EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread

londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You're right about the veep being a figurehead position, and for that reason Mr Sanders won't take it. He's far more influential in the Senate.
Click to expand...
Cheney was only a figure head ??? WTF
I'm sure Biden was a important sounding board for Obama.
Never mind...I forget I'm talking to a BernieBaby, right now you guys are not hearing shit.
 
Ace Yonder

Ace Yonder

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Mr Sanders has been around for 30 years and his message has remained remarkably consistent throughout that time. The idea that he's an unknown is laughable- and an example of the kind of media bias the sanders campaign has been fighting the entire time.

Next, Mr Sanders is a CENTRIST. The left wing corner he's constantly painted into is another example of media bias.

Finally, Mrs Clinton has secured the nomination with the assistance of corporate America OVERRIDING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. So his campaign has made it very clear that America is not a democracy; a development that should trouble every American.
Click to expand...
He has been around for 30 years and I guarantee you that 95% of voters on the right and at least 50% of voters on the left had no idea who he was two years ago
Bernie Sanders a Virtual Unknown Among Black Voters
"Even his own campaign advisers acknowledge that Mr. Sanders is virtually unknown to many African-Americans..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-lags-hillary-clinton-in-introducing-himself-to-black-voters.html.

Bernie Sanders largely unknown to Latino voters
"Polling shows he has ‘very, very low’ name recognition..."
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/14/bernie-sanders-latino-voters-name-recognition-immigration-healthcare

Bernie Sanders is this year's biggest story
"Bernie Sanders is a relatively unknown senator..."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/opinions/bernie-sanders-big-story-2016-opinion-kohn/

And you clearly know nothing about politics if you think Bernie is a centrist.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm
s100_010.gif
Bernie Sanders is a Hard-Core Liberal.

Also...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/30/bernie-s-past-with-the-far-far-far-left.html
and...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/29/hillary-clinton-must-choose-left-wing-running-mate-says-bernie-s/
and I could go on and on and on.

And P.S. Bernie complaining "it's not a democracy" is pretty fucking hypocritical when you consider that one of the least democratic parts of the election is the caucuses and he benefited more from them than she did by a huge margin.
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Ace Yonder said:
And you clearly know nothing about politics if you think Bernie is a centrist.
Click to expand...
"Centrism" is based on "moderate political views or policies". "Moderate" means "average in amount, intensity, quality, or degree". Most of what Senator Sanders is proposing or using to promote his political platform like universal healthcare or universal college is considered "moderate" by most standards. Every other first world nation on Earth except the US has universal healthcare. I'd argue that we're the exception to the rule.

The things Sanders is proposing most Americans agree with according to the polls
Ace Yonder said:
And P.S. Bernie complaining "it's not a democracy" is pretty fucking hypocritical when you consider that one of the least democratic parts of the election is the caucuses and he benefited more from them than she did by a huge margin.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Clinton benefitted much more than Sanders due to undemocratic primaries and caucuses, I even did the math a few pages back;

Closed Caucuses Sanders won:

41 - Colorado
23 - Kansas
15 - Nebraska
17 - Maine
13 - Alaska
7 - Wyoming

Closed Primaries Sanders won:

9 - Democrats Abroad

Total = 125

Closed Caucuses Clinton won:

20 - Nevada
4 - American Samoa
4 - Northern Marianas
4 - Guam

Closed Primaries Clinton won:

37 - Louisiana
141 - Florida
42 - Arizona
139 - New York
28 - Connecticut
12 - Delaware
60 - Maryland
106 - Pennsylvania
28 - Kentucky

Total = 625

So how exactly has "Clinton been hurt at least as much by caucuses as Sanders has been hurt by closed primaries"? Even if you throw in the other open caucuses Sanders won: MN, ID & WA, the total only comes out to 263 delegates for Sanders, 2.3 x's less than Clinton
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Ace Yonder said:
He has been around for 30 years and I guarantee you that 95% of voters on the right and at least 50% of voters on the left had no idea who he was two years ago
Bernie Sanders a Virtual Unknown Among Black Voters
"Even his own campaign advisers acknowledge that Mr. Sanders is virtually unknown to many African-Americans..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-lags-hillary-clinton-in-introducing-himself-to-black-voters.html.

Bernie Sanders largely unknown to Latino voters
"Polling shows he has ‘very, very low’ name recognition..."
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/14/bernie-sanders-latino-voters-name-recognition-immigration-healthcare

Bernie Sanders is this year's biggest story
"Bernie Sanders is a relatively unknown senator..."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/opinions/bernie-sanders-big-story-2016-opinion-kohn/

And you clearly know nothing about politics if you think Bernie is a centrist.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm
View attachment 3704745
Bernie Sanders is a Hard-Core Liberal.

Also...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/30/bernie-s-past-with-the-far-far-far-left.html
and...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/29/hillary-clinton-must-choose-left-wing-running-mate-says-bernie-s/
and I could go on and on and on.

And P.S. Bernie complaining "it's not a democracy" is pretty fucking hypocritical when you consider that one of the least democratic parts of the election is the caucuses and he benefited more from them than she did by a huge margin.
Click to expand...
Political compass. Org placed him here;
us2016.png
In other words, he's a centrist; left wing would be communist, and he's never suggested nationalizing industry. So let's not believe the hyperbole without a look at the facts.

I will give you this; your confusion about where our candidates lie on an objective political spectrum is shared by a large proportion of American voters. Think about what that says about our political climate.

I smell extremism and out and out fascism with our oligopoly if we keep moving in the direction we've been headed for the last half century. No American deserves this, we've lost too many of our freedoms as it is.

That why I'm voting for a centrist. And that's why he's been alternately ignored and smeared by the corporate owned media throughout this entire campaign; because if he wins, their party at our expense comes to an end.
 
Last edited:
Ace Yonder

Ace Yonder

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Political compass. Org placed him here;
View attachment 3704820
In other words, he's a centrist; left wing would be communist, and he's never suggested nationalizing industry. So let's not believe the hyperbole without a look at the facts.

I will give you this; your confusion about where our candidates lie on an objective political spectrum is shared by a large proportion of American voters. Think about what that says about our political climate.

I smell extremism and out and out fascism with our oligopoly if we keep moving in the direction we've been headed for the last half century. No American deserves this, we've lost too many of our freedoms as it is.

That why I'm voting for a centrist. And that's why he's been alternately ignored and smeared by the corporate owned media throughout this entire campaign; because if he wins, their party at our expense comes to an end.
Click to expand...
Not for nothing but politicalcompass.org also lists Obama in the 2012 election as further right than Sarah Palin in the 2008 election, so I honestly don't know what metric they are possibly using (Also the rants that follow the graphs make me feel it's really just some arbitrary placement by people with a serious agenda). Even using that graph, he is far and away the furthest left candidate on the table, so within the subjective politics of the US (which is all that really matters, objectivity won't be coming into play in the election) he is still a far left candidate because our center is further right. "Centrist" means something completely different in the parlance of American politics. That's why ontheissues.org's graph (Which is based on actual policy questions) is a better measure of where he lies in regards to American politics, not where he stands on some theoretical scale that contrasts him with real political extremes like Proudhon and Mussolini and such.
 
Ace Yonder

Ace Yonder

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"Centrism" is based on "moderate political views or policies". "Moderate" means "average in amount, intensity, quality, or degree". Most of what Senator Sanders is proposing or using to promote his political platform like universal healthcare or universal college is considered "moderate" by most standards. Every other first world nation on Earth except the US has universal healthcare. I'd argue that we're the exception to the rule.
Click to expand...
Actually, "In politics, centrism or the centre is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy; while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society either strongly to the left or the right."
I hate to tell you, but in politics, words sometimes have different definitions than in common usage.
Padawanbater2 said:
So how exactly has "Clinton been hurt at least as much by caucuses as Sanders has been hurt by closed primaries"? Even if you throw in the other open caucuses Sanders won: MN, ID & WA, the total only comes out to 263 delegates for Sanders, 2.3 x's less than Clinton
Click to expand...
If you re-read what I wrote, I didn't mention anything about closed primaries (or closed caucuses for that matter). I just said caucuses. If you are going to quote me, don't add a whole second half to the quote and then rebut that half only, because I didn't say that part.

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-promises-bloody-platform-battle-israel-465966
"Sanders has spent recent weeks pushing for his platform while complaining about the nomination process—a legitimate complaint, though one that should be mitigated by the fact that he benefited most from the extremely undemocratic caucuses."
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Ace Yonder said:
Actually, "In politics, centrism or the centre is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy; while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society either strongly to the left or the right."
I hate to tell you, but in politics, words sometimes have different definitions than in common usage.
Click to expand...
OK, so specifically what do you consider in Sanders' policy positions to be "a significant shift of society.. strongly to the left"? I would argue that there is vast amounts of valid evidence that the spectrum of American politics has been shifted to the right pretty much since Reagan became president and Sanders represents a movement that hopes to reverse that to align more along actual center. Clinton represents another corporatist politician that aims to enrich herself and other party establishment while essentially keeping the Obama administration's status quo and accomplishing nothing of real value.
Ace Yonder said:
If you re-read what I wrote, I didn't mention anything about closed primaries (or closed caucuses for that matter). I just said caucuses. If you are going to quote me, don't add a whole second half to the quote and then rebut that half only, because I didn't say that part.
Click to expand...
So what are the numbers?

Ace Yonder said:
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-promises-bloody-platform-battle-israel-465966
Click to expand...
Ace Yonder said:
"Sanders has spent recent weeks pushing for his platform while complaining about the nomination process—a legitimate complaint, though one that should be mitigated by the fact that he benefited most from the extremely undemocratic caucuses."
Click to expand...
Numbers please
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
Ace Yonder said:
Two reasons. First, the crybaby "Bernie or nobody" crowd is currently tilting the polls, but most of them will come around once they get the last of the sand out of their dark crevices. Second, and much more importantly, because no one outside of the far left even knew who the fuck Bernie was before this election cycle, so he's never been under any real scrutiny. Clinton has been in the republican cross hairs for much much longer, so people have been conditioned by their rhetoric to have a knee-jerk negative response to her. If Bernie had won the primary, the republicans would have all started attacking him instead of Hillary, all the moderate voters who lean slightly right would realize how much about him they disagree with or even hate, and his poll numbers would drop like a stone. Americans hate socialists even more than they hate atheists (http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx) and the republicans would have very little difficulty casting him as both.

Here, this explains it perfectly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/upshot/bernie-sanders-does-better-vs-trump-wouldnt-be-prudent-to-assume-that.html?_r=0
Click to expand...
All the investigations, lack of compassion, and errors in judgement ARE NOT republican rhetoric.

She started the rhetoric by calling it a vast right wing conspiracy in the 90s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top