jerseyhoya wrote:AOC, Omar and Tlaib are endorsing Bernie

They sort of have to. It would be better if they did things individually.

I dunno. Thought it was kind of shocking especially with Warren surging and Bernie fading.

I'll admit I don't get purist lefty politics because from my vantage point it all looks kind of the same to me. But seems like a pretty wild/consequential move.

Yeah seems silly because he looks pretty unlikely to win. And this is different then endorsing some DSA guy for city council.

I think it is short sighted. The momentum against Bernie for varying reasons should have had them wait to endorse anyone of Bernie was the first choice. Give it a minute.

The squad as a collision is not a good look to me, but I guess there are plenty. I think they would be precived stronger as single actors (that is a general statement as well; Gatz and friends look stupid together as a pack imo as well).

jerseyhoya wrote:I dunno. Thought it was kind of shocking especially with Warren surging and Bernie fading.

I'll admit I don't get purist lefty politics because from my vantage point it all looks kind of the same to me. But seems like a pretty wild/consequential move.

It’s a mystery to me too and I am on the left. Bernie people on the hard left, by whom I am surrounded, are now reacting to Elizabeth Warren like she is the second coming of Hillary, which is patent nonsense.

I like most if not all of Bernie’s ideas but his acolytes get more annoying to me by the day. His concepts are not as well worked out as Warren’s, for one thing, and for another, despite what the current jerk thinks, these people are running for President, not dictator. Regarding any of their platforms as “things that will happen if my guy or gal is elected” is... frustrating, to say the least.

jerseyhoya wrote:I dunno. Thought it was kind of shocking especially with Warren surging and Bernie fading.

I'll admit I don't get purist lefty politics because from my vantage point it all looks kind of the same to me. But seems like a pretty wild/consequential move.

There’s always the possibility that those making these decisions aren’t quite as smart as they may think.

Bernie and Warren do differ ideologically and I'm not really surprised that they're endorsing him. I'm also not sure it truly matters as their big fans are likely to be Sanders supporters anyway.

One huge problem with Sanders of course is he's not a Democrat. I know it's been a long time, but if we've learned nothing else from the Republicans, party solidarity and loyalty are really important to getting things done.

If you see politics as nothing more than a way to express your feelings, I guess you can do what you want. But if you really care about getting things done, you need to also keep party discipline in mind.

I will add there seems to be some cachet among Bernie Bros from adopting the "socialist" label as descriptor, sometimes calling themselves Democratic Socialists. Of course, they really aren't socialists, they are Social Democrats. I realize I've pretty much lost this battle, but unless you are advocating for nationalizing major industries, you're not a socialist.

TenuredVulture wrote:I will add there seems to be some cachet among Bernie Bros from adopting the "socialist" label as descriptor, sometimes calling themselves Democratic Socialists. Of course, they really aren't socialists, they are Social Democrats. I realize I've pretty much lost this battle, but unless you are advocating for nationalizing major industries, you're not a socialist.

I subscribe to your newsletter on this point, and I will tell you that a fair number of Bernie people are in fact socialist socialists. But then I spend a lot of my time with the hard, hard left.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF DECENCY? AT LONG LAST, SIR, HAVE YOU LEFT NO SENSE OF DECENCY?

I think it probably doesn't matter much. I figured that AOC would be for Bernie.

I think it is more important for them to endorse Warren when she wins (or whomever wins the primary).

Bucky wrote:HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF DECENCY? AT LONG LAST, SIR, HAVE YOU LEFT NO SENSE OF DECENCY?

You're assuming I had any to begin with.

Bernie claiming the socialist mantle (even if what he proposes isn't) while Warren talks about preserving capitalism, albeit with major structural reforms, means a lot to these people. Many of them see capitalism as the wellspring of racism, imperialism, fascism, etc. and as something which must be dismantled if humanity is to survive.

Also, keep in mind that there are many currents within socialism as an idea that go beyond the state controlling the means of production. Bernie's idea for a required employee ownership program for large corporations doesn't involve nationalizing anything, but is definitely within the socialist intellectual tradition.

My question is if Sanders or (much more likely) Warren wins the primary, will the gigantic centrist Democratic party apparatus be fully behind him/her, or will we start seeing dumb op-eds about drafting Michael Bloomberg or the Starbucks boy or some other goon from people with Think Progress or the Clinton campaign on their CVs.

Augustus wrote:Many of them see capitalism as the wellspring of racism, imperialism, fascism, etc. and as something which must be dismantled if humanity is to survive.

This is correct, which is weird to me because it is none of those things, at least not any more than any other system of economic organization that came before it. Granted, socialism is theoretically a countermand to all of those -isms, but really only theoretically. It's no accident that arguably the most successful (albeit short-lived) fascist state were the National Socialists.

In theory, socialism would work best in a non-imperialist, post-nationalist context. E pluribus Unum organized around the humanist belief in the greatest good for the greatest number and taken as literally as possible, with each individual, regardless of background or original place of residence, given equal access to the body politic.

The fundamental problem of pure socialism is human psychology and the will to power, and the will to wealth. A socialist system that maintains civil liberties makes it far too easy for those so inclined to undermine the broad buy-in to the system that socialism requires. Strong group identifiers - like nationalism and ethnic identity - help to ameliorate this process, and to the extent they are not present the task of keeping a healthy majority, not a simple one, on the same page becomes difficult. If America converted to a socialist economic organization, but held sacrosanct the freedom of speech, it becomes far, far too easy for ambitious people, even without the power of media to amplify their message, to spread an undermining message of "individual liberty" that is really the individual's will to wealth and power, which itself is the poison pill of socialism. And it will take root very easily.

Indeed, I am watching this unfold on a microcosmic scale in my own home town. I am a liberal Democrat in a town where "Democrats" are thirsty for power, and the quickest way to that is to complain about the taxes being too damn high, which is exactly what they are doing. No one will ever disagree with you and you will always have a significant and disruptive minority at the least, and more likely a majority.

One could hope that with patience and time, socialism of a non-nationalist, non-ethnic bent would simply win the argument by, ironically, having built a better mouse trap and thus winning in the capitalist-metaphor "market place of ideas," and that over time therefore people would be less susceptible to such short-term and short-sighted siren songs calling them to quick wealth and individual power. However, patience is hard, and the overwhleming temptation is not to wait, not to risk what has been built, but rather to shut down debate, which is how you get autocratic socialist states like Cuba and all they entail, and that is how you wind up going down a road that classical liberals rightly abhor and abjure.

I guess what I am saying is people are no damn good.

The President said that the PKK is more of a terror threat than ISIS. Erdogan probably needs a new pair of pants after hearing that one.

Trump: "If you look at the Kurds, and again I say this with great respect: they're no angels. If you look at PKK -- take a look at PKK. ISIS respects PKK. You know why? Because they're as tougher, or tougher, than ISIS."

From Daniel Dale, CNN.

Grieving Parents ‘Ambushed’ by Trump, Who Had Teen’s Killer Waiting at White House

aside from refusing to find out how is behind door number one, they had this to say:

“It struck us that this meeting was hastily arranged by nincompoops"

He thought it could have gone better, but since he knows game shows, has never lived in the real world,and completely lacks empathy it was just about an explainer of what he is.

Apparently there was a bipartisan meeting at the White House today regarding Syria-Kurds-Turkey and the President came unglued and the Democrats walked out. Honestly, I think this Syria matter is the issue that might swing some Senate R's to vote to remove (I hope).