U.S. Democratic Primary

[iNow]

Part of it, too, is just Russia’s desire to make democracy look bad. They figure the more polarizing the candidate the better as it makes our system of government no better than theirs. 

BTW - Looks like Bernie won Nevada today. 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

He's a step too far for Republican-leaning floaters. They need to be moderate, straight and probably male

Basically, more republican.

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Part of it, too, is just Russia’s desire to make democracy look bad. They figure the more polarizing the candidate the better as it makes our system of government no better than theirs. 

BTW - Looks like Bernie won Nevada today. 

Basically, more republican.

Yeah!

[Bmpbmp1975]

Yes but with the women in the mix, I am all for a women president but is the USA ready for that. Trump still seems to have a good stronghold 

[iNow]

Yes

A woman already won the popular vote by 3 Million votes

[MigL]

Oh, good Lord !
Not here too; is there no escape ?
We don't wanna play no more, Bmpbmp1975.

[Bmpbmp1975]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes

A woman already won the popular vote by 3 Million votes

I totally understand that but when push comes to shove will she have enough to be trump for presidentcy 

[iNow]

Yes

[Bmpbmp1975]

Just now, iNow said:

Yes

That would be awesome to see that, last election I actually thought Hillary would take it.

Does anyone feel that the whole impeachment puts a damper on trumps possibility to take a second term?

[iNow]

That’s not what this thread is about. 

[Airbrush]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

No, it’s because moderate republicans who hate Trump and could be convinced to vote democratic this year will likely instead stay home if it’s Bernie who gets nominated. 

Right, and that's why Trump/Putin want to "help" Sanders win the primary.....even if they don't have damaging info on Sanders.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Airbrush

[iNow]

Russia likely sees Sanders also as more dovish and less likely to act militarily to constrain their expansion and actions than his other democratic rivals. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Sanders is in favour of significantly less military spending in favour of more spending on social programs. A sizable reduction of the US Military is enough for Putin to favour him over not just his Democrat rivals, but over Trump as well.

That and maximising US political polarization and discord would make Putin favour Sanders.

[iNow]

The more parsimonious explanation for me is:

Russia likes Trump and wants to help Trump.
Trump wants to run against Bernie because he thinks he'll be easiest to beat/misrepresent with propaganda, so Russia is trying to help Bernie win the primary.
Once/if he does, Russian support of Bernie ends, gets replaced with heavy attacks, and they continue helping Trump.

[dimreepr]

Let's hope, for y/our sake, they fail.

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Sanders is in favour of significantly less military spending in favour of more spending on social programs. A sizable reduction of the US Military is enough for Putin to favour him over not just his Democrat rivals, but over Trump as well.

But Sanders isn't calling for "a sizable reduction of the US Military". He wants to stop our involvement in undefined confrontations, he wants to stop throwing so much money at defense contractors by reviewing sweetheart deals, and he wants more accountability from a military that hides behind the excuse of massiveness in the face of poor spending practices. He also wants to end the practice of having to increasing funds for the military every time leadership wants some social funding for The People. His detractors call it reduction, but Sanders' plan has the potential to make the military more effective. 

Ultimately, the US leadership needs to wean themselves away from continually increasing military spending. It's something that unfairly enjoys bipartisan support, mainly because our conservative movement has many Americans terrified of being attacked. Bernie has consistently voted against blanket spending on anything, and the military is just the biggest culprit.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

But Sanders isn't calling for "a sizable reduction of the US Military". He wants to stop our involvement in undefined confrontations, he wants to stop throwing so much money at defense contractors by reviewing sweetheart deals, and he wants more accountability from a military that hides behind the excuse of massiveness in the face of poor spending practices. He also wants to end the practice of having to increasing funds for the military every time leadership wants some social funding for The People. His detractors call it reduction, but Sanders' plan has the potential to make the military more effective. 

Ultimately, the US leadership needs to wean themselves away from continually increasing military spending. It's something that unfairly enjoys bipartisan support, mainly because our conservative movement has many Americans terrified of being attacked. Bernie has consistently voted against blanket spending on anything, and the military is just the biggest culprit.

He is. Your explanation notwithstanding, he still intends to make significant cuts. Don't assume I'm necessarily against him on this, my point is that Putin wouldn't be. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-promises-to-cut-and-reinvest-us-defense-spending-2019-3

[swansont]

Keep in mind that what the president wants is not what necessarily ends up in the budget. While the president proposes a budget, it's congress that hammers out the details — a fair amount of give and take can occur along the way — and the president can either sign or veto. 

 

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

He is. Your explanation notwithstanding, he still intends to make significant cuts. Don't assume I'm necessarily against him on this, my point is that Putin wouldn't be. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-promises-to-cut-and-reinvest-us-defense-spending-2019-3

I disagree with your assessment that "significantly less military spending" is synonymous with "a sizable reduction in the US military". This is the sort of rhetorical phrasing that makes many Americans abnormally afraid of progressive initiatives.

We understand how Sanders' strategy works for a business to create a leaner, more competitive and effective model, but we're led to believe the same strategy would simply result in a smaller military.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I disagree with your assessment that "significantly less military spending" is synonymous with "a sizable reduction in the US military". This is the sort of rhetorical phrasing that makes many Americans abnormally afraid of progressive initiatives.

We understand how Sanders' strategy works for a business to create a leaner, more competitive and effective model, but we're led to believe the same strategy would simply result in a smaller military.

You don't like the way I worded it. Fair enough. I'm not tied to the rhetoric either way...all I am saying is what the words mean, not implying anything negative.

I don't agree with your assessment that he intends to keep the military the same size, or substantially the same size.

Maybe you prefer a direct quote:

"Today, we say to the military-industrial-complex that we will not continue to spend $700 billion a year on the military — more than the next 10 nations combined," the White House hopeful told the crowd. "We're going to invest in affordable housing, we're going to invest in public education, we're going to invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure — not more nuclear weapons and never-ending wars."

Now. Bernie is correct about a lot of things, generally on one side of the equation. I just don't buy into the fact that he will run everything more efficiently, simply because it is possible. (it's always possible) 

I think he will make the military smaller. I just can't say I blame him for that.

 

[Phi for All]

39 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You don't like the way I worded it. Fair enough. I'm not tied to the rhetoric either way...all I am saying is what the words mean, not implying anything negative.

It not the wording.

40 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't agree with your assessment that he intends to keep the military the same size, or substantially the same size.

Maybe you prefer a direct quote:

"Today, we say to the military-industrial-complex that we will not continue to spend $700 billion a year on the military — more than the next 10 nations combined," the White House hopeful told the crowd. "We're going to invest in affordable housing, we're going to invest in public education, we're going to invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure — not more nuclear weapons and never-ending wars."

Excellent quote, and helps underscore my point, that he NEVER says he's shrinking the military. He says he's not going to continue to spend so much money on it in favor of more domestic spending. He's not going to involve us more in unnecessary conflicts. And in the other article you cited, he makes it clear it's more of a mean/lean/clean approach to spending more wisely. No more blank checks, no more bogus accounting, no more no-bid defense contracts.

If you can find where his plans include actually removing personnel rather than just reorganizing and firming up our military budget, I'm happy to change my assessment of Sanders' intentions wrt your argument. Otherwise, it just seems like rhetoric designed to make it look like he hates the troops.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It not the wording.

Excellent quote, and helps underscore my point, that he NEVER says he's shrinking the military. He says he's not going to continue to spend so much money on it in favor of more domestic spending. He's not going to involve us more in unnecessary conflicts. And in the other article you cited, he makes it clear it's more of a mean/lean/clean approach to spending more wisely. No more blank checks, no more bogus accounting, no more no-bid defense contracts.

If you can find where his plans include actually removing personnel rather than just reorganizing and firming up our military budget, I'm happy to change my assessment of Sanders' intentions wrt your argument. Otherwise, it just seems like rhetoric designed to make it look like he hates the troops.

LOL. Give your head a shake.

And no where did I mention "troops".

The US isn't even in the top 2 in troops. 

 

I think your "assessment" of my "rhetoric" is a little off the mark.

 

 

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

And no where did I mention "troops".

"Significantly less military spending" is very specific and accurate to what Sanders said (and has been saying most of his career). Along with the rest of the articles in context, it's clear this is about cleaning up the Pentagon's swamp.

"A sizable reduction in the US military" is the kind of rhetoric we get in the US from FOX News, hinting that the forces will shrink. Then their pundits kick around the idea that Sanders wants to strip our troops bare because lefties hate the troops. The real intent is lost and a sizable chunk of America is misinformed about one of the two major political party's intentions.

I'm probably hyper-focused on this sort of influence, but I feel it's largely responsible for so many of my fellow American's POV on progressive issues. The right has to misrepresent the left in order to get so many working class People to vote against their own ownership in this country. It's not a case of wording, it's a case of manipulation.

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

"Significantly less military spending" is very specific and accurate to what Sanders said

Agree...and on it's own it's consistent with what you claim...but not when it's stated as a substantial source of revenues for the social programs Sanders is advocating.

32 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 Along with the rest of the articles in context, it's clear this is about cleaning up the Pentagon's swamp.

 

It's clearly more than just that. He sees it as money better spent on social programmes. Is that a bad thing?

34 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

"A sizable reduction in the US military" is the kind of rhetoric we get in the US from FOX News, hinting that the forces will shrink. Then their pundits kick around the idea that Sanders wants to strip our troops bare because lefties hate the troops. The real intent is lost and a sizable chunk of America is misinformed about one of the two major political party's intentions.

Whether any or all of that is true or not, I gave you my own opinion, unconstrained by whether it might align with anything Fox News might or might not come up with. 

Out of interest I tried google:

"No results found for fox news "sizable reduction in the US military"."

"No results found for fox news "sizable reduction in the military"."

4 results for fox news "sizable reduction in military"...but none were fox news links

Doesn't seem to be a term they use...

59 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm probably hyper-focused on this sort of influence, but I feel it's largely responsible for so many of my fellow American's POV on progressive issues. 

OK.

 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

The right has to misrepresent the left in order to get so many working class People to vote against their own ownership in this country. 

I've noticed. I've also noticed the left misrepresenting the right. False equivalency? I don't think so.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

It's not a case of wording, it's a case of manipulation.

How exactly, are they doing this manipulating?

Seems to me both sides are manipulating, and primarily through wording.

 

[MigL]

To be clear, a major part of American military spending is due to the endless wars you've been involved in, for almost 20 years.
Just eliminating war spending would increase funds for social programs, without reducing the military.

Unlike our Canadian armed forces who have been flying F-18s ( the original version ) since the 80s, and are planning to fly them for another ten years with the help of obsolete junk F-18 airframes we bought from the Australians.

The Americans better not reduce their military; who will protect us Canadians ?
We certainly can't protect ourselves with 40 year old fighters.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Let's not forget we have an Avro Arrow at Pearson Airport pretty much ready to go at a moments notice:

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/08/17/avro-arrow/

(moments...months...years....let's not quibble about wording )