He’s a spolier candidate that is openly backed by interest groups on the right. He isn’t personally a Republican, or ideologically conservative, but he sure has some strange friendships.
Spoiler candidate when not voting for one of thr two preferred oligarchs is kind of a degrading term. Perot didn’t spoil the Bush campaign- and the Libertarian party, that gets more votes than the Green, draws mostly from “would-be Republicans”
Lol yes he did. While votes for him came from both parties, the damage came from him pounding Bush on “No New Taxes,” which did cost Bush substantial numbers of voters - voters who often switched to supporting Clinton.
A 1999 study in the American Journal of Political Science estimated that Perot’s candidacy hurt the Clinton campaign, reducing “Clinton’s margin of victory over Bush by seven percentage points.”[117] In 2016, FiveThirtyEight described the speculation that Perot was a spoiler as “unlikely”
You’re talking like I’m not actually a fan of Biden. I am. The problem with West is his ticket is literally being paid for by the right. So yes, in this case, he is very much a spoiler candidate.
Or in other words, they compromise to form coalitions with people who mostly agree, so that have a better chance of winning and seeing most of their goals achieved.
Versus refusing to compromise, and not supporting a candidate unless they pass your purity tests and you call in love with them.
Which strikes you as the more mature, adult option?
Or in other words, they compromise to form coalitions with people who mostly agree, so that have a better chance of winning and seeing most of their goals achieved.
This is what progressives don’t seem to understand, which is why they never get anything done and will never win.
Yeah :/. It bothers me because the lack of coalition building and antagonism turns away natural allies – I thought I was a neo liberal shill until I glanced at a progressive platform and realized I supported everything on there, at least in concept if not implementation.
I think today’s progressive wing is a lot better and more pragmatic, although that earns the ire of purists who think that compromise is a dirty word. I’ve generally found those purists however to be an incredibly loud minority, and far more focused on tribalism than policy.
If 65% of people living paycheck to paycheck is ‘goals achieved’ then hes doing good.
If 750k living on the streets is ‘goals achieved’ hes doing good.
If 3 people having more wealth than the entire combined populations of the top 11 states is ‘goals achieved’ then hes doing good.
If 62% of bankruptcies are due to lack of affordable healthcare is ‘goals achieved’ then hes going good.
If 42m people, more that the entire population of California, need SNAP to barely survive is ‘goals achieved’ then hes doing good.
So far he’s kept Trumps tax cuts for the rich in place. = Goals achieved.
He’s kept Trump’s immigrations policies in place. = Goals achieved.
He adopted Trump’s ‘stop COVID testing and the numbers will go down’ approach to COVID = Goals achieved.
The party lack of following through with promises of making RvW law resulted in its repeal. = Goals achieved.
Drilling in protected areas that liberals were outraged when Trump proposed them = Goals achieved.
Leasing off most of the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling despite further damaging the climate = Goals achieved.
The party lack of following through with promises of making RvW law resulted in its repeal
This is a perfect point to discuss. At no point in the last several decades have Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate that were pro choice, nor 50 votes to remove the filibuster. One of those are needed to enshrine abortion rights in law. The closest Democrats came was in 2008 with Obama, where they had 60 Senate votes for only a couple months because of contested races for Franken and Ted Kennedy’s death. They used that window to pass Obamacare, which was the most progressive bill for healthcare possible at the time. There would’ve been a single payer option, except they needed Lieberman’s vote to pass it, and he refused single payer. At this point in time there were a lot more Manchin types in the party too. They all lost their seats in 2010 when the Tea Party dominated and Democrat voters stayed home. You’ve been around long enough that you should know all of this.
2016 was a critical election for abortion rights because of the supreme court, but many professed abortion supporters didn’t seem to understand that, nor that Roe being overturned is a direct consequence of that. Many people recognized the risk and warned them, but they said “don’t threaten me with the supreme court!”. I sincerely question how many of them actually care about abortion and how many of them just try to find reasons to dislike Democrats – much like Republicans do.
Given how long this comment is with discussing just one of your points, I hope you’ll understand if I don’t go through every single point you’ve raised. Instead I’ll ask you something, in general – how much time did you think was necessary to undo the damage caused by the Trump years, and not only return to the status quo of 2016, but improve on it? I know you didn’t expect everything to be fixed on Day 1 of the Biden presidency. When did you think we’d at least return to the 2016 status quo? In my line of work, changes that we make to the process take time to show up. You don’t see the consequences of some of them for years. You could make all those changes on Day 1, and it could still take 10 years for you to see results. That’s just how it works – I’m not going to see the impact of lower temperature on piping stresses until its at the end of its life.
I can’t fault Biden nor Democrats because given the resources at their disposal, I don’t think there’s much more that they could’ve done. Things are still shitty, but it’s because change takes time. If I go on a diet I’m not going to hit my goal weight the next day. It’s going to take months to become noticeable. The same goes for fixing poverty and wages and what have you.
Change does not take time, that’s bullshit liberals tell themselves to avoid acknowledging their party can’t govern. It allows the party leaders to shirk responsibility for their inaction as they take small, unnoticeable, miniscule steps to the right.
People have been fighting against poverty and wages for decades, in the words of James Baldwin ‘how much time do you want for your progress?’
There have been multiple times since RvW was ruled where Dems have had super majorities in Congress when they could have passed it. But like Obama said it was no longer a legislative priority, he said this while they had the majority to pass it.
Lieberman was their convenient rotating villain for the time they needed him. They always have one when it comes to passing legislation benefitting the public. It’s always someone that’s safe from being voted out, or soon retiring.
A third party candidate. The US has 2 real political parties. Democrats see voting for a Green party candidate as spoiling the chances for the Democratic candidate because only left leaning people would vote Green and this effectively splits the vote.
i’m saying most other parties do not lean left, including the democrats. if democrats are worried about splitting a vote with greens, they could vote for the green candidate.
Well when compared to socialist/communist ideology it’s definitely more right but the Democratic party is the only realistic hope leftist people have in the United States.
You think Cornell West is a Republican?
He’s a spolier candidate that is openly backed by interest groups on the right. He isn’t personally a Republican, or ideologically conservative, but he sure has some strange friendships.
Spoiler candidate when not voting for one of thr two preferred oligarchs is kind of a degrading term. Perot didn’t spoil the Bush campaign- and the Libertarian party, that gets more votes than the Green, draws mostly from “would-be Republicans”
Lol yes he did. While votes for him came from both parties, the damage came from him pounding Bush on “No New Taxes,” which did cost Bush substantial numbers of voters - voters who often switched to supporting Clinton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_1992_presidential_campaign#:~:text=On Election Day%2C Perot finished,18.91%25 of the popular vote.
did you even read your own link??
And yet what everyone remembers is “No New Taxes” which is why an incumbent should never be in a debate
to be clear, you proved yourself wrong and are still insisting you were right by shifting the goalposts.
Not remotely, as my quote clearly indicates
anyone can read the context of this thread and see you are lying now
The Bush campaign put forward a worse candidate and lost. It was a more competitive and better election cycle.
Bush was an incumbent President lol
So was Carter, and Ford, and Trump
Well, in all fairness, literally no one voted for Ford.
You’re talking like I’m not actually a fan of Biden. I am. The problem with West is his ticket is literally being paid for by the right. So yes, in this case, he is very much a spoiler candidate.
No I’m criticizing calling people who vote for the candidate they support a “spoiler”
the irony of you choosing “ender wiggin” as a moniker. i just hope you wake up before you pull the trigger on a genocide.
deleted by creator
Shhhh, you have to buy into the if you don’t vote the way I vote your the problem narrative both sides live off of.
Splitting the vote is liberal myth, we wouldn’t vote for your shitty candidates if they were the only ones running
And this is why everyone thinks you’re all idiots.
Never gave a fuck what the echo chambers thought, they sacrifice their conviction for ‘winning’
Or in other words, they compromise to form coalitions with people who mostly agree, so that have a better chance of winning and seeing most of their goals achieved.
Versus refusing to compromise, and not supporting a candidate unless they pass your purity tests and you call in love with them.
Which strikes you as the more mature, adult option?
This is what progressives don’t seem to understand, which is why they never get anything done and will never win.
Yeah :/. It bothers me because the lack of coalition building and antagonism turns away natural allies – I thought I was a neo liberal shill until I glanced at a progressive platform and realized I supported everything on there, at least in concept if not implementation.
I think today’s progressive wing is a lot better and more pragmatic, although that earns the ire of purists who think that compromise is a dirty word. I’ve generally found those purists however to be an incredibly loud minority, and far more focused on tribalism than policy.
If 65% of people living paycheck to paycheck is ‘goals achieved’ then hes doing good. If 750k living on the streets is ‘goals achieved’ hes doing good. If 3 people having more wealth than the entire combined populations of the top 11 states is ‘goals achieved’ then hes doing good. If 62% of bankruptcies are due to lack of affordable healthcare is ‘goals achieved’ then hes going good. If 42m people, more that the entire population of California, need SNAP to barely survive is ‘goals achieved’ then hes doing good.
So far he’s kept Trumps tax cuts for the rich in place. = Goals achieved. He’s kept Trump’s immigrations policies in place. = Goals achieved. He adopted Trump’s ‘stop COVID testing and the numbers will go down’ approach to COVID = Goals achieved. The party lack of following through with promises of making RvW law resulted in its repeal. = Goals achieved. Drilling in protected areas that liberals were outraged when Trump proposed them = Goals achieved. Leasing off most of the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling despite further damaging the climate = Goals achieved.
His achievements are off the fucking charts.
This is a perfect point to discuss. At no point in the last several decades have Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate that were pro choice, nor 50 votes to remove the filibuster. One of those are needed to enshrine abortion rights in law. The closest Democrats came was in 2008 with Obama, where they had 60 Senate votes for only a couple months because of contested races for Franken and Ted Kennedy’s death. They used that window to pass Obamacare, which was the most progressive bill for healthcare possible at the time. There would’ve been a single payer option, except they needed Lieberman’s vote to pass it, and he refused single payer. At this point in time there were a lot more Manchin types in the party too. They all lost their seats in 2010 when the Tea Party dominated and Democrat voters stayed home. You’ve been around long enough that you should know all of this.
2016 was a critical election for abortion rights because of the supreme court, but many professed abortion supporters didn’t seem to understand that, nor that Roe being overturned is a direct consequence of that. Many people recognized the risk and warned them, but they said “don’t threaten me with the supreme court!”. I sincerely question how many of them actually care about abortion and how many of them just try to find reasons to dislike Democrats – much like Republicans do.
Given how long this comment is with discussing just one of your points, I hope you’ll understand if I don’t go through every single point you’ve raised. Instead I’ll ask you something, in general – how much time did you think was necessary to undo the damage caused by the Trump years, and not only return to the status quo of 2016, but improve on it? I know you didn’t expect everything to be fixed on Day 1 of the Biden presidency. When did you think we’d at least return to the 2016 status quo? In my line of work, changes that we make to the process take time to show up. You don’t see the consequences of some of them for years. You could make all those changes on Day 1, and it could still take 10 years for you to see results. That’s just how it works – I’m not going to see the impact of lower temperature on piping stresses until its at the end of its life.
I can’t fault Biden nor Democrats because given the resources at their disposal, I don’t think there’s much more that they could’ve done. Things are still shitty, but it’s because change takes time. If I go on a diet I’m not going to hit my goal weight the next day. It’s going to take months to become noticeable. The same goes for fixing poverty and wages and what have you.
Change does not take time, that’s bullshit liberals tell themselves to avoid acknowledging their party can’t govern. It allows the party leaders to shirk responsibility for their inaction as they take small, unnoticeable, miniscule steps to the right.
People have been fighting against poverty and wages for decades, in the words of James Baldwin ‘how much time do you want for your progress?’
There have been multiple times since RvW was ruled where Dems have had super majorities in Congress when they could have passed it. But like Obama said it was no longer a legislative priority, he said this while they had the majority to pass it.
Lieberman was their convenient rotating villain for the time they needed him. They always have one when it comes to passing legislation benefitting the public. It’s always someone that’s safe from being voted out, or soon retiring.
Also you’re making shit up.
Just spitting facts
This take is among the dumbest I’ve ever seen and I wish there was an Award I could give you for that.
Can’t dispute the facts. Duopoly zombies ignore the bad and only acknowledge what they perceive to be the good
You. I like you. We need more you.
deleted by creator
You are delusional if you believe we are not a fascist state. The democrat ratchet effect has helped enable that
deleted by creator
you should read mussolini
What other system can people choose? The duopoly has convinced people there are 2 options, shit or shit. And voters defend their illusion of options.
Of the original stages of fascism the US checks off every bullet point
Really? Then how the fuck did the last 46 presidents get office?
Because duopoly voters are idiots.
I think Cornel West not paying his child support is one of very few things I dislike about Cornel West as a person.
One of the others, of course, being that he’s running as a spoiler candidate.
What is a spoiler candidate?
A third party candidate. The US has 2 real political parties. Democrats see voting for a Green party candidate as spoiling the chances for the Democratic candidate because only left leaning people would vote Green and this effectively splits the vote.
Ah yeah, makes sense. In this stupid system I tend to agree even though it’s frustrating
there is a corollary here i don’t want to spell out
What is your point? Corollary between left leaning voters and the Green party? Duh!? I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
i’m saying most other parties do not lean left, including the democrats. if democrats are worried about splitting a vote with greens, they could vote for the green candidate.
Well when compared to socialist/communist ideology it’s definitely more right but the Democratic party is the only realistic hope leftist people have in the United States.
i have no hope in the democrats. i voted for hope in 2008.
No. He’s a useful idiot.
Depends - are you measuring by weight or volume for his capacity of shit?