ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Well I certainly Hope so. But if the Democratic party is fractured, there are no guarantees.
EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I disagree, there might be a few crossover republicans that vote for Clinton, but too small a number to make any difference
If Sanders were elected it would be a guaranteed democratic victory, but to a lot of people, dems and republicans, Clinton is straight up establishment politician, the quintessential mold of exactly what that means. Trump and Sanders support shows how much people are sick of that.
I'm actually torn between how I would feel if Clinton won the democratic nomination, but then lost to the republican nominee. It would send a direct message to the DNC for the next election in 2020 to clean the bullshit up or you won't win, and it would vindicate everything Sanders supporters are saying about Clinton and her electability
It would no doubt be a giant shit sandwich for the country, and that would suck, but it might change the way things get done. This is the most dramatic presidential election since I've been following politics.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Please, just don't vote for Trump. If Hillary is the nominee (which she probably will be), hold your nose and vote for Hillary, vote Green, or vote Libertarian, but don't vote for Trump or Cruz.
There's no reason why Bernie supporters (I voted for Bernie last night) should go against Hillary, but you can be assured that Cruz supporters will go against Trump.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i don't know you very well but i like you.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Think about this rationally. Hillary Clinton will work with a democratic congress and will nominate a more liberal Judge to replace Scalia than Trump or Cruz if Garland is not appointed. (Trump said he'd have Carson help him choose nominees, which also suggests he wants to put Carson in his cabinet).
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
...if the worst happens, then four years from now (or less), We the People will wake up to the seriousness of what's going on and elect someone who makes Mr Sanders look like the paragon of reasonableness his platform really is. At that point the pendulum will have swung, and liberals will be out for corporate and tax evading one percenter blood. AND treasure.
I think the plutocratic powers that be might be well advised to support Bernie's accent to power. The alternative might be late, but it would be far worse.
I think the plutocratic powers that be might be well advised to support Bernie's accent to power. The alternative might be late, but it would be far worse.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
In recent polls, Clinton beats Cruz by about 3%. So, basically a dead heat given the accuracy of a poll at this time.
Sanders beats Cruz by about 10% in the same set of polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
uhhh, no. That training method doesn't even work well with dogs. While the difference may seem slight to you philosophically, the effect in reality is huge. War on drugs goes on, Planned Parenthood gets shut down, Affordable Care Act is ended, war mongers in charge of defense, tax cuts for the wealthy. All of these happen regardless which GOP asshole is elected. Way too many real lives are at stake to allow them to take over so we can "learn our lesson". No thanks.
This is your brain:
This is your brain on right wing ideology:
Just say NO to right wing ideology.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Our enemy is complacency and fear. Maybe there just isn't any other way? Maybe there has to be YET ANOTHER Great Depression?uhhh, no. That training method doesn't even work well with dogs. While the difference may seem slight to you philosophically, the effect in reality is huge. War on drugs goes on, Planned Parenthood gets shut down, Affordable Care Act is ended, war mongers in charge of defense, tax cuts for the wealthy. All of these happen regardless which GOP asshole is elected. Way too many real lives are at stake to allow them to take over so we can "learn our lesson". No thanks.
This is your brain:
View attachment 3651403
This is your brain on right wing ideology:
Just say NO to right wing ideology.
It's pretty obvious right now to the common man and woman that things are well off the rails, yet there's a communal sense of letting someone else handle those details, while they float thru life in ever more indebted ignorance?
Does the fear of starvation need to overcome the fear of upsetting the corporate apple cart for things to change?
If complacency is the enemy, I submit that no one even knows the scope of the problem.
Our country has already been stolen from us and handed over to the high bidders. If that's not a sufficient rallying cry, then WHAT WILL IT TAKE?!?!?!
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I don't need to put my hand into a meat grinder to know it would hurt. We saw how badly this country ended up after 8 years of GOP domination not too long ago. 8 years of Obama and we've only turned the corner at recovery. The evidence says that there is a difference between party domination in the WH for the health of this country and its people. A centrist Democrat like Obama or Hillary is a better choice for the 99% compared to any asshole from the GOP. Hillary is not Cruz or Trump, regardless of her affiliation with Wall Street.
Oregon isn't going to go with the GOP regardless so I haven't made up my mind whether or not I vote for her or Green Party based upon principle. If I were in a swing state, and Hillary were the only other alternative then the decision is easy. Vote against putting the GOP in the White House.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Something else I think worth considering is the state of the economy and how that will affect the next presidential election. The Great Recession happened because financial institutions bet against risky investments, we bailed them out and all the same loopholes that existed before the crash still exist today, Dodd-Frank doing jack shit to ensure it doesn't happen again. When the banks failed, they owned 25% of the market share of the financial industry in the US, today, they own 41%, so they've only gotten bigger. We are on the way to another, much bigger, financial collapse according to the majority of economists that I've come across.
Having said that, do we want a democrat in office when it happens? The timeframe could be any time from now until 2030, I personally don't think we'll make it to 2030 without another epic recession like we just went through, and whichever party is in office then will undoubtedly be blamed for it, even though its origins are from multiple different administrations.
Any thoughts on that?
Having said that, do we want a democrat in office when it happens? The timeframe could be any time from now until 2030, I personally don't think we'll make it to 2030 without another epic recession like we just went through, and whichever party is in office then will undoubtedly be blamed for it, even though its origins are from multiple different administrations.
Any thoughts on that?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Oh yeah? How do you figure? I'm afraid I see a distinction without a difference here. Her record speaks volumes, and it isn't one I want running the country.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I believe you, because I can tell you have an education and a firm grasp on the relevant issues and their consequences.
Sadly, this puts you at risk for the error of thinking that everyone else has the same handle on the situation as you do.
My contention is that if cajoling the dog not to shit on the carpet won't work, you have to drag it outside unless you're okay with walking in dogshit.
My fear is another four years of dog shit between the electorate's toes is what it might take for us to finally collectively take a stand and enforce change.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Bernie will save us! Lol
No other candidate is even in the same conversation with you or Mr Sanders on these issues. That speaks plenty loudly to me.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Yeah, exactly. At which point I believe a reasonable citizen has to ask themselves what, if any difference there is between Mrs Clinton and the republicans on issues of substance and finance in America? I'm just not seeing one.
a senile fungus
Well-Known Member
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
This chart extends to all areas of political thought — not just to the confines of the US campaign. Accordingly, the placement of the candidates is in the context of universal political landscape. The chart will be adjusted if and when there are significant policy shifts. We are receiving many requests for the inclusion of the leaders of smaller parties. These will be added to a new presidential election chart after the major party candidates have been determined. Meanwhile you may be interested in our 2012 presidential chart.
Voter reaction against the party mainstream and Washington insiders couldn't be more in evidence, asDonald Trump and Bernie Sanders confound the apparatchiks and pack out the town hall meetings. The GOP, having lost its way since the end of the cold war, has little that's unique to unify its supporters. Wall Street? The Obama/Clinton Democrats couldn't have been more supportive. Militarism? Think only of Libya, Syria and Iraq. Civil liberties? Have you checked out the extended presidential powers in the NDAA, further surveillance provisions and Obama's unprecedented pursuit of whistle-blowers? With liberal Republicans a long-extinct political species, and the party shifting relentlessly rightwards, the GOP became the home to Christian evangelicals. There's little to distinguish the deeply traditional conservative Christian Republican candidates, yet the profane Mr Trump is paradoxically enjoying the largest share of white evangelical support. Never mind that he's clearly more at home with the gospel of Ayn Rand. A recent U-turn on abortion was all that the blustering billionaire, a man of apparently few fixed principles and no guiding ideology, needed to attract many of the party's Christian conservatives. His economics are sometimes less right-wing than the other GOP candidates; Trump for a time even supported single-payer health care. Is he really a Tory … or a wig? He defended Obama's bank bailouts — anathema to the other GOP contenders. Contradictions notwithstanding, he successfully targets the heartland of the anti-tax, anti-immigrant, pro-security social base of the party. He's a populist in the Berlusconi mould, and the more outrageous his statements the more his supporters love it.
Style more than substance separates Trump from Hillary Clinton. After all, Trump was a generous donor to Clinton's senate campaigns, and also to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is nevertheless disingenuously promoting herself as the centrist between an extreme right-winger (Trump) and an 'extreme left-winger' (Sanders). Abortion and gay marriage place her on a more liberal position on the social scale than all of the Republicans but, when it comes to economics, Clinton's unswerving attachment to neoliberalism and big money is a mutual love affair.
Quite why Sanders is describing himself to the American electorate — of all electorates — as a 'socialist' or 'democratic socialist' isn't clear. His economics are Keynesian or Galbraithian, in common with mainstream parties of the left in the rest of the west — the Labour or Social Democrat parties. Surely 'Social Democrat' would be a more accurate and appealing label for the Sanders campaign to adopt. While Sanders claims to admire particularly the Scandinavian model, he neglects to point out that a characteristic of all social democracies is a low defence budget, reflecting not only a degree of anti-militarism, but also social spending as a priority. Beyond tinkering, though, Sanders has no appetite for significantly cutting the Herculean defence budget or criticising imperial adventures. His urging for the World's most authoritarian country, Saudi Arabia, to assert a stronger military presence in the Middle East is a bizarre position for a social democrat to hold. These odd clusters of attitudes are reflected in our placement of Sanders. Domestically the man is an undoubted progressive — not the least for his courageous attack on corporate campaign funding. But on foreign policy, you could expect a President Sanders to be strikingly similar to his predecessors.
This chart extends to all areas of political thought — not just to the confines of the US campaign. Accordingly, the placement of the candidates is in the context of universal political landscape. The chart will be adjusted if and when there are significant policy shifts. We are receiving many requests for the inclusion of the leaders of smaller parties. These will be added to a new presidential election chart after the major party candidates have been determined. Meanwhile you may be interested in our 2012 presidential chart.
Voter reaction against the party mainstream and Washington insiders couldn't be more in evidence, asDonald Trump and Bernie Sanders confound the apparatchiks and pack out the town hall meetings. The GOP, having lost its way since the end of the cold war, has little that's unique to unify its supporters. Wall Street? The Obama/Clinton Democrats couldn't have been more supportive. Militarism? Think only of Libya, Syria and Iraq. Civil liberties? Have you checked out the extended presidential powers in the NDAA, further surveillance provisions and Obama's unprecedented pursuit of whistle-blowers? With liberal Republicans a long-extinct political species, and the party shifting relentlessly rightwards, the GOP became the home to Christian evangelicals. There's little to distinguish the deeply traditional conservative Christian Republican candidates, yet the profane Mr Trump is paradoxically enjoying the largest share of white evangelical support. Never mind that he's clearly more at home with the gospel of Ayn Rand. A recent U-turn on abortion was all that the blustering billionaire, a man of apparently few fixed principles and no guiding ideology, needed to attract many of the party's Christian conservatives. His economics are sometimes less right-wing than the other GOP candidates; Trump for a time even supported single-payer health care. Is he really a Tory … or a wig? He defended Obama's bank bailouts — anathema to the other GOP contenders. Contradictions notwithstanding, he successfully targets the heartland of the anti-tax, anti-immigrant, pro-security social base of the party. He's a populist in the Berlusconi mould, and the more outrageous his statements the more his supporters love it.
Style more than substance separates Trump from Hillary Clinton. After all, Trump was a generous donor to Clinton's senate campaigns, and also to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is nevertheless disingenuously promoting herself as the centrist between an extreme right-winger (Trump) and an 'extreme left-winger' (Sanders). Abortion and gay marriage place her on a more liberal position on the social scale than all of the Republicans but, when it comes to economics, Clinton's unswerving attachment to neoliberalism and big money is a mutual love affair.
Quite why Sanders is describing himself to the American electorate — of all electorates — as a 'socialist' or 'democratic socialist' isn't clear. His economics are Keynesian or Galbraithian, in common with mainstream parties of the left in the rest of the west — the Labour or Social Democrat parties. Surely 'Social Democrat' would be a more accurate and appealing label for the Sanders campaign to adopt. While Sanders claims to admire particularly the Scandinavian model, he neglects to point out that a characteristic of all social democracies is a low defence budget, reflecting not only a degree of anti-militarism, but also social spending as a priority. Beyond tinkering, though, Sanders has no appetite for significantly cutting the Herculean defence budget or criticising imperial adventures. His urging for the World's most authoritarian country, Saudi Arabia, to assert a stronger military presence in the Middle East is a bizarre position for a social democrat to hold. These odd clusters of attitudes are reflected in our placement of Sanders. Domestically the man is an undoubted progressive — not the least for his courageous attack on corporate campaign funding. But on foreign policy, you could expect a President Sanders to be strikingly similar to his predecessors.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I've given it some thought. Perhaps a flat tax would be a good thing. How about 50%? Deductions are for fixed dollar amounts, so they favor the low end of the economic scale, not the upper end. Progressive taxation is what makes this country work for everyone. Same tax for wages, dividends, capital gains, stocks, whatever. Take your money overseas, you better pay your half on the way out.
Fuck, even the rich will do fine, because the overall economy would explode and create more demand for everyone.
Fuck, even the rich will do fine, because the overall economy would explode and create more demand for everyone.