4 ms·

Massie was against it. Need a Massie/Bernie ticket

by techteach00 6mo ago

nozzlegear 6mo ago
At 84 years old, Bernie is older than both Trump and Biden and probably shouldn't be running for anything.
- jmalicki 6mo ago
  And regardless of your feelings on his political positions, in his extremely lengthy time in the House and Senate, he has only gotten three bills he sponsored passed - two renaming post offices, and a VA benefit increase. Despite having a position of power for a very long time, he has been completely ineffective at wielding that power to achieve any of his goals.
  - genxy 6mo ago
    This is like measuring programmer value in klocs.
    - jmalicki 6mo ago
      When klocs is approximately 0 that is telling.
      - occamofsandwich 6mo ago
        Short enough to possibly be correct.
  - yabutlivnWoods 6mo ago
    If his goal was just get bills passed, sure As a Senator he is invited around the world to discuss his ideas
    - jmalicki 6mo ago
      And how has that changed anything? If he was not able to change policy in any way as a Senator, how would he be able to do so as a President? He can veto a bill then get it overridden. He has already proven 100% he lets the more conservative parts of Congress walk all over him - he can have the best ideas in the world but that won't change a thing. If you want someone to make people discuss ideas - great, you can be at a think tank. The point of electing someone to political office is to get bills passed, so that things actually change.
      - yabutlivnWoods 6mo ago
        Your claim is his acting as a voice for America abroad has not benefited the US? "Walk all over..." when he is clearly out numbered not just in Congress but by voters. You want him to show up with a flamethrower and show what he's really made of? You're not at all engaged in a sincere discussion. Coming off like an intentional astroturfer just out to propagate Bernie hate Don't get me wrong I am not a Bernie Bro. Just aware there is a world outside him working against him this whole time too.
        jmalicki 6mo ago
        He can do that without being an elected congressman. If you are elected to congress, your job is to get bills passed. If you like his politics, there are other people like Elizabeth Warren that have remarkably similar political positions, yet are some of the most highly effective politicians in the sense of enacting policy. Oh, but she is a woman. So better support Bernie instead. The conspiracy of people who hate the left are the ones who prop of Bernie, because he is a joke. The more the left supports Bernie, the more people like Warren struggle to get elected, and the authoritarian likes that because Warren is actually a formidable foe, so they want to prop up ineffective people like Bernie instead.
        lapcat 6mo ago
        > If you are elected to congress, your job is to get bills passed. This is a vast oversimplification. Your job is to represent your consistuents. In many cases, this means your job is to stop bills from getting passed, especially in the current political situation. > The more the left supports Bernie, the more people like Warren struggle to get elected This is a very strange take. Sanders and Warren are mostly close allies and rarely compete. Both are successfully elected Senators, from separate states. Warren declined to run for President in 2016 and appeared to be supporting Sanders. In 2020 they both ran for President, but guess what, neither one of them won the Democratic nomination. In any case, it's important to recognize that elections are popularity contests and not competency tests, as should be obvious from our current President. The issue is not even "the left." Sanders is more popular than Warren, indeed more popular than almost any politician of any party (including male politicians, if you insist on making this about gender), among political independents. Because of his popularity among independents, he's the most popular politician in the US and would have a better chance of winning the Presidency than any Democrat (of any gender), but the Democrats nonetheless refuse to nominate him. If Warren were equally popular among independents, then Democrats should nominate her, but she's not. Of course this lack of popularity among independents is not specific to Warren: most non-Democrats dislike Democrats. In 2016, Sanders put up an unexpectedly stiff challenge to Clinton, who was considered an overwhelming frontrunner at the beginning of the race. The natural next step for the left would be to build on that momentum and push Sanders over the top in 2020. In my opinion, it's quite delusional to expect that the left would for some bizarre reason abandon Sanders in 2020 and throw their support behind Warren instead. That would make little sense. Why start over from scratch? In any case, I doubt that Warren would have fared better. The establishment doesn't want a leftist, no matter who, and they quickly conspired to consolidate around Biden, who didn't even pick Warren as his running mate.
  - nazgulnarsil 6mo ago
    this seems like an illustrative microcosm of the political stance of Vermont.
- techteach00 6mo ago
  True. Maybe Ro Khanna/Massie. Honestly those good tickets have minimal support. People don't pay attention enough. Will get more establishment figures. Probably Rubio vs Newsom. No reason to vote then.
  - jen20 6mo ago
    > No reason to vote then. It is not possible to eye roll hard enough at this. In the US (and to a lesser extent, the UK), you vote for whichever you believe to be the least bad candidate, or tactically for whoever will keep whoever you believe to be the most bad candidate out of office. It is exceptionally uncommon that you get to vote for someone rather than against.
    - lapcat 6mo ago
      > tactically IMO voting tactically makes about as much sense as choosing lottery numbers tactically. Perhaps it makes less sense, because people do actually win the lottery. Unless you are a Supreme Court Justice, the odds that your vote will change the election outcome are practically nil. It's a bit odd to believe that you can't change who the candidates are, but you can nonetheless change which candidate wins. In fact, you can't do either. Collectively, we determine both, but each voter is only a grain of sand in the collective heap.
      - lovich 6mo ago
        The snowflake doesn’t feel responsible for the avalanche
      - jen20 6mo ago
        Tactical voting is far more important in the UK, where there are typically more than two candidates to vote for in any given seat, the government is not directly elected and most candidates are not selected in primaries. It's _incredibly_ common there to vote to unseat the current government, or avoid splitting the vote on one side of the spectrum or the other. For example, I personally voted for a candidate I had almost no agreement with because they were most likely to unseat someone who supported Brexit. And it worked.
guzfip 6mo ago
They’re really trying to replace him with that lizard man though. A lot of dementia patients in that state seem to want him gone.

Massie was against it. Need a Massie/Bernie ticket

nozzlegear 6mo ago

At 84 years old, Bernie is older than both Trump and Biden and probably shouldn't be running for anything.

jmalicki 6mo ago
And regardless of your feelings on his political positions, in his extremely lengthy time in the House and Senate, he has only gotten three bills he sponsored passed - two renaming post offices, and a VA benefit increase. Despite having a position of power for a very long time, he has been completely ineffective at wielding that power to achieve any of his goals.
- genxy 6mo ago
  This is like measuring programmer value in klocs.
  - jmalicki 6mo ago
    When klocs is approximately 0 that is telling.
    - occamofsandwich 6mo ago
      Short enough to possibly be correct.
- yabutlivnWoods 6mo ago
  If his goal was just get bills passed, sure As a Senator he is invited around the world to discuss his ideas
  - jmalicki 6mo ago
    And how has that changed anything? If he was not able to change policy in any way as a Senator, how would he be able to do so as a President? He can veto a bill then get it overridden. He has already proven 100% he lets the more conservative parts of Congress walk all over him - he can have the best ideas in the world but that won't change a thing. If you want someone to make people discuss ideas - great, you can be at a think tank. The point of electing someone to political office is to get bills passed, so that things actually change.
    - yabutlivnWoods 6mo ago
      Your claim is his acting as a voice for America abroad has not benefited the US? "Walk all over..." when he is clearly out numbered not just in Congress but by voters. You want him to show up with a flamethrower and show what he's really made of? You're not at all engaged in a sincere discussion. Coming off like an intentional astroturfer just out to propagate Bernie hate Don't get me wrong I am not a Bernie Bro. Just aware there is a world outside him working against him this whole time too.
      - jmalicki 6mo ago
        He can do that without being an elected congressman. If you are elected to congress, your job is to get bills passed. If you like his politics, there are other people like Elizabeth Warren that have remarkably similar political positions, yet are some of the most highly effective politicians in the sense of enacting policy. Oh, but she is a woman. So better support Bernie instead. The conspiracy of people who hate the left are the ones who prop of Bernie, because he is a joke. The more the left supports Bernie, the more people like Warren struggle to get elected, and the authoritarian likes that because Warren is actually a formidable foe, so they want to prop up ineffective people like Bernie instead.
        lapcat 6mo ago
        > If you are elected to congress, your job is to get bills passed. This is a vast oversimplification. Your job is to represent your consistuents. In many cases, this means your job is to stop bills from getting passed, especially in the current political situation. > The more the left supports Bernie, the more people like Warren struggle to get elected This is a very strange take. Sanders and Warren are mostly close allies and rarely compete. Both are successfully elected Senators, from separate states. Warren declined to run for President in 2016 and appeared to be supporting Sanders. In 2020 they both ran for President, but guess what, neither one of them won the Democratic nomination. In any case, it's important to recognize that elections are popularity contests and not competency tests, as should be obvious from our current President. The issue is not even "the left." Sanders is more popular than Warren, indeed more popular than almost any politician of any party (including male politicians, if you insist on making this about gender), among political independents. Because of his popularity among independents, he's the most popular politician in the US and would have a better chance of winning the Presidency than any Democrat (of any gender), but the Democrats nonetheless refuse to nominate him. If Warren were equally popular among independents, then Democrats should nominate her, but she's not. Of course this lack of popularity among independents is not specific to Warren: most non-Democrats dislike Democrats. In 2016, Sanders put up an unexpectedly stiff challenge to Clinton, who was considered an overwhelming frontrunner at the beginning of the race. The natural next step for the left would be to build on that momentum and push Sanders over the top in 2020. In my opinion, it's quite delusional to expect that the left would for some bizarre reason abandon Sanders in 2020 and throw their support behind Warren instead. That would make little sense. Why start over from scratch? In any case, I doubt that Warren would have fared better. The establishment doesn't want a leftist, no matter who, and they quickly conspired to consolidate around Biden, who didn't even pick Warren as his running mate.
- nazgulnarsil 6mo ago
  this seems like an illustrative microcosm of the political stance of Vermont.
techteach00 6mo ago
True. Maybe Ro Khanna/Massie. Honestly those good tickets have minimal support. People don't pay attention enough. Will get more establishment figures. Probably Rubio vs Newsom. No reason to vote then.
- jen20 6mo ago
  > No reason to vote then. It is not possible to eye roll hard enough at this. In the US (and to a lesser extent, the UK), you vote for whichever you believe to be the least bad candidate, or tactically for whoever will keep whoever you believe to be the most bad candidate out of office. It is exceptionally uncommon that you get to vote for someone rather than against.
  - lapcat 6mo ago
    > tactically IMO voting tactically makes about as much sense as choosing lottery numbers tactically. Perhaps it makes less sense, because people do actually win the lottery. Unless you are a Supreme Court Justice, the odds that your vote will change the election outcome are practically nil. It's a bit odd to believe that you can't change who the candidates are, but you can nonetheless change which candidate wins. In fact, you can't do either. Collectively, we determine both, but each voter is only a grain of sand in the collective heap.
    - lovich 6mo ago
      The snowflake doesn’t feel responsible for the avalanche
    - jen20 6mo ago
      Tactical voting is far more important in the UK, where there are typically more than two candidates to vote for in any given seat, the government is not directly elected and most candidates are not selected in primaries. It's _incredibly_ common there to vote to unseat the current government, or avoid splitting the vote on one side of the spectrum or the other. For example, I personally voted for a candidate I had almost no agreement with because they were most likely to unseat someone who supported Brexit. And it worked.

guzfip 6mo ago

They’re really trying to replace him with that lizard man though. A lot of dementia patients in that state seem to want him gone.