Sanders and Warren are the closest thing to a bridge that might - might - be argued to somewhat exist and which could possibly hold any hope of closing the increasingly cavernous divide of the Democratic Party. Neither could do it alone, but together, they’d have a 20% chance as of today. And that will go down the more they talk and people listen. It’s a tough spot.
I’ll say .5%, just so as to avoid saying 0.0%, and because that’s what it will be, even if the economy dips. This impeachment silliness has effectively killed a slumping economy as being their best chance of catching lightning, because it has turned 2020 into a foundational referendum for both Parties, now. In trying to prove that he isn’t bulletproof, they’ve somehow managed to make him invincible.
Warren has three (3) poison pills that kill her chances - and she’d still give Trump a better run than Biden. Not a successful run, or even a good one, but definitely better than Biden.
Or Pete.... He can’t carry the top slot and he’s not ready to fill the second one. If he had a truthful friend in the world, they’d have had him full-on preparing for 2024 several months ago. He’s only hurting himself now.
I tend to agree. I also think the Trump/Sanders dynamic is interesting. They're alike in they have pretty much immovable bases, but struggle to expand them. Difference is Trump's is much bigger. Also, those that oppose them are also pretty set in their stance which would have a much biggest impact to Bernie in a general.
Disagree on readiness. He's certainly non-traditional in many ways, but he's resonating in the real world. That said, I agree this may be too early for him to get the nomination from an electorate perspective. I think it's pretty clear the only reason he jumped straight to president is the lack of path to senator or governor in deep red Indiana. I'd wager he's as surprised as anyone with the success of his campaign to date. He's as a good a candidate as anyone else on the Dem side, though. It comes down to who you believe in, who you trust. He has mine.
I understand well the connection you are trying to make with regard to self-flagellation. What I was less clear on is the blood and guts part and would appreciate clarification there. As for the further comments here on this apparently painful experience - my point is just the opposite. I did not call it painful, that way you. I said I want it blasted in my face because I want it illuminated. Having that called out is not painful, rather it’s healthy and when done in a constructive environment (where both sides are acting in good faith), it’s energizing. Me continuing to engage you on this stuff is, indeed, part of me challenging myself. I’m fine with it - but where I stop being fine with it is when it’s a joke. Which in this discussion you don’t take it seriously; so, yes, it’s not a lot of value to me. Not sure why it would be painful though. If we go back to the roots of this specific conversation, it was initiated by my point that the isms are abused to shout down people - but on the other hand, it doesn’t mean that the isms are made up and that I’ve found it (selfishly) beneficial try to put myself in situations where my unconscious biases or just general lack of knowledge is challenged. You in this post seem to be extending that to some sort of judgement on your own bias - which was never asserted indirectly or directly. I don’t know you and only know you through what you post here. To the extent that this is you, you are someone who has told me they see no value in exposure to diversity. I am someone who does find value in it, which you mock. I would wager if anyone is judging anyone in their approach to this conversation, it isn’t me. You have formed the impression that this is some form of pain to be suffered with in my world view. And that I apparently spend a lot of time thinking about it. In fact, consistent with Ray Dalio’s Principles approach, on this issue and many others, I’m just trying to layer them into my everyday life so I can form my own principles and foundation specifically so that I don’t have to think about them - think about what I would do - but rather challenge myself with these situations as a part of my day to day so that by principle I do what comes natural. In order for my response to a situation to be natural and not require that thought, I need to understand it, know of any bias I need to be more aware of in assessing it, know how To intuitively categorize it within my decision making structure, and the make the call. So if someone suggests I’m approaching something with an ism that isn’t painful - I’m willing to stop and evaluate. The only painful part that does get me is knowing that something I’ve done or said hurts someone else - but I’d rather be aware of it and work on it than not. And I’d argue if someone were serious about it to you, that you too would feel some pain that you hurt them and you would likely change your approach. If you value them.
Hopefully I can say this before one for the resident libs accuses me of speaking purely from my own blind loyalty to Trump.... Sanders offers an interesting contrast to Trump, and maybe the best. I don’t know that Trump would rattle him - but then Trump’s not yet expended half of his ability to provoke - simply because Sanders has been laughed at and disregarded by the mainstream political establishment for years. I think the cat is sincere in his beliefs, and if others could stop him by mocking him, he’d have long ago quit. I don’t agree with almost everything he wants and believes - he’d be utterly disastrous for the country - but I respect his sincerity of belief, and his willingness to speak truth to power. But when it came time to pull the lever, nobody is going to vote for any openly truthful socialist. Period. Hard stop.
Cliff Notes: - It’s not painful and isn’t done to experience pain - so I’m arguing with the premise of your argument, not confused by it. - Please explain by the find it more enjoyable without the blood and guts (Getting less Cliffy now....) - I get that you see no value in diversity (source: you). My value of it is not a judgement of you. My choice to engage you on this is also part of that challenging myself thing, but only helpful when done so in good faith. I am what I am, I generally engage in this board with my (as I understand it) honest opinions. - My challenging myself with situations that expose the isms is not a choice to inflict pain but rather an opportunity for growth. That isn’t painful, outside of the knowledge that sometimes (thankfully pretty infrequent) my actions hurt others, which isn’t a good feeling and is decent motivation to want to grow. So that’s the only ‘painful’ element of this not sure why you’re arguing up that tree.
Being 4th in this group of 5 is not encouraging. He’s at the height of his power and no one has yet to punch him. It won’t get better and easier for him, the longer this goes / others drop out. This is from today’s LAT.
IP, Lord knows that I can be wrong. I probably am, here. I am wholly unconcerned by any current Democratic candidate for president - and I’m least concerned by Biden. Don’t trust me - I get it - but trust your own Party’s operatives...they’re already hiding him and months before anyone is even paying attention. That’s not by accident, but because he’s a complete disaster.
