SpokenTruth said:
uran10 said:
Another pretty good video from Kle.
|
Sorry for the length but I had to write a rebuttal to both of those videos.
Video 1:
They focused on some incalculable appeal factor. Saying she can't beat Trump simply because she doesn't appeal to anyone but Ivy League democrats. They say she can't beat Trump because she's using slogans that remind them of Clinton. This is stupid. First, if she only appealed to Ivy League voters, how they hell is she leading in frikkin Iowa? You can't get further away from Ivy League if you tried. Next...slogans? Seriously? Like other candidates don't have slogans? Feel the Bern? Make America Great Again? She can't win because "I have a plan for that"? Next, the polls show her winning. How can you say she doesn't appeal to people when she's leading the Iowa poll?
Finally, Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. One of the widest gaps in modern election history. Her failure was not her appeal in general but her lack of presence in states that Trump targeted. Saying Warren can't win but not addressing this issue as the key factor in winning or losing is poor analysis.
They should have focused on her alleged backroom political deals or closeness to status quo D.C. politics. But no, we get 8 minutes of blah.
Video 2:
*Sigh* She voted against Carson's nomination. Why didn't he do any research on this?
She did vote for him in a senate committee with guarantees from Carson to address certain issues. A no vote would not have stopped his nomination at the committee level nor would she have political leverage on him to address certain issues. Upon the actual Senate vote though, she voted again him....twice. And when he failed to address the issues they discussed, she called for his firing. Oh, and her primary candidate for the position was never even brought to the nomination process thanks to other committee and Senate members.
Sanders just announced his medical debt plan 4 days ago. Had this video been made 4 days, he literally could not have made this point. While Warren has not publicly stated what her medical debt plan is, it's a bit disingenuous to play this card right now. Come back to this specific issue in a month or two. If she's not announced a plan by that time, then it's a knock against her.
Warren's student loan debt cancellation plan only applies to households under $250,000 per year. Nobody in the poor or middle class voting block should be faulting her for this limitation of benefiting the rich. Also, Kyle's point of the Republicans rebuffing Warren plan but not Sander's plan is mind numbingly stupid. He using an old axiom of shooting for the stars to reach the moon. Warren's own plan is still the damn stars, Kyle. Any debt cancellation plan is shooting for the stars. And his car negotiation analogy was bad. I'd expect that analogy from a certain VGC user, not a supposedly respected political commentator.
The military budget. I'll somewhat agree with Kyle on this one. I know that she pushed through amendments to the bill such as a pay raise for service members, protection from debt cancellation, new student loan options, etc.... Because she pushed these through at the committee level (she was on the Senate Armed Services Committee), it would be odd to vote against them on the final vote. So it's a tricky position to be in. You establish several provisions to help the service members and then vote no on the bill they are part of? That one's tough. The Raytheon angle is also tough. Warren has a major military employer in her state, Sanders does not. That's 70,000 people or the equivalent of 1 out of every 10 citizens in Sanders state. Again, tough spot.
Medicare for All? She sponsored the damn Medicare for All bill with Sanders. Is he not aware of this?
Big money donors. Well, we have stats we can look at. Sanders has 76.87% of his donations coming in as small donation (under $200). Who is right behind him? Warren with 67.45%. That said, she also has a point in that there are no moral victories and you will have to use the unfortunate nature of money in politics to beat Trump. That's not the say she doesn't want to get rid of that dark money or overturn Citizens United because she very much does. I will agree that the carry-over money from her 2018 campaign violates her "no big money during the primary season" oath....unless she stays above the $10.4 million in COH. She's at $19 million COH as of June 30 (FEC will have updated figures later next month). If she stays above $10.4 million, then she's not tapping into the transferred big money donations from 2018.
Not endorsing Sanders in 2016. This one does look bad and is easily the biggest knock against her. Ideologically, she aligns with Sanders but politically, she aligned with Clinton. This will bite her.
Executive order. Hang on. Kyle is pissed that Warren will play by the unpopular rules of taking big money during the general election to fight Trump but he's ok with a Democrat president abusing the hell out of executive orders to push an agenda through? And he had the audacity to say the way to beat Trump is to be principled? He's talking out of both sides of his mouth now. Slamming Warren for the ethically unpopular use of big money whole applauding Sanders for intending to use the ethically unpopular executive order to bypass Congress on legislative matters.
Joe Manchin...does she need to apply political pressure on him for a Medicare For All vote considering she's not the minority leader of the Senate? Isn't that Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin's job? Also, how the hell can Manchin block Warren's agenda? Aside from him being on the Senate Energy Committee, what does he have over Warren in terms of rank or leadership? Kyle is spouting out ridiculous crap right now....and for what?
A bull in a china shop. Actually, bulls are incredibly delicate in movement and do not rampage through stuff as the maxim suggests. Yes, totally a tangent but this needs to be more known by people so they'll stop using that phrase.
If Kyle is this unprepared and can't do the required research, I don't advise listening to his show. By the way, Sanders is and has always been my primary candidate.
Finally, why the hell are we tearing down these great candidates? We are literally doing the work of the Republicans for them. We have no unity, no solidarity, no overarching goal of defeating Trump. Instead, right now, it's in-fighting and one-upmanship. Who can hate on our own candidates the most. We should not be tearing these candidates down like they are just another Donald Trump.
|
I had a long reply to this but VGC logged me out and made me lose it. Give me a sec I'll edit this post with it when I'm done cause I'm mad as hell rn. I'll be editing this multiple times:
1st and Most obvious point: Its a primary! We're vetting our candidates and deciding who is best going forward for the country. All candidates will get vetted, some will be unfairly attacked and smeared. But you want to know something? Trump wont be holding back in the general so how well their record stands and how well they respond to or deal with being attacked will go very far. So yes, I reject the last thing you said cause that's what the primary is all about vetting. Clinton is the perfect example of a candidate not being able to handle attacks and her record on trade was so bad, it lost her the rust belt and the election.
2nd and other obvious point: Medicare for all. She's wishy washy on it. Sure she co-sponsored it but she also did that for the non single payer bills as well, he is very aware and that's why it's a point. She comes out strongly for it, then backs off, then that cycle repeats. You know who else in the race has also co-sponsored M4a? Kamala, but she released a non single payer plan, and the same with Warren. We're after single payer M4A and she's not committed too it. (my previous answer was longer and better explained but whatever)
3rd: Student debt, this is a big one. I will repeat this as many time as I have to. Bernie's plan does not benefit the rich! The rich don't have student loan debts. Why would they? They wouldn't need loans in the first place. On top of that her plan doesn't go far enough and would still leave thousands in debt. This is a mainstream media disingenuous talking point and is false. Bernie's plan is better and benefits the working class more than Warren's and it doesn't help the rich. If I have millions I can afford any school I please. I don't need loans, I'll pay for it myself without any help. I can afford it. As for the Medical Debt, its just to highlight that bernie is going further than her and is the better option. Are we supposed to wait for her to come up with a half measure to compare it too?
4th the disqualifying factor, big money. Here's the thing Money is corrupting and she's already taken a hell of a lot of it before the primary and she plans on doing so after the primary when she's in the general. Now, let me tell you how dumb that is. You're the nominee, you have the DNC's warchest and all donations from the public is coming to you. You do not need corporate cash. On top of that, Clinton outraised trump 5:1 and lost. And even on top of that, for real leftists, this is disqualifying. You said you're open to being bribed aka you will stab us in the back and not fight for us. You take big money you lose the progressive vote and you can't win without us and you can't shame us into voting for you. Didn't work for clinton and won't work for warren.
5th Bully pulpit. As president, you have the most power in your party when it comes to the people. You can rally them together in a primary to out members of your own party who do not want to go along with the vision the people put you in there for. This would also work on the opposition as bernie's ideas are widely popular. Someone like Joe Manchin who has voted with trump over 50% of the time can go, but instead of saying that, she defends him during the time he was being primaried by paula jean. She's clearly indicating that she's a "team player" and will not do what's needed to pass her agenda. Bernie will. That's the point. It doesn't matter if its Manchin etc, if you disagree with the proposal the the majority of americans want and the president campaigns against you, or threatens to, your vote changes real quick or you're out of a job. That's the point he's making. If its chuck, he'll do the same.
6th Military/Fp: You mostly agreed with this, but at the same time said she's in an iffy spot and I disagree. This leads back to point 4. She takes $ from them so she does their bidding. Yes her state has them stationed there but at the same time she's supposed to have a principled stance. On top of that, she's recently been pressed on her fp and jesus christ...... Her answers are unacceptable, but then again she's also running around saying green bombs so what can you expect from someone whose fp is roughly the same as clinton? here's a thread:
7th Executive orders: There's a difference between abusing presidential powers and using them especially depending on the circumstances. When the majority of the public says we want x but the bought off congress refuses to do so and its on the presidents agenda then I see it as fine. He's not declaring war (that's congresses job), he's getting the will of the people done. He's doing his job of representing americans. Its very different than tearing apart obama care and trying to unilaterally go to war. Its definitely not equivalent to big money and this climate ran by big money is pretty much essential to fighting against it. Warren will work in the system and get nothing done, Bernie will use both the bully pulpit and executive orders to ensure that the public gets what its fighting and voting for. These 2 things are not equivalent (executive orders in favour of the people vs taking big money)
8th Ben Carson: She received a backlash for the vote and went to vote no on another part. And its not that her vote would have changed the appointment, its the principle of it. All the dems were essentially fast tracking trump's swamp appointments and we were expecting the lefties to fight against this, instead she jumped on board until she was shouted down from the left. It clearly shows she would cave. This imo the smallest thing but it does say a lot about her values and morals.
Finally polling. I'm not gonna say the polls are fake but I will say I laugh at them and the reason is simply methodology. The people polled are mostly using landlines, those who use landlines are normally older folks who watch msnbc/cnn. These "news" outlets have been propping up Warren, and claiming she's bernie but better or she's the same as bernie and giving her a tremendous amount of free air time. It reflects her rise. Don't get me wrong, she is surging as Kamala's supporters rush to her after tulsi destroyed kamala but she's also being boosted in the same way trump was and is not reflecting the full reality of the situation. On top of that, the size of the polls say a lot. 500 people aint a lot and is a very small sample size. Again, not saying the polls are fake but take them with a huge grain of salt, especially when you're looking at 5+% margin of errors on these polls.
I definitely missed some points I had last time and I was missing other points then as well. But Kyle's done his research and he's interviewed bernie and does some of the best reporting next to Jordan from status coup. Give him a watch, and give his video's a try before you try this research angle. Especially because he does more research than me and you and look at how long this response is and how it counters almost every criticism you tried to lob at the video.
Last edited by uran10 - on 25 September 2019
