What if bernie starts to dominate?

[theBLADE1]

He isn't even ahead in delegates

You know those delegates can change their vote right? I'm talking about the delegates and superdelegates that prematurely endorsed Hillary. If the popular vote is overwhelmingly in favor of Sanders and they still nominated Hillary instead, then there would no longer be facing a political revolution but instead an ACTUAL Revolution.

Also how fucked up is it that in our "democracy" it isn't the people who elect their candidates but the delegates? The electoral college is also incredibly moronic and literally centuries outdated.

 

[IGIT]

Well, you're objectively wrong. As you know, we're talking about different people entirely.

hi Jack V Savage,

i am not wrong, Jack.

regarding the New York Times, in particular, your opinion is contradicted by....well...their own public editor, Margaret Sullivan;

The Times has not ignored Mr. Sanders’s campaign, but it hasn’t always taken it very seriously. The tone of some stories is regrettably dismissive, even mocking at times. Some of that is focused on the candidate’s age, appearance and style, rather than what he has to say.

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.c...times-dismissed-bernie-sanders/?smid=tw-share

that's Sullivan's take on the coverage that the NYT has given Mr. Sanders. add in the reality that the NYT has endorsed Mrs. Clinton in every one of her political contests, including endorsing her over Mr. Obama in 2008, and i think i make a fair case for permeable wall that separates editorial content and the A section of the NYT.

again, i know you disagree, and that's fine.

but you're wrong here, Jack.

- IGIT

 

[SMEAC]

You know those delegates can change their vote right? I'm talking about the delegates and superdelegates that prematurely endorsed Hillary. If the popular vote is overwhelmingly in favor of Sanders and they still nominated Hillary instead, then there would no longer be facing a political revolution but instead an ACTUAL Revolution.

Also how fucked up is it that in our "democracy" it isn't the people who elect their candidates but the delegates? The electoral college is also incredibly moronic and literally centuries outdated.

You don't seem to know its a democratic republic

I don't know why I reply to you and your obviously first time voting

 

[VivaRevolution]

Tbf, democracy is a political construct; socialism is an economic one. And calling yourself a "Democratic Socialist" has much stronger implications of being socialist than anything else. But you're right that Bernie is far from being a pure socialist. I think most people still fall for the fallacy of equating socialism with totalitarianism.

I am a fan of this post, as it makes it easy for me to point out why democratic socialism is not socialism.

Switzerland calls itself a democratic socialist country. Switzerland has this thing called swiss bank. Swiss bank is a privately owned, and the most unregulated bank in the world.

In what way does swiss banking meet the definition of socailism.

See this is why I constantly ask people if partial government ownership of the markets is socialism, as the US already has partial ownership of the markets, and yet no one considers the US socialist.

 

[Jack V Savage]

hi Jack V Savage,

i am not wrong, Jack.

regarding the New York Times, in particular, your opinion is contradicted by....well...their own public editor, Margaret Sullivan;

Huh? That bit you quoted doesn't even relate to the discussion, and it certainly doesn't contradict anything I said.

that's Sullivan's take on the coverage that the NYT has given Mr. Sanders. add in the reality that the NYT has endorsed Mrs. Clinton in every one of her political contests, including endorsing her over Mr. Obama in 2008, and i think i make a fair case for permeable wall that separates editorial content and the A section of the NYT.

We weren't even talking about the primary there. I was pointing out that your characterization of the NY Times as the left-leaning press is wrong. Are you drunk or something?

 

[theBLADE1]

You don't seem to know its a democratic republic

I don't know why I reply to you and your obviously first time voting

Right we live in a country where the interest of the financial elite and the corrupt are considered more highly than your average everyday citizen. People should hope this political revolution turns out for the best so an actual revolution doesn't have to occur. And it's my third time voting. People like you are part of the reason other countries hate us and view us as science deniers and fat warmongering retards.

 

[IGIT]

heya Jack,

Huh? That bit you quoted doesn't even relate to the discussion, and it certainly doesn't contradict anything I said.

it relates to the discussion you and i have been having - and it contradicts your position on the NYT.

We weren't even talking about the primary there. I was pointing out that your characterization of the NY Times as the left-leaning press is wrong. Are you drunk or something?

the NYT is left leaning press. i've explained to you that the wall between the editorial page and the rest of the paper is a permeable one.

you disagree with me, which is fine - but it doesn't make you less wrong.

anyways, i have to go now, Jack.

cya later.

- IGIT

 

[gspieler]

I am a fan of this post, as it makes it easy for me to point out why democratic socialism is not socialism.

Switzerland calls itself a democratic socialist country. Switzerland has this thing called swiss bank. Swiss bank is a privately owned, and the most unregulated bank in the world.

In what way does swiss banking meet the definition of socailism.

See this is why I constantly ask people if partial government ownership of the markets is socialism, as the US already has partial ownership of the markets, and yet no one considers the US socialist.

I think, to a degree, people get duped(for lack of a better term) into voting for labels. U.S. is neither purely socialist or purely capitalist. Neither is China, Sweden, Russia, India, Brazil, etc for that matter. For all intents and purposes, we are hybrids, falling somewhere on a capitalism-socialism continuum, with countries like U.S falling a bit farther to the right, China to the left, and Western Europe in the middle. Terms like "socialist", "liberal", "progressive", etc are just words that the left allowed to be vilified. I, for one, am a fan of Bernie demystifying "socialism" to the public, by not shying away from it., misnomer and all.

 

[SMEAC]

Right we live in a country where the interest of the financial elite and the corrupt are considered more highly than your average everyday citizen. People should hope this political revolution turns out for the best so an actual revolution doesn't have to occur. And it's my third time voting. People like you are part of the reason other countries hate us and view us as science deniers and fat warmongering retards.

Got it you are an angry kid, but it was designed as a democratic republic in 1787 and it was because of the naïve like yourself.

Glad that your ego is so fragile that you worry so much about how others view you

 

[theBLADE1]

it was designed as a democratic republic in 1787 and it was because of the naïve like yourself.

No you're right we should definitely keep things that have been in place since the 17 FUCKIING HUNDREDS! It's not like things change over time and need updating occasionally or anything like that...... God your fucking dumb.

 

[Jack V Savage]

heya Jack,

it relates to the discussion you and i have been having - and it contradicts your position on the NYT.

My position that it isn't left-leaning is contradicted by Sullivan saying that the paper hadn't taken Sanders seriously at the time she wrote that? Can you explain?

the NYT is left leaning press. i've explained to you that the wall between the editorial page and the rest of the paper is a permeable one.

An assertion isn't an explanation.

 

[SMEAC]

No you're right we should definitely keep things that have been in place since the 17 FUCKIING HUNDREDS! It's not like things change over time and need updating occasionally or anything like that...... God your fucking dumb.

Guess what super serious political animal of 3 whole months

There is a way to change that, good luck getting that amendment

 

[VivaRevolution]

I think, to a degree, people get duped(for lack of a better term) into voting for labels. U.S. is neither purely socialist or purely capitalist. Neither is China, Sweden, Russia, India, Brazil, etc for that matter. For all intents and purposes, we are hybrids, falling somewhere on a capitalism-socialism continuum, with countries like U.S falling a bit farther to the right, China to the left, and Western Europe in the middle. Terms like "socialist", "liberal", "progressive", etc are just words that the left allowed to be vilified. I, for one, am a fan of Bernie demystifying "socialism" to the public, by not shying away from it., misnomer and all.

What bugs me the most is the Orwellian nature of this use of language.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

You're saying that the media will all get together to "go after" a guy because he alone apparently is "not representing any corporate interests." Does that really sound sane to you?

Ha it goes further than that. According to some people EVERY elected official in America (including Democrats) are apart of the 'establishment' if they do not support Bernie. In fact they all get together Republicans and Dems every year to plot against people like Bernie and their constituents.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

You know those delegates can change their vote right? I'm talking about the delegates and superdelegates that prematurely endorsed Hillary. If the popular vote is overwhelmingly in favor of Sanders and they still nominated Hillary instead, then there would no longer be facing a political revolution but instead an ACTUAL Revolution.

Also how fucked up is it that in our "democracy" it isn't the people who elect their candidates but the delegates? The electoral college is also incredibly moronic and literally centuries outdated.

Well it's a hell of a lot better than the undemocratic parliamentary systems that most so called "Socialist" countries have. Including places like Sweden or Denmark.

After all you have even less say in Parliamentary systems. Plus the Democrat party favors proportional voting over winner takes all which is far more democratic. And lastly it makes sense to give a say to our elected leaders (some input) but I'd argue that party officials should not be included as superdelegates.

In any case Bernie will need to dominate before the superdelegates pledged to Clinton switch sides.

Right we live in a country where the interest of the financial elite and the corrupt are considered more highly than your average everyday citizen. People should hope this political revolution turns out for the best so an actual revolution doesn't have to occur. And it's my third time voting. People like you are part of the reason other countries hate us and view us as science deniers and fat warmongering retards.

Okay let's be serious the U.S. is actually quite popular in the world. Worldly people can attest. I'm with you on science denying GOP though.

 

[theBLADE1]

Well it's a hell of a lot better than the undemocratic parliamentary systems that most so called "Socialist" countries have. Including places like Sweden or Denmark.

After all you have even less say in Parliamentary systems. Plus the Democrat party favors proportional voting over winner takes all which is far more democratic. And lastly it makes sense to give a say to our elected leaders (some input) but I'd argue that party officials should not be included as superdelegates.

In any case Bernie will need to dominate before the superdelegates pledged to Clinton switch sides.

If you don't understand how outdated the electoral college/superdelegate system is, then that's your fault for being uninformed and remaining blissfully ignorant as you always seem to be. And I have never one time said that a parliamentary system would work better or is better. In fact outdated systems all around the world that have been in place for centuries are probably due for a change. Nice straw man though.

Also what I said remains true. If Sanders wins the popular vote but delegates give the nomination to Hillary Clinton there will more than likely be an actual revolution in America. A shit storm the size of epic proportions would ensue.

Okay let's be serious the U.S. is actually quite popular in the world. Worldly people can attest. I'm with you on science denying GOP though.

It depends on who you ask and where they visited now doesn't it. You can't say most like it's a fact is there are definitely people in other countries who look negatively upon Americans.

 

[SMEAC]

Burny supporters and actual revolution that shit is fucking funny

 

[VivaRevolution]

Ha it goes further than that. According to some people EVERY elected official in America (including Democrats) are apart of the 'establishment' if they do not support Bernie. In fact they all get together Republicans and Dems every year to plot against people like Bernie and their constituents.

Can't imagine why people would think that while we have this discussion of Super Delegates deciding our candidates, apparently in disregard for the will of the people.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Burny supporters and actual revolution that shit is fucking funny

Reading this statement, and looking at your AV, which looks like a 1776 Brit in a red coat, is just too much.

Who is that BTW?

 

[Krallang]

Reading this statement, and looking at your AV, which looks like a 1776 Brit in a red coat, is just too much.

Who is that BTW?

My guess would be the Kentish Militia but it could be a royal Marine.