Sanders trailed Hillary by 41pts in May. Now within 7.

So if Bernie is in the general do you vote for him?

Yes.

My take in general is that I'm not super enthusiastic about the field, but they're OK, and there's not much of a difference among them (look at Sanders fans arguing about CU, when Clinton and Sanders have the exact same position on it). Sanders would rank above Webb and Chafee for me, but below the rest. Way the fuck above Bush, Rubio or Walker or whoever gets the GOP nomination, though.

I'm quite disappointed that the party as a whole appears to be getting behind Sanders' and O'Malley's $15/hr national MW idea.
 
Last edited:
I'm playing no games. You're just not smart enough to understand the point (no offense). You're so caught up in the "game" aspect (of supporting your "team") that you can't step back and see the reality.

When you play the "not smart enough" card right out the gate I always know the rustling is in residence.

Your "not a lot of difference" Hillary defense argument is based on the same random measuring rod bullshit as your "anti-establishment" one was. It's like I say, "There are a lot of miles between San Francisco and Los Angeles." And you say, "Come on, dummy, that's nothing compared to Chicago."

Then I show you, factually, there're almost 400 miles between SF and LA and you reply, "Big deal. The reality is, that's virtually next door."

Bernie Sanders isn't candidate Obama. Or even candidate Edwards. Intelligent people understand that a sitting senator who has identified as a socialist running for the democratic nomination represents a sea change. Sanders is, in fact, in terms of political distance, a San Francisco to Hillary's LA. At least.
 
When you play the "not smart enough" card right out the gate I always know the rustling is in residence.

Maybe you should consider that, you know, you're not understanding the argument. I'm serious, man.

Your "not a lot of difference" Hillary defense argument is based on the same random measuring rod bullshit as your "anti-establishment" one was. It's like I say, "There are a lot of miles between San Francisco and Los Angeles." And you say, "Come on, dummy, that's nothing compared to Chicago."

Not really. I gave a good example. CU. They both support the (pandering) position that there should be a Constitutional Amendment, and they both would only nominate people for SCOTUS positions if they oppose it. And yet ... Sanders fans think that it's a major point of disagreement. We're basically on, "how passionately do they hold the position that they both hold?" and people are attacking anyone who disagrees like wild animals. As I said, it's standard political bullshit, but regular people should know better. And LOL at the idea that "X and Y are very similar" is some kind of "defense" (against what?) of X or Y. If it's a "defense" of anyone, it's Sanders, as he's trailing and perceived as too extreme to win.

Bernie Sanders isn't candidate Obama. Or even candidate Edwards. Intelligent people understand that a sitting senator who has identified as a socialist running for the democratic nomination represents a sea change. Sanders is, in fact, in terms of political distance, a San Francisco to Hillary's LA. At least.

Not really. There's no substantial ideological difference between Obama and Sanders or either of them and Clinton. Obama is just way smarter and a way more effective operator than both of them.
 
Yes.

My take in general is that I'm not super enthusiastic about the field, but they're OK, and there's not much of a difference among them (look at Sanders fans arguing about CU, when Clinton and Sanders have the exact same position on it). Sanders would rank above Webb and Chafee for me, but below the rest. Way the fuck above Bush, Rubio or Walker or whoever gets the GOP nomination, though.

I'm quite disappointed that the party as a whole appears to be getting behind Sanders' and O'Malley's $15/hr national MW idea.

Clinton is taking lobbyist money.

That alone should tell you where her interests are.

If their is one thing we should learn from Obama is that regardless of the good intentions and shit said going in, he obviously had to live up to some backroom promises acquired with the campaign donations he received when running.
 
Clinton is taking lobbyist money.

That alone should tell you where her interests are.

What does that even mean?

If their is one thing we should learn from Obama is that regardless of the good intentions and shit said going in, he obviously had to live up to some backroom promises acquired with the campaign donations he received when running.

Um, what?
 
I'm quite disappointed that the party as a whole appears to be getting behind Sanders' and O'Malley's $15/hr national MW idea.

It's a talking point and a bargaining tactic. Sanders has been involved with unions since my father was but a twinkle in my grandfather's eye-- it's how collective bargaining works. There is no doubt in my mind that the understands that a nationwide increase to $15 would be unwise, but there are ways to approach MW from a more comprehensive perspective which considers the state or even the municipality.
 
What does that even mean?



Um, what?

It means when some corporation donates money to you, it usually comes with a backdoor promise that once elected you will __________.

Like privatized prisons. She doesn't agree with them and to be honest prisons should never have been privatized. For one person to gain money by putting another person in jail??? WAT!

But they donate to her, and she accepts their money...so will privatized prisons go away while shes in office?

Nope.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/23/private-prison-lobbyists-raising-cash-hillary-clinton/

Basically? You want someone in power who isn't taking ANY of that fucking bribe money from lobbyists. Clinton isn't that person.
 
Last edited:
It means when some corporation donates money to you, it usually comes with a backdoor promise that once elected you will __________.

That's not true. When a corporation donates money to you, it means that they like your platform, they *want* time with you, or they *want* your consideration. There's no guarantee they'll get it, though. Look at how Wall Street poured money into Obama's campaign in 2008 (trying to beat Clinton, for one thing). And then they didn't get what they wanted, and switched big to Romney in 2012. I understand that it sounds "cool" to think that politicians are simultaneously easy to win over and incredibly loyal, but it's not accurate.
 
That's not true. When a corporation donates money to you, it means that they like your platform, they *want* time with you, or they *want* your consideration. There's no guarantee they'll get it, though. Look at how Wall Street poured money into Obama's campaign in 2008 (trying to beat Clinton, for one thing). And then they didn't get what they wanted, and switched big to Romney in 2012. I understand that it sounds "cool" to think that politicians are simultaneously easy to win over and incredibly loyal, but it's not accurate.

Are you trying to tell me that lobbying in politics hasn't corrupted American government?

K.
 
Bush and Clinton aren't going to be the nominee. Clinton has a better chance than Bush in my opinion, but I think it's unlikely for either of them to win their primaries. They aren't liked by the voters in their own party, but have been put up by the establishment as a reward for playing along. It used to be fairly easy for both parties too manipulate the voters into choosing their candidates but it's not working anymore. I don't know if Sanders will win the democrat primary, but it's obvious people will get behind anyone that isn't her. I think someone else could take the nomination from Sanders, but I doubt Biden would do anything but go down in the polls once he started campaigning. Bush has the same problem as Clinton. Liberals hate the Bush family and so does a large percentage of republicans these days. Neither have any principle and have made political decisions to show they are "moderates", but all that achieves is to drive away their base. Bush can't win the nomination by getting the most votes, and if they steal it for him it's suicide for republicans. They know that, but some of them probably don't care because they would rather do that then elect someone like Trump. They can't steal it for him when he's so far down in the polls though. I expect they will try to get Romney in the race if Trump is still leading down the road. I don't know why they think that would work, but they won't just accept an outsider getting the nomination without a fight.


I think Trump easily wins the republican nomination. It's not hard to understand why he's doing so well even though a lot of people who hate him don't won't to admit it. He's the only candidate on either side that has a strong stance on immigration, both legal and illegal. It's also a very popular stance across the political spectrum that has been completely ignored by almost every politician on any side for years. Immigration is the biggest issue facing our nation in my opinion, and Trump's stance on the issue is a very popular opinion that has been almost completely ignored by both parties until now. The fact that no one else in either primary has the same strong stance on immigration is why it's ridiculous to believe Trump is going to suddenly crash and burn. This issue is the primary reason for his success and since there isn't an alternative he will stay at the top. Attacking Trump on other issues doesn't work when the other candidates don't share his strong stance on immigration. The issue is bigger than any other issue for many people, and unless there's another candidate that shares their stance they aren't going to stop supporting Trump. Herman Cain was leading in 2011 because he came out strong against illegal immigration, but he crashed and burned after being attacked. Cain's comment lead to a huge amount of attention and attacks from the cheap labor people and media they control, who target anyone who sides with citizens over cheap labor, and he collapsed under the pressure. He tried backtracking on the comment responsible for putting him in the lead and went on the defensive and self-destructed. Trump is comfortable in this situation and is skilled at going after is attackers and turning it around on them.

I think Trump wins the general election based on this one very important issue as well. He wasn't taken serious at the beginning by many of those who support him now which is why his unfavorable rating completely reversed itself. His stance on the immigration issue made a lot of people completely change their perception of Trump overnight. He will pull a lot of support from democrats and independents from his stance on immigration and American jobs while winning around the same, or more, of the Hispanic and black vote as other republicans in presidential elections. A lot of legal immigrants resent illegals and most of the American born Hispanics don't relate to Mexico and illegals anymore than I do Europe.


https://www.donaldjtrump.com/
 
i think its more an anti-hillary movement than a pro bernie one. and holy hell, for all the crap the right gets for having 17 so-called terrible candidates, look at the democrats! things are so bad that a socialist has a chance to win the nomination? they could have the worst "field" by either side in my lifetime
 
i think its more an anti-hillary movement than a pro bernie one. and holy hell, for all the crap the right gets for having 17 so-called terrible candidates, look at the democrats! things are so bad that a socialist has a chance to win the nomination? they could have the worst "field" by either side in my lifetime

The overwhelming majority of people who switched stated they did so because Sander's policy positions were convincing, not because of antipathy for Hillary.
 
Fucking boss.. But poor Hillary , can't catch a break
 
i think its more an anti-hillary movement than a pro bernie one. and holy hell, for all the crap the right gets for having 17 so-called terrible candidates, look at the democrats! things are so bad that a socialist has a chance to win the nomination? they could have the worst "field" by either side in my lifetime

It amazes me still that american's are so programmed to think of socialism as a bad word...considering they are a sweet example of how capitalism is flawed.

The 1 percent own more wealth now than the rest, and I gotta ask...are you still thinking it's gonna trickle down sometime soon? because I don't see any rain in your forecast...lol.
 
Aside from his standing on minimum wages being increased, I think he is a great candidate.
 
It amazes me still that american's are so programmed to think of socialism as a bad word...considering they are a sweet example of how capitalism is flawed.

The 1 percent own more wealth now than the rest, and I gotta ask...are you still thinking it's gonna trickle down sometime soon? because I don't see any rain in your forecast...lol.

Socialist nations tend to have less upward mobility and more of the wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite. Furthermore, you won't find any immigrants or people from lower backgrounds climbing the ranks in those societies generally. Look at Sweden for example, it is a perfect example (though I realize it is not fully socialist), but still they have a greater concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite. 2 freackign families OWN ALL their media for christ sakes.

At least in the USA 5 corporations own only like 70% of the media and those companies are massive and publicly owned and material changes given the sheer size and distribution of the subsidiaries.
 
Aside from his standing on minimum wages being increased, I think he is a great candidate.

How so? If anything his minimum wage increase is one of his best positions. It is a FACT that minimum wage has NOT kept up with the rates/changes in inflation. And that people could get more for their dollar (via minimum wage) in the 1980's than today!

My biggest issue with Bernie is his unrealistic global and domestic economic views. I also think he has some cooky views on financial system. And think it is dangerous to start wanting the government to shut down large profitable and useful corporations just because they are "too big". Too big after all is arbitrary and we can set ourselves up for giving government WAY too much power if we start shutting down whatever company we want on the basis of it being "too big". Only in the case of unfair practices, fraud and or a monopoly should government intervene.
 
Socialist nations tend to have less upward mobility and more of the wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite. Furthermore, you won't find any immigrants or people from lower backgrounds climbing the ranks in those societies generally. Look at Sweden for example, it is a perfect example (though I realize it is not fully socialist), but still they have a greater concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite. 2 freackign families OWN ALL their media for christ sakes.

At least in the USA 5 corporations own only like 70% of the media and those companies are massive and publicly owned and material changes given the sheer size and distribution of the subsidiaries.

This is a very strange troll persona.
 
The overwhelming majority of people who switched stated they did so because Sander's policy positions were convincing, not because of antipathy for Hillary.

There's definitely a good amount of antipathy for Hillary.

However, Bernie's supporters are absolutely ecstatic about his candidacy. In 2000 and definitely in 2004 it was fair to say "the Democrats have such crap candidates that they're settling for this guy??"

But in 2008 everyone was thrilled with Obama. And today, the guy sitting at close #2 has extremely energetic supporters. No ho-hum here.
 
There's definitely a good amount of antipathy for Hillary.

However, Bernie's supporters are absolutely ecstatic about his candidacy. In 2000 and definitely in 2004 it was fair to say "the Democrats have such crap candidates that they're settling for this guy??"

But in 2008 everyone was thrilled with Obama. And today, the guy sitting at close #2 has extremely energetic supporters. No ho-hum here.

i think bernie is similar to ron paul. a lot of steam early, but not gonna last. i just think his ceiling is limited. much like how paul was killing everyone early in his runs, but quickly fell into obscurity. people love quacks early on, but it doesnt mean they will actually elect them
 
Back
Top