Bernie or bust.

6/16/2015 3:06:53 PM

Americans have always had an affection for underdogs. And Bernie is saying most of the things moderates want to hear without going off the rails and sounding crazy. But what might hurt Bernie is states that do not allow independents to vote in the primaries.

Really it doesn't matter who wins the dem primary it would end up being the top two making the ticket pres and vp if they really want to win.

6/16/2015 8:42:02 PM

Bernie is a nut. If he has any success, that will be brought to the front quickly.

6/16/2015 8:49:52 PM

I guess he's making more waves than anyone (including me) anticipated

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-in-new-hampshire-2015-6

6/16/2015 9:59:33 PM

Sanders is only a but because the media says he is, if you look at polling for his positions they are actually supported by the majority of Americans

6/17/2015 6:57:32 AM

Something being popular doesn't mean it isn't nutty or completely wrong.

6/18/2015 1:23:52 AM

and how would you go about backing that up?

6/18/2015 2:05:34 AM

Oh, I don't know, any number of popular projects or concepts that are horribly executed or just a bad idea from the beginning.

Lotteries, publicly funded stadiums for professional sports teams, the drug war, and so on and so on. I'm sure a lot of people would support a 100% tax on any income above a million dollars (just as an example, not saying this is something Sanders would ever put out there), but that doesn't make it not morally wrong. Not letting ex-felons vote is popular and supported by many on the right and the left, but it's still a shitty policy and goes against the whole idea that someone can pay their debt to society and be rehabilitated and yet we continue to punish them.

Popularity has never and should never be a guideline for whether or not something is a good idea. You can make an argument that something that is extremely costly, but popular should continue because the public is in favor of it, but that 's can't be the sole reason.

All kinds of things are unpopular based on fear. Just look at the asinine but popular anti GMO stuff going on.

Fuck man, NC outlawed gay marriage by popular vote, it was only through the much maligned "judicial activism" that it was recognized.

[Edited on June 18, 2015 at 2:22 AM. Reason : sfdsd]

6/18/2015 2:20:36 AM

What are a few of his nuttiest policy proposals?

6/18/2015 10:54:55 AM

apparently nutty just means not being pro-oligarchy or pro-corporatism

6/18/2015 11:07:41 AM

I, too, would like to hear more about his alleged nuttiness.

6/18/2015 11:15:36 AM

Quote :

"Popularity has never and should never be a guideline for whether or not something is a good idea."

the problem with democracy

6/18/2015 7:11:26 PM

i never claimed that being popular was why they are right, i made that response to the claim that they were nutty. Nutty to me means eccentric or not widely held, and his positions are not that. His positions are popular and actually supported by many or most (so in other words, not nutty)

6/19/2015 11:03:17 AM

Bernie is the only non-corporate/Wall St. candidate in the race. Hillary's top donors are Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. The media will do all they can to cut him down because after all big money is behind them as well.

6/19/2015 11:15:29 AM

I really do believe in the post-apocalyptic trope that appointed panels of scientists would serve people better than a democracy.

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 5:41 PM. Reason : z]

6/19/2015 5:40:49 PM

Democracy is clearly a shit idea.

All it takes is meeting a bunch of people, realizing how fucking stupid the average human is, and then following the logic through.

Honestly, any system which relies on a popularity contest as the basis for who is in charge is doomed to have narcissists and sociopaths at the top.

6/20/2015 6:44:25 AM

The US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

6/20/2015 12:29:09 PM

Never said it was a democracy. It wasn't even set up to be a democracy, the founders recognized that direct democracy was a horrible idea and put several barriers in place to keep it from functioning like one.

Even in theory democracy is a pretty bad idea. It's pretty clearly time for a complete tear down of the current system and careful examination of what we want to put in its place. It may even be time to consider several different sovereign nations in it's place or a model like the Eurozone.

6/20/2015 7:45:54 PM

^Democracy is a great idea because its biggest flaws, as you have mentioned, are simply an incentive to help society realize high quality education for all is MANDATORY for society to function.

Quote :

" a 100% tax on any income above a million dollars (just as an example, not saying this is something Sanders would ever put out there), but that doesn't make it not morally wrong"

not that i agree, but you're saying not allowing someone to make more than 1 million dollars is MORALLY WRONG? What kind of moral compass are you using? Any amount made above 40k is morally wrong because that means someone else is making less. Once you hit a million you are making a lot of people poor.

Thats like saying limiting people to 4 slices of pizza at a pizza party is morally wrong.

6/21/2015 1:23:52 PM

hahahahaha

i don't even know where to start

or where i would start if i had any interest in fucking with it.

6/21/2015 1:39:19 PM

Quote :

" It may even be time to consider several different sovereign nations in it's place or a model like the Eurozone."

Lol, the Eurozone is inching closer to failure with each passing day, and that has been around for a fraction of the time of the US Democracy. I don't know why you'd think that it is the shinning example here.

US democracy is more comparable to the outcome of putting two life-long enemies in the room and asking them to reach a compromise. What you get out of that is a bunch of theatre and then pretty much nothing is changed or accomplished from it.

The Eurozone is like a post apocalyptic society where the elite get to live like kings, but they just give handouts to the rest of society so that they can survive. When you look at Europe as a whole, and how great the disparity is between places like Scandinavia and Germany with other places like the Czech Republic, Italy and Spain, it really is more like a reversion back to the true royal oligarchy days.



[Edited on June 21, 2015 at 4:06 PM. Reason : h]

6/21/2015 3:55:03 PM

Quote :

"Lol, the Eurozone is inching closer to failure with each passing day, and that has been around for a fraction of the time of the US Democracy. I don't know why you'd think that it is the shinning example here. "

yeah i started to make a similar comment...

then, i figured that he must have accounted for that, and was arguing for it despite that being the case, or even because it's the case (i.e., basically breaking the country up into its parts and letting the fittest survive).

I think that's absurd. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, too, and he was actually referencing the Eurozone as a shining example, which I think is even more absurd.

6/21/2015 5:33:17 PM

The eurozone never should have included many of its constituent parts. Theoretically it wasn't a terrible idea but the execution was horrific. Single currency, open trade, but still allowing for cultural/social differences is actually a pretty good idea as long as you don't include areas that have nothing to offer.

6/21/2015 7:32:22 PM

Of course a military man who loves "stuff" isnt "fucking with" anything that doesnt march to the form of capitalism

6/21/2015 8:18:32 PM

I was speaking more to the point about the parts of your post that are either objectively wrong or absurdly arbitrary. If you want to be a socialist, that's fine (although ideally somewhere far away). It's being fucking wrong that I take more issue with.

6/21/2015 8:42:45 PM

I feel like a more democratic political system would encourage more voter participation, since most voters feel that the two main political parties don't reflect their interests.

However, I suppose a political system with viable third parties would have the same effect.

6/21/2015 9:29:08 PM

yep.

and the last thing we need is more voter participation. we already have way too much.

6/21/2015 9:40:07 PM

Im perplexed at what you think is so flagrantlywrong about my post. Why do you think less participation is good in democracy? You do realize that morality is completely subjective right? And ideas foreign to your upbringing and way of life arent necessarily wrong.

[Edited on June 21, 2015 at 11:02 PM. Reason : Even if they threaten your very legitimacy ]

6/21/2015 11:01:22 PM

^^
I can't help but disagree with your sentiment.

There are a lot of intelligent people who choose not to vote, because the two established parties fail to reflect their interests.

Wouldn't a more democratized political system provide these potential participants with more incentive to affect positive policy?

[Edited on June 22, 2015 at 1:36 AM. Reason : ]

6/22/2015 1:35:39 AM

voters have near-zero impact on government policy

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310

6/22/2015 8:39:35 AM

Oh, now dtownral is a media conspiracy nut? I thought those were only on the right?

Quote :

"The media will do all they can to cut him down because after all big money is behind them as well."

But but, its the media...

6/22/2015 8:56:18 AM

?

6/22/2015 9:03:10 AM

You mentioned several posts above that the media is trying to make Mr. Sanders look like a nut. But if I were to ever mention how the media attempts to influence public opinion of Republicans, or conservatives, etc, I'm called crazy. If I say the media is leftists, then I'm called crazy.

6/22/2015 9:09:07 AM

wat

6/22/2015 9:13:23 AM

Apparently Sanders has very protectionist trade policies, i'm not sure how good of a policy that is considering globalization is increasingly important.

6/22/2015 9:35:11 AM

but protectionist policies are important because globalization only refers to capital, labor is not mobile and so policies are needed to protect labor

6/22/2015 9:38:43 AM

Quote :

"You mentioned several posts above that the media is trying to make Mr. Sanders look like a nut. But if I were to ever mention how the media attempts to influence public opinion of Republicans, or conservatives, etc, I'm called crazy. If I say the media is leftists, then I'm called crazy."

Where there's smoke, there's fire?

6/22/2015 10:38:41 AM

Quote :

"At a time when liberals are feeling resurgent in national politics and a huge majority of voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses are progressive, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has experienced a springtime surge that has the potential to spark a summer heat wave of renewed liberal activism. At a moment when voters are looking for authenticity and sincerity in politics, underdog Sanders has become the ultimate voice of conviction politics in the Democratic campaign, while front-runner Hillary Clinton struggles with trust ratings that are dangerously low for any candidate whom most pundits believe is the inevitable nominee. In a process that rewards passion and intensity of support, it is very conceivable that supporters of Sanders turn out in droves to bring him to a stunning upset victory in the Iowa caucus, creating a powerful wave of momentum for Sanders heading into the New Hampshire primary, where one poll already shows Sanders surging to within 10 points of Clinton. There are two reasons that Sanders should scare Clinton. One is tactical and the other is strategic. The tactical reason is that if America wakes up to the headline "Sanders shocks Clinton in Iowa," the media wave lifting Sanders and raising doubts about Clinton will be enormous and far more than pundits expect going toward the New Hampshire primary, where voters expressing support for their Vermont neighbor Sanders unite with Democratic protest voters — who want to send a message to Clinton — and Republican-leaning voters — who want to inflict damage on Clinton — to give Sanders a lift similar to the lift given to then-Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D-Minn.) in the 1968 New Hampshire primary. The strategic reason that Sanders should scare Clinton is that Sanders's strength — being a passionate voice of progressivism with clarity — plays against Clinton's weakness: Appearing to be an uncertain trumpet whose progressive voice is not regarded as entirely sincere by many progressive voters, and whose tendency to appear calculating has created some degree of trust deficit with a wide range of voters. For example, most commentators, White House politicos and at times, Clinton, do not appear to fully understand the intensity of feeling among many liberals and unions members about trade. It was beyond annoying for liberals and labor when President Obama first insulted and berated liberals over foreign trade, and then, when the fast-track trade legislation was being considered by Congress, made a deal with House Republicans to pass the bill over the objection of a huge majority of Democratic members of the House and liberal and labor voters across the nation. While Clinton's latest campaign move is to present herself as a fighter, it was Sanders acting like the fighter opposing the trade bill while Clinton was bobbing and weaving without taking a clear position on fast-track. While the Republican presidential debates may appear to become a mob scene on a crowded stage, with each candidate barely receiving minutes to express their views, the Democratic debates will give Sanders a national forum to champion the progressive cause with clarity and passion, while Clinton will face the danger of appearing calculating or equivocating compared to him. Clinton has the potential to back her talk of being a fighting progressive by clearly expressing bold positions during the debates and throughout the campaign, but her maneuvering on trade does not augur well for this, which makes her prospects in the debates uncertain. Bernie Sanders, by contrast, will offer a clear and convincing case for being a fighter for progressive causes and values. Whether Sanders ultimately ends up as a powerful threat to Hillary Clinton or a blessing in disguise is the biggest single question in the Democratic campaign, and the fact that we should ask this question at this point in the process should be worrisome and disquieting to Clinton and her team."

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/245711-sanders-should-worry-clinton-big-time

6/22/2015 4:20:29 PM

Has Sanders even joined the Democratic Party yet? Isn't that a requirement to run to be their candidate?

Quote :

"For example, most commentators, White House politicos and at times, Clinton, do not appear to fully understand the intensity of feeling among many liberals and unions members about trade. It was beyond annoying for liberals and labor when President Obama first insulted and berated liberals over foreign trade, and then, when the fast-track trade legislation was being considered by Congress, made a deal with House Republicans to pass the bill over the objection of a huge majority of Democratic members of the House and liberal and labor voters across the nation."

Look, this has been established for more than 20 years now. The Obama administration, the Clintons (NAFTA, Ross Perot was right Hillary and you now attempt to act like you and your husband were against this when you weren't), and the ecological green wing of the Democratic Party do not give a shit about organized labor in this country. They kicked John Dingell out of his committee job prior to his retirement to throw in some California loony into his position when Dingell was the most died-in-the-wool union labor Democrat they had.

[Edited on June 23, 2015 at 10:01 AM. Reason : /]

6/23/2015 9:58:39 AM

^ doesn't appear to be: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/10/politics/bernie-sanders-democrat-or-independent/

6/23/2015 2:08:14 PM

6/29/2015 2:47:54 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

6/29/2015 10:06:58 PM

So the SCOTUS Obamacare decision lowered the stakes for 2016 a bit, but I'm still not ready to throw in for a fringe candidate like Bernie. Hillary's numbers with women are so fucking dominant that the DNC would be insane to want anyone else. Republican strategists must be losing sleep over it, victory is practically ensured if she's the nominee. Maybe she can resign after 4 years and pave the way for someone like him.

7/1/2015 1:26:38 PM

Quote :

"victory is practically ensured if she's the nominee. "

I don't know dude...she's not very likable. Pretty stiff. Not good on the stump. Not warm with people like her husband. Every move is calculated. She's the opposite of transparent. She's a hawk. Cozy with Wall Street. Plenty of skeletons, old and new...probably none fatal on their own, but still.

7/1/2015 2:01:45 PM

Yeah, but the current GOP is wholly unequipped to attack her on any of those issues. They'll basically be bashing themselves.

7/1/2015 2:07:33 PM

I would be interested to see how Bernie polls vs the front running Republicans. And its not like those women and black people will vote for Republicans but they would need extra motivation to show up to vote..

[Edited on July 2, 2015 at 8:15 AM. Reason : but because the average person liked the 90s and sequels will most likely be bush vs clinton 2.0]

7/2/2015 8:13:24 AM

Quote :

"Something being popular doesn't mean it isn't nutty or completely wrong."

Prime example: Religions

7/2/2015 4:52:37 PM

Have you all been reading any of the newly released emails? Nice to see some of the sausage making of politics revealed. Also nice to see that she really is out of touch with what normal humans are like.

7/3/2015 7:17:17 AM

7/3/2015 10:00:34 AM

her scrubbing and editing emails seems like it's an actual story

7/3/2015 11:00:13 AM