. Someone who put their morals aside for years all because they thought the markets would save us. Certainly not an ideal candidate, but I’ll likely end up settling for her.
Thank you for that link, it was exactly the sort of thing I needed.
I feel really conflicted, because while Sanders clearly has the better politics, I worry that the new US left has severely misjudged the true loyalties of the centrist neo-liberal DNC / Clinton arm of the Democratic party, and also the animosity that this crowd holds for Bernie specifically.
I see a Sanders nomination leading to a mass revolt from the center-left, who it turns out care way more about markets and their big corporate donors than social justice, and having them rally around a independently wealthy centrist third-party candidate - say, Howard Schultz - as “the only serious option” with the assumption that they’ll be joined by enough Reasonable Republicans™ and independents to carry the day (spoiler: they won’t). I mean, the ads about coming together to overcome our increasingly polarized politics practically write themselves.
Warren wants to get government back into the business of policing corporations, and that’s an explicitly good thing; moreover, she has the benefit of not being considered totally unacceptable by the party leadership or having been made a scapegoat for Hillary’s loss in 2016.
And maybe there is nothing more quintessentially Democrat than convincing yourself to settle for mediocrity because actual meaningful change is too risky, too implausible. But here I am.
PS fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck Kamala Harris though, I am very certain re: my feelings on that.
The center-left will throw a hissy fit every time, but don’t worry, the amount in the Democratic party who would vote for a third party billionaire is the same amount in the republican party who still openly defy Trump - aka such a small number that it hardly matters and we only think it does because news media keeps letting this ridiculously small amount of people say nothing of significance every chance they get.
They’ll swallow their pride and vote for a leftist candidate because they know a third party politician in this political system can’t win and they hate Republicans more. Actual Democratic politicians can be friendly with Republicans, but the voting base doesn’t think the same way. There’s a reason Sanders was so close to getting the nomination in the 2016 race and why several leftist politicians managed to grab seats in 2018. The tide is turning and even the Democratic leadership sees it, trying to find a way to still seem relevant with a more leftist leaning base (thus so many adopting stances they used to mock or belittle).
I’m not quite so confident about this, but I do think there is a necessity in boldness from the left to advance candidates who can contest their ideas in the party.
In the UK example, the party’s left had advanced John McDonnell and Diane Abbott (who are part of a particular set of figures around Corbyn who came up in the 1980s) in Labour’s leadership contests in 2007 and 2010 (although McDonnell never made it onto the ballot due to the rules around qualification) as standard-bearers for the party. While neither managed to win, this tradition helped Corbyn get onto the 2015 ballot, where the party base was sufficiently pliable to give Corbyn the mandate.
I do think the die-hard never-Sanders crowd have an illusory quality to them, but there is still a process to bringing the Democrats left. There will be pushback and attempts to defect, but a left party base needs to be able to convince people (whether the dispirited non-voters @SolidWookiee has mentioned above or the reluctant centrists) to back their candidates and party interests.
The American news media is very bad at covering it, but running on anti-billionaire class resentment is really effective and a Democrat who can do it effectively (like Obama did to Mitt, but he did it in a very lowkey way) is going to do very well. Most people don’t like the super-rich very much!
The New York Times has been reporting about Warren privately reaching out to representatives from the Cherokee Nation to apologise for her DNA test move. I’m quoting The Intercept here as they appear to be the initial reporters…
[…] On the campaign trail, she has noted repeatedly that she does not claim citizenship in any tribe nor was she trying to.
But she’s quietly since gone a step further. Warren has been in touch with Cherokee Nation leadership, apologizing for furthering confusion over issues of tribal sovereignty and citizenship and for any harm her announcement caused, two sources with knowledge of her overture said. The Warren campaign declined to comment.
“Senator Warren has reached out to us and has apologized to the tribe,” Cherokee Nation’s executive director of communications Julie Hubbard told The Intercept. “We are encouraged by this dialogue and understanding that being a Cherokee Nation tribal citizen is rooted in centuries of culture and laws not through DNA tests. We are encouraged by her action and hope that the slurs and mockery of tribal citizens and Indian history and heritage will now come to an end.”
There’s an earlier excerpt I cut, which is here:
In December, she sought to right the perception that she was claiming some sort of marginalized status. “I’m not a person of color. And I haven’t lived your life or experienced anything like the subtle prejudice, or more overt harm, that you may have experienced just because of the color of your skin,” she said at a commencement address at the historically black Morgan State University.
It’s not my place to say if this even “a step in the right direction”, but I hope Warren can substantiate her apologies with the appropriate action too. As the quote says, I hope, and think it needs to be, more a dialogue than a simple apology.
What’d i say?
Nobody likes him, not even Republicans!
Burnt! Just like his coffee!
This gives me some security. But it’s also worth remembering that the Electoral College is incredibly shitty and 100,000 votes across three states was the margin of difference between Trump and Clinton in 2016. He still scares me.