# Bernie Sanders Endorses Joe Biden For President



## morvoran (Apr 14, 2020)

Well, I can't say this is much of a surprise as it was a long time coming.  Anybody who knows anything (or remembers how things happened in the past) already knew that the DNC would do everything to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination and that Bernie would quickly show his yellow belly and submit to Biden.

I find it odd that this happened shortly after Bernie's press secretary just called Biden's sexual allegation "credible" this past weekend and now Bernie is endorsing the accused rapist.  All I got to say is, "these leftists be crazy!!!"

Source: https://www.npr.org/2020/04/13/833528203/bernie-sanders-endorses-joe-biden-for-president

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders officially endorsed his former rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, on Monday.

Sanders, who suspended his campaign last week, had long said he'd support whoever won the Democratic nomination, but he did not formally endorse Biden when he announced an end to his own run on Wednesday.

Sanders made the announcement as he remotely joined Biden on a livestream video. 

"Today I'm asking all Americans ... to come together in this campaign to support your candidacy, which I endorse," Sanders said to Biden.

"We've got to make [Donald] Trump a one-term president and we need you in the White House," Sanders added. "So I will do all that I can to see that that happens."

During the livestream, Sanders and Biden discussed the nation's coronavirus response and multiple policy issues.

Specifically, the two announced the formation of several task forces focused on shared policy concerns, including on the economy, education and criminal justice.

"Now, it's no great secret out there, Joe, that you and I have our differences and we're not going to paper them over; that's real," Sanders said. "But I hope that these task forces will come together utilizing the best minds and people in your campaign and in my campaign to work out real solutions to these very, very important problems."

Sanders and Biden clashed over issues including health care, Social Security and guns during the Democratic primary.

Sanders' endorsement of Biden came earlier in the presidential cycle than Sanders' endorsement of nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016. That came in July 2016.

In announcing the suspension of his own campaign last week, Sanders committed to remaining on the ballot in upcoming primaries, to be able to accrue delegates to exert influence over the party platform. But he also acknowledged that it would be "virtually impossible" to surpass Biden in delegates to obtain the nomination.

Toward the end of the livestream, Sanders joked that the two should play chess, and Biden touted his longtime friendship with Sanders.

"I appreciate your friendship, and I promise you I will not let you down," Biden said to Sanders.

"I know you are the kind of guy who is going to be inclusive," Sanders said. "You want to bring people in, even people who disagree with you. You want to hear what they have to say," Sanders said. "We can argue it out. It's called democracy. You believe in democracy. So do I," he added.

Biden has accumulated 1,228 pledged delegates, according to NPR's delegate tracker. Wisconsin was set to release the results of its primary, held last week, later Monday.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2020)

No shock there, he promised to endorse the eventual nominee at the very start of the campaign.  If there's one flaw with the way Bernie handles himself, it's that he's simply too nice.


----------



## morvoran (Apr 14, 2020)

Xzi said:


> If there's one flaw with the way Bernie handles himself, it's that he's simply too nice.


  No, he's too lilly livered.  We don't need somebody that would let China and Russia (or even Canada) push them around and take over while they stand to the side and wait for them to finish.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2020)

morvoran said:


> No, he's too lilly livered.  We don't need somebody that would let China and Russia (or even Canada) push them around and take over while they stand to the side and wait for them to finish.


Russia, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have Trump's ass branded with their nation's flags already.  Bernie would've be the least susceptible of all 2020 candidates to being bought, considering he took zero in corporate donations.


----------



## morvoran (Apr 14, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Trump's ass


 You sure are fixated on this, why?



Xzi said:


> Russia, Israel, and Saudi Arabia


Russia - didn't the whole "Russia collusion" hoax teach you anything?  Maybe ask Obama what he meant when he told Putin he'd have "more leverage" in his second term.  
Israel is an ally to the US, not just to Trump.  
I can't see Saudi Arabia as being "Trump friendly" seeing that we are now energy independent and giving them way less of our money as the last several presidents.  Don't you remember when Obama bowed to their king?



Xzi said:


> Bernie would've be the least susceptible of all 2020 candidates to being bought


  Pppffff, yeah, ok.



Xzi said:


> considering he took zero in corporate donations.


  No, he just took money from unemployed people who were expecting "free stuff" and now they have less money since Bernie screwed them.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Russia - didn't the whole "Russia collusion" hoax teach you anything?


Yeah, it taught me there's a whole lot of public evidence for Putin directly funding Trump through Deutsche Bank, and far more which has been kept secret.



morvoran said:


> Israel is an ally to the US, not just to Trump.


Zionists* like Netanyahu are an ally to Trump, and they couldn't give two shits about what happens to the US.  They just want to use our military to do their dirty work for them, and thus Trump is guaranteed to go to war with Iran if reelected.  Hell, he might even do it before the election if polls aren't looking favorable to him.



morvoran said:


> I can't see Saudi Arabia as being "Trump friendly" seeing that we are now energy independent


Are you kidding me?  The only time Trump mentions SA at all is to praise Mohammad Bin Salman.  There have also been plenty of mentions of bailouts for oil companies because of how full the worldwide reserves have become.


----------



## notimp (Apr 14, 2020)

"It wont be a suprise, anyone that does know anything..."

.. knows that if you have political constituency (people that vote for you), and are ideology driven (Sanders, mostly - certainly not any of the - 'who should I endorce while dropping out at the exact right time for the DNC wish candidate' candidates), you can change public debate and thereby parts of the political program of the running nominee.

Not sure thats very much the case this year, because the dropping out play (followed by a no public debates clause because of Covid-19) really wrecked Sanders importance as far as the media circuit was concerned, but at least him endorsing the democratic candidate means something. Compared to all the other minority pandering pool candidates that literally only had one job.

To fall over at the exact opportune moment.

And the show goes on.


----------



## strawpoll-legend (Apr 17, 2020)

I don't understand why people view this as selling out. If Bernie fans don't vote Joe, Trump will win 2020. He has no choice but to publicly endorse Biden, unless he would be happy with another 4 years of Trump.


----------



## Ignint (Apr 18, 2020)

His options for people to endorse was certainly narrow.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 19, 2020)

Bernie Sanders endorses taking a shit in a Republican restroom.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 21, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Bernie Sanders endorses taking a shit in a Republican restroom.


To be fair, the Republican ones are probably cleaner - conservatives are naturally inclined towards orderliness and have a higher disgust sensitivity.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 21, 2020)

strawpoll-legend said:


> I don't understand why people view this as selling out. If Bernie fans don't vote Joe, Trump will win 2020. He has no choice but to publicly endorse Biden, unless he would be happy with another 4 years of Trump.



Bernie got really popular as being anti-establishment. Joe is everything wrong with the establishment.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 21, 2020)

CallmeBerto said:


> Bernie got really popular as being anti-establishment. Joe is everything wrong with the establishment.


People were hoping for a great anti-establishment showdown. Thing is, the radically progressive segment of the DNC that people really like is relatively small, so it was fairly predictable that this thing will be a repeat of 2016. They wanted a nice, mellow candidate, and Joe fit the bill until he started falling apart right before our eyes.


----------



## notimp (Apr 21, 2020)

Absolutely wrong.

In 2016 a ground swell of support for fringe politics occurred in the US as people wanted to see things change - badly. That almost (and it was close) made Sanders a democratic nominee. And it partly (allthough with a white nationalist 'community' angle) was what brought Trump the presidency.

Candidates are not chosen, or elected, because they are 'nice and mellow'. (But apparently because they attract the needed demographic well.)

What happend this year is, that people on the left could be segmented into showing support for superfluous surface stuff.  (I'm with the gay candidate, I'm with the black candidate, I'm with the strong women, I'm with the progressive women that talks a little like sanders, I'm with the straight laced guy...) Then DNC told some of those mildly successful token *something* candidates, when to break off and who to support - at the worst time for the Sanders campaign, in the worst election system I've ever had to look at (snowballs, and allows for open influence, and for voting results to get published, before everyone has voted).

But the important part comes then.

Sanders didn't end his campaign then and there (it was pretty obvious that he was dead as a candidate, five days after the breakoff endorsements (I resign my campaign and endorse Biden)), because he hoped that something like in 2016 could happen again. A little outrage over what had happened, groundswell, momentum changes - and hes back in the race.

Now why didnt that happen? The official analysis within his campaign points at - the people just didn't show. No political issue really was important to them, they just wanted to cheer a little for their token candidates, then fall behind the designated DNC nomination (who had done nothing to separate himself from the pack at that point).

But we also know - that Elisabeth Warren continued in the race pretty much only (far longer than made statistical sense), to split sanders voter base (she had one big sponsor that 'allowed her to') - and if one candidate gets 4 endorcements from token candidates at the exact point, when snowballing  (influence on other voters) benefits are statistically highest... well. Thats it - its over.
--

So the short of it is - America couldnt care less about actual politics, whatever they are doing is something like a reality show voting contest, where in the end they do something without hearing a political argument ever.

Sometimes they are angry enough - that they vote for something that isnt establishment.

But that in itself means nothing. Because even in trying that they could vote someone like Trump in that really, really doesnt know much (And has problems keeping the White House staffed with anyone who knows anything - and/or would dare to speak up when needed. (Aaaand fired...)). So then its institutions in power again.

(The elections where you dont just vote for the president are important as well, you know?)

And the political impulse goes towards making the country more isolationist. (But not in any important capacity - where it would hurt economically, but more so in a kind of playground, where North Korea becomes 'very important' (not so much... (I mean - attention helps...)), and bullying the head of the WHO seems like a worthwhile thing... Or the wall thing, symbolism, for symbolisms sake...

And in the end, what happened structurally was, that credit got pumped into the economy - so some older factory jobs survived a little longer. But indirectly - so by giving money to the leadership structures of those companies.

Now granted, an Institution like the ECB does the same thing in Europe, but at least there it is tied to having to produce new upstart projects, and pay for the risk. In the US its feared again, that stimulus will be used for stock buybacks, and not much else.

All the 'important' decision on the progressive left are now argued to be foreign political ones. And they are important. Its just that the average american voter knows nothing about foreign politics. They even dont know as much - as actually none of what your presidential candidates are running on is actually political. (In any important structual sense.) Its like everyone gets into a side project for a while, as a hobby (you know - like building a wall), and then forgets about it again shortly after.

And that apparently means 'people are happy enough' and there was no ground swell this time for progressive programs - according even to Sanders campaign strategists... (2016 there was)


People were just - complacent in 2020, which must mean, that everything is kind of fine...


And then you look at this as a foreigner, and you see protofashist rhetoric (strong man politics), structural racism, no political topics being discussed so far at all (except for 'socialism' which was attack PR and not what Sanders was campaigning for (democratic socialism, very different (even historically))), a political candidate that gets chosen, by the DNC - because he appeals to democraphics. A 2016 election that was decided at least in part by microtargeted ads that taught people to be complacent and not go to the polls.

And someone whose takeaway from this is - DNC chose their candidate, because they wanted someone with more smile. Which is absolutely wrong. But also the official line for why he was chosen ('electibility' - which means nothing).

"I elected him, because he seemed electable" is a tautology.

And then America wants healthcare (that helicopter money (government checks) was distributed so people wouldnt fall out of healthcare, during the crisis (for the rest you still had foodstamp programs I guess). And still millions of them did, during the curfews.

And then you go with the candidate that promises you 'what Obama already did'? Maybe some more situational improvements - nothing too harsh.
-

So yeah. Kind of strange all around...

Oh, and btw thats not me saying vote Trump - because, from a foreign policy perspective - really, no, please don't. Thats just this strange 'what the heck are you doing' and why do you think thats political/democratic...

edit: Let me answer my own lamenting question. I just made the mistake of entering Biden into a youtube search. The first video that I would deem 'probably mostly political in content' shows up at position 72. With Trump I'd like to say that 'I'm still scrolling', but his official function as 'explainer in chief during the crisis (says everything once, changes it the next day)' saves him. With him one shows up within probably the first 10.

But thats exactly my problem. What Biden seems to be doing currently is telling old people, how they can talk to their grandchildren with a green meadow no smaller than 10 feet separating them in distance (as a response to a featured tweet of 'I'm so sad, when can I talk to my grandchildren again'), And how he is sending them pictures and messages everyday on facebook. Sure whatever works and is needed I guess - but none of that is political. If thats one part out of ten in an interview or townhall, I have no problem with it - but if its all there is...

And thats not his campaign PR - no, thats a media circuit interview. (MSNBC)

Meanwhile Alex Jones cruises through the streets in a 'I cant believe its not a humvy' with people with automatic rifles protesting social isolation measures, cheering him on streetside... I mean you dont need PR people for this anymore - just think of the most profane childhood boys fantasy - pervert it maximally, reenact it in reality. (At least thats a form of venting. Sure - let that happen...)

Then everyone can collectively learn to ignore it - and then it becomes magically better through ignoring (or because everyone could vent) - you know - like on facebook.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> In 2016 a ground swell of support for fringe politics occurred in the US as people wanted to see things change - badly. That almost (and it was close) made Sanders a democratic nominee. And it partly (allthough with a white nationalist 'community' angle) was what brought Trump the presidency.
> 
> ...


Oh please, the 2016 primary absolutely was rigged against Sanders, we've known that for a while now, their e-mail chain leaked. The Sanders campaign was internally derided and stifled, meanwhile the Clinton campaign was pushed first and forward. Voters can only vote for what they see or hear, so when the party picks their "preferred winner" internally, it all gets a little murky.

Choice excerpts:


> “Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess”
> 
> "It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."



https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html

You don't need the Russians to interfere with American elections, the DNC is doing a bang-up job by themselves. They do not want a candidate who doesn't have big multimillion dollar donors behind him because they're nearly broke as an organisation. They're burning through money faster than they can raise it, and they're already millions of dollars in debt. They can't hand-pick the winner, no, but they sure can use the "power of suggestion" by putting Sanders waaay at the bottom of the ballot when, realistically, only Biden and Sanders had a chance at the nomination and should've been the top two choices on the list. They'd have an excuse if the names were listed alphabetically, but they were not. Of course this was different in each state, but the point stands.


----------



## notimp (Apr 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh please, the primary absolutely was rigged against Sanders, we've known that for a while now, their internal e-mail chain leaked. The Sanders campaign was internally derided and stifled, meanwhile the Clinton campaign was pushed first and forward. Voters can only vote for what they see or hear, so when the party picks their "preferred winner" internally, it all gets a little murky.


Sure - but he got somewhere through public support in 2016. This time - nothing. nada. Niente. (Silently fizzled out. No media attention, no programmatic influence, ...)

Some people being miffed for a day that Pete wasnt the right candidate to go with - oh well. (He had the best haircut, though... (parasocial connection more important, than political program)).

Thats a difference that was there. On why its there I'm not sure - campaign organisation says its because 'people didnt come, because they didn't care enough about issues' - I say - with a primaries system thats that susceptible to outside influence...

(Primaries system is designed to be all about momentum (= popularity), and momentum that you can buy with favors (endorsements) - more easily if you are big (establishment). Then you only need someone that resonates with people (called a vessel, even within the Sanders campaign (was a wtf moment for me the first time I heard that))) - so apparently everyone in the US just takes this as a given - totally normal.)


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> Sure - but he got somewhere through public support in 2016. This time - nothing. nada. Niente. (Silently fizzled out. No media attention, no programmatic influence, ...)
> 
> Some people being miffed for a day that Pete wasnt the right candidate to go with - oh well. (He had the best haircut, though... (parasocial connection more important, than political program)).
> 
> ...


To be fair, the media is complacent in robbing the voter of information and ensuring that the public sees the inoffensive, milquetoast candidate that appeals to the broadest target audience well ahead of the pack. That said, I can see what you're saying - the 2020 primary was a bit of a shit show, to put it mildly.


----------



## qqq1 (Apr 21, 2020)

It always annoys me how candidates run against each other saying "The other people running are so terrible and it would be awful to choose them I'm the only good person here" but when they don't make it they change to "Oh this other person is so great you gotta vote for them."


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 21, 2020)

qqq1 said:


> It always annoys me how candidates run against each other saying "The other people running are so terrible and it would be awful to choose them I'm the only good person here" but when they don't make it they change to "Oh this other person is so great you gotta vote for them."


I mean, yeah, it's a race, it has to be competitive. However, I too would prefer if they stuck to one stance or the other, in my case I'd like them more if they were competitive and combative all the time. I live under no delusion of party unity, these people most likely hate each other.


----------



## notimp (Apr 22, 2020)

qqq1 said:


> It always annoys me how candidates run against each other saying "The other people running are so terrible and it would be awful to choose them I'm the only good person here" but when they don't make it they change to "Oh this other person is so great you gotta vote for them."


Thats another thing, political attack ads are forbidden in most of europe. (Also in the US they are usually payed for by superpacs. (Not the actual campaigns, but pretty much the actual campaigns (coordinated with the campaigns (even though they shouldnt legally)))

Of course facebook is still unregulated, and now plays a major role in circumventing that, but here it wasnt a factor five years ago. And is much less 'normal' than in the US still (its not something you expect to see (political culture)).

If you were wondering why I  sometimes referenced the daisy ad, here is its history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning

Daisy ad:


----------



## qqq1 (Apr 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> If you were wondering why I  sometimes referenced the daisy ad, here is its history:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning



Whoa I want to vote for the guy who's blowing stuff up!


----------



## notimp (Apr 22, 2020)

qqq1 said:


> Whoa I want to vote for the guy who's blowing stuff up!


According to Chomsky, you are voting for Trump then...  (see f.e. h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39902cn5lX8 )

The problem is this: https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/


Now some of that is hyperbole - but (aside from climate related conflicts) there is a real big issue with 'small size atomic bombs' the US military currently wants to be able to use, and attribution/just small enough so it wouldnt trigger retaliation... (thereby circumventing the mutual ensured destruction argument that prevented them from being used in the last 70 years) So not the best solution overall.. (Blowing stuff up.  )


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> According to Chomsky, you are voting for Trump then...
> 
> The problem is this: https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/
> 
> ...


Hyperbole is an understatement. We weren't "this close to nuclear war" even during the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, or any of the many false alarms since. The idea that we're closer now than we were in the middle of the Cold War when the U.S. and the U.S.S.R were sharpening their weapons on grind stones while sitting on powder kegs is just silly.


----------



## notimp (Apr 22, 2020)

I edited the posting above a little. The issue as far as I've heard (and I'm not current on it) is twofold. First, US military pushes for an update of the nuclear arsenal (stuffs getting old), and while you are updating, why not upgrade? So the race is back on.

Second, people are playing with ideological concepts of 'what if we use small nukes - that are so small, that other nations wouldnt dare to retaliate' - and this is very dangerous logic, because it desensitizes people towards the use of that stuff. And small nuke means, big issues - if one gets lost. (Attribution.)

And on top of that - large regions becoming inhabitable (climate) meaning pre-programed conflicts in the world.

So... I see what they are saying.  And for people to notice and listen, they need hyperbole (100 seconds till...). Otherwise they are just a group of scientists no one is accustom to listen to currently.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> I edited the posting above a little. The issue as far as I've heard (and I'm not current on it) is twofold. First, US military pushes for an update of the nuclear asenal (stuffs getting old), and while you are updating, why not upgrade? So the race is back on.
> 
> Second, people are playing with ideological concepts of 'what if we use small nukes - that are so small, that other nations wouldnt dare to retaliate' - and this is very dangerous logic, because it desensitizes people towards the use of that stuff. And small nuke means, big issues - if one gets lost. (Attribution.)
> 
> ...


Upgrading the arsenal is a necessary evil, and actually decreases the environmental impact should these weapon *have* to be used - they're less "dirty", lower yeild and rely more on ionising radiation (neutron bomb-style warheads) compared to traditional nukes (fission). Less heat, smaller blast, less residual radiation, orders of magnitude more prompt, instant radiation. That, and the whole concept of M.A.D necessitates having a top of the line arsenal that you *don't* use, it's like a giant scarecrow. The actual reason why the clock was moved has more to do with the idea that climate change and social media somehow influence the likelyhood of nuclear weapons being used in warfare - these factors were previously unaccounted for. It's half-truth, half-scaremongering. To be fair, the clock was always intended to be cautionary, but it's getting a bit over the top. There were literally times when "the keys were in" in the past, we're nowhere near that level of tension.

EDIT: As a quick example, the W76-2 mininukes deployed last year are intended for submarine delivery using Tridents. They're 5 kiloton, the arsenal used previously was *100* kiloton. I'd say that's a big improvement.


----------



## notimp (Apr 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Upgrading the arsenal is a necessary evil, and actually decreases the environmental impact should these weapon *have* to be used - they're less "dirty", lower yeild and rely more on ionising radiation (neutron bomb-style warheads) compared to traditional nukes (fission).


Tentatively agree. (If so (I dont know, I'm no expert..  )) (edit: And isnt that counter productive towards M.A.D?)  )

But the race is back on. (We all wanted nuclear disarmament, remember?  )

On M.A.D - issue: US doesnt have cold war russia as a military opponent anymore. US could outspend russia 10:1 at this point - so M.A.D is less and less ensured.

The bigger danger to M.A.D as far as I understand are those smaller nuclear devices that are currently talked about that you could hide all over the place 'just in case' (germany got some of the bigger ones for that purpose from the US (deterrence and 'last stand')). Those smaller ones could get lost - and then turn back up in New York City for example without a possibility of knowing who provoked the attack.

Also US could use those smaller ones in instances where they wouldnt have had a 'military solution' in the past, thereby making military and politics more accustom to using nukes - without any fear of retaliation.

All of that is worst case theoretical stuff. I almost dont know anything about. I'm not at all into this. 

But the update of the arsenal is happening currently. (And therefore has some people worried.) Would be my attempt at a summary.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> But the race is back on. (We all wanted nuclear disarmament, remember?  )


*Do* we *all* want nuclear disarmament? I don't. I am *much* more comfortable with western powers being armed with highly tactical nukes that reduce civilian losses while maximising their military potential - I do not trust North Korea, Iran or other dictatorships to uphold their agreements and I need something between me and an outdated nuclear warhead inherited from the Soviet Union and "upgraded" by the local village smithy.

I find the arsenal refresh to be a step in the right direction - you want small yield devices to replace the current highly destructive ones which *may or may not work* as they're decades old and it's about time to dismantle them. It's all a matter of perspective though, I can see how you'd prefer if *nobody* had access to these weapons, and you have a point, but realistically it's better that we have some rather than none solely for the purposes of deterrence.


----------



## notimp (Apr 22, 2020)

As a european, I do. In all scenarios I've ever seen, we are toast.  (First.)


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> As a european, I do. In all scenarios I've ever seen, we are toast.  (First.)


Good point - perhaps Europe should spend more on deterrence as well, both in terms of missile shield technology and the armory itself. Don't get me wrong, those things are *scary as all hell*, but if I'm to choose between mild discomfort in being armed and comfort in being defenseless, I'd rather be armed.


----------



## notimp (Apr 22, 2020)

Or dont upgrade so much?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> Or dont upgrade so much?


That's what I tried to explain earlier. Those things have a useable shelf life - past a certain point they become unreliable, like all weapons, and dangerous to even store, let alone use. If you're already replacing them to maintain stock levels, you may as well replace them with newer, safer technology. The difference between a nuke from the 70's and a nuke from 2020 is the fact that the first leaves a smoldering crater where a city used to be whereas a modern one creates a small explosion and a *huge* blast of radiation - less fallout, less damage to structures, less long-lasting consequences. It's like the difference between a well-targeted pin prick and a hit with a sledgehammer.


----------



## notimp (Apr 22, 2020)

I know. Update yes, uprade - maybe no?  Lets talk about it..  (Seems to be the approach here (talks).)

Also just for bystanders - for M.A.D its sufficient to have a few submarines around that can trigger nuclear winter. (Humanity as a whole goes bye, bye (+/-)) But people wouldnt be willing to retaliate that way, if the US just nuked a few cities and fallout would be limited. Meaning M.A.D can be threatened, by nukes getting too much better and or smaller.

Which is kind of the problem..


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> I know. Update yes, uprade - maybe no?  Lets talk about it..  (Seems to be the approach here (talks).)
> 
> Also just for bystanders - for M.A.D its sufficient to have a few submarines around that can trigger nuclear winter. (Humanity as a whole goes bye, bye (+/-)) But people wouldnt be willing to retaliate that way, if the US just nuked a few cities and fallout would be limited.
> 
> Which is kind of the problem..


To be fair, mininukes are not a new thing - are you familiar with the Davy Crockett? It was a portable nuclear delivery system from the 1960's - it worked very much like a mortar. Admittedly, they were never widely used since the yield was so big that the effective area actually surpassed its range in some scenarios, but the point stands. Regarding modern mininukes, the whole point in them is that, in the event of an emergency, you don't launch one - you launch lots, precisely at the enemy's silos, neutralising them in the process. Even in the nightmare scenario you describe no country launches just "one warhead", they fire from all barrels, so that argument doesn't really work in my mind.

With that said, this has nothing to do with Bernie's endorsement of Biden. I'll happily discuss nuclear proliferation with you though if you want, but we'd need a more appropriate venue. They're definitely scary, the scariest weapon ever developed, but simply by the virtue that they *exist* we must have means to defend ourselves from bad actors who may aim them at us. It's nice to think that we could just get rid of war altogether if we collectively agreed to disband the world's militaries, but I have a feeling it wouldn't go that smoothly - the same concerns scale down to each component of the military, including ICBM's.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 22, 2020)

Bernie endorsing Biden is the same as someone voting for Biden.

Yes, Biden is a rapist and a shitty candidate, but I would rather endorse him over Trump.

At this point Bernie's choices are either endorse Biden so hopefully Biden gets into office an not someone worse, or Bernie does nothing and Trump goes back into office again.

Yeah, Bernie's backing a garbage candidate but it's better than the alternative, and that's the same case millions of Americans are facing at this very moment.


----------



## notimp (Apr 27, 2020)

Chomsky explains the Nuclear watchdogs organizations argument here at 17:04 in:


(Doomsday clock.  )

You also get a bunch of news articles as reference.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 27, 2020)

notimp said:


> Chomsky explains the Nuclear watchdogs organizations argument here at 17:04 in:
> 
> (Doomsday clock.  )
> 
> You also get a bunch of news articles as reference.


Chomsky is a brilliant linguist, we owe much of modern linguistic theory to him and his models, but I am yet to hear one political hot take of his that I could even partially agree with. We're both libertarians, but sadly he sits in the socialist libertarian, anarcho-syndicalist camp. I'm afraid that I find his opinions on any matters other than linguistics unpalatable. He's naive in thinking that the INF treaty, the Iranian nuclear deal or any other deal of that nature has ever prevented nuclear war or arms development - it has only prevented mass manufacture, and only manufacture that is out in the open. Nuclear arms have been developed, upgraded and updated ever since they were introduced into the arsenal. Still not relevant to the Sanders thread, but thank you for eleborating on our earlier discussion.


----------



## notimp (Apr 27, 2020)

I like Chomsky, but also not on all topics.  (Very much in the vain of the socialist (now democratic) international movement, solidaridat, ... partly anarchism.) But he looks at topics thoroughly. So its always interesting to get his take on an issue.

I have no doubt, that he describes the diplomatic conflict accurately in this instance.

Also you have a bunch of news articles coming with it in the video you could snowball search on. Thats what made it worthwhile (in my eyes) to post.  Not 'just' Chomsky.

edit: If you want to get more precise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 27, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Chomsky is a brilliant linguist, we owe much of modern linguistic theory to him and his models, but I am yet to hear one political hot take of his that I could even partially agree with. We're both libertarians, but sadly he sits in the socialist libertarian, anarcho-syndicalist camp.



How do you know someone is alt-right?

They'll tell you they're libertarian, 'actually quite left'. 

Every time. 

(There's a really good reason why you always disagree with Noam Chomsky, one of the smartest moderate people on the earth.)

Imagine being a European and yet talking like a yank. You're not a coffee order. The labels you apply to yourself are hilarious and cringey at the same time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 27, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> How do you know someone is alt-right?
> 
> They'll tell you they're libertarian, 'actually quite left'.
> 
> ...


Noam Chomsky is a self-described libertarian socialist. I didn't call him that, he calls himself that. He considers libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism to be the spiritual successors of the Enlightenment - he says as much in "For Reasons of State" - you would know that if you read it, or if you read at all for that matter. Chomsky is not a moderate, he's as far from a moderate as humanly possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky

https://chomsky.info/state01/


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 27, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Noam Chomsky is a self-described libertarian socialist. I didn't call him that, he calls himself that.



I was talking about the labels you attach to yourself, as you're fully, fully aware.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 27, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> I was talking about the labels you attach to yourself, as you're fully, fully aware.


You were talking, that's for sure. I don't think you're an authority on the labels I attach to myself, or any other labels, considering the fact that you describe Chomsky as a moderate when he would probably be mildly offended if you called him that to his face. None of his political stances are moderate, and they're not intended to be moderate - even he himself considers them revolutionary. Mine are similar in one sense and diametrically opposed in another - we both oppose the authoritarian state, the difference being that he puts emphasis on the power of the collective whereas I focus on the freedom of the individual. Similar, yet different. Of course I know that you have a different opinion regarding my beliefs, you've expressed that already, but what you believe is none of my business and doesn't particularly interest me.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 27, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> You were talking, that's for sure.



Deflection, deflection, deflection; it's all you do. Clearly afraid of something.



Foxi4 said:


> I don't think you're an authority on the labels I attach to myself, or any other labels



Stop deflecting.



Foxi4 said:


> considering the fact that you describe Chomsky as a moderate when he would probably be mildly offended if you called him that to his face. None of his political stances are moderate, and they're not intended to be moderate - even he himself considers them revolutionary. Mine are similar in one sense and diametrically opposed in another - we both oppose the authoritarian state, the difference being that he puts emphasis on the power of the collective whereas I focus on the freedom of the individual. Similar, yet different. Of course I know that you have a different opinion regarding my beliefs, you've expressed that already, but what you believe is none of my business and doesn't particularly interest me.



Deflecting with poor Noam? Revolutions don't have to be bloody. He absolutely is a very moderate individual. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=moderate+definition He is very, very measured. Being moderate doesn't mean one sits on ones hands, it means that balanced though occurs in ones brain. I really wouldn't compare the two of you at all if I was you.



Foxi4 said:


> Similar, yet different.



You're the second alt-righter on this board to say that to me in the space of two days. This the new catchphrase?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 27, 2020)

_*Yawn*_ Same old song again. Have fun on the forums, @Waygeek, follow the community guidelines.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 28, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> _*Yawn*_ Same old song again. Have fun on the forums, @Waygeek, follow the community guidelines.



Deflection, deflection, deflection. 

Alt-righters are very wriggly, aren't they?


----------



## notimp (Apr 28, 2020)

Waygeek: There is no such think as 'triggery' (looked it up in websters..  ). And if you are finished destroying the other side through personal bickering, then what? You have the stage all to yourself and are proven right in your (mostly) political opinion, you always knew was right from the beginning?

How does that work exactly?

That you get a bit of the other sides position as well is part of the 'charm' of this forum (in my mind).  Try to get something out of it, and dont just try to turn it off..


----------



## Waygeek (May 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> (in my mind).



But you're not right in the head... we established that a while ago, didn't a mod say you had a complete fucking meltdown? Yeah, I remember that.


----------



## notimp (May 2, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> But you're not right in the head... we established that a while ago, didn't a mod say you had a complete fucking meltdown? Yeah, I remember that.


No, you wanted to establish that, there was no 'we' .

To win an argument.

Then you searched for other people to fall into that argument, or to back you up. You found a moderator to do that. For some puzzling reason.

That you are now pulling up as a character whitness at will - on an entirely different argument, just so you dont have to touch the rest of a now entirely separate argument. Where you tried to pull off your 'I'm right, because the other side is mentally ill (emotionally driven, triggered for no reason, as a character trait)' trick, on an entirely different person.


You only ever win, by making other people break, by calling them mentally ill and deranged over and over again, You double down on that. You just trippled down on that in another thread, this is the fourth time you are doing it.

Maybe I had a mealtdown after being berated for my opinions, by yourself - only ever coming back at me, by attacking my character, and no factual argument ever, for three consecutive pages in a different thread. Maybe not and the whole thing was just a misunderstanding.

But whats unmistakingly true at this point is, that you now use that reputation figure (moderator), to end another argument by reducing someone to be a mentally ill person, who in your view cant make any argument or point on anything ever again.

And using a character witness helps you on your mission ('hes seen it, it is established, by a reputation figure!'). But it doesnt have anything to do with any of the arguments made - in here. Nor did it the last three times you tried to win an exchange by calling someone mentally ill.

If in your mind I'm just mentally ill, in everything I say and will ever say from now on (four times banking on that in a row is a trend...  ) ever in this forum, then why do I have to be not just mentally ill, but also wrong in everything I say at the same time?

If I'm mentally ill, treat me with compassion.  Or ignore me. But dont try to bring it up always trying to establish, that you have to be right - because obviously - the person you are arguing against is mentally ill.

Thats abusive.. Mr. I  work with homeless people, so the world understands, that I'm a good person, and can do no wrong..


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> No, you wanted to establish that, there was no 'we' .
> 
> To win an argument.
> 
> ...


Excuse me? 

The puzzling reason was that you did spill spaghetti on that thread in a long multi-post because he did upset you to the point of losing composure - I merely reminded you to recover. Don't rope me into your argument, I already gave you my piece of mind. He's obviously not interested in debating with you, he's interested in berating you, so I don't quite understand why you're feeding him.

In any case, if this thread devolves into another mud slinging contest, as the one I just closed did, you can rest assured that action will be taken.


----------



## notimp (May 2, 2020)

No, he roped you in. And is using you now. He is not dumb.

I never said you were on my side on this. 

Mental breakdown (even though not a scientific term (means exactly nothing)), as an argument is ok. (After three pages of constant personal abuse, but I was attacking his character as well - so I wasnt just the victim here.) I can deal with that.

What I can not let stand, is that that person is now using you as an authority figure - to signal that everything I have to say - even in an unrelated argument, while not attacking them personally, is mental illness from here on out.

You backed a person that tried to win an argument, by ostracizing another person by declaring them mentally ill. And now that person is pulling a you as an authority figure card - when its convenient.

Thats all I'm saying. Not that you were on my side, or his.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> No, he roped you in. And is using you now. He is not dumb.
> 
> I never said you were on my side on this.
> 
> ...


There's a report button under each post, y'know. If you feel personally attacked and someone is trying to get a rise out of you, consider using it instead of arguing with a wall.


----------



## Waygeek (May 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> You found a moderator to do that. For some puzzling reason.



It's only puzzling to you    

I also wouldn't take anything @Foxi4 says at face value, he talks impartial but does not act it and actually eggs on the dumber trolls on this website. Don't believe his lies.


----------

