You can find a local meeting (There will be over a thousand across the nation for a live Organizing cast on July 29th) ^^^^ at the link.
As some may know, I am a frequent poster in the US Politics thread. Rather than spam it up with all the cool Bernie Sanders stuff that is coming out of his grassroots campaign I figured I'd make a blog.
Without a SuperPAC Sanders is at a great disadvantage financially. The countermeasure for that has been crowdsourcing his campaign basically. Sanders has attracted a lot of creative and inspired people and from them some pretty cool stuff is being created organically.
He's the man I'm rarely excited for a presidential candidate, but Sanders actually makes me happy. I hope his hype doesn't die down... it'd be crazy if he actually beat Hillary.
On June 28 2015 07:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: He's the man I'm rarely excited for a presidential candidate, but Sanders actually makes me happy. I hope his hype doesn't die down... it'd be crazy if he actually beat Hillary.
When people actually listen to him, many realize he's actually the only one who even wants to talk about the real problems we face.
He's been at it for decades, fighting the good fight. He's been saying the same things for years and the numbers and situations have only gotten worse while people ignored him.
People are finally wising up ever so slowly to how badly they are being conned.
On June 28 2015 07:53 Shiragaku wrote: Obama, Sawant, and SYRIZA have been let downs and I am certain that Sanders will be just another Obama when he sold out to the Democrats
mmh, Sanders and Obama are pretty different from the get go. But yeah, it would be very naive to believe that Sanders could actually change US politics in a meaningful way.
On June 28 2015 07:53 Shiragaku wrote: Obama, Sawant, and SYRIZA have been let downs and I am certain that Sanders will be just another Obama when he sold out to the Democrats
He has a long history of not selling out, and doing what he says. Bernie Sanders is a lot of things but another Obama or typical politician he certainly is not.
On June 28 2015 07:53 Shiragaku wrote: Obama, Sawant, and SYRIZA have been let downs and I am certain that Sanders will be just another Obama when he sold out to the Democrats
mmh, Sanders and Obama are pretty different from the get go. But yeah, it would be very naive to believe that Sanders could actually change US politics in a meaningful way.
On June 28 2015 07:53 Shiragaku wrote: Obama, Sawant, and SYRIZA have been let downs and I am certain that Sanders will be just another Obama when he sold out to the Democrats
mmh, Sanders and Obama are pretty different from the get go. But yeah, it would be very naive to believe that Sanders could actually change US politics in a meaningful way.
hmm as much as I don't want to admit it I feel like you have a point. You can't just elect bernie sanders and then expect to pass all the laws he wants to pass; he still needs approval from the house and the senate. And most of those people are nowhere near as progressive as Bernie is. Its a bit of a tragedy...but at the very least you would have a genuinely smart president. Maybe he could make a few things happen by executive order, but if you stray too far down that path it becomes dangerous, I don't think Bernie is the type to do that either. I think he really respects the constitution and people's rights.
Bernie really is a great man, I wish him all the best. If I were an American citizen I'd vote for him. That guy is seriously inspiring, not just in a vague 'we can do better' kind of way like with Obama. He's clear on every issue and completely honest. Its kind of funny how the most basic thing that people want in politics is the rarest thing to find
On June 28 2015 07:53 Shiragaku wrote: Obama, Sawant, and SYRIZA have been let downs and I am certain that Sanders will be just another Obama when he sold out to the Democrats
mmh, Sanders and Obama are pretty different from the get go. But yeah, it would be very naive to believe that Sanders could actually change US politics in a meaningful way.
hmm as much as I don't want to admit it I feel like you have a point. You can't just elect bernie sanders and then expect to pass all the laws he wants to pass; he still needs approval from the house and the senate. And most of those people are nowhere near as progressive as Bernie is. Its a bit of a tragedy...but at the very least you would have a genuinely smart president. Maybe he could make a few things happen by executive order, but if you stray too far down that path it becomes dangerous, I don't think Bernie is the type to do that either. I think he really respects the constitution and people's rights.
Bernie really is a great man, I wish him all the best. If I were an American citizen I'd vote for him. That guy is seriously inspiring, not just in a vague 'we can do better' kind of way like with Obama. He's clear on every issue and completely honest. Its kind of funny how the most basic thing that people want in politics is the rarest thing to find
Which is why part of the campaign is remembering not to stop at Bernie, but to push congress too. Most of them are just husks anyway, if enough polling tells them to do something it will happen regardless of what their previous positions were.
That's Bernie's advantage, overwhelming majorities of Americans support many of his positions. By focusing on those and by forcing them into the discussion he brings attention to the fact that people want what he is offering a lot more than anyone else. (Hillary's fluid positions being the only real competition.)
Bernie Sanders confuses me a little bit and I don't know where to stand because on one hand, I think he's what the US needs to fix a bunch of its social problems and the crippling wealth disparity that is causing a bunch of ills. On the other hand, around here we always say that "our most conservatives politicians are more liberal than the US liberal". How can we expect a man like Bernie Sanders, who seems to be on the proper, actual left, to win an election in a country that was so deeply influenced by the notions like communism and socialism are outright evil? Even the people who believe they're not influenced by Fox News live in a culture where social programs are openly mocked and taxes are considered theft and otherwise reasonable people have started to seriously believe that there is no difference between the democrats and the republicans!
It seems to me like not only Sanders is going out against a population which has decades and decades of accumulated dislike for his ideals (due to propaganda and a deep misunderstanding of what redistribution entails), he's also faced with a large corrupt structure which uses SuperPACs to get elected, and who's expected to more or less collude with certain people.
Sanders strikes me as an honest man, if nothing else because of his refusal to run PACs, and I wonder how effective it'll be. I mean, the idea that politicians are corrupt is tossed around in stupid ways, but there's truth to it. To get his presidency, Obama certainly fiddled, promised shit to people, and after he won the democratic primary he rushed to the center against McCain and we saw him hide parts of the platform he had during the primaries. Will Sanders be willing to strategize, to soften his views to convince swing voters? Or will he be honest throughout, be what the US needs, and get crushed under the weight of a population which is desperate for change but demands more of the old tired ideas that have kept a disproportionate number of Americans in a position where they can work 40-60 hours a week and still struggle to pay their bills while the rest of the world has been gaining in those areas for the last decades.
I don't know what the polls are saying if there are polls, but I assume Clinton is towering above everybody else. If Sanders was to win the primaries through some sort of divine intervention, he would then get absolutely destroyed by whoever the GOP throws at him. I'd argue that that's dangerous, especially if it ends up being a mad dog like Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Scott Walker or god forbid Donald Trump. Now I don't know what the chances are of Trump winning his primaries but oh my GOD that is *TERRIFYING*.
Edit: Note that maybe I'm mischaracterizing Sanders's character by assuming he's honest. My reasoning is that someone who just wanted to get elected wouldn't start from such a tough position to defend in the US, and so I think he's a very different candidate from the others. And I understand that he may not necessarily expect to become president through this, but to gain influence, which makes everything I said before moot, but there you go nonetheless.
On June 28 2015 09:13 Djzapz wrote: Bernie Sanders confuses me a little bit and I don't know where to stand because on one hand, I think he's what the US needs to fix a bunch of its social problems and the crippling wealth disparity that is causing a bunch of ills. On the other hand, around here we always say that "our most conservatives politicians are more liberal than the US liberal". How can we expect a man like Bernie Sanders, who seems to be on the proper, actual left, to win an election in a country that was so deeply influenced by the notions like communism and socialism are outright evil?
So what you're saying is that he's the hero we need, but not the hero we deserve.
It would be fantastic if Bernie won, but the odds are certainly stacked against him. As one of the more 'extreme' candidates he may struggle to win over the center.
On June 28 2015 15:12 Plexa wrote: It would be fantastic if Bernie won, but the odds are certainly stacked against him. As one of the more 'extreme' candidates he may struggle to win over the center.
I think it'll be harder for him to win in the primary against Hillary than for him to win in the final election... if he can beat her, then I think he has a really good shot of beating out whatever Republican nutjob ends up winning the other primary.
On June 28 2015 15:12 Plexa wrote: It would be fantastic if Bernie won, but the odds are certainly stacked against him. As one of the more 'extreme' candidates he may struggle to win over the center.
I think it'll be harder for him to win in the primary against Hillary than for him to win in the final election... if he can beat her, then I think he has a really good shot of beating out whatever Republican nutjob ends up winning the other primary.
Debates are going to be Bernie's best friend. Would be nice if we actually had some.
If they are going to put 10 people on the stage for the first republican debate, why not have some 5v5 debates? Those would be fun.
On June 28 2015 07:53 Shiragaku wrote: Obama, Sawant, and SYRIZA have been let downs and I am certain that Sanders will be just another Obama when he sold out to the Democrats
Obama was always sold out, the appearance otherwise was just marketing.
Anyway, the powers-that-be will never allow Sanders to come close to the presidency. I'm sure they'll find a loophole somewhere to prevent him from actively campaigning, or they'll dig up enough dirt to discredit him in the eyes of the public. See what happened to John Edwards and Howard Dean when they ran populist campaigns. Or see how Ralph Nader was demonized in the media and barred from presidential debates.
I like that the citizens are even willing to consider such a candidate, huge difference from just 10 years ago. I am not from the USA, but in my hometown some while ago, we finally elected a true left candidate. The thing is, the banks have to sign of on a proposed budget for the year, which they did not not, practically shut down government for almost a year. Also showed that it is irrelevant on local scope who gets elected. Good for Bernie that he realizes he has to take away power from the banks and finally, finally revolutionize the energy business, though Obama's 500million loan to Tesla was a good start in that direction, I think. Then again Obama got the Nobel peace for promises he didn't keep, at least if Bernie gets voted in and fails to deliver, the majority of people will hopefully start to reject democracy.
On June 28 2015 07:53 Shiragaku wrote: Obama, Sawant, and SYRIZA have been let downs and I am certain that Sanders will be just another Obama when he sold out to the Democrats
Obama was always sold out, the appearance otherwise was just marketing.
Anyway, the powers-that-be will never allow Sanders to come close to the presidency. I'm sure they'll find a loophole somewhere to prevent him from actively campaigning, or they'll dig up enough dirt to discredit him in the eyes of the public. See what happened to John Edwards and Howard Dean when they ran populist campaigns. Or see how Ralph Nader was demonized in the media and barred from presidential debates.
That you think that John Edwards and Howard Dean had their campaigns torpedoed by anyone but themselves indicates that you really didn't pay much attention to those elections.....
On June 28 2015 15:12 Plexa wrote: It would be fantastic if Bernie won, but the odds are certainly stacked against him. As one of the more 'extreme' candidates he may struggle to win over the center.
I think it'll be harder for him to win in the primary against Hillary than for him to win in the final election... if he can beat her, then I think he has a really good shot of beating out whatever Republican nutjob ends up winning the other primary.
Debates are going to be Bernie's best friend. Would be nice if we actually had some.
It'd be nice if they were *real* debates too... like this format:
If they are going to put 10 people on the stage for the first republican debate, why not have some 5v5 debates? Those would be fun.
In the video in the OP Bernie suggests taking a little funding from the large military budget and putting it into education. Certainly, some funding should go to both.
What I'm curious about is how he intends to take money from military spending (specifically) and how he intends to provide that money to education in an effective manner. If he can provide a plan for that which satisfies me then I'll have respect for his campaign (note I've worked in both of those fields).
On June 28 2015 23:33 micronesia wrote: In the video in the OP Bernie suggests taking a little funding from the large military budget and putting it into education. Certainly, some funding should go to both.
What I'm curious about is how he intends to take money from military spending (specifically) and how he intends to provide that money to education in an effective manner. If he can provide a plan for that which satisfies me then I'll have respect for his campaign (note I've worked in both of those fields).
Yeah that's a good point. While it's never a bad thing to have more money put into education, it's often the case that a mismanagement of current funds is a big reason for schools not having appropriate infrastructure.
This guy looks cool, but one thing is bothering me : from what he says in these videos, I think that his propositions would be considered left-wing in France (probably more left-wing than the "socialist" government that we currently have, even). So, how left-wing is that relative to the American political system, where a president gets called a communist because of his healthcare plan? In other words, even if he'd beat Clinton, wouldn't it be way too easy for the republican candidate to just scare people by accusing him of being a dirty European socialist and then win the election?
Don't get me wrong though, from the videos he looks (and sounds) like a boss and a good president. Is there a written record of what he intends to do should he be elected somewhere/what are his precise plans etc?
On June 28 2015 07:53 Shiragaku wrote: Obama, Sawant, and SYRIZA have been let downs and I am certain that Sanders will be just another Obama when he sold out to the Democrats
Obama was always sold out, the appearance otherwise was just marketing.
Anyway, the powers-that-be will never allow Sanders to come close to the presidency. I'm sure they'll find a loophole somewhere to prevent him from actively campaigning, or they'll dig up enough dirt to discredit him in the eyes of the public. See what happened to John Edwards and Howard Dean when they ran populist campaigns. Or see how Ralph Nader was demonized in the media and barred from presidential debates.
That you think that John Edwards and Howard Dean had their campaigns torpedoed by anyone but themselves indicates that you really didn't pay much attention to those elections.....
Everyone has personal flaws and idiosyncrasies that you can turn into reasons for mockery. The media very blatantly picks sides. I know the Edwards reveal would have legitimately ended his political career regardless and it's bizarre he thought he could get away with it, but there were still constant snide comments at his political statements beforehand and "concerns" that by being more overtly liberal he would damage his chances. And the overplay of Howard Dean's "scream" is just very obvious character assassination.
On June 28 2015 15:12 Plexa wrote: It would be fantastic if Bernie won, but the odds are certainly stacked against him. As one of the more 'extreme' candidates he may struggle to win over the center.
I think the only people saying this are liberals who want to have some excuse for themselves. Like 'well I can't support sanders because other people will be put off by the fact that he's a socialist.' Stop attributing your own opinion to these other people - actually it's YOU who feel this way. If everybody who said 'well I would support bernie but other people think he's a communist' would just shut up and support him then he would win hands down.
GO BERNIE
dont underestimate the fact that sanders supporters and paul supporters have a ton in common. If RP doesnt get the gop nomination many will cross over to vote sanders. if its clinton vs paul I will vote for paul so it swings both ways
To be effective in implementing his policies, Sanders has to do 3 things:
1. Beat Hillary (and the other Democratic hopefuls) and become the Democratic nominee 2. Beat the Republican candidate and convince the American people that his views aren't too far to the left 3. Work with a Republican Congress and enact policy
All three are very unlikely, and Sanders is still a long shot candidate, the Ron Paul of the left. Even if he does win office, Sanders would probably have to dilute his agenda to get anything done, to a point where he probably won't be much different from a potential Hilary presidency.
I don't think Bernie Sanders has a reasonable chance at being elected, much less getting his policy done. At best, he can influence Hilary's positions. The American people are not that liberal.
On June 29 2015 04:19 Bagration wrote: To be effective in implementing his policies, Sanders has to do 3 things:
1. Beat Hillary (and the other Democratic hopefuls) and become the Democratic nominee 2. Beat the Republican candidate and convince the American people that his views aren't too far to the left 3. Work with a Republican Congress and enact policy
All three are very unlikely, and Sanders is still a long shot candidate, the Ron Paul of the left. Even if he does win office, Sanders would probably have to dilute his agenda to get anything done, to a point where he probably won't be much different from a potential Hilary presidency.
I don't think Bernie Sanders has a reasonable chance at being elected, much less getting his policy done. At best, he can influence Hilary's positions. The American people are not that liberal.
Many of his positions are supported by the majority of Americans.
Bernie has the votes, they just aren't registered or typical politically engaged people. If everyone that agreed with Bernie supported and voted for him in a primary then general he would win by a significant majority.
One important difference between Ron Paul and Sanders is that Sanders positions, while atypical, are actually supported by so many people, far more than ever supported Ron Paul's positions.
Sanders is arguably the "strongest government" candidate out there, save for Hilary if you look at how the hawk vs socialist economic policy balances out.
On June 29 2015 04:19 Bagration wrote: To be effective in implementing his policies, Sanders has to do 3 things:
1. Beat Hillary (and the other Democratic hopefuls) and become the Democratic nominee 2. Beat the Republican candidate and convince the American people that his views aren't too far to the left 3. Work with a Republican Congress and enact policy
All three are very unlikely, and Sanders is still a long shot candidate, the Ron Paul of the left. Even if he does win office, Sanders would probably have to dilute his agenda to get anything done, to a point where he probably won't be much different from a potential Hilary presidency.
I don't think Bernie Sanders has a reasonable chance at being elected, much less getting his policy done. At best, he can influence Hilary's positions. The American people are not that liberal.
Many of his positions are supported by the majority of Americans.
Bernie has the votes, they just aren't registered or typical politically engaged people. If everyone that agreed with Bernie supported and voted for him in a primary then general he would win by a significant majority.
One important difference between Ron Paul and Sanders is that Sanders positions, while atypical, are actually supported by so many people, far more than ever supported Ron Paul's positions.
The importance of corporate interests in enacting policies is often used as a way for young people to say "voting is useless because all parties are the same", which is bullshit of the highest level and it's a shame that people believe this crap rhetoric, but it's undeniable that Congress currently is not actually representative of the US electorate. Furthermore, individual elected congressmen are hardly representative of their electors because of the sheer weight of Super PACs and other mechanisms which nearly systematically prevent power brokers from supporting candidates which are too far on the left and would disturb the status quo. Add on top of that the fact that people will be tempted to vote strategically against the candidate who's most likely to get destroyed by the GOP candidate, there is quite a mountain to climb.
I think that he'd make a great president but has that classic Democrat weakness of being impossible to elect nationally. It's a lot like bush two if bush two wasn't a fucking idiot.
On June 29 2015 05:07 Sermokala wrote: I think that he'd make a great president but has that classic Democrat weakness of being impossible to elect nationally. It's a lot like bush two if bush two wasn't a fucking idiot.
The idea that he can't get elected nationally is predicated on an apathetic electorate resulting in low turnout. There are more than enough Americans that agree with him to win, it's just a matter of them actually participating and voting.
Which is why the core of his campaign is about how it has to be a grassroots movement not one sponsored by a few wealthy elites.
The "he doesn't have a shot" crowd is doing the corporate elite's job for them. Going around attempting to convince people our democracy is basically dead and you have to vote for a candidate approved of by corporations and elites or you're just throwing away your vote, is exactly what they want people to do.
On June 29 2015 05:07 Sermokala wrote: I think that he'd make a great president but has that classic Democrat weakness of being impossible to elect nationally. It's a lot like bush two if bush two wasn't a fucking idiot.
The idea that he can't get elected nationally is predicated on an apathetic electorate resulting in low turnout. There are more than enough Americans that agree with him to win, it's just a matter of them actually participating and voting.
Which is why the core of his campaign is about how it has to be a grassroots movement not one sponsored by a few wealthy elites.
The "he doesn't have a shot" crowd is doing the corporate elite's job for them. Going around attempting to convince people our democracy is basically dead and you have to vote for a candidate approved of by corporations and elites or you're just throwing away your vote, is exactly what they want people to do.
Sorry for being part of the problem . Historically speaking, it has been a real problem and the way to tackle it if such a thing is even possible is not to say "you can't bring up these legitimate concerns", but it is to mobilize in a way that we're not currently seeing.
You keep saying there are more than enough Americans that agree with him to win and I just don't see that. Why am I not seeing that? Perhaps that's a starting point.
On June 29 2015 05:07 Sermokala wrote: I think that he'd make a great president but has that classic Democrat weakness of being impossible to elect nationally. It's a lot like bush two if bush two wasn't a fucking idiot.
The idea that he can't get elected nationally is predicated on an apathetic electorate resulting in low turnout. There are more than enough Americans that agree with him to win, it's just a matter of them actually participating and voting.
Which is why the core of his campaign is about how it has to be a grassroots movement not one sponsored by a few wealthy elites.
The "he doesn't have a shot" crowd is doing the corporate elite's job for them. Going around attempting to convince people our democracy is basically dead and you have to vote for a candidate approved of by corporations and elites or you're just throwing away your vote, is exactly what they want people to do.
Sorry for being part of the problem . Historically speaking, it has been a real problem and the way to tackle it if such a thing is even possible is not to say "you can't bring up these legitimate concerns", but it is to mobilize in a way that we're not currently seeing.
You keep saying there are more than enough Americans that agree with him to win and I just don't see that. Why am I not seeing that? Perhaps that's a starting point.
It's alright, that's how these things start. I didn't mean to say "you can't bring up these legitimate concerns", what I'm saying is that doing so by anyone who would see their interests aligned with Sanders is a wet-dream scenario for what Bernie refers to as "The billionaire class".
It functions as an anti-grassroots movement without them having to do anything but echo it on their outlets.
Do you really have to ask why you haven't heard more about Bernie's support? Anywhere in which average people (not elites) are the primary drivers of content Bernie is on fire, particularly when compared to any other candidate except maybe Hillary.
Colorado event. (They were planned as town halls more or less but his crowds have been getting so big they kind of turn into rallies) + Show Spoiler +
On June 29 2015 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote: Do you really have to ask why you haven't heard more about Bernie's support? Anywhere in which average people (not elites) are the primary drivers of content Bernie is on fire, particularly when compared to any other candidate except maybe Hillary.
I was asking more along the lines of numbers. You've said there's enough support for his views in the population for him to be electable. If that's the fact, it goes against my preconceptions regarding the US electorate.
Isn't he running as an Independent? Doesn't that mean he might end up taking a bunch of votes that would've otherwise went to Hillary and handing the election to the GOP?
On June 29 2015 09:55 TheFish7 wrote: Isn't he running as an Independent? Doesn't that mean he might end up taking a bunch of votes that would've otherwise went to Hillary and handing the election to the GOP?
Nope. He's running for the democratic nomination. It's one or the other but not both.
On June 29 2015 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote: Do you really have to ask why you haven't heard more about Bernie's support? Anywhere in which average people (not elites) are the primary drivers of content Bernie is on fire, particularly when compared to any other candidate except maybe Hillary.
I was asking more along the lines of numbers. You've said there's enough support for his views in the population for him to be electable. If that's the fact, it goes against my preconceptions regarding the US electorate.
In New Hampshire, where they are getting the most Bernie:
Among Democratic primary voters surveyed, 45 percent said that Sanders "cares the most about people like you," while 24 percent said the same about Clinton. When asked which Democratic candidate "best represents the values of Democrats like yourself," 41 percent said Sanders, and 30 percent said Clinton.
Sanders so far reminds me alot of Ron Paul 2008/2012. Not really in terms of policies etc but you can just feel the raw support behind him, the grassroots movement, people who otherwise wouldn't really be entuasistc about politics coming out of the woodwork to support someone they really believe in. Sanders will probably dominate in debates too, can't wait to see him start dropping truth bombs all over Hillary. Should be fun to watch. I'm a reluctant supporter of Sanders, I like some of his ideas, but he goes against the grain with quite a bit, lots of socialist/wealth spreading ideas which would be ridiculously hard to pass/make into law, especially following in the wake of Obama's presidency. The socialist leaning policies are going to be very VERY difficult to really resonate with the more conservative and libertarian voters.
I feel like Sanders coming in Obama's wake will ultimately end up hurting him more than it has been so far, but we'll see.
On June 29 2015 10:51 LuckyFool wrote: Sanders so far reminds me alot of Ron Paul 2008/2012. You can just feel the raw support behind him, the grassroots movement, people who otherwise wouldn't really be entuasistc about politics coming out of the woodwork to support someone they really believe in. Sanders will probably dominate in debates too, can't wait to see him start dropping truth bombs all over Hillary. Should be fun to watch. I'm a reluctant supporter of Sanders, I like some of his ideas, but he goes against the grain with quite a bit, lots of socialist/wealth spreading ideas which would be ridiculously hard to pass/make into law, especially following in the wake of Obama's presidency. The socialist leaning policies are going to be very VERY difficult to really resonate with the more conservative and libertarian voters.
I feel like Sanders coming in Obama's wake will ultimately end up hurting him more than it has been so far, but we'll see.
I think when people let things like "99% of new income has gone to the top 1%" and "1 Family (The Waltons) have more wealth than 40% of the country" sink in, they realize there is already redistribution happening as we speak, just in the direction that screws them over for real.
Combine that with people like Kwark explaining that the specter of "higher taxes" is not likely something that even applies to most people.
Bernie is not talking about taking money from the middle class to give to the Poor or the Rich (which has essentially been the generic policies of the left and right for decades). He's talking about not letting the wealthiest among us get almost all of the new wealth being generated. He's talking about making sure the people who make those corporate management jobs possible getting their fair share of what they helped generate.
On June 29 2015 11:12 Barrin wrote: Bernie! Bernie! Bernie! Good to see so many of you guys supporting him
Been reading/watching like all the news and vids about him for a couple months. I really like what I see. Can't wait for the debates and result of the primary I don't expect a republican to win this election, tbh.
Any reason why, or just a feeling? The past year or so especially democrats have generally been getting destroyed in elections, last November was a bloodbath. Obviously we have the whole cycle to go through, but I expect it's going to be very competitive.
On June 29 2015 11:12 Barrin wrote: Bernie! Bernie! Bernie! Good to see so many of you guys supporting him
Been reading/watching like all the news and vids about him for a couple months. I really like what I see. Can't wait for the debates and result of the primary I don't expect a republican to win this election, tbh.
Any reason why, or just a feeling? The past year or so especially democrats have generally been getting destroyed in elections, last November was a bloodbath. Obviously we have the whole cycle to go through, but I expect it's going to be very competitive.
Democrats generally bring their numbers more when it comes to the presidential election. Plus, the democrats have been having the best week ever right now. Everywhere I look, there seems to be positivity flowing to the left, and flowing out of the right. I have a hard time imagining a Republican winning the general election as well.
(And this is coming from a fairly center, admittedly conservative-leaning person).
Wealth redistribution policies??? You mean like the last seven years of bailouts and monetary easing??? We've spent the last decade redistributing wealth to the rich and it's time to CUT THAT SHIT OUT
From what i have seen Sanders is far preferable to Clinton. He'd be my second choice, after Rand Paul.
Plus, the democrats have been having the best week ever right now. Everywhere I look, there seems to be positivity flowing to the left, and flowing out of the right. I have a hard time imagining a Republican winning the general election as well.
I wouldn't look into that too much.The number one issue is ALWAYS the economy.Whatever happens with the economy over the next year in the USA will decide whether a republican or democrat gets in.
I am not very educated on details of US politics, but I have given honest answers to all the questions on the quiz linked in the OP and from all the candidates, I got this Bernie guy at 87%, so he seems to be a pretty good choice (provided that the website is not his rigged viral camapign or something)
This stufff is almost Europe-level leftwing! I like it
I don't see Bernie Sanders send people to war, or condemn a terrorist strike. I feel he is too soft to be full-on president. But I like his statements and his unwillingness to play along in the Washington blame-games.
On June 30 2015 01:17 _fool wrote: This stufff is almost Europe-level leftwing! I like it
I don't see Bernie Sanders send people to war, or condemn a terrorist strike. I feel he is too soft to be full-on president. But I like his statements and his unwillingness to play along in the Washington blame-games.
The guy is most certainly capable of being a hawk if need be.
I think as time progresses that people will begin to see Bernie as a politician that really has a desire to help the country and Hillary as someone who desires to advance her political career.
If only Bernie were getting as much attention as Hillary in mainstream media
I took the quiz and got something like 87% Bernie Sanders. That makes me uneasy though, since I don't really know a ton about quite a few of the issues I just picked things that sounded good initially. I don't really know what kind of deeper impact a lot of these issues have.
Does Bernie represent what the average citizen with limited understanding of all the implications of each issue wants?
Seems like a great way to get votes for sure.
I'm just worried that the obvious and popular answers may not be the best answers.
On June 30 2015 06:04 Bannt wrote: I took the quiz and got something like 87% Bernie Sanders. That makes me uneasy though, since I don't really know a ton about quite a few of the issues I just picked things that sounded good initially. I don't really know what kind of deeper impact a lot of these issues have.
Does Bernie represent what the average citizen with limited understanding of all the implications of each issue wants?
Seems like a great way to get votes for sure.
I'm just worried that the obvious and popular answers may not be the best answers.
He's been supporting/doing the same things for 30 years pretty much. It's just common sense stuff. Somewhat ironically, and I'm not the first to make this observation, his positions are mostly what one would expect from a "Christian" nation.
Bernie is very representative of young people. Relieving student debt, reducing the scandalous inequality, and being a figure on the "left" that is almost solely about social issues rather than identity politics and infantile sectarianism. Unfortunately, Bernie joining the Democrats depresses me to no end. This is the party that destroyed the welfare state, helped destroy the working class via NAFTA, passes policy that destroys civil liberties. All this is just the tip of the iceberg. Now the reason this is so angering is because it gives legitimacy to the Democrats for being progressive when they are the complete opposite. A party that has allowed capitalism to run amok will not enact policies regulating our insane businessmen
And one more thing regarding students, don't forget Nick Clegg
On June 30 2015 06:04 Bannt wrote: I took the quiz and got something like 87% Bernie Sanders. That makes me uneasy though, since I don't really know a ton about quite a few of the issues I just picked things that sounded good initially. I don't really know what kind of deeper impact a lot of these issues have.
Does Bernie represent what the average citizen with limited understanding of all the implications of each issue wants?
Seems like a great way to get votes for sure.
I'm just worried that the obvious and popular answers may not be the best answers.
Try retaking the questionary but weighing issues you feel not knowledgable enough about with "least". If you also mark questions you feel strongly about with "most" you should be provided with far more accurate results. I (and probably everybody) cannot know if Bernie is just trying to collect votes with what he perceives as extremely popular stances. However, it seems that a lot people (including me) believe that he is very trustworthy - incorporating values such as honesty and integrity that the hordes of career politicians lack.
Anecdotal experience of mine: I spent an year in Vermont (06/07) and my host insisted on taking me to the elections to show me the election process in the US. I remember that I was astonished how big the ballot was and how many positions were elected simultaneously. According to wikipedia there were "the gubernatorial, all state offices, including all state senators and representatives, the federal Congress and the US senate." In the few months I had spent in the US I had learned that my host was a die-hard republican. Consequently, he didn't hesitate to just chalk up the republican candidate for every single position. However, to my surprise he did not vote republican for the one senate seat. When I asked him why, he just casually told me that Bernie is great... I never gave it much thought what was great about him until I heard that he is running for president. And honestly, after reading a bit about him, I'd say that he indeed seems to be great.
Yeah bernie IS great. And part of the reason he is so great is precisely what you say - his ability to win votes off the GOP instead of a strategy based solely around mobilizing the base. Bernie can actually debate the republican candidate and STEAL THEIR VOTERS
On June 29 2015 11:12 Barrin wrote: Bernie! Bernie! Bernie! Good to see so many of you guys supporting him
Been reading/watching like all the news and vids about him for a couple months. I really like what I see. Can't wait for the debates and result of the primary I don't expect a republican to win this election, tbh.
Any reason why, or just a feeling? The past year or so especially democrats have generally been getting destroyed in elections, last November was a bloodbath. Obviously we have the whole cycle to go through, but I expect it's going to be very competitive.
On June 30 2015 08:07 bookwyrm wrote: Yeah bernie IS great. And part of the reason he is so great is precisely what you say - his ability to win votes off the GOP instead of a strategy based solely around mobilizing the base. Bernie can actually debate the republican candidate and STEAL THEIR VOTERS
I feel like that's not really needed. I am afraid that beating Hillary will be much more difficult for him than beating anybody form the GOP...
On June 30 2015 08:07 bookwyrm wrote: Yeah bernie IS great. And part of the reason he is so great is precisely what you say - his ability to win votes off the GOP instead of a strategy based solely around mobilizing the base. Bernie can actually debate the republican candidate and STEAL THEIR VOTERS
I feel like that's not really needed. I am afraid that beating Hillary will be much more difficult for him than beating anybody form the GOP...
It is rather convenient that the GOP planned their campaign on who could beat up Hillary the best.
Bernie would never do anything with all that Email stuff, but he still benefits from the incessant drilling on it dropping her trustworthy numbers. Coincidentally trustworthy and sincerity are things Bernie oozes.
If we were debating already like last election he would be doing even better. Typical politicians look like bad actors next to him.
On June 30 2. 5 08:07 bookwyrm wrote: Yeah bernie IS great. And part of the reason he is so great is precisely what you say - his ability to win votes off the GOP in egy based solely around mobilizing the base. Bernie can actually debate the republican candidate and STEAL THEIR VOTERS
I feel like that's not really needed. I am afraid that beating Hillary will be much more difficult for him than beating anybody form the GOP...
psssssh. Hillary Clinton is a sinking ship and sanders is bulletproof. The supposed inevitability of a clinton nomination is nothing but an attempt by oligarch-run media to create a self fulfilling prophecy. #dontbelievethehype
On June 29 2015 11:12 Barrin wrote: Bernie! Bernie! Bernie! Good to see so many of you guys supporting him
Been reading/watching like all the news and vids about him for a couple months. I really like what I see. Can't wait for the debates and result of the primary I don't expect a republican to win this election, tbh.
Any reason why, or just a feeling? The past year or so especially democrats have generally been getting destroyed in elections, last November was a bloodbath. Obviously we have the whole cycle to go through, but I expect it's going to be very competitive.
I would have liked a little more explanation why states like PA and NH (PA elected a Republican senator in 2014) will be impossible states for GOP to win in 2016. PA generally runs blue, but NH? I don't know. I guess we'll have to buy the argument that more blue voters show up for presidential elections.
Honestly though until we narrow it down to just the two candidates and see who their running mates are it's silly to make sweeping statements about how "x" has no chance to win a historically contested state.
On June 29 2015 11:12 Barrin wrote: Bernie! Bernie! Bernie! Good to see so many of you guys supporting him
Been reading/watching like all the news and vids about him for a couple months. I really like what I see. Can't wait for the debates and result of the primary I don't expect a republican to win this election, tbh.
Any reason why, or just a feeling? The past year or so especially democrats have generally been getting destroyed in elections, last November was a bloodbath. Obviously we have the whole cycle to go through, but I expect it's going to be very competitive.
I would have liked a little more explanation why states like PA and NH (PA elected a Republican senator in 2014) will be impossible states for GOP to win in 2016. PA generally runs blue, but NH? I don't know. I guess we'll have to buy the argument that more blue voters show up for presidential elections.
Honestly though until we narrow it down to just the two candidates and see who their running mates are it's silly to make sweeping statements about how "x" has no chance to win a historically contested state.
I wouldn't agree with the absoluteness of his rhetoric but it's a pretty reasonable summation of why republicans face quite an uphill climb. The longer Trump's out there the harder it's going to get for whoever wins.
On June 29 2015 11:12 Barrin wrote: Bernie! Bernie! Bernie! Good to see so many of you guys supporting him
Been reading/watching like all the news and vids about him for a couple months. I really like what I see. Can't wait for the debates and result of the primary I don't expect a republican to win this election, tbh.
Any reason why, or just a feeling? The past year or so especially democrats have generally been getting destroyed in elections, last November was a bloodbath. Obviously we have the whole cycle to go through, but I expect it's going to be very competitive.
I would have liked a little more explanation why states like PA and NH (PA elected a Republican senator in 2014) will be impossible states for GOP to win in 2016. PA generally runs blue, but NH? I don't know. I guess we'll have to buy the argument that more blue voters show up for presidential elections.
Honestly though until we narrow it down to just the two candidates and see who their running mates are it's silly to make sweeping statements about how "x" has no chance to win a historically contested state.
I wouldn't agree with the absoluteness of his rhetoric but it's a pretty reasonable summation of why republicans face quite an uphill climb. The longer Trump's out there the harder it's going to get for whoever wins.
I've heard some stuff that GOP loves Trump in the spotlight right now, keeping the media fully focused on him and not on trying to dig up crap on the others or bring the others down. At this stage I think most of the candidates would rather fly under the media radar until it gets closer to voting time.
We'll see how this strategy pans out though, because with 15+ GOP candidates resources are going to be spread thin in the Republican camp for a while.
On June 29 2015 04:19 Bagration wrote: To be effective in implementing his policies, Sanders has to do 3 things:
1. Beat Hillary (and the other Democratic hopefuls) and become the Democratic nominee 2. Beat the Republican candidate and convince the American people that his views aren't too far to the left 3. Work with a Republican Congress and enact policy
All three are very unlikely, and Sanders is still a long shot candidate, the Ron Paul of the left. Even if he does win office, Sanders would probably have to dilute his agenda to get anything done, to a point where he probably won't be much different from a potential Hilary presidency.
I don't think Bernie Sanders has a reasonable chance at being elected, much less getting his policy done. At best, he can influence Hilary's positions. The American people are not that liberal.
Many of his positions are supported by the majority of Americans.
Bernie has the votes, they just aren't registered or typical politically engaged people. If everyone that agreed with Bernie supported and voted for him in a primary then general he would win by a significant majority.
One important difference between Ron Paul and Sanders is that Sanders positions, while atypical, are actually supported by so many people, far more than ever supported Ron Paul's positions.
Are they? I recall one liberal famously saying in 1972 that she didn't know a single person who voted for Nixon - yet Nixon ended up winning 49 states. The typical American voter is pretty conservative - far from the demographics of TL.
I do find this excitement for Sanders exciting - it's nice to see people getting excited over a candidate, very reminiscent of 2008 Obama. That being said, I caution against over-optimism. Candidates usually look a lot better before elections, but once they take office and the realities of politics and policy set in, many voters feel disappointment and betrayal.
On June 29 2015 04:19 Bagration wrote: To be effective in implementing his policies, Sanders has to do 3 things:
1. Beat Hillary (and the other Democratic hopefuls) and become the Democratic nominee 2. Beat the Republican candidate and convince the American people that his views aren't too far to the left 3. Work with a Republican Congress and enact policy
All three are very unlikely, and Sanders is still a long shot candidate, the Ron Paul of the left. Even if he does win office, Sanders would probably have to dilute his agenda to get anything done, to a point where he probably won't be much different from a potential Hilary presidency.
I don't think Bernie Sanders has a reasonable chance at being elected, much less getting his policy done. At best, he can influence Hilary's positions. The American people are not that liberal.
Many of his positions are supported by the majority of Americans.
Bernie has the votes, they just aren't registered or typical politically engaged people. If everyone that agreed with Bernie supported and voted for him in a primary then general he would win by a significant majority.
One important difference between Ron Paul and Sanders is that Sanders positions, while atypical, are actually supported by so many people, far more than ever supported Ron Paul's positions.
Are they? I recall one liberal famously saying in 1972 that she didn't know a single person who voted for Nixon - yet Nixon ended up winning 49 states. The typical American voter is pretty conservative - far from the demographics of TL.
This is the last article I posted about it. I suspect as Sanders gets more popular and more of his issues are getting more consistently polled you'll see more.
I do find this excitement for Sanders exciting - it's nice to see people getting excited over a candidate, very reminiscent of 2008 Obama. That being said, I caution against over-optimism. Candidates usually look a lot better before elections, but once they take office and the realities of politics and policy set in, many voters feel disappointment and betrayal.
This isn't Bernie's first rodeo He's been saying what he means and doing what he says for a long time.
He's honest about the fact that he can't do it on his own, even if he get's elected the people that got him elected have to keep working.
If congress thinks turnout will drop back down to 30%-40%'s after his election they will keep doing what they've been doing (nothing helpful) But if they see turnouts double in their districts, you can believe they will start paying attention to what Bernie and his supporters are saying.
On June 29 2015 04:19 Bagration wrote: To be effective in implementing his policies, Sanders has to do 3 things:
1. Beat Hillary (and the other Democratic hopefuls) and become the Democratic nominee 2. Beat the Republican candidate and convince the American people that his views aren't too far to the left 3. Work with a Republican Congress and enact policy
All three are very unlikely, and Sanders is still a long shot candidate, the Ron Paul of the left. Even if he does win office, Sanders would probably have to dilute his agenda to get anything done, to a point where he probably won't be much different from a potential Hilary presidency.
I don't think Bernie Sanders has a reasonable chance at being elected, much less getting his policy done. At best, he can influence Hilary's positions. The American people are not that liberal.
Many of his positions are supported by the majority of Americans.
Bernie has the votes, they just aren't registered or typical politically engaged people. If everyone that agreed with Bernie supported and voted for him in a primary then general he would win by a significant majority.
One important difference between Ron Paul and Sanders is that Sanders positions, while atypical, are actually supported by so many people, far more than ever supported Ron Paul's positions.
Are they? I recall one liberal famously saying in 1972 that she didn't know a single person who voted for Nixon - yet Nixon ended up winning 49 states. The typical American voter is pretty conservative - far from the demographics of TL.
This is the last article I posted about it. I suspect as Sanders gets more popular and more of his issues are getting more consistently polled you'll see more.
I do find this excitement for Sanders exciting - it's nice to see people getting excited over a candidate, very reminiscent of 2008 Obama. That being said, I caution against over-optimism. Candidates usually look a lot better before elections, but once they take office and the realities of politics and policy set in, many voters feel disappointment and betrayal.
This isn't Bernie's first rodeo He's been saying what he means and doing what he says for a long time.
He's honest about the fact that he can't do it on his own, even if he get's elected the people that got him elected have to keep working.
If congress thinks turnout will drop back down to 30%-40%'s after his election they will keep doing what they've been doing (nothing helpful) But if they see turnouts double in their districts, you can believe they will start paying attention to what Bernie and his supporters are saying.
I guess we'll have to see as the primaries draw near. Soon it will be 2016, and the candidates really begin to slug it out in earnest. Until then, speculation will remain speculation. I do look forward to a competitive Democratic primary - something about Hilary doesn't sit quite right with me.
On June 29 2015 11:12 Barrin wrote: Bernie! Bernie! Bernie! Good to see so many of you guys supporting him
Been reading/watching like all the news and vids about him for a couple months. I really like what I see. Can't wait for the debates and result of the primary I don't expect a republican to win this election, tbh.
Any reason why, or just a feeling? The past year or so especially democrats have generally been getting destroyed in elections, last November was a bloodbath. Obviously we have the whole cycle to go through, but I expect it's going to be very competitive.
Yup, the electoral landscape doesn't favor the Republicans - though I think the MSNBC was a bit liberal on the strength of the blue wall (pun intended), as Virginia is definitely not a safe blue state, and Georgia is usually a very solid red state. Still, the point stands - Democrats need to win far fewer battleground states compared to Republicans.
However, the biggest weakness IMO is that there doesn't seem to be a very strong Republican candidate yet. A strong Republican candidate that has centrist appeal (good luck getting that AND surviving the primaries) could grab all the battleground states, and win decisive Reagan-esque electoral victories.
Thus, I'd argue that the blue wall that Democrats have used to win the past few Presidential elections was based not only on demographics, but also weak Republican presidential candidates that were hamstrung by the radicalized primaries - leading to lop-sided wins. The radicalization of the Republican primaries has been a huge boon for Democratic White House ambitions.
I think he's bad for the Democratic party because he's pretty far to the left, which makes him unelectable, but Hillary is still going to have to argue against him and there might become a general association with the Democratic party. This is definitely happening on the Republican side because their candidate pool is basically packed with loons. So I would rather the Democratic party could be contrasted with that.
What will you forfeit to me when he wins the general election by a landslide proving your statement completely wrong? Hes not unelectable thats a load of hooey
Seems like a very excellent candidate, I'd give him my full support, and my first legal vote, were I from America. If there's a turnout higher than usual this election, maybe we'll know why.
edit: I got 98% Bernie on that test that was linked. 2% Rubio tho, so I'm still undecided I guess
On July 01 2015 04:03 Djzapz wrote: I admire your optimism guys. At least for now.
Don't worry, we're nice people, we'll let you on the wagon when you're ready
Hillary really doesn't have something to end the email issue, Bernie is the perfect counter as the republicans and superPAC's are basically doing the same thing they are accusing Hillary of.
On July 01 2015 04:03 Djzapz wrote: I admire your optimism guys. At least for now.
Don't worry, we're nice people, we'll let you on the wagon when you're ready
Hillary really doesn't have something to end the email issue, Bernie is the perfect counter as the republicans and superPAC's are basically doing the same thing they are accusing Hillary of.
I'm from the wrong country, all I can do is watch the wagon and say "Bernie Sanders 2016" every time I start a game of Counter Strike.
On July 01 2015 02:13 bookwyrm wrote: What will you forfeit to me when he wins the general election by a landslide proving your statement completely wrong? Hes not unelectable thats a load of hooey
I hope Sanders does well, I really do. I think that Clinton is a much more viable candidate on the whole, but I'll keep my fingers crossed. If I don't think I am Nadering my vote, I'd happily vote Sanders from what I've seen.
On July 01 2015 06:48 ThomasjServo wrote: I hope Sanders does well, I really do. I think that Clinton is a much more viable candidate on the whole, but I'll keep my fingers crossed. If I don't think I am Nadering my vote, I'd happily vote Sanders from what I've seen.
Yeah Clinton would have this locked if she didn't have the email thing eating into her trustworthy numbers. Sanders is as legit as politicians come(with a shot to win anyway), so republicans drilling on Hillary creates a unique opportunity for Bernie. He doesn't have to run negative ads but there will still be a dozen candidates and their superPAC's running them.
He get's the upside of negative ads without the downside, using the establishments against themselves in a rather brilliant way.
Oh and he's running as a democrat so unless there's some freaky shit at convention and Hillary steals a nomination. He's not running as an independent (which has received mixed reviews).
George McGovern is not satisfied that 10 million Americans go to bed hungry every night. George McGovern is not satisfied that four and a half million Americans -- families -- live in rat infested and roach encrusted houses. George McGovern is not satisfied that in this nation of ours -- in this great nation of ours -- our infant mortality is so high that we rank 21st in all the nations of the world.
George McGovern brings out of the prairies of South Dakota a new wind, a wind that will be able to lift the smog of uncertainty from throughout our great land of ours. We need unity; and we can only have unity with a new face and new ideas and new ideals. The youth of America rallied to the standards of men like George McGovern like they did to the standards of John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy.
And with George McGovern as President of the United States we wouldn't have to have Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago! With George McGovern we wouldn't have a National Guard. You bet! You bet!
Ill cry, literally cry, if another Bush gets elected. Hillary isnt that good of an alternative in my eyes. This guy seems alright, too bad that money wins elections and the only chance for him to win is to "do an obama" and get alllll the money half-way through.
On July 02 2015 04:29 Kleinmuuhg wrote: Ill cry, literally cry, if another Bush gets elected. Hillary isnt that good of an alternative in my eyes. This guy seems alright, too bad that money wins elections and the only chance for him to win is to "do an obama" and get alllll the money half-way through.
“Very few people thought that I would beat an incumbent Republican to become United States congressman from Vermont by 16 points,” Sanders said. “And people weren’t so sure I could beat the richest person in Vermont to become a United States senator.
I like the debates. I remember a debate of Obama vs. Romney where Romney said something that was demonstrably false and the host lady corrected him and republicans were like IT'S A DEBATE YOU DON'T GET TO CORRECT THE POLITICIAN'S OUTRIGHT LIE. That was the best.
I am a long-time GOP supporter. During my teenage years, I witnessed Reagan, contrary to the narrative today, being a very pragmatic moderate Republican. After providing the economy with some Keynesian stimulus in the form of tax cuts, as the economy got back on its feet we saw him increase taxes to help reduce the deficit. He closed loopholes for the wealthy. He granted amnesty (something I oppose but it shows how he was willing to compromise.) He worked with Tip O’Neill to salvage Social Security.
While I did not support Iran Contra, I proudly registered to become a Repbulican just in time for the upcoming election of 1988. I voted for H W Bush, and after being impressed with his pragmatism (i.e. raising taxes although they were unpopular) I voted for him again. During the Clinton Presidency, however, I began to notice a substantial shift to the right. They pushed legislation like DOMA and NAFTA, which I could absolutely not support. However, they showed willingness to compromise with Clinton on major issues such as welfare reform and balancing the budget, so I was not yet ready to abandon the GOP, although I did vote for Perot in ’96.
In 2000, I voted for W, noting the pragmatism of his father and his seemingly reasonable ‘compassionate conservatism.’ However, I quickly noticed things were a bit off. He began the War on Terror and simultaneously cut taxes, even though wars are generally financed through tax hikes. He then expanded Medicare, and again he did not pay for it. I was upset with this, but I was also sucked into the whole “we need a strong leader to defeat terrorism,” which I was convinced John Kerry was not, so I voted for him. Deficits kept rising, the wars were failing, and the WMD claims turned out not to be true. Then the economy collapsed thanks to deregulation, and I strongly regretted my decision to vote for him. In 2008, I refused to vote for McCain, because he seemed way too far right on foreign policy, abortion, and gay marriage (shouldn’t small government supporters be pro choice,) but I also didn’t vote for Obama as his rhetoric seemed extremely far left.
Of course, when Obama got into office, I quickly realized that he was actually, if anything, a moderate Republican. He passed the ACA (Heritagecare) bill, extended the Bush tax cuts (even for the wealthy at first!), and steered us out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. After the 2010 wave elections for the Tea Party, I was disgusted with how far right the Republican party had gone, and began noticing the blatant racism. I found republicansforobama.org, a group of people closely reflecting my views, and voted Obama in 2012 and Democrat in 2014. I lurked on Reddit for a few months, reading r/politics regularly, and was amazed by Bernie Sander’s policies. Everything he did was for the American worker, from protecting them from outsourcing and cheap foreign labor, to fixing the budget deficit by hiking taxes on the rich, to boosting the minimum wage. He’d be considered a centrist back in the 80s, which is why he has my vote.
On July 02 2015 21:16 farvacola wrote: 74% Ben Carson, ehh? Do you think prison rape proves that homosexuality is a choice too?
No.You don't have to agree with everything a candidate says, just on the balance.Actually I'd never even heard of Carson until i did the quiz so have not looked at his positions.
You just won't see stuff like this from anyone on the right. All the events are carefully staged and the wrong angle exposes them.
That's a city (Portland, Maine) That only has 66,000 people in the city limits. That's a crowd bigger than Hillary's in New York. This guy is not Santorum, Trump, or any of those guys. No one running for president is getting the grassroots support Bernie is period.
On July 02 2015 17:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: 84% Rand Paul 68% Sanders Clinton 51% Bush 43% Ben Carson 74%
Pretty close to yours.
82% Paul 76% Jeb (only really different one) 72% Carson 60% Sanders (expected it to be lower) 56% Hillary (no major issues lol)
Glad to see Sanders doing so well in all honesty. I don't agree with him on... apparently only 40% of stuff... but I love the fact that he has a backbone and doesn't just move around his platform with the political wind.
On July 02 2015 17:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: 84% Rand Paul 68% Sanders Clinton 51% Bush 43% Ben Carson 74%
Pretty close to yours.
82% Paul 76% Jeb (only really different one) 72% Carson 60% Sanders (expected it to be lower) 56% Hillary (no major issues lol)
Glad to see Sanders doing so well in all honesty. I don't agree with him on... apparently only 40% of stuff... but I love the fact that he has a backbone and doesn't just move around his platform with the political wind.
Is that what also helps attract you to supporting Rand and Jeb? (Presuming your agreement is also some level of support)
On July 02 2015 17:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: 84% Rand Paul 68% Sanders Clinton 51% Bush 43% Ben Carson 74%
Pretty close to yours.
82% Paul 76% Jeb (only really different one) 72% Carson 60% Sanders (expected it to be lower) 56% Hillary (no major issues lol)
Glad to see Sanders doing so well in all honesty. I don't agree with him on... apparently only 40% of stuff... but I love the fact that he has a backbone and doesn't just move around his platform with the political wind.
Is that what also helps attract you to supporting Rand and Jeb?
Policies have nothing to do with character. I don't actually like Jeb, I agree with him on a lot but it's still gonna be the same old shilling to special interests and ineffectiveness we saw with Bush-43 and Obama.
I'd say my big two issues don't appear on this survey - consistency (how much can I trust this person not to break their promises once elected), and decisiveness (how strong of an executive is this person in the event Congress splits along party lines and nothing gets done like the last six years)
I like Rand because I've been shifting farther into the libertarian right with him recently. My only real disagreement with his policies is foreign policy, otherwise that percentage might be in the 90s. Also he did go against his party when it came to extending the Patriot Act, something I very much approve of.
On the Republican side my two favorites are by far Christie and Rand, both for the backbone reason and because in both cases they can establish some kind of control over gridlocked congress, probably my most important criterion for voting. Rand by way of stepping out of the party bounds and following his own platform, Christie by absolute not giving a shit (he strongarms the state legislature a lot, but he does actually do a lot of cooperation with the Democratic state senate president as well) what the party thinks of him. And if Sanders does get elected, I don't think there'll be a gridlocked Congress to begin with, so he's got 2 years to make magic happen until the 2018 midterms.
I find it hard to find a man who believes in a flat tax of 14.5% for individuals and no taxation on capital gains like Rand Paul to be credible. The notion of a flat tax in a country like the US would be so insanely detrimental to the working class it's not even funny. Their services would go way the fuck down, their taxes would go up, and social inequality would be through the roof. Fiscal responsibility is not negligible, and "brain drain" as they call it is an issue, but it's not truly an issue that the US is struggling with at all. The US has plenty of brain, and is super competitive for businesses. A flat tax for the US would thoroughly damage the quality of life of most Americans.
He's also "100% pro-life". So fuck that.
That said from reading into it it seems like he has some positions which are better than much of the outrageous shit I've been hearing around. He's very shy about certain things like gay marriage and whatnot, but at least he's not completely opposed... Still, not the biggest fan. I understand the libertarian ideals but I believe that in the real world you have to sacrifice a lot for them and financial "freedom" for the rich is bought with the sweat and tears of the working class.
On July 07 2015 11:46 Djzapz wrote: I find it hard to find a man who believes in a flat tax of 14.5% for individuals and no taxation on capital gains like Rand Paul to be credible. The notion of a flat tax in a country like the US would be so insanely detrimental to the working class it's not even funny. Their services would go way the fuck down, their taxes would go up, and social inequality would be through the roof. Fiscal responsibility is not negligible, and "brain drain" as they call it is an issue, but it's not truly an issue that the US is struggling with at all. The US has plenty of brain, and is super competitive for businesses. A flat tax for the US would thoroughly damage the quality of life of most Americans.
He's also "100% pro-life". So fuck that.
That said from reading into it it seems like he has some positions which are better than much of the outrageous shit I've been hearing around. He's very shy about certain things like gay marriage and whatnot, but at least he's not completely opposed... Still, not the biggest fan. I understand the libertarian ideals but I believe that in the real world you have to sacrifice a lot for them and financial "freedom" for the rich is bought with the sweat and tears of the working class.
No taxes on the first 50k of income for a family of four, according to this. Current family of four at the 50k level is in the 15% bracket, according to this (married filing jointly). If anyone's going to get shafted by that it's not the working class. It'll be the middle class, but they're getting shafted either way. I'm just unsure where he's going to pull all the other money out of.
I do like Christie's approach on tax reform better. Tax percentages go down across the board (three brackets, lowest bracket goes from 10% to 'single digits', highest bracket goes from 35 to 25) at the expense of losing tax deductions and other things written into the current tax code.
Hillary says keep things where they are for everyone under 250k (or said, in 2008). Sanders has the huge percentage he wants to tax the wealthy at (90% I believe) but I can't find anything on his plans for the middle class.
On July 07 2015 11:46 Djzapz wrote: I find it hard to find a man who believes in a flat tax of 14.5% for individuals and no taxation on capital gains like Rand Paul to be credible. The notion of a flat tax in a country like the US would be so insanely detrimental to the working class it's not even funny. Their services would go way the fuck down, their taxes would go up, and social inequality would be through the roof. Fiscal responsibility is not negligible, and "brain drain" as they call it is an issue, but it's not truly an issue that the US is struggling with at all. The US has plenty of brain, and is super competitive for businesses. A flat tax for the US would thoroughly damage the quality of life of most Americans.
He's also "100% pro-life". So fuck that.
That said from reading into it it seems like he has some positions which are better than much of the outrageous shit I've been hearing around. He's very shy about certain things like gay marriage and whatnot, but at least he's not completely opposed... Still, not the biggest fan. I understand the libertarian ideals but I believe that in the real world you have to sacrifice a lot for them and financial "freedom" for the rich is bought with the sweat and tears of the working class.
No taxes on the first 50k of income for a family of four, according to this. Current family of four at the 50k level is in the 15% bracket, according to this (married filing jointly). If anyone's going to get shafted by that it's not the working class. It'll be the middle class, but they're getting shafted either way. I'm just unsure where he's going to pull all the other money out of.
I do like Christie's approach on tax reform better. Tax percentages go down across the board (three brackets, lowest bracket goes from 10% to 'single digits', highest bracket goes from 35 to 25) at the expense of losing tax deductions and other things written into the current tax code.
Hillary says keep things where they are for everyone under 250k (or said, in 2008). Sanders has the huge percentage he wants to tax the wealthy at (90% I believe) but I can't find anything on his plans for the middle class.
You think taxing 14.5% on the income of the middle class is to "shaft" them? That would be a tax cut. Unless I'm mistaken, it's already above 15% not even counting social security.
As for what you mention about Christie, we're talking about the Washington reducing its income by literally hundreds of billions of dollars (not unlike Rand Paul's, which is even worse). It's unworkable fantasy either and it's nothing more than populist bullshit to be elected. For one, even more so than other agendas, you couldn't possibly balance a budget which reduces the fed's income by hundreds of billions. How would you reduce the spending? It would take the WILDEST of austerity measures the world has ever known and then you'd have the follow up crisis that comes from the fact that the austerity measures have cost jobs because many people are dependent on the federal government.
Christie keeping progressive taxes is MUCH better than Paul, but it's still fantasy. For a country like the US IMO, there's just no way around progressive taxation. As much as republicans hate the notion of "redistributing the wealth", it seems to me like directly supporting the most vulnerable members of society benefits everybody. It's not about "taxing the rich", it's about contributing to the construction of a society. Social services and redistribution and welfare programs do cost money, but in the long run I think that money is well invested. Not all of it, but some of it seriously uplifts the lives of people who would otherwise be lost.
So perhaps we fundamentally disagree on the principles, but I maintain my point that Rand's flat tax cockadoodles are fucking madness.
I highly doubt that if there's a flat tax instituted by Paul it'll be that low. The 14.5 figure will definitely increase because as you said there's not enough income. If low, middle and high all pay less, there's not enough. So if the low are paying zero per this plan, it's either going to affect the high (unlikely with a flat tax) or the middle (more likely with a higher percentage).
Even Republicans are calling Sanders "Authentic". I'll post the clip when it goes up but it was Dana Perino (Former Bush press secretary) on Fox News.
Even if you don't agree with him, he's authentic and not bought and paid for by the billionaire class. Can you say that about any of the other candidates?
On July 08 2015 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Even Republicans are calling Sanders "Authentic". I'll post the clip when it goes up but it was Dana Perino (Former Bush press secretary) on Fox News.
Even if you don't agree with him, he's authentic and not bought and paid for by the billionaire class. Can you say that about any of the other candidates?
As much as I agree with you, I think saying that is a bit disingenuous... I mean for one, calling Bernie Sanders "authentic" is clearly an underhanded way to undermine Clinton who's seen as much more of a threat. I mean she does directly draw a parallel, implying that Clinton is not authentic. Second, it's not "republicans" saying he's authentic, it's this one fox news lady.
I would've let it pass but I just feel like I've seen the exact form of your argument being made against me too many times and I can't give it much weight, given the circumstances.
On July 08 2015 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Even Republicans are calling Sanders "Authentic". I'll post the clip when it goes up but it was Dana Perino (Former Bush press secretary) on Fox News.
Even if you don't agree with him, he's authentic and not bought and paid for by the billionaire class. Can you say that about any of the other candidates?
As much as I agree with you, I think saying that is a bit disingenuous... I mean for one, calling Bernie Sanders "authentic" is clearly an underhanded way to undermine Clinton who's seen as much more of a threat. I mean she does directly draw a parallel, implying that Clinton is not authentic. Second, it's not "republicans" saying he's authentic, it's this one fox news lady.
I would've let it pass but I just feel like I've seen the exact form of your argument being made against me too many times and I can't give it much weight, given the circumstances.
There have been several Republicans that have called Bernie authentic. No one I've seen talk about Bernie denies he is authentic (no one did on the panel). If you can find an example otherwise, I'll check it out.
I don't know what I have to do with the facts that Bernie is authentic, and his campaign is not paid for by the billionaire class, and you can't say that about any of the other candidates?
On July 08 2015 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Even Republicans are calling Sanders "Authentic". I'll post the clip when it goes up but it was Dana Perino (Former Bush press secretary) on Fox News.
Even if you don't agree with him, he's authentic and not bought and paid for by the billionaire class. Can you say that about any of the other candidates?
As much as I agree with you, I think saying that is a bit disingenuous... I mean for one, calling Bernie Sanders "authentic" is clearly an underhanded way to undermine Clinton who's seen as much more of a threat. I mean she does directly draw a parallel, implying that Clinton is not authentic. Second, it's not "republicans" saying he's authentic, it's this one fox news lady.
I would've let it pass but I just feel like I've seen the exact form of your argument being made against me too many times and I can't give it much weight, given the circumstances.
There have been several Republicans that have called Bernie authentic. No one I've seen talk about Bernie denies he is authentic (no one did on the panel). If you can find an example otherwise, I'll check it out.
I don't know what I have to do with the facts that Bernie is authentic, and his campaign is not paid for by the billionaire class, and you can't say that about any of the other candidates?
I just don't find it to be a very convincing argument for the reasons I said in my previous post. If you think he's authentic that's great, but I still feel like republicans say he's authentic to say Clinton isn't. I mean in the video she posted they all go onto how he's authentic but Hillary (who presumably isn't authentic) is just as socialist and crazy as he is.
They don't care about his authenticity, they just say that to damage Clinton.
If you feel like anybody here needs a republican's opinion to be convinced of Sander's authenticity I'll argue that you're acting like a demagogue.
On July 08 2015 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Even Republicans are calling Sanders "Authentic". I'll post the clip when it goes up but it was Dana Perino (Former Bush press secretary) on Fox News.
Even if you don't agree with him, he's authentic and not bought and paid for by the billionaire class. Can you say that about any of the other candidates?
As much as I agree with you, I think saying that is a bit disingenuous... I mean for one, calling Bernie Sanders "authentic" is clearly an underhanded way to undermine Clinton who's seen as much more of a threat. I mean she does directly draw a parallel, implying that Clinton is not authentic. Second, it's not "republicans" saying he's authentic, it's this one fox news lady.
I would've let it pass but I just feel like I've seen the exact form of your argument being made against me too many times and I can't give it much weight, given the circumstances.
There have been several Republicans that have called Bernie authentic. No one I've seen talk about Bernie denies he is authentic (no one did on the panel). If you can find an example otherwise, I'll check it out.
I don't know what I have to do with the facts that Bernie is authentic, and his campaign is not paid for by the billionaire class, and you can't say that about any of the other candidates?
I just don't find it to be a very convincing argument for the reasons I said in my previous post. If you think he's authentic that's great, but I still feel like republicans say he's authentic to say Clinton isn't. I mean in the video she posted they all go onto how he's authentic but Hillary (who presumably isn't authentic) is just as socialist and crazy as he is.
They don't care about his authenticity, they just say that to damage Clinton.
If you feel like anybody here needs a republican's opinion to be convinced of Sander's authenticity I'll argue that you're acting like a demagogue.
I'm just saying no one can or will deny his authenticity whether Hillary is involved or not. He also isn't taking the billionaire class money through things like superPAC's, those are facts that matter which people who support other candidates simply can't say about their candidate.
I think you know why it matters that he is universally considered authentic and isn't sponsored by the billionaire class, but I'll explain if that's why you think I'm acting like a "demagogue"
I think it matters that he is authentic, but I don't think the republican opinion regarding that actually matters when they're mobilizing that argument strategically. And the reason why I called it demagogy is that this is a kind of argument that might be able to convince people who don't really think about the motives behind the thinly veiled attack on Hillary that was disguised as a compliment for Sanders's campaign. If anybody is convinced that Sanders is authentic solely because everyone seems to think so on the most basic level regardless of their motives, I might think that person is soft in the head.
Not a huge deal though, sorry if I come off as overly critical. It just seems like a cheap argument to me.
On July 09 2015 03:08 Djzapz wrote: I think it matters that he is authentic, but I don't think the republican opinion regarding that actually matters when they're mobilizing that argument strategically. And the reason why I called it demagogy is that this is a kind of argument that might be able to convince people who don't really think about the motives behind the thinly veiled attack on Hillary that was disguised as a compliment for Sanders's campaign. If anybody is convinced that Sanders is authentic solely because everyone seems to think so on the most basic level regardless of their motives, I might think that person is soft in the head.
Not a huge deal though, sorry if I come off as overly critical. It just seems like a cheap argument to me.
Surely that wouldn't be the "only" reason people would come to that conclusion. I'd agree if it was though, they would be a little soft in the head. It's not like if he won the primary suddenly Republicans or anyone else would start claiming he wasn't authentic. They are saying it publicly because they think it hurts Hillary but the rant on him shows that they don't actually want him to beat her, just chip away at her credibility.
You have to admit, regardless of the reasons, it's extremely rare that politicians and talking heads on all sides of the aisle agree that another politician is authentic. Even more rare that said politician not be funded by the billionaire class.
You're fine on your tone though, it's a heated subject (presidential elections) and I'm used to much worse.
Can't disagree with you that it's uncommon, but it has to do with the fact that authenticity is uncommon at those levels of politics. I'd say, though, that Sanders's ability to gain momentum without SuperPACs and without a hollow/changing discourse like the flipflopping Hillary is a lot more impressive than whatever empty concessions republicans are willing to make.
hey this isnt campaign related but found it interesting, and encouraging as far as Sanders' trustworthiness is concerned (in fact, it's almost startling to see someone who is now a quite viable presidential candidate associate so openly with someone who would most commonly be considered a "radical leftist") Here he is introducing Noam Chomsky and speaking briefly in 1985. (to clarify; i mean that it makes him seem more trustworthy)
What are peoples thoughts on Hilary Clinton and the sharing economy? I live in Seattle so I'm biased for uber and airbnb and the like. However if she is against them, are there in fact more people who don't like them? It seems strange
On July 15 2015 14:58 MysteryMeat1 wrote: What are peoples thoughts on Hilary Clinton and the sharing economy? I live in Seattle so I'm biased for uber and airbnb and the like. However if she is against them, are there in fact more people who don't like them? It seems strange
Yeah corporations don't like them. P2P economic models are what ate up the music industry. It's basically the modern equivalent of coming out against Napster except the people are actually paying people for the service and only middle men are getting squeezed out of the deal.
Already over $50k today with an average donation just over $20 If you can spare even just a few dollars it would be worth it to contribute. Do you really want that coffee/value meal or a president with integrity ?
Bernie Sanders raised 68 percent of his $15.4 million from small donors. Even for a Republican presidential candidate, the paltry amount raised from small donors is striking. In 2012, for example, Mitt Romney's campaign got 18 percent of its money from donors giving $200 or less.
But perhaps an even more telling figure is how much money Bush's campaign got from very rich people. We don't know exactly how rich, but we do know that in the last election, just 0.04 percent of Americans donated the maximum of $2,600 to a candidate (donors can give twice that much if they donate to a candidate for both the primary and general election). And Bush's filing today reveals that an astonishing $9.3 million—or 81 percent of his total haul—came from people donating $2,700, the inflation-adjusted equivalent of last year's maximum.
you may have seen this already but I came across this really cool donor insights data. only goes through June 22nd though.
Fun to look around the map and see where donations have come in for Bernie across the country. Almost $9 million raised with an average donation of 36.36.
On July 18 2015 14:05 LuckyFool wrote: you may have seen this already but I came across this really cool donor insights data. only goes through June 22nd though.
Fun to look around the map and see where donations have come in for Bernie across the country. Almost $9 million raised with an average donation of 36.36.
We are at nearly 75,000 people at almost 2,500 meetings across the country on July 29th to start our grassroots campaign for Bernie Sanders
If you haven't looked recently for a meeting in your area please check again as they are constantly being added. If you are already attending a meeting please find a way (facebook, twitter, email, face-to-face etc...) to share that you are going to a meeting and try to bring some friends.
In addition there will be LIVE streams hosted by grassroots reporters from across the country on Bernie2016TV all evening on the 29th. If you would like to participate LIVE or just submit some video or pictures from you're meeting send me a PM (or post here) and I will contact you with the details to get your event/video/pictures broadcast across the country.
We are making history on July 29th and we would really love for you to join in any way possible.
Forgive me for saying this, but despite the fact that I very much agree with Sander's platform, I can't help to feel like the direction of this thread is weirdly dogmatic. To me this weird PR-type narrative of "look at the numbers and click those links and get engrossed and absorbed in this movement" just reminds me of a walmart ad. Click here do this and that we want a big footprint. Call me a cynic, I just don't associate Bernie Sander's momentum or his general character to this kind of used car salesman's pitch.
On July 25 2015 12:23 Djzapz wrote: Forgive me for saying this, but despite the fact that I very much agree with Sander's platform, I can't help to feel like the direction of this thread is weirdly dogmatic. To me this weird PR-type narrative of "look at the numbers and click those links and get engrossed and absorbed in this movement" just reminds me of a walmart ad. Click here do this and that we want a big footprint. Call me a cynic, I just don't associate Bernie Sander's momentum or his general character to this kind of used car salesman's pitch.
Fair enough. Sometimes my inner salesperson seeps through. I'd happily change it if you could point to some specifics.
I'm practically blind to it when I write it myself. I'm very open to constructive criticism
The idea of the thread is to show what's being generated by the grassroots, I want it to have a presentation worth of the efforts that are going into the stuff being produced. So advice as how I could do that better would be helpful.
On July 25 2015 12:23 Djzapz wrote: Forgive me for saying this, but despite the fact that I very much agree with Sander's platform, I can't help to feel like the direction of this thread is weirdly dogmatic. To me this weird PR-type narrative of "look at the numbers and click those links and get engrossed and absorbed in this movement" just reminds me of a walmart ad. Click here do this and that we want a big footprint. Call me a cynic, I just don't associate Bernie Sander's momentum or his general character to this kind of used car salesman's pitch.
Fair enough. Sometimes my inner salesperson seeps through. I'd happily change it if you could point to some specifics.
I'm practically blind to it when I write it myself. I'm very open to constructive criticism
The idea of the thread is to show what's being generated by the grassroots, I want it to have a presentation worth of the efforts that are going into the stuff being produced. So advice as how I could do that better would be helpful.
I don't know, frankly this is a new way to do politics even by Canadian standards and I wouldn't know what the proper approach would be. I spent a couple of months as a political attaché/press officer for a provincial MP who barely lost his election and from being completely immersed in it I can tell you that the dirtiest part of politics as far as I'm concerned was the cherrypicking of statistics and numbers to impress people who don't understand them, and then putting them in cute graphics.
The first thing that reminded me of old dirty politics was the image posted above, "I was ready for Hillary until Bernie 2016". I understand, it's thinly veiled dirty politics though, and it's what I did a few years back. I'd work with a graphic designer, feed him some bullshit numbers and catchphrases, cherrypick quotes and information that people wanted to hear. The image in question is perhaps harmless but to me it seems like when you added the numbers about Bernie Sanders growing fast based on website traffic. It's not uninteresting, but I'd just keep that low. Same with the campaign donation numbers, it seems like the mass media are more interested in talking about millions of dollars than millions of people.
If I were you, I'd try to stir this thread towards his policies, his recent declarations that matter, as well as bringing up the glassroots stuff and meetings and general interest in Sanders. Not saying "75000 people care about this". I don't care. Trump cares about these metrics. I care about policy.
Granted I'll give you that it makes sense to be working on tackling people's skepticism, mine included, but to me it's clear that there's a big movement that's coming alive and if that's true it'll be self explanatory and at the end of the day what goes unreported in the media is not the poll numbers but the actual platform that people remain ignorant about.
On July 25 2015 12:23 Djzapz wrote: Forgive me for saying this, but despite the fact that I very much agree with Sander's platform, I can't help to feel like the direction of this thread is weirdly dogmatic. To me this weird PR-type narrative of "look at the numbers and click those links and get engrossed and absorbed in this movement" just reminds me of a walmart ad. Click here do this and that we want a big footprint. Call me a cynic, I just don't associate Bernie Sander's momentum or his general character to this kind of used car salesman's pitch.
Fair enough. Sometimes my inner salesperson seeps through. I'd happily change it if you could point to some specifics.
I'm practically blind to it when I write it myself. I'm very open to constructive criticism
The idea of the thread is to show what's being generated by the grassroots, I want it to have a presentation worth of the efforts that are going into the stuff being produced. So advice as how I could do that better would be helpful.
I don't know, frankly this is a new way to do politics even by Canadian standards and I wouldn't know what the proper approach would be. I spent a couple of months as a political attaché/press officer for a provincial MP who barely lost his election and from being completely immersed in it I can tell you that the dirtiest part of politics as far as I'm concerned was the cherrypicking of statistics and numbers to impress people who don't understand them, and then putting them in cute graphics.
The first thing that reminded me of old dirty politics was the image posted above, "I was ready for Hillary until Bernie 2016". I understand, it's thinly veiled dirty politics though, and it's what I did a few years back. I'd work with a graphic designer, feed him some bullshit numbers and catchphrases, cherrypick quotes and information that people wanted to hear. The image in question is perhaps harmless but to me it seems like when you added the numbers about Bernie Sanders growing fast based on website traffic. It's not uninteresting, but I'd just keep that low. Same with the campaign donation numbers, it seems like the mass media are more interested in talking about millions of dollars than millions of people.
If I were you, I'd try to stir this thread towards his policies, his recent declarations that matter, as well as bringing up the glassroots stuff and meetings and general interest in Sanders. Not saying "75000 people care about this". I don't care. Trump cares about these metrics. I care about policy.
Granted I'll give you that it makes sense to be working on tackling people's skepticism, mine included, but to me it's clear that there's a big movement that's coming alive and if that's true it'll be self explanatory and at the end of the day what goes unreported in the media is not the poll numbers but the actual platform that people remain ignorant about.
Yeah right now there's still a huge part of America who doesn't even know who "Bernie Sanders" is. So it's mostly just been exposing that he exists and Hillary is NOT the automatic nominee.
I appreciate the perspective. I'll digest it a bit more before I write a more thorough response.
We are at nearly 75,000 people at almost 2,500 meetings across the country on July 29th to start our grassroots campaign for Bernie Sanders
If you haven't looked recently for a meeting in your area please check again as they are constantly being added. If you are already attending a meeting please find a way (facebook, twitter, email, face-to-face etc...) to share that you are going to a meeting and try to bring some friends.
In addition there will be LIVE streams hosted by grassroots reporters from across the country on Bernie2016TV all evening on the 29th. If you would like to participate LIVE or just submit some video or pictures from you're meeting send me a PM (or post here) and I will contact you with the details to get your event/video/pictures broadcast across the country.
We are making history on July 29th and we would really love for you to join in any way possible.
Not American, but I do think voting for this guy is a way to make a statement on certain political issues in the country, regardless of if he gets in or not.
I just got back from a Bernie meetup and it was amazing, so many people, my feeds are full of house parties, and big 300+ people events.
The Bernie2016TV stream was awesome and I didn't watch myself but I heard over 3 million people watched Bernie speak online through his official stream.
Turns out there are some people from the Ron Paul camp that like enough of Bernie's positions and particularly his honesty and integrity that they are likely to vote Sanders.
Eh, revolutions are messy. What's sad is how little we are doing as a country to address the concerns of BLM and how easily we are divided.
What makes me personally sad is I met Symone Sanders at the Seattle event and didn't even realize who she was at the time
I agree that there is a lot of progress to be made but it seems to me like the BLM movement should take what's available and support men like Sanders (or a man like Sanders since they don't seem to be too common). I mean, part of their rhetoric is about massive wage inequity, which is basically at the top of Sander's platform, and he also supports things like cameras on police officers and such measures which would decrease police brutality against black people. He wants to close private prisons, and the very notion of privately owned prisons is just about the most ridiculous thing imaginable (when I heard about them, I thought it was a joke). Sanders also doesn't care very much for the war on drugs which as we know puts a lot of black people in jail.
Sanders is by far the best hope the black people of the US have. It's fucking obvious.
Eh, revolutions are messy. What's sad is how little we are doing as a country to address the concerns of BLM and how easily we are divided.
What makes me personally sad is I met Symone Sanders at the Seattle event and didn't even realize who she was at the time
I agree that there is a lot of progress to be made but it seems to me like the BLM movement should take what's available and support men like Sanders (or a man like Sanders since they don't seem to be too common). I mean, part of their rhetoric is about massive wage inequity, which is basically at the top of Sander's platform, and he also supports things like cameras on police officers and such measures which would decrease police brutality against black people. He wants to close private prisons, and the very notion of privately owned prisons is just about the most ridiculous thing imaginable (when I heard about them, I thought it was a joke). Sanders also doesn't care very much for the war on drugs which as we know puts a lot of black people in jail.
Sanders is by far the best hope the black people of the US have. It's fucking obvious.
It's even more sad (and hilarious) given Sanders' civil rights record. Reminds me a little of the Vagina Monologues which were radical 20 years ago but are considered conservative by the radical feminists of today.
I think it's undeniable that Sanders has changed his tune since the disruptions which was a core purpose of them.
"Son of Baldwin" Summed it up this way:
Mad liberals/progressives: "Disrupting Bernie Sanders is a bad strategy and won't change anything. Sanders is already an advocate for black people's civil rights! Your disruptions won't achieve anything! You're just making you and your cause look bad!"
Bernie Sanders: *Adds explicit support of "racial justice," officially, to his website and platform, and hires an activist, a black woman, as his campaign spokesperson after being targeted for disruption* (Thanks Malkia Hutchinson for the update!)
In a story that's quintessentially Bernie Sanders, a group of strangers from across the Internet has come together to build an exhaustive new site about the Democratic presidential candidate, without pay, for a cause they believe in. The site is called FeelTheBern.org, named after the unofficial slogan that has caught fire among his supporters. Like the candidate himself, the website has gone viral seemingly overnight. Since launching two days ago, it has been shared over 31,000 times on Facebook and 1,600 times on Twitter, according to stats on the homepage. Site founder Daniela Perdomo, co-founder and CEO of Brooklyn tech start-up goTenna, says the site is "approaching a million pageviews." And for good reason: the site covers the Vermont senator's stances on 18 issues, contextualized with accessible explainers, videos, and graphics. It's arguably one of the most comprehensive candidate websites out there.
The site came together in 32 days, starting with a post from Perdomo, published in a Sanders subreddit July 9. Perdomo, 30, who has followed the senator's career for years, said she was frustrated by how media outlets first reported on his candidacy — as a long shot in relation to Hillary Clinton, or as an outlier in the race for his progressive views. She noticed, however, that the senator seemed to have a strong push on the Internet. "What was really cool to see was in spite of the media not really telling the Bernie Sanders story," she says, was that "people were still telling his story on social media — and that was very exciting to me."
That's basically why I laugh when someone says "just another politician". I'm sure one with Hillary will be out soon and it'll sound a little different.
On January 15 2016 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote: If you're a Bernie Sanders supporter you need to know about this site: http://www.bernkit.com/ (most/all of the important apps and web pages)
feelthebern.org should be at the top of that, otherwise neat.
According to Politico Sanders got 58,9% of the votes and 38 delegates in Colorado. However Clinton just got 40,4% of the votes and also got 38 delegates in Colorado.
Can somebody please explain why both candidates have gotten the same number of delegates in Colorado?
On March 09 2016 00:46 The_Templar wrote: Didn't she get 28 delegates, not 38? Maybe that is also counting superdelegates?
It seems Politico is including unpledged delegates which as I understand it are what is referred to as super-delegates.
According to The Green Papers there are 13 unpledged delegates available in Colorado and according to the NY Daily News article almost all of those unpledged delegates pick Clinton.
Literally, Clinton has received 95.3% of the superdelegates and these individual voters have nothing to do with the actual will of the people in their states.
The super-delegates, which again are just individual people chosen by established party leaders, currently represent 41.8 of the total delegates the candidates have received. And again, 95.3% of these 473 people have chosen Clinton as their candidate.
So, even though 7 million have voted, 473 people that nearly none of us know, get to account for 41.8% of the delegates.
So what happens if like Bernie gets 51% of the delegates (not including super delagates) ? Will the super delegates give the middle finger to the will of the people or will they switch over?
On March 09 2016 13:20 Petrosidius wrote: Wow I'm from Michigan and I'm really surprised. Even in a liberal Ann Arbor nobody thought this was possible.
On March 09 2016 09:38 TheFish7 wrote: So what happens if like Bernie gets 51% of the delegates (not including super delagates) ? Will the super delegates give the middle finger to the will of the people or will they switch over?
Considering what the Sanders campaign is all about it is unlikely that the unpledged-super-delegates would dare to go against the will of the people if Sanders were to overtake Clinton in pledged-delegates.