Jump to content

Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president


Recommended Posts

I guess everyone has to be reminded that you don't need a communist shithole of a government to improve literacy rates! I'm pretty confident and I don't need the WSJ or any other newspaper to fact check me on this one. 

 

This is what we get with a Sanders nomination. Everyone will be debating what socialism means. It's not communism, but then again, communist regimes actually did bad because X, not because they were communist. A good communist country would be so amazing, but Sanders isn't a communist so nevermind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


Would you accept the argument that Donald Trump improves the economy simply because economic conditions continued the trajectory they had been on the previous 6 years?

That's based on the assumption that the pre-Castro literacy rate was on a generally upward trajectory rather than being at a plateau for a significant period of time due to the lack of investment in rural education by the Batista government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a stupid argument. When Bernie praises some detestable act or policy, that should be notable. If he were to say that in broad strokes he would model his presidency after Castro's, that would be pretty bad. Merely saying that "bad man did good thing" hardly seems controversial.

 

Politically, I understand why opponents want to push this narrative. You want to tie Sanders to communists and what not as much as possible. As an actual concern about Sander's as President, I don't think there's much to dig into on this one.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


Would you accept the argument that Donald Trump improves the economy simply because economic conditions continued the trajectory they had been on the previous 6 years?

 

Like Wade said, you would have to prove that it was on the rise previously, which we can't. The literacy rate went from around 80% to 96% in a year. That's insane!

 

He praised one part of Castro's government. This does not make him a commie, guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting the debate over Castro aside, Sanders needs to at least get better at answering those kinds of questions if he wants to win an election against an opponent with absolutely zero scruples.

 

He could have just said "I don't approve of Fidel Castro or authoritarianism, but I do think we should have universal healthcare and a well-funded school system that will help achieve universal literacy", and then moved on.  If they go back to it just say "I've already commented on that, let's talk about the issues that matter", or something.

 

'Authenticity' is nice, but sometimes you have to, y'know, be a politician.  It's only going to get worse from hereon out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Yes, I praised a reading program in Cuba put in place by a man who's dead, what I did NOT do, unlike others here on stage, is vote to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, a government which killed 3,000 Americans".  That's how Bernie should hit back, pivot to something relevant to current national security, assuming it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

He could have just said "I don't approve of Fidel Castro or authoritarianism, but I do think we should have universal healthcare and a well-funded school system that will help achieve universal literacy", and then moved on.  If they go back to it just say "I've already commented on that, let's talk about the issues that matter", or something.

 

Even that is an incredibly stupid thing to say, and shows very poor political judgement.

 

Why not just say "I do think we should have universal healthcare and a well-funded school system that will help achieve universal literacy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

 

Even that is an incredibly stupid thing to say, and shows very poor political judgement.

 

Why not just say "I do think we should have universal healthcare and a well-funded school system that will help achieve universal literacy."

Wow Cuba has those things wow communist scum Venezuela much lmao owned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Putting the debate over Castro aside, Sanders needs to at least get better at answering those kinds of questions if he wants to win an election against an opponent with absolutely zero scruples.

 

He could have just said "I don't approve of Fidel Castro or authoritarianism, but I do think we should have universal healthcare and a well-funded school system that will help achieve universal literacy", and then moved on.  If they go back to it just say "I've already commented on that, let's talk about the issues that matter", or something.

 

'Authenticity' is nice, but sometimes you have to, y'know, be a politician.  It's only going to get worse from hereon out.  

 

I do agree with this though. I'm curious to see how he handles tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is Castro's literacy program was a vehicle for propaganda. It's fine to push a nuanced view of a dictator (Hitler not only hated smoking he was convinced it would give you cancer, refused to let people smoke near him, and the CIA cited this as a reason he was crazy) but if your nuance lacks nuance that's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

Problem is Castro's literacy program was a vehicle for propaganda. It's fine to push a nuanced view of a dictator (Hitler not only hated smoking he was convinced it would give you cancer, refused to let people smoke near him, and the CIA cited this as a reason he was crazy) but if your nuance lacks nuance that's a problem.

Oh man, let me tell you about the socialized education system in these here United States

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Link?

It’s from the article you seemed to suggest you read when you replied with this

 

5 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

Overall that seems to benefits the Democrats quite a bit more. That doesn't mean they would win, of course. Sanders could beat Trump by 6% and lose while Biden could beat Trump by 3% and win, if the votes are in different places. Overall, however, I am a believer that riling up your base is better than trying to attract mystical swing voters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anathema- said:

 

What the fuck does that have to do with what we're talking about?

One of the points of public education is to propagandize (aka "create good citizens") with a common set of values, as curriculum is not a value neutral thing. It's part of the reason why Christians use the Bible and Muslims use the Koran for education, aside from these materials being readily available.

 

Without knowing the specific material being used, I'm sure the study materials from the Batista regime were of questionable content themselves, based on what colonial controlled governments thought of their less than purely European residents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Massdriver said:

...This makes me wonder whether the youth vote has ever gotten that high.  It’d be nice to know the percentage for 1972–that had one of the biggest surges in the youth vote ever, I believe.

 

If it didn’t cross 55% then, I think it’d be hard to argue it’s going to get there this time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jason said:

I get the thought but ultimately talking about the results seems inherently intertwined with talking about the candidates. :p

 

Yup, though in my defense, the original thread title for the primary one was something different (I think for Iowa) and then it was changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Yup, though in my defense, the original thread title for the primary one was something different (I think for Iowa) and then it was changed.

 

Yeah I remember that. I agree that initially it made sense to have a separate one for just the Iowa caucus (hence the renaming :p) but once it became a catchall primaries thread...yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...