Boris wins

[DevilRedeemed]

Apologies for the tone of my previous post, but you're still wrong.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/why-bernie-sanders-no-jeremy-corbyn/603550/

It's fine, was just responding in kind.
I made a brash, condensed statement, just referring to a certain type of outsider who would not only find it hard to be voted in but since he or she do not respond to the establishment or their interests, chances of their policies gaining ground are next to null. If Obama supposedly found himself locked out regarding much of what he wanted to carry out imagine Sanders.
I think Sanders is brilliant. I just feel they'd never let him in.

 

[evil wasabi]

Apologies for the tone of my previous post, but you're still wrong.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/why-bernie-sanders-no-jeremy-corbyn/603550/

So wait, he's no Corbyn because Corbyn didn't care about "antisemitism" (a ridiculous claim when it revolves around a semite Imam making some claim about semite jewish people, in particular, zionists, who have been conducting an extermination of semite muslims).

The Atlantic is a solid medium, but I had to stop after reading that opening paragraph and just point out the hypocrisy.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Semite

Semite, member of a people speaking any of a group of related languages presumably derived from a common language, Semitic (see Semitic languages). The term came to include Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, Hebrews, some Ethiopians, and Aramaean tribes. Mesopotamia, the western coast of the Mediterranean, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Horn of Africa have all been proposed as possible sites for the prehistoric origins of Semitic-speaking peoples, but no location has been definitively established.

ok, back to the article...

There’s no doubt that Sanders shares some of the Corbyn view of the world. He will sometimes invoke the inglorious American history of intervening in Latin America. But Sanders is less conspiratorial and more open-minded than his British cousin. Consider how differently they have reacted to Vladimir Putin. When the Russians poisoned an ex-spy and his daughter in Salisbury last year, Corbyn expressed immediate skepticism about how quickly the British government apportioned blame for the crime. Sanders hasn’t similarly hesitated to criticize Putin. He readily condemned Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. And he has said that he would make opposition to authoritarian kleptocrats central to his foreign policy.

This appears more political than ideological and if the shoes were flipped, both would probably do the same as each other.

At the core of Corbyn’s foreign policy is an obsession with Israel, which has manifested as incessant sneering about Zionism. Sanders hasn’t stoked rage against Zionists, perhaps because he is the descendant of Holocaust survivors, who spent several months living on a Kibbutz near Haifa in his early 20s. Although he tends to avoid talking about his ethnic identity, he published a recent essay in Jewish Currents, in which he wrote about his “pride and admiration for Israel” and the “enormous achievement of establishing a democratic homeland for the Jewish people after centuries of displacement and persecution.”

That said, Sanders is often highly critical of Israel. He has toyed with the idea of leveraging U.S. military aid to prod Israel into ending the occupation of the West Bank, for instance, a substantial break with the consensus. And he has proved reluctant to call out anti-Semitism in the ranks of his own supporters, including one of his surrogates. On the subject of Corbyn’s bigotry, he has remained disappointingly silent.

This falls more on an awareness of the politically suicidal effect of words. Sanders is more measured in his criticism of Israel's government and the violent displacement of non-Jewish people. Corbyn, on the other hand, doesn't hold back. This is more political than ideological, again.

But the point is that the rise of the left could have gone much worse for the Democrats. It could have taken the form of an apologist for dictators and a fomenter of anti-Semitism. Attacks on globalization could have veered into coded smears of globalists. The rightful flaying Wall Street deserves could have been expressed in nasty tropes. Perhaps judging a politician in relation to Jeremy Corbyn isn’t the most stringent moral test one could apply, but it’s worth a moment’s gratitude that Sanders passes.

Wait, that's it? That's the end of the article? So the only difference is that one guy hates zionists and wants to push for human rights more aggressively than the other?

Ok, so article aside, the problem that Sanders will face in leadership will be the same as the problem that Corbyn faced: no one who means anything will work with him. Sanders will have AOC, Omar, and Tlaib, but they all suck at anything outside of social media.

Spoiler:

Flint still doesn't have clean water; the business benefits that could have been brought to Queens NY will instead go to the west side of Manhattan in the newly developed Hudson Yard area, which is a huge loss of local revenue - but hey, the people of AOC's district can still ride the train to and from their jobs in Hudson Yards, whether it be for Amazon, or the hundreds of new businesses born of the Amazon deal, well outside of Queens.

Politicians live and die by their ability to draw strength in numbers. The numbers that mean the most are political peers. Bernie doesn't really have that.

 

[DevilRedeemed]

So wait, he's no Corbyn because Corbyn didn't care about "antisemitism" (a ridiculous claim when it revolves around a semite Imam making some claim about semite jewish people, in particular, zionists, who have been conducting an extermination of semite muslims).

The Atlantic is a solid medium, but I had to stop after reading that opening paragraph and just point out the hypocrisy.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Semite


ok, back to the article...

This appears more political than ideological and if the shoes were flipped, both would probably do the same as each other.



This falls more on an awareness of the politically suicidal effect of words. Sanders is more measured in his criticism of Israel's government and the violent displacement of non-Jewish people. Corbyn, on the other hand, doesn't hold back. This is more political than ideological, again.


Wait, that's it? That's the end of the article? So the only difference is that one guy hates zionists and wants to push for human rights more aggressively than the other?

Ok, so article aside, the problem that Sanders will face in leadership will be the same as the problem that Corbyn faced: no one who means anything will work with him. Sanders will have AOC, Omar, and Tlaib, but they all suck at anything outside of social media.

Spoiler:

Flint still doesn't have clean water; the business benefits that could have been brought to Queens NY will instead go to the west side of Manhattan in the newly developed Hudson Yard area, which is a huge loss of local revenue - but hey, the people of AOC's district can still ride the train to and from their jobs in Hudson Yards, whether it be for Amazon, or the hundreds of new businesses born of the Amazon deal, well outside of Queens.

Politicians live and die by their ability to draw strength in numbers. The numbers that mean the most are political peers. Bernie doesn't really have that.

Couldn't have put it better myself.
As in... I would have put it far worse

Corbyn and his supposed antisemiticism has been a constant during the past 5 years or so. To crazy levels. The in party take downs where unrelenting from those who treated Corbyn as something paramount to Fascist. 250000 Jews in Great Britain (or England?) but their clout is massive, particularly in politics. It's crazy. You criticize Zionism and the state of Israel and you are labelled racist and negationist. I find it sickening that people would use some of the most horrible atrocities in modern times (the holocaust) to get leverage and reduce any debate to something visceral and reactionary. It's really sad. A way to keep the status quo and not allow real open debate

 

[StevenK]

Couldn't have put it better myself.
As in... I would have put it far worse

Corbyn and his supposed antisemiticism has been a constant during the past 5 years or so. To crazy levels. The in party take downs where unrelenting from those who treated Corbyn as something paramount to Fascist. 250000 Jews in Great Britain (or England?) but their clout is massive, particularly in politics. It's crazy. You criticize Zionism and the state of Israel and you are labelled racist and negationist. I find it sickening that people would use some of the most horrible atrocities in modern times (the holocaust) to get leverage and reduce any debate to something visceral and reactionary. It's really sad. A way to keep the status quo and not allow real open debate

I demand this man is banned.

 

[Takumaji]

The original referendum was a party-political manoeuvre that went wrong. For me, the reason why May failed and Johnson also prolly won't make it until January 31st is because they seemed more prepared to exploit on a Nay vote than anything else, then all of a sudden the British people voted Yay and that was that. Neither of them had or has any serious concepts, and no, "let's get out and see where it takes us" is not a concept, it's a needlessly dangerous head-first leap into a black hole.

The phase after the referendum can only be described as a series of headless attempts to give people what they want while trying not to break up with the EU too drastically. I can see why people did not like Corbyn's neutrality stance and that they want out now but why the bloody haste? There's nothing to gain from a sudden-death-Brexit in my opinion so why not try to get out with style for once? Just ignore Rupert's battle cries and do the right thing, that's what I say.

 

[StevenK]

The original referendum was a party-political manoeuvre that went wrong. For me, the reason why May failed and Johnson also prolly won't make it until January 31st is because they seemed more prepared to exploit on a Nay vote than anything else, then all of a sudden the British people voted Yay and that was that. Neither of them had or has any serious concepts, and no, "let's get out and see where it takes us" is not a concept, it's a needlessly dangerous head-first leap into a black hole.

The phase after the referendum can only be described as a series of headless attempts to give people what they want while trying not to break up with the EU too drastically. I can see why people did not like Corbyn's neutrality stance and that they want out now but why the bloody haste? There's nothing to gain from a sudden-death-Brexit in my opinion so why not try to get out with style for once? Just ignore Rupert's battle cries and do the right thing, that's what I say.

For me, the reason for the rush is obvious. They are stood at the checkout with a £100 pair of jeans that someone has accidentally priced up at £10 and they want to pay and get the fuck out of there before somebody competent notices.

 

[DevilRedeemed]

For me, the reason for the rush is obvious. They are stood at the checkout with a £100 pair of jeans that someone has accidentally priced up at £10 and they want to pay and get the fuck out of there before somebody competent notices.

Hah yeah. Do you think the plan is to turn UK into a tax haven and plus have a direct line to U.S.? Little Boris and Donald together against the odds.
The colonial aspect has merely become a lot less tangible, the same ambitions are present and alive but woven into the fabric of global everyday activity.

 

[NeoSneth]

liberal media is having a hard time with this one. I am enjoying how much they are struggling to put a spin on it.

It wasn't a marginal win. You can't spin that.

 

[Takumaji]

For me, the reason for the rush is obvious. They are stood at the checkout with a £100 pair of jeans that someone has accidentally priced up at £10 and they want to pay and get the fuck out of there before somebody competent notices.

That's a great way of putting it.

The thought that a bunch of crooks like that is responsible for decisions of such ginormous dimensions as Brexit makes me shudder. It's like giving a three years old kid total control over a nuclear missile base.

 

[evil wasabi]

liberal media is having a hard time with this one. I am enjoying how much they are struggling to put a spin on it.

It wasn't a marginal win. You can't spin that.

It was a positive to have Corbyn step down. But otherwise,
That party is dying.

 

[wyo]

So wait, he's no Corbyn because Corbyn didn't care about "antisemitism" (a ridiculous claim when it revolves around a semite Imam making some claim about semite jewish people, in particular, zionists, who have been conducting an extermination of semite muslims).

The Atlantic is a solid medium, but I had to stop after reading that opening paragraph and just point out the hypocrisy.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Semite


ok, back to the article...

This appears more political than ideological and if the shoes were flipped, both would probably do the same as each other.



This falls more on an awareness of the politically suicidal effect of words. Sanders is more measured in his criticism of Israel's government and the violent displacement of non-Jewish people. Corbyn, on the other hand, doesn't hold back. This is more political than ideological, again.


Wait, that's it? That's the end of the article? So the only difference is that one guy hates zionists and wants to push for human rights more aggressively than the other?

Ok, so article aside, the problem that Sanders will face in leadership will be the same as the problem that Corbyn faced: no one who means anything will work with him. Sanders will have AOC, Omar, and Tlaib, but they all suck at anything outside of social media.

Spoiler:

Flint still doesn't have clean water; the business benefits that could have been brought to Queens NY will instead go to the west side of Manhattan in the newly developed Hudson Yard area, which is a huge loss of local revenue - but hey, the people of AOC's district can still ride the train to and from their jobs in Hudson Yards, whether it be for Amazon, or the hundreds of new businesses born of the Amazon deal, well outside of Queens.

Politicians live and die by their ability to draw strength in numbers. The numbers that mean the most are political peers. Bernie doesn't really have that.

The disingenuous anti-semitism argument against Corbyn was effectively weaponized by the Conservatives. Meanwhile they are demonizing Muslims, the poor, blacks and assorted foreigners.

I still say Sanders is proposing markedly different policies than Corbyn. Medicare for all is very different from a national health service. Sanders is more of a libertarian on social issues and less interested in international affairs.

Barely any Republicans worked with Obama and he governed to the right of Richard Nixon, so your argument that a President Sanders would get nothing done surely rings true for any of the Democratic candidates. At least he has enough integrity not to run as a liberal then continue Bush's interventionist policies. Obama's signature achievement was literally a Republican health care plan that he appropriated from the very Republican he was running against.

 

[DevilRedeemed]

The disingenuous anti-semitism argument against Corbyn was effectively weaponized by the Conservatives. Meanwhile they are demonizing Muslims, the poor, blacks and assorted foreigners.

I still say Sanders is proposing markedly different policies than Corbyn. Medicare for all is very different from a national health service. Sanders is more of a libertarian on social issues and less interested in international affairs.

Barely any Republicans worked with Obama and he governed to the right of Richard Nixon, so your argument that a President Sanders would get nothing done surely rings true for any of the Democratic candidates. At least he has enough integrity not to run as a liberal then continue Bush's interventionist policies. Obama's signature achievement was literally a Republican health care plan that he appropriated from the very Republican he was running against.

With the quality of your own thought I'm surprised you linked to such a weak article on why Sanders is not Corbyn. No offence. Your write up is quite a bit better

 

[evil wasabi]

The disingenuous anti-semitism argument against Corbyn was effectively weaponized by the Conservatives. Meanwhile they are demonizing Muslims, the poor, blacks and assorted foreigners.

I still say Sanders is proposing markedly different policies than Corbyn. Medicare for all is very different from a national health service. Sanders is more of a libertarian on social issues and less interested in international affairs.

Barely any Republicans worked with Obama and he governed to the right of Richard Nixon, so your argument that a President Sanders would get nothing done surely rings true for any of the Democratic candidates. At least he has enough integrity not to run as a liberal then continue Bush's interventionist policies. Obama's signature achievement was literally a Republican health care plan that he appropriated from the very Republican he was running against.

Sanders isn’t a democrat anyways. Not sure why he thinks it’s good to be independent in the senate but a dem on the ticket.