2020 Presidential Election

[WheatToast]

I want to put the Bernie thread to rest.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...rs-stein-trump

To me, he joined the race to siphon votes from Hillary, and then to pocket tons of campaign contributions.
He's been up the Russian's ass since the 70's.

[Kätzchen]

It's late tonight but I think WheatToast's question is important: "Why Bernie?"

I admit I fell for his platform, back in 2016, and I thought he'd make a good president. But then WheatToast posted that article from VOX about Stein and Sanders also having Russian influence in their campaigns (?). That is the first time I've read about it and that article was published back in February of 2018 -- nearly a year ago.

In some ways, now, I often wonder if I didn't set the bar high enough, you know? I don't know that I could get behind a Bernie Sander's nomination again. Sure, he's got a track record that shows what he has accomplished in the US Senate, but does it make him the right person for the most important job in the world?

In the past, I am embarrassed to admit that I had to like a person, in order to feel comfortable to vote for them. But this past election made me see that it's not about the person as much as it is about their platform, their ability to lead and their ability to carry out a vision, a vison that people of every stripe and flavor can get behind and support. Which hopefully brings us to a better place in life, right?



I know dark_crystal posted about how overwhelming it was to see Beto-nirvana over the course of last year, but as appealing to others as Beto seems, I don't know if he's got what it takes to fill the bill as an US President. I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, though, so I found d_c's point of view intriguing and very interesting take on O'Rourke.

I'm with Martina though, when it comes down to Warren or Biden. I'd choose Warren over Biden, as well.


I appreciate this thread and reading everyone's point of view and things that come to mind. It helps me to put things in perspective about the upcoming 20/20 election.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Kätzchen

It's late tonight but I think WheatToast's question is important: "Why Bernie?"

I admit I fell for his platform, back in 2016, and I thought he'd make a good president. But then WheatToast posted that article from VOX about Stein and Sanders also having Russian influence in their campaigns (?). That is the first time I've read about it and that article was published back in February of 2018 -- nearly a year ago.

In some ways, now, I often wonder if I didn't set the bar high enough, you know? I don't know that I could get behind a Bernie Sander's nomination again. Sure, he's got a track record that shows what he has accomplished in the US Senate, but does it make him the right person for the most important job in the world?

In the past, I am embarrassed to admit that I had to like a person, in order to feel comfortable to vote for them. But this past election made me see that it's not about the person as much as it is about their platform, their ability to lead and their ability to carry out a vision, a vison that people of every stripe and flavor can get behind and support. Which hopefully brings us to a better place in life, right?



I know dark_crystal posted about how overwhelming it was to see Beto-nirvana over the course of last year, but as appealing to others as Beto seems, I don't know if he's got what it takes to fill the bill as an US President. I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, though, so I found d_c's point of view intriguing and very interesting take on O'Rourke.

I'm with Martina though, when it comes down to Warren or Biden. I'd choose Warren over Biden, as well.


I appreciate this thread and reading everyone's point of view and things that come to mind. It helps me to put things in perspective about the upcoming 20/20 election.

There has never been any suggestion that Bernie colluded with the Russians. The article says the Russians helped him but they were doing that to help Trump

The indictment said that the Russians pushed the idea of a third-party or write-in protest vote to hurt Clinton.

It did not help Bernie, in fact it hurt him because he is now strongly associated with the #BernieOrBust movement, despite endorsing Clinton and asking his supporters to give her their votes.

Even Noam Chomsky was begging people not to fall for it.

And now it is just the gift that keeps on giving.

[WheatToast]

Originally Posted by Kätzchen

It's late tonight but I think WheatToast's question is important: "Why Bernie?"

I admit I fell for his platform, back in 2016, and I thought he'd make a good president. But then WheatToast posted that article from VOX about Stein and Sanders also having Russian influence in their campaigns (?). That is the first time I've read about it and that article was published back in February of 2018 -- nearly a year ago.

In some ways, now, I often wonder if I didn't set the bar high enough, you know? I don't know that I could get behind a Bernie Sander's nomination again. Sure, he's got a track record that shows what he has accomplished in the US Senate, but does it make him the right person for the most important job in the world?

In the past, I am embarrassed to admit that I had to like a person, in order to feel comfortable to vote for them. But this past election made me see that it's not about the person as much as it is about their platform, their ability to lead and their ability to carry out a vision, a vison that people of every stripe and flavor can get behind and support. Which hopefully brings us to a better place in life, right?



I know dark_crystal posted about how overwhelming it was to see Beto-nirvana over the course of last year, but as appealing to others as Beto seems, I don't know if he's got what it takes to fill the bill as an US President. I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, though, so I found d_c's point of view intriguing and very interesting take on O'Rourke.

I'm with Martina though, when it comes down to Warren or Biden. I'd choose Warren over Biden, as well.


I appreciate this thread and reading everyone's point of view and things that come to mind. It helps me to put things in perspective about the upcoming 20/20 election.

I could write a volume about why Bernie is unsuited, but I doubt he'll be an issue in 2020.
I think it's too early to start stressing over which Democrat to back in the 2020 POTUS election, but so far I like Castro, Beto and Harris.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by WheatToast

I want to put the Bernie thread to rest.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...rs-stein-trump

To me, he joined the race to siphon votes from Hillary, and then to pocket tons of campaign contributions.
He's been up the Russian's ass since the 70's.

What do you mean up the Russians' ass? Do you have any evidence for collusion? And the idea that Bernie Sanders, of all people, is guilty of pocketing campaign funds is ludicrous. Evidence? Where on Earth do you get the idea that Sanders, a lifelong public servant whose record is as transparent as they come, ran with the intent to defeat Hillary so Trump could win, which you imply. This is laughable. And what do you mean you want to put the Bernie thread to rest? Is there a Bernie thread?

Of course the Russians encouraged third party votes. They wanted Trump. Does that mean that Stein or Bernie had any knowledge of it? It's straight out of conspiracy theory news and Trump-level despicable and irresponsible to assert such things without evidence. I said in 2016 that some of the tactics of Hillary supporters made the Republicans look like lightweights. This is that level of insanity.

[homoe]

..


............

[charley]

Originally Posted by Martina

What do you mean up the Russians' ass? Do you have any evidence for collusion? And the idea that Bernie Sanders, of all people, is guilty of pocketing campaign funds is ludicrous. Evidence? Where on Earth do you get the idea that Sanders, a lifelong public servant whose record is as transparent as they come, ran with the intent to defeat Hillary so Trump could win, which you imply. This is laughable. And what do you mean you want to put the Bernie thread to rest? Is there a Bernie thread?

Of course the Russians encouraged third party votes. They wanted Trump. Does that mean that Stein or Bernie had any knowledge of it? It's straight out of conspiracy theory news and Trump-level despicable and irresponsible to assert such things without evidence. I said in 2016 that some of the tactics of Hillary supporters made the Republicans look like lightweights. This is that level of insanity.

Right on, Martina, nothing more than a dreadful example of fake news. The only one up anyone's ass would be Putin up Trump's. I really didn't understand why anyone would post that link from Vox (which was nothing more than innuendo), without any corroboration from multiple credible sources. Vox is noted for being a site that does not necessarily publish facts, but has a reputation for only encouraging opinions about certain facts.

[kittygrrl]

I detest any reference to "fake news" on our side. This is a term Trump uses often and why would we want to borrow any of his crap? I think we can express ourselves without resorting to using his kind of propaganda.

[charley]

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

I detest any reference to "fake news" on our side. This is a term Trump uses often and why would we want to borrow any of his crap? I think we can express ourselves without resorting to using his kind of propaganda.

""Fake news" is a phrase that may seem specific to our particular moment and time in American history."

"But Columbia University Professor Andie Tucher says fake news is deeply rooted in American journalism."

"The first newspaper published in North America got shut down in 1690 after printing fabricated information...."

https://www.npr.org/tags/502124007/fake-news

Fakes news is spread worldwide... Propaganda has existed in all political circles where dictators rule. One can give it other names, use euphemisms, but it's all lies.

Personally, I have tried to talk with some Philippines here, who absolutely believe all that they read in "social media" in the Philippines, suggesting how wonderful Duterte is, despite an overall pov in those who can read between the lines that he is a dictator.

I can cite many examples that are worldwide. So, I see no reason whatsoever not to use such an expression, because everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is "fake news", and that is because he is a "fake".

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by charley

""Fake news" is a phrase that may seem specific to our particular moment and time in American history."

"But Columbia University Professor Andie Tucher says fake news is deeply rooted in American journalism."

"The first newspaper published in North America got shut down in 1690 after printing fabricated information...."

https://www.npr.org/tags/502124007/fake-news

Fakes news is spread worldwide... Propaganda has existed in all political circles where dictators rule. One can give it other names, use euphemisms, but it's all lies.

Personally, I have tried to talk with some Philippines here, who absolutely believe all that they read in "social media" in the Philippines, suggesting how wonderful Duterte is, despite an overall pov in those who can read between the lines that he is a dictator.

I can cite many examples that are worldwide. So, I see no reason whatsoever not to use such an expression, because everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is "fake news", and that is because he is a "fake".

Notwithstanding your effort to promote it's usage as acceptable. it was popularized by Trump every time he heard something from the free press that was the truth , he would insist it was "fake news" to deflect. Knowing that why would you want to promote your ideas by using his propaganda method? It's not logical. He's polluted the term, as he has many things, so associating any rational argument using his methods doesn't help the reader to sympathize with your opinion or argument, just the opposite. But it's a free country and my opinion is just one opinion. There are some good ideas here but i find some of the ways it is expressed rude and coarse. That's a shame.

[charley]

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

Notwithstanding your effort to promote it's usage as acceptable. it was popularized by Trump every time he heard something from the free press that was the truth , he would insist it was "fake news" to deflect. Knowing that why would you want to promote your ideas by using his propaganda method? It's not logical. He's polluted the term, as he has many things, so associating any rational argument using his methods doesn't help the reader to sympathize with your opinion or argument, just the opposite. But it's a free country and my opinion is just one opinion. There are some good ideas here but i find some of the ways it is expressed rude and coarse. That's a shame.

from Time Magazine:

"The scourge of “fake news” and its many cousins–from clickbait to “deep fakes” (realistic-looking videos showing events that never happened)–have experts fearful for the future of democracy." - Katy Steinmetz

http://time.com/5362183/the-real-fake-news-crisis/

"Fake news websites (also referred to as hoax news websites) are Internet websites that deliberately publish fake news—hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news—often using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_website

I used the term correctly, which others have also used - and correctly so. And I did not misappropriate the term. I have watched news reports from other countries (I live outside the U.S. and have access to other journalists who use that term correctly.) Just because someone misuses those words does not invalidate their true meaning, and I am not responsible for anothers' misuse of words.

The only issue was proof of Bernie Sanders alleged misdeeds, of which there are none; because, if there were, Mueller would be investigating, and Republicans in the Senate and the POTUS would be calling for him to go to jail, which they are not doing.

An ad hominem attack is an attack on the person usually in the form of an insult, not for the content of what that person stands for.

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

And, the topic of hand was "Bernie Sanders"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

As such, any proposed argument dismissing the use of the term "fake news" just because someone else has misused the term is utterly fallacious and ridiculous and misleading, because it failed miserably to address the fact that someone made false allegations about someone else.

[WheatToast]

Originally Posted by charley

Right on, Martina, nothing more than a dreadful example of fake news. The only one up anyone's ass would be Putin up Trump's. I really didn't understand why anyone would post that link from Vox (which was nothing more than innuendo), without any corroboration from multiple credible sources. Vox is noted for being a site that does not necessarily publish facts, but has a reputation for only encouraging opinions about certain facts.

Vox.com is run by Ezra Klein, a former Washington Post reporter. As many would assert, the Washington Post is as reliable an American media outlet as there ever was, so it follows their reporters have incredibly high standards.
Vox is both a news and opinion outlet, but to challenge their veracity is generally a past-time the right wing enjoys. Erza Klein is not known by any credible critics as a lying jackass. He is a reliable liberal/progressive voice.
Learning to vet sources may be the voter's best friend this time around.

[WheatToast]

Originally Posted by Martina

What do you mean up the Russians' ass? Do you have any evidence for collusion? And the idea that Bernie Sanders, of all people, is guilty of pocketing campaign funds is ludicrous. Evidence? Where on Earth do you get the idea that Sanders, a lifelong public servant whose record is as transparent as they come, ran with the intent to defeat Hillary so Trump could win, which you imply. This is laughable. And what do you mean you want to put the Bernie thread to rest? Is there a Bernie thread?

Of course the Russians encouraged third party votes. They wanted Trump. Does that mean that Stein or Bernie had any knowledge of it? It's straight out of conspiracy theory news and Trump-level despicable and irresponsible to assert such things without evidence. I said in 2016 that some of the tactics of Hillary supporters made the Republicans look like lightweights. This is that level of insanity.

If you cannot be bothered to catch up on legitimate news sources, please do not expect others to brief you. Of course I have proof of all my allegations; why make claims that can be proven false?
Bernie's a bum.