Bernie Sanders Draws The Largest Crowd This Year 28,000

He pulled in another large stadium in LA. I really don't like how negative the latimes is being on bernie's chances though. Hilary has been dipping and bernie has been inching up. Plus, it's still early. Anyway, his biggest problem still seems to be name recognition. I plan on doing my part where I live to raise awareness in black communities as that appears to be the biggest group that hasn't heard of him.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sanders-california-20150811-story.html#page=1

You have to remember the Koch brothers came close to buying the LA times and Tribune publishing. Tribune is run by a very Rupert Murdoch like figure with very strong conservative leanings.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ror-over-possible-newspaper-sale-is-premature
 
I want a democratic system that limits his power.

If Sanders were to win, the structure that would limit his power would be corporate-influenced.

Well supposedly its the constitution that limit his power if he ever become president but the left are more than happy to cross that line if that fit their goals
 
I think the bigger problem--from the perspective of those of us who, for example, oppose upward redistribution of wealth or are concerned about the degradation of the environment--is that a very large portion of the population has different goals. Republicans have disproportionate power in gov't because of their geographical dispersion patterns. And even on those issues that have bigger public support than governmental support (for example higher MW and higher taxes on the rich), the problem isn't big money causing politicians to change their minds--it's elected officials tending to be rich themselves before running for office and many voters not placing a high priority on those issues (to be blunt, a lot of people would slash themselves in the face with a razor if they thought it would hurt black people more than it hurts them).

Agreed on most of this.

But I don't think the slash themselves crowd is really that big, to be honest. The notion of "get big money out of politics" is huge with just about everyone. From the most liberal lefty to the biggest right-winger, just about everyone wants politics to be more democratic and less influenced by moneyed interests.

Problem is, most voters aren't A) given viable candidates that will do this, and B) knowledgeable enough about what this actually means.

I mean, Bernie is a big deal because he's the first non-corporate-sponsored candidate in the national spotlight in my lifetime and probably in the last several decades before that.

When a "real" democratic candidate comes by once every 50 years, it's hard for things to change.
 
Well supposedly its the constitution that limit his power if he ever become president but the left are more than happy to cross that line if that fit their goals

The Constitution is a document, not a political structure.

You right-wingers and your religious-like fascination with the constitution is fucking annoying. It, by itself, doesn't limit shit. It's congress, the judicial system and even the state governments that actually do it.

And these three things are heavily influenced by private interests.
 
I am going to laugh if a Republican becomes president all because idiot Dems choose Bernie over Clinton or someone more electable.

We will deserve it
 
Agreed on most of this.

But I don't think the slash themselves crowd is really that big, to be honest. The notion of "get big money out of politics" is huge with just about everyone. From the most liberal lefty to the biggest right-winger, just about everyone wants politics to be more democratic and less influenced by moneyed interests.

But what I'm saying is that "money in politics" is a red herring. People blame that for not getting the results they want, but the real problem is that there are a lot of people who disagree with them (whoever "they" are). We don't have a consensus on what the problems or solutions are that's being blocked by "big money."

I mean, Bernie is a big deal because he's the first non-corporate-sponsored candidate in the national spotlight in my lifetime and probably in the last several decades before that.

When a "real" democratic candidate comes by once every 50 years, it's hard for things to change.

I don't think anyone running this time is comparable to Obama, but they can all take up the task of defending the gains that America has made and pushing for further ones.
 
I mean, Bernie is a big deal because he's the first non-corporate-sponsored candidate in the national spotlight in my lifetime and probably in the last several decades before that.

When a "real" democratic candidate comes by once every 50 years, it's hard for things to change.

I agree. Bernie is like Nader - but with the political bona fides.
 
But what I'm saying is that "money in politics" is a red herring. People blame that for not getting the results they want, but the real problem is that there are a lot of people who disagree with them (whoever "they" are). We don't have a consensus on what the problems or solutions are that's being blocked by "big money."
.

Yeah, "big money" is kind of a term that everything could fall under. But I do think that everyone that's asked specifically whether big banks, big oil companies and others should dictate legislation, they'd be against it.

The results would be different (the right thinks everyone would become a rich business owner, the left thinks poverty would disappear) but I think everyone identifies that that is a problem.


I agree. Bernie is like Nader - but with the political bona fides.

Yeah, Nader and Kucinich are the only other ones that ran for prez with similar views that I can remember.

And those two never got close to the steam Bernie's picking up.
 
Back
Top