What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***2020 Democrat Primary/Caucus Thread*** Biden Is Your Demoractic Nominee (3 Viewers)

It isnt very different at all. 

Socialism-a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Democratic socialism- a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market socialist economy or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.
Or, you could use Sanders own, extensive words on what he means by Democratic Socialism

Here's a snippet, but I'd recommend reading (or watching) the entire thing if you care so much about this.

It is my very strong belief that the United States must reject that path of hatred and divisiveness — and instead find the moral conviction to choose a different path, a higher path, a path of compassion, justice and love.

It is the path that I call democratic socialism.

Over eighty years ago Franklin Delano Roosevelt helped create a government that made transformative progress in protecting the needs of working families. Today, in the second decade of the 21st century, we must take up the unfinished business of the New Deal and carry it to completion.

This is the unfinished business of the Democratic Party and the vision we must accomplish.

In order to accomplish that goal, it means committing ourselves to protecting political rights, to protecting civil rights – and to protect economic rights of all people in this country.

As FDR stated in his 1944 State of the Union address: “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”

Today, our Bill of Rights guarantees the American people a number of important constitutionally protected political rights. And while we understand that these rights have not always been respected and we have so much more work to do, we are proud that our constitution guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, a free press and other rights because we understand that we can never have true American freedom unless we are free from authoritarian tyranny.

Now, we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man, woman and child in our country basic economic rights – the right to quality health care, the right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society, the right to a good job that pays a living wage, the right to affordable housing, the right to a secure retirement, and the right to live in a clean environment.

We must recognize that in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, economic rights are human rights.

That is what I mean by democratic socialism.

As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.”

To realize this vision, we must not view America only as a population of disconnected individuals, we must also view ourselves as part of “an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny,” as Dr. King put it. In other words, we are in this together.
You know some words you won't find in there? "Means of production", "socially owned economy", or "market socialist economy."

What you will read is a whole lot of stuff about the New Deal, JFK, Nixon, Truman, etc. Sanders is carrying the torch for the beliefs a lot Americans used to have about equality and opportunity. The pointless fearmongering over "socialism" is neither new, nor productive.

 
Or, you could use Sanders own, extensive words on what he means by Democratic Socialism

Here's a snippet, but I'd recommend reading (or watching) the entire thing if you care so much about this.

You know some words you won't find in there? "Means of production", "socially owned economy", or "market socialist economy."

What you will read is a whole lot of stuff about the New Deal, JFK, Nixon, Truman, etc. Sanders is carrying the torch for the beliefs a lot Americans used to have about equality and opportunity. The pointless fearmongering over "socialism" is neither new, nor productive.
Oh look! More gaslighting. 

 
Jim Clyburn will be endorsing Biden on Wednesday -- barring a post-Nevada boost, South Carolina might be difficult terrain for Sanders. Bernie probably remains the frontrunner even if Biden wins on Saturday but the odds of a contested convention go way up IMO. 

 
How on earth is getting the exact definition of a word from the source "gaslighting"?
You pretty much answered your question with your question. 

When i want the "exact definition" of a term, I don't go to a politician and allow him to do damage control and make his use of a very specific term that he is catching flack for having used for years seem more palatable.

The whole thing is ridiculous. This isnt some long used colloquial term. It isnt like he said nip it in the butt and people are accusing him of running around and biting butts. 

 
You pretty much answered your question with your question. 

When i want the "exact definition" of a term, I don't go to a politician and allow him to do damage control and make his use of a very specific term that he is catching flack for having used for years seem more palatable.

The whole thing is ridiculous. This isnt some long used colloquial term. It isnt like he said nip it in the butt and people are accusing him of running around and biting butts. 
All throughout history political leaders have been able to define political terms (especially ones used to describe political movements) how they want to define them. If we're having a discussion about what "democratic socialism" means within the context of a potential Sanders administration, there is simply no better source than from the lips of the man himself. 

Arguing anything else is, in fact "gaslighting." 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm on the fence about who I want to win.  Other than the fact that every single person running in the Dem primary is better than Trump (among other things, I remain convinced that because of all the shady property stuff from the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, the potential that people have incriminating material on Trump is just too high). 

With that said, BOTH Sanders and Bloomberg have difficult roads to victory, because they have potential electability problems.  I happen to think Bernie has the best chance (he's going to do better in the rust belt than anyone else understands).  And I think that Bloomberg will have a hard time getting hard core liberals to the polls. 

But the idea of using "electability" as a cudgel at this point against anybody is soooooooo stupid.  

I do think if we have a brokered convention, and there is a person with a strong plurality, if we don't give it to that person, it'll be a disaster. 

 
If the polls hold for SC the delegate breakdown should go:

Biden 22

Sanders 18

Steyer 14

Bringing the totals heading into Super Tuesday:

Sanders: 53

Biden: 32

Pete: 24

Steyer: 14

Warren: 8

Klobuchar: 7

 
mcintyre1 said:
All throughout history political leaders have been able to define political terms (especially ones used to describe political movements) how they want to define them. If we're having a discussion about what "democratic socialism" means within the context of a potential Sanders administration, there is simply no better source than from the lips of the man himself. 

Arguing anything else is, in fact "gaslighting." 
Should be easy to show some relevant examples in US history then...

 
Capella said:
I agree. 
To be clear I wasn’t saying the 401k folks shouldn’t matter.  Just that it represents a much smaller % of voters than poor/struggling working class.  I can’t see other Democrats making a convincing-enough appeal to them when push comes to shove.  Sanders can run to Trump’s left on a lot of winning issues.  

 
If the polls hold for SC the delegate breakdown should go:

Biden 22

Sanders 18

Steyer 14

Bringing the totals heading into Super Tuesday:

Sanders: 53

Biden: 32

Pete: 24

Steyer: 14

Warren: 8

Klobuchar: 7
This is really all that matters. I’m not really sure what this means for Super Tuesday either. 

 
Depending on how Bloomberg attacks him, it might not be so terrible.  Right now Bloomberg is attacking Bernie for not being aggressive enough on gun control.  That's not a terrible thing for swing voters in the general election to be hearing about Bernie.  White working class voters in the rust belt like guns.
The women I know in the "mom's demand action against guns" groups on Facebook are full anti-Bernie mode. It's like nails against a chalkboard.  I may have to start unfriending people. 

 
Should be easy to show some relevant examples in US history then...
Actually, there are several.

What about Teddy Roosevelt defining what "progressive" Republican politics meant (note the little 'p', because in his view, being a Republican was synonymous with being progressive) in 1910? Disagreements over this idea of what Republican meant eventually led to him splitting off and creating the Bull Moose Party.

Or Abraham Lincoln asserting that, contrary to the beliefs of the Democratic Party of that era, the anti-slavery Republican Party was, in fact, the "conservative" party of the nation - the one fighting to preserve the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

Or there's FDR's New Deal Democratic party forcing a pretty dramatic re-alignment of what it meant to be both a Republican and Democrat over the following 30-40 years. 

 
Depending on how Bloomberg attacks him, it might not be so terrible.  Right now Bloomberg is attacking Bernie for not being aggressive enough on gun control.  That's not a terrible thing for swing voters in the general election to be hearing about Bernie.  White working class voters in the rust belt like guns.
I agree with you on this.  This particular ad is basically a pro-Bernie general election ad.

 
parasaurolophus said:
It isnt very different at all. 

Socialism-a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Democratic socialism- a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market socialist economy or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.
The good news is, if you look up pure free market capitalism and its necessary conclusions, it’s also kind of abhorrent. Having opposing parties and forces means it’s possible to pull from each idea the very best ways to make people’s lives better. 
 

Incidentally, and this is actually true, that’s the kind of reason why simple majorities shouldn’t be enough to pass laws that someone feels strongly enough to filibuster in this country.  

 
Actually, there are several.

What about Teddy Roosevelt defining what "progressive" Republican politics meant (note the little 'p', because in his view, being a Republican was synonymous with being progressive) in 1910? Disagreements over this idea of what Republican meant eventually led to him splitting off and creating the Bull Moose Party.

Or Abraham Lincoln asserting that, contrary to the beliefs of the Democratic Party of that era, the anti-slavery Republican Party was, in fact, the "conservative" party of the nation - the one fighting to preserve the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

Or there's FDR's New Deal Democratic party forcing a pretty dramatic re-alignment of what it meant to be both a Republican and Democrat over the following 30-40 years. 
The first and third examples arent applicable. Both links specifically point out new terms that were used "new nationalism" and "new deal party system"  "fifth party system". That wasnt some redefining of terms. And obviously there ended up being another party so he clearly didnt redefine anything even if you think he tried.

The second is somewhat fair as somewhere along the lines dems and republicans switched platforms.

But Lincoln wasnt redefining a term. He wasnt trying to say that being conservative actually meant not holding to traditional values. 

He was still using the definition of the term.

Its like one person saying " i am fast. I can run to the next city in two hours." And another saying "no way, i am fast i can swim across that lake in 30 minutes." 

 A third guy shows up and says no way, i am fast because i like sushi. 

One of these guys would vote for Bernie.

 
The first and third examples arent applicable. Both links specifically point out new terms that were used "new nationalism" and "new deal party system"  "fifth party system". That wasnt some redefining of terms. And obviously there ended up being another party so he clearly didnt redefine anything even if you think he tried.

The second is somewhat fair as somewhere along the lines dems and republicans switched platforms.

But Lincoln wasnt redefining a term. He wasnt trying to say that being conservative actually meant not holding to traditional values. 

He was still using the definition of the term.

Its like one person saying " i am fast. I can run to the next city in two hours." And another saying "no way, i am fast i can swim across that lake in 30 minutes." 

 A third guy shows up and says no way, i am fast because i like sushi. 

One of these guys would vote for Bernie.
Oh come on. Teddy Roosevelt was using a new term to define what it meant to be a Republican. FDR created the terms New Deal and New Deal Coalition to define what it meant to be a Democrat. Bernie Sanders is using "democratic socialism" (with his own stated definition in a speech) to define what it means to be a Democrat.

At this point, I'm done arguing this with you. You're being willfully ignorant and attempting to gaslight people into believing that Bernie wants to bring about some authoritarian Soviet style system.

 
Depending on how Bloomberg attacks him, it might not be so terrible.  Right now Bloomberg is attacking Bernie for not being aggressive enough on gun control.  That's not a terrible thing for swing voters in the general election to be hearing about Bernie.  White working class voters in the rust belt like guns.
Thanks for reminding me of another reason why Bernie is the best candidate.

 
Two South Carolina polls today -- I'd say Biden's chances of losing are lower than his chances of winning by double digits:

Code:
East Carolina:
Biden 31%
Sanders 23%
Steyer 20%
Warren 8%
Buttigieg 6%
Klobuchar 2%

Clemson:
Biden 35%
Steyer 17%
Sanders 13%
Warren 8%
Buttigieg 8%
Klobuchar 2%
 
Two South Carolina polls today -- I'd say Biden's chances of losing are lower than his chances of winning by double digits:

East Carolina:
Biden 31%
Sanders 23%
Steyer 20%
Warren 8%
Buttigieg 6%
Klobuchar 2%

Clemson:
Biden 35%
Steyer 17%
Sanders 13%
Warren 8%
Buttigieg 8%
Klobuchar 2%

Yeah, I don't think Sanders has much of a shot at winning. Just not his wheelhouse. More conservative Dem voters, and despite his inroads among African American voters I just don't think it's a gap he can close right now. Best I'm hoping for is a close second.

 
Oh come on. Teddy Roosevelt was using a new term to define what it meant to be a Republican. FDR created the terms New Deal and New Deal Coalition to define what it meant to be a Democrat. Bernie Sanders is using "democratic socialism" (with his own stated definition in a speech) to define what it means to be a Democrat.

At this point, I'm done arguing this with you. You're being willfully ignorant and attempting to gaslight people into believing that Bernie wants to bring about some authoritarian Soviet style system.
Good point. 

 
Early voted for Pete in TX.  I prefer Klobuchar by a little, but she has no chance.  Pete has an outside chance.

 
Two new polls from Data for Progress:

Virginia:

Sanders 28%
Biden 19%
Warren 17%
Bloomberg 17%
Buttigieg 12%
Klobuchar 5%

Colorado:

Sanders 34%
Warren 20%
Buttigieg 14%
Bloomberg 14%
Biden 10%
Klobuchar 6%

 
caustic said:
Two new polls from Data for Progress:

Virginia:

Sanders 28%
Biden 19%
Warren 17%
Bloomberg 17%
Buttigieg 12%
Klobuchar 5%

Colorado:

Sanders 34%
Warren 20%
Buttigieg 14%
Bloomberg 14%
Biden 10%
Klobuchar 6%
Seems like this will be the trend until some drop out. Sanders then a random grouping of the field. If one of the moderates emerges, I’d hope the some will get out of the way and throw their support behind them but it’s not looking likely. I had high hopes for Mayor Pete but unless something changes before Tuesday, it’s not looking good.

 
mcintyre1 said:
Yeah, I don't think Sanders has much of a shot at winning. Just not his wheelhouse. More conservative Dem voters, and despite his inroads among African American voters I just don't think it's a gap he can close right now. Best I'm hoping for is a close second.
I agree, he's probably not winning (possibly not even 2nd) but if he does pull it off somehow it says a lot

 
Oh come on. Teddy Roosevelt was using a new term to define what it meant to be a Republican. FDR created the terms New Deal and New Deal Coalition to define what it meant to be a Democrat. Bernie Sanders is using "democratic socialism" (with his own stated definition in a speech) to define what it means to be a Democrat.

At this point, I'm done arguing this with you. You're being willfully ignorant and attempting to gaslight people into believing that Bernie wants to bring about some authoritarian Soviet style system.
His supporters are really the ones gaslighting the public. Bernie has stated repeatedly he is a socialist and continues to do so. 

Telling people he doesnt really mean it and means something else is definitely soviet style subterfuge. 

If the shoe fits buddy. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Biden is going to win big and I think it’s going to rejuvenate his campaign. 
I really want this to happen. I want Biden to just dominate. I will rally behind Bernie if he gets the nomination, because my #1 objective is defeating Trump. But I believe Biden has a much better shot at that, and I don't want to resign myself to Bernie just yet.  

 
I really want this to happen. I want Biden to just dominate. I will rally behind Bernie if he gets the nomination, because my #1 objective is defeating Trump. But I believe Biden has a much better shot at that, and I don't want to resign myself to Bernie just yet.  
Have you guys that are hoping for a Biden nomination actually watched him very much?  At least half of his answers at the last debate were gibberish.  By "gibberish" I don't mean anything about their content, I mean that they were just nonsensical word salad.  And it's not like he just had one bad night, that just seems to be where his brain is these days.  That's not only a problem if he actually becomes President (but yeah, it's a huge problem in that scenario).  I think it's a huge problem for his ability to beat Trump.

The story of the Biden campaign so far is that his numbers were high when nobody was paying attention, and they have steadily dropped as people have actually watched him.  That doesn't concern you for the general election?  Because people will be paying attention to that one.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top