Milquetoast centrist bull****. Medicare access for all, which means the poors and middle classes still gonna get charged up the you know what and will still be at the risk of bankruptcy should they actually get cancer.

Beto's words just sound like a desperate attempt to tip toe a line that satisfies progressives while actually maintaining centrist policies. He voted with Trump more than the far majority of House candidates despite being in a solidly blue district. He's married to a billionaire real estate heiress and I believe has been successful at real estate himself, and I don't care who you are, if that's your family life and social circle I don't think you're going to have the right world view or finger on the pulse to make this country a better place.

I have zero appetite for anyone running on a message of unity. **** that.

I think you’re right but also think he’s the best chance

Beto is a good height for winning. A little skinny though.

I guess I have to subscribe now. Do I get the scoop?

gjge

GJGE indeed...

imo beto will be the real threat to the left/change, since his policy-neutral bipartisan centrism will mostly (by system design) preserve the core of the right-wing status quo while simulating an artificial hope for distressed liberals who think that once trump is defeated everything will return back to normal without recognizing just how defective 'normal' actually was.

beto will also be the clear media favorite since he not only fits their requirement of someone young, but he is also by far the best public speaker in the field. yet most importantly he'll comply with the washington narrative of civility and decorum, proven by his public apology for calling ted cruz lyin' ted.

Per my last email...

That is, as I explained in the thread about hating Boomers, the obvious correlation here is wealth. This graph basically shows that the bourgeoisie supports Biden and the proletariat supports Sanders.

You belong with Bernie, comrade.

https://thenewinquiry.com/liberalism-is-dead/

lol yea let's put all our chips in NOW on who we're predicting will be "the most electable" in 18 months, because people like you are so good at wagging your finger and telling us who that is.

I could just as easily make the case that another corporate Democrat who doesn't tell a compelling story about why things are how they are and provide a clear way to fix them will, when push comes to shove, once again not resonate with enough people in the right places. And that one of the potential solutions is therefore to nominate a groundbreaking and inspiring socialist who can fill stadiums and get previously disinterested voters to vote.

But I'd be guessing just as much as you are.

Nobody knows who the most electable is and it's a stupid metric anyway. John Kerry was "the most electable" candidate in 2004. Same with Clinton in 2016, Romney in 2012, etc.

But there are also obvious correlations with generational views on social justice issues, concerns about climate change, etc. etc. You need to show your work if you want to say that wealth is the one single big thing driving the generational gap. Is it the case that wealthy young people have the same views as wealthy older people? I suspect if you controlled for wealth you would still find Gen Z trends slightly toward Sanders.

I'm here and I agree with you. I posted criticisms of both Manning and Snowden when those leaks happened. Specifically I criticized Manning for indiscriminately dumping data (to Wikileaks, of all entities) and Snowden for exposing one of our top SIGINT methods, which has in fact had a negative impact on our intelligence collection and security, despite microbets insistence to the contrary, then seeking asylum in Russia, of all countries.

This forum will still tell you that Wikileaks was good circa 2010 but somehow turned into nothing more than an arm of Russian intelligence circa 2016, and they will still tell you that the lack of major threats to US security since 2001 is all due to no threats existing in the world. I don't think anyone has ever addressed the discrepancy between ignoring the real cost of an American in possession of TS intel running off to Russia in 2013 and the realization that Russia is a threat to American democracy in 2016. Take this forum in context. It's a good way to keep up with the news and get a liberal perspective but don't assume any opinions were arrived at through critical thought.

"Snowden taught the Russians how 2 troll farm" is pretty rock solid evidence for your thesis:

Russia is no threat or at least not without a lot of our help. The threat to American democracy are those who are ok with Russian meddling and go along with it or convince themslefs its not real. We do it to ousleves.

I continue to think that Biden is going to be a force to be reckoned with, he is such a natural candidate for the boomer faction. I think if he was heads up with Bernie he would win easily, that it wouldn't even be close. The saving grace is the large field of candidates, which is a lot worse for Biden than for Bernie, because Bernie fans tend to be committed to him, whereas Biden voters are status quo/anti-Bernie/steady hand at the tiller types who are with Biden basically by default and might be tempted to other candidates on the basis of pet issues or whatever. Hopefully that will allow Bernie to build an early lead and get some momentum going.

No, Snowden taught the Russians how we intercept intelligence at an extremely low level. Apparently you don't like them troll farming but you're OK with that? Like do you not understand how a nation demonstrably hostile to our interests could use TS intel also against our interests unless I link them together in a single sentence? The ability to parse that out is literally the definition of critical thinking. So yes, you're doing a pretty good job supporting my thesis.

Ahhhh, I feel so secure now.

..

This post is mind blowingly stupid

There are no threats to over through our democracy accept the ones mostly of our own making. Have not been for a while. Got me i guess...

Seems to me Biden sitting on the fence "maybe i will maybe I won't" refrain is hurting his potential candidacy. Hasn't he done this before? A decent ticket would be him as figure head idiot with a young up and comer as VP. "Beto" isn't a presidential name and it matters, but it's plenty VP-ish. With what this electorate is capable of, note last three Commander-in-Chiefs, anything that returns stability and some semblance of respect would be a good ticket.

Beto not a real progressive. Beto GTFO

Ignoring the massive [citation needed]: oh, that's why people think Russia is a "threat to American democracy"? Not troll farming - the stuff that everyone's been talking about for the last few years - but this other thing that no one talks about but conveniently fits into the insane conspiracy theory you want to put on Snowden? lmao

btw, do you have any links to those contemporary taeks you posted on Snowden/Manning?

Ironically, "electable" doesn't mean "able to be elected" anymore. It is now used by centrists to describe someone that is not too far from the status quo. For people that are being served well by the current system, they want an "electable" candidate on each side so that their world won't change very much.