US Elections 2020 II - Bernie Topwin: "We'll see this trashcan dream come true"

[EOLAN]

God they really must have so little on Bernie when this seems to be the main thrust of their attack "some of his supporters are mean online", I mean some of everyone's supporters are mean online but I guess if you've got more supporters then you've got more people being mean?

Didn't have sound on for the video. But just watching it could easily be read as a pro-Bernie ad.
The call for unity and stopping internal criticisms at the start. And then the very quick showing of some nasty comments being finally commented on by Bernie; again reaffirming the need to unite and stop criticism.

Of course then we have to ask the question is that really what he means. And by dropping the question mark; yes it is really what he means. 

Just change the ending to: Democrats unite. Support Bernie and Donate here.

[marquis_de_sad]

Why do people advising politicians think making a fuss about mean twitter comments is a good idea? Is it because they read the news everyday, and the news mines twitter for content, and so they mistakenly think twitter is really important?

[peanutbutter]

Why do people advising politicians think making a fuss about mean twitter comments is a good idea? Is it because they read the news everyday, and the news mines twitter for content, and so they mistakenly think twitter is really important?

It's not even that, it's just that all political advisors are seemingly on twitter all the time so in their worldview it's extremely important.

In actuality Facebook and YouTube are far more important, just way harder to feel like you've gotten a sense of the overall discourse (which is basically never the case with Twitter either, but it feels like you could).

[EOLAN]

Why do people advising politicians think making a fuss about mean twitter comments is a good idea? Is it because they read the news everyday, and the news mines twitter for content, and so they mistakenly think twitter is really important?

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Bloomberg staff is just taking his money and trolling him.

[kngen]

God they really must have so little on Bernie when this seems to be the main thrust of their attack "some of his supporters are mean online".

Did you miss the revelations that he thought Moscow's beautiful underground stations were beautiful? That's really going to damage him in the California primary among the all-powerful 'San Francisco's BART stations don't all reek of piss' contingent.

[peanutbutter]

San Francisco's BART stations don't all reek of piss' contingent.

MacArthur usually smells okay, almost always police tape around somewhere within a 5 minute radius of it though.

[Urinal Cake]

I don't think is particularly new for anybody but it's presented nicely about Capitalism  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohetM4SM47I

Sanders really should attack Bloomberg through what Bloomberg has already said rather than some guys off Twitter and some headlines.

[Dog Botherer]

the communism stuff never stuck last time, i really doubt it will this time after 4 years of it failing to work.

nice to see Bloomberg being widely rejected and reviled. even very milquetoast pundits on MSNBC and CNN are disgusted by him, which says a lot.

[marquis_de_sad]

I don't think is particularly new for anybody but it's presented nicely about Capitalism  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohetM4SM47I

Thanks for that. He says,

We are creating our lives, we're creating the form that we use to organise our lives. And yet this form of life was also something passed down to us. It's something we've inherited. So when we try to escape the structure of our lives, when we try to turn to say politics, say electoral politics, as a way out, we find that it's ready to hand, but it's also already of the system that we're trying to dismantle. We can't help but reproduce the world as it already is. And yet there are no tools available to us that aren't produced by capital.

I dislike this argument for a number of reasons. One, because it seems very similar to a religious argument (replace capital with god). Two, because even if it's true, so what? It's a more sophisticated version of Louise Mensch mocking Occupy protesters for drinking at Starbucks. And I thought Marx said that capitalism will be overthrown in part due to the contradictions inherent within in it. According to him, the history of the world is the history of class struggle. Capital may produce the working class in order to reproduce itself, but in doing so it also produces the very thing that will overthrow it.

[Dog Botherer]

organized religion and capitalism are very similar in structure though, i think that's fairly clear to even those unfamiliar with Marx. i remember hearing the phrase "money is their religion" in reference to the USA as a kid and understanding it, if only in a rudimentary respect.

capitalism producing the means of its own destruction doesn't mean that capitalism needs to be destroyed through the structures existant. there is no conscientious capitalism, no moral capitalism, just a fundamentally flawed and unequal system that cannot function without those at the bottom being relentlessly exploited. the current electoral system is intrinsically tied to the economic system. any long term, serious systematic change must be born outside the systems of power.

[marquis_de_sad]

organized religion and capitalism are very similar in structure though, i think that's fairly clear to even those unfamiliar with Marx. i remember hearing the phrase "money is their religion" in reference to the USA as a kid and understanding it, if only in a rudimentary respect.

That's not what I meant at all. I meant the "everything is created by capital" idea is similar to the idea that "everything is created by god".

capitalism producing the means of its own destruction doesn't mean that capitalism needs to be destroyed through the structures existant. [...] any long term, serious systematic change must be born outside the systems of power.

If you're talking about Marx, there is no outside the "systems of power". Hard to tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with what the video man said.

[Dog Botherer]

well the tools to politically shape our society are definitely shaped by capitalism. just look at what Bloomberg is doing.

i should probably just stop now because i'm at work at unable to give this the proper effort it requires.

[Urinal Cake]

Thanks for that. He says,

I dislike this argument for a number of reasons. One, because it seems very similar to a religious argument (replace capital with god). Two, because even if it's true, so what? It's a more sophisticated version of Louise Mensch mocking Occupy protesters for drinking at Starbucks. And I thought Marx said that capitalism will be overthrown in part due to the contradictions inherent within in it. According to him, the history of the world is the history of class struggle. Capital may produce the working class in order to reproduce itself, but in doing so it also produces the very thing that will overthrow it.

From what I remember it's within the context of US history and the constitution as stated earlier in the video. The Democratic Party is an association as per the Constitution not a Labour Party (not even in the neutered way in the UK sense which they argued in earlier videos).  Hence the Democratic Party as it stands is a child of the the Constitution and capital but capital is the only thing that changes superficially and becomes 'kinder' (the coke ad, Baby Yoda). The only real power is within the Constitution which the Democrats wouldn't change because it gives power to what it is. Hence what is needed is a Labor party/movement which would change the Constitution.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

The U.S. Constitution itself is a complete joke. Utterly meaningless. It is merely a shield for the federal judiciary, which does wield a tremendous amount of power in the country but is composed of partisan judges that are nominated and confirmed to lifetime terms by the political party in control of the government.

[kngen]

Thanks for that. He says,

I dislike this argument for a number of reasons. One, because it seems very similar to a religious argument (replace capital with god). Two, because even if it's true, so what? It's a more sophisticated version of Louise Mensch mocking Occupy protesters for drinking at Starbucks. And I thought Marx said that capitalism will be overthrown in part due to the contradictions inherent within in it. According to him, the history of the world is the history of class struggle. Capital may produce the working class in order to reproduce itself, but in doing so it also produces the very thing that will overthrow it.

I have to agree. His argument does seem to (pessimistically) negate the Marxist theory about inherent social revolutions arising from those contradictions. Which is fair enough - that's ... like his opinion, man -  but why rely on Marx's therories so heavily to establish the foundation of his argument to then veer away from them so drastically?

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

Imagine watching this Bernie Sanders ad, and then watching a Michael Bloomberg ad whining about people being mean to him on Twitter, and then deciding to support Bloomberg. Incomprehensible!

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1229497800414703627

[rjd2]

Think in Lindy Li I may have found my least fav person on twitter (well for this week) and why America is fucked. She spread an out of contest video smearing Sanders and as a leftist she then lapped up praise from the likes of Kristol etc.

To top it off she accused Sanders base of sending a coffin to Biden to taunt him over his doomed political run. The likes of Fred Guttenberg and numerous other people with large followers joined in to condemn the Bernie Bros.

Small issue is those behind the stunt have endorsed Warren, but meh "BERNIE BROS ARE BAD@!!"

On the Bernie is a commie smear, I know some are saying it doesn't connect with joe bloggs who is drowning in debt as its so fucking long ago, but so many people have got wealthy on Russiagate, its clearly got an audience lapping this shit up.

https://twitter.com/CarlBeijer/status/1229164599825620993

https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/1229116249629655040

I've been fired before so I'l never gloat when someone loses there job no matter how dreadful they are, but its going to be difficult for me and others to feel that much pity for Lindy who got fired for trying to smear Bernie. She will land on her feet anyhow.

https://twitter.com/jamie_agust/status/1229518431508221952

[Mister Six]

I've been fired before so I'l never gloat when someone loses there job no matter how dreadful they are, but its going to be difficult for me and others to feel that much pity for Lindy who got fired for trying to smear Bernie. She will land on her feet anyhow.

https://twitter.com/jamie_agust/status/1229518431508221952

I've been fired before and she can go fuck herself.

[Ferris]

The U.S. Constitution itself is a complete joke. Utterly meaningless. It is merely a shield for the federal judiciary, which does wield a tremendous amount of power in the country but is composed of partisan judges that are nominated and confirmed to lifetime terms by the political party in control of the government.

??

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

??

What are the question marks for? It has absolutely no meaning. The Supreme Court makes up constitutional rights based on which party they belong to. The right to own a gun, the right to spend money on elections, these were all made up whole cloth within the last few decades.

Meanwhile fundamental aspects of the written Constitution, like Congress's sole authority to declare war, are discarded at will by the federal judiciary.

The Constitution is a charade.

[Ferris]

The Constitution is a charade.

wrong but ok

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

wrong but ok

The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court (controlled by fascists for 50+ years now) says it means, and nobody even blinks an eye when they invent new rights or cut out the parts they don't like, so...?

Not a very robust document.

[Urinal Cake]

I have to agree. His argument does seem to (pessimistically) negate the Marxist theory about inherent social revolutions arising from those contradictions. Which is fair enough - that's ... like his opinion, man -  but why rely on Marx's therories so heavily to establish the foundation of his argument to then veer away from them so drastically?

After watching this again it comes out of his acceptance of Fisher's Capitalist Realism which its seems based on Marx, Lacan etc. The there are 'no tools' to dismantle the system is pretty fatalistic. But from the wiki Fisher himself believes that

However, he claims that it is the state alone that has been able to maintain public arenas against the capitalist push for mass privatization.

In the context of electoral politics unless the laws of the State change regarding associations then the Democratic party will always inherit a capitalist mode. 

What are the question marks for? It has absolutely no meaning. The Supreme Court makes up constitutional rights based on which party they belong to. The right to own a gun, the right to spend money on elections, these were all made up whole cloth within the last few decades.

Meanwhile fundamental aspects of the written Constitution, like Congress's sole authority to declare war, are discarded at will by the federal judiciary.

The Constitution is a charade.

Precedent and legal interpretation eh? There are some good things about it though.
Obama really screwed the pooch when it came to not selecting Liberal judges but honestly none of the judges he would've selected would've really shook up the system especially when it came to executive power, corporations etc.

[marquis_de_sad]

After watching this again it comes out of his acceptance of Fisher's Capitalist Realism which its seems based on Marx, Lacan etc.

However, he claims that it is the state alone that has been able to maintain public arenas against the capitalist push for mass privatization.

The there are 'no tools' to dismantle the system is pretty fatalistic. But from the wiki Fisher himself believes that  In the context of electoral politics unless the laws of the State change regarding associations then the Democratic party will always inherit a capitalist mode. 

Not sure you've understood that wiki page. Fisher was reminding people that the state can be used to put a halt to privatisation (don't forget that this book was published over ten years ago). He doesn't think that's necessarily a bad thing. A big part of his thesis was that the neoliberal claim that politics was over and class struggle and that sort of thing was old fashioned had become the dominant ideology, the common sense position. Reminding people that they could fight to get the state to do things that would benefit them was part of the point of the book. Fisher even has a term for the kind of position the zero books guy takes: "reflexive impotence".

Fisher's book is mostly about ideology, and I think the zero books bloke is applying it to areas where it doesn't really work.

[Famous Mortimer]

wrong but ok

I might disagree with the odd word, but he's right. If there's anything the last four years has shown us, it's that the supposedly set-in-stone parts of the US constitution can be ignored by someone who doesn't care about the occasional tutting from the last liberal left at the NYT; and not enough people will care.

[Ferris]

I might disagree with the odd word, but he's right. If there's anything the last four years has shown us, it's that the supposedly set-in-stone parts of the US constitution can be ignored by someone who doesn't care about the occasional tutting from the last liberal left at the NYT; and not enough people will care.

If you read

The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court (controlled by fascists for 50+ years now) says it means

and think "yeah that sounds about right" then all I can say is that I disagree.

[Dewt]

How long do you think centrists can keep up their positive PR? SURELY at some point the general public is going to notice that maybe the people constantly rallying against the candidates that the poor people and cultural minorities and young folk aren't really our woke paragons of virtue

[EOLAN]

How long do you think centrists can keep up their positive PR? SURELY at some point the general public is going to notice that maybe the people constantly rallying against the candidates that the poor people and cultural minorities and young folk aren't really our woke paragons of virtue

This is the kind of vile horrific bullying that is seeing Bernie Bros tearing the Democrats apart with their negativity about potential candidates and gifting the presidency to Trump for another 4 years. Please support the only man who can win us this election Biden, Buttigeig, Bloomberg. 

[Ferris]

How long do you think centrists can keep up their positive PR? SURELY at some point the general public is going to notice that maybe the people constantly rallying against the candidates that the poor people and cultural minorities and young folk aren't really our woke paragons of virtue

Bloomberg has been getting some amazing write ups in the NY Times. It feels really odd.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Not a big mystery, he's paying for 'em