I am immensely impressed with Bernie Sanders

Status
Not open for further replies.

pgtl_10

Member
Well, the general assumption is that if your preferred candidate loses, you probably have a preference between the candidates that are left.

Under our current voting system, you can only indicate your first choice, so voting for your first choice hurts your second and third choices.

It doesn't really matter if the second choice isn't popular, but let's create a situation where the popularity for parties is like so

Republican 40%
Democrat 35%
Green party 25%

Assuming that people who identify with with the green party approve of democrats more than republicans, it is clear that they are hurting their own interests. The same thing for third parties that are closer to republicans. So, for most people, voting for a third party that aligns with their interests. Which people have realized and led to the two party system.

Of course, if you really don't have a preference between the remaining candidates, then it makes perfect sense to vote for marginal candidates.

Disagree my interests are not advanced voting for a party I don't want. All that does is advance the interest of the major parties on the assumption that they will win. That's a joke and leads to government shutdowns because both parties have no real challenge from outsiders. Furthermore, new ideas and radical ideas are shunned because they won't win an election.

Our laws and representation process limits new ideas and radical ideas from making an impact. The US in its early had parties that would push radical. Now you get something like Obamacare which was supported by a Republican governor and Democratic president but nothing like what Jill Stein proposes.
 
Uhhhhhh... I don't know about this at all. I don't know where that Spike Lee movie quote came from, but I have a hunch it may have been a joke.

"Republicans buy shoes too"
Whaaaaat?

Black_Party_ID(7).jpg


Black voters have always voted Democrat. Everything you just said is total nonsense.

Here's another:

black-party-affiliation-and-vote-patterns.jpg
I'm not saying Republicans have a strong minority support, but I'm just conjecturing that that could be the reason that some minorities vote for them.
 

Interfectum

Member
no, I just think that HIllary is the better candidate and choice and not a corporate stooge. No hate in any of that.

Then please spare your 'concern' on how Bernie supporters will or will not take his 'inevitable loss.'

There's nothing wrong with hoping and pulling for a candidate that could actually bring change to this country. Not all of us will settle for business as usual because we are scared of some Supreme Count nominations.
 
A Republican President was the one who created the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Republican Party is the one that ultimately freed the slaves. It doesn't matter that the party's platform is now almost the opposite of what it was back in those days; the name association is super strong and carries with it a lot of good will.

Back in the 90s, I remember watching a commercial for a Spike Lee movie, where the (black) character says something like, "I don't care who you are or what you do, but as long as you vote Republican, you're alright." If your education of political parties consists of solely pop culture, you would think the GOP supported minorities.

Yea... I don't think I've talked to a single person who votes republican based on what the party did 140 years ago.

And like posted above, actual voting demographics completely disprove this insane notion that the GOP has goodwill with black voters.

If there is any reason the GOP has some black support, it's traditional marriage stuff and religion.
 
Both have their campaigns justified as:

"Oh, they will raise important issues."
"They stand for what they believe in."
"Their presence will cause the other candidates to move their way."
Etc, etc, etc


Exact same shit. Neither has a shot and just run for teh giggles.

Again, I'm not familiar with Ron Paul's campaign, but assuming what you say is true:

1. Every campaign claims it will raise important issues.

2. I believe that Bernie does stand for what he believes in. For example, not taking any SuperPAC money. If Ron Paul had the same convictions then good for him. I don't see why we shouldn't vote for a candidate just because he shares a positive trait with another failed candidate from another party.

3. I'm not supporting Bernie to move Hillary more left. I'm supporting Bernie because I agree with his stances on issues and I want him to win.
 
I think the GOP candidates are weak enough that Bernie would do at least alright into the general election, though I don't think he has the political machinery to win against guys with national name recognition like Bush and Walker. (Who knows, though? Perhaps the grassroots passion he'd inspire could make up for a good chunk of the money and organization he'd lack.)

However, whatever happens, I think it's absolutely a necessity that Bernie be kept a part of the national political conversation. A Cato figure is exactly what Washington is lacking right now. The closest thing is Rand Paul, really, and even he doesn't seem to have the integrity and consistency (for better or worse) that his father had.
 
Seems like a cool guy.

100% unelectable though. So I am not wasting much interest or any $$$ on him.




And it's true.


I read somewhere that when Abe Lincoln ran for president, the candidates would have 8 hour-long debates and speeches, where they addressed every possible nook and cranny. People could be much more informed than these days, where it is the guy who is on most billboards that gets the nod.

It doesn't make sense to base your values on exposure. Exposure has nothing to do with your political opinion, but then again, the United States has historically had a low voting turnout which is a damn shame.
 
There's nothing wrong with hoping and pulling for a candidate that could actually bring change to this country. Not all of us will settle for business as usual because we are scared of some Supreme Count nominations.

Sorry, I must be a total coward, because the thought of taking a very real and very unnecessary risk by nominating Sanders and potentially getting two more Samuel Alitos out of it is pretty fucking terrifying to me.
 

Nafai1123

Banned
Seems like a cool guy.

100% unelectable though. So I am not wasting much interest or any $$$ on him.

This is my stance on the matter. I would love for it to be true that he could win if enough people believed and voted for him, but knowing my views differ from much of the country, I sadly don't believe.
 
Sorry, I must be a total coward, because the thought of taking a very real and very unnecessary risk by nominating Sanders and potentially getting two more Samuel Alitos out of it is pretty fucking terrifying to me.

The corporate worshiping warhawk bank executives that Hillary would nominate is pretty damn terrifying.
 

Red Mage

Member
I'm not familiar with Ron Paul's supporters and how they act. Can you elaborate on why they are creepy and why supporting Bernie Sanders is akin to supporting Ron Paul?

Supporting one is not akin to supporting the other. Basically, Paul's supporters would be dishonest about how much support he had, his chances, etc. They'd rig online polls, straw votes, etc. When he wouldn't pull traction, then they started to accuse the media of purposefully ignoring Paul in some sort of conspiracy. They'd often fail to discuss what it was they actually agreed with him on, just more kind of a "He's so smart, I agree with everything." It wasn't really like your post from earlier in the thread, but way more... cultish.
 

Interfectum

Member
Sorry, I must be a total coward, because the thought of taking a very real and very unnecessary risk by nominating Sanders and potentially getting two more Samuel Alitos out of it is pretty fucking terrifying to me.

Tossing another fiscally conservative candidate in the White House while our middle class continues to crumble is far more terrifying to me.
 
Sorry, I must be a total coward, because the thought of taking a very real and very unnecessary risk by nominating Sanders and potentially getting two more Samuel Alitos out of it is pretty fucking terrifying to me.

I don't disagree, but it's hard for me to fault people for total fatigue with the "lesser of two evils" shit when it requires personal complicity with an unacceptable state of affairs.
 

andycapps

Member
I don't believe that's true. The democratic nominee, and the President-elect, is dictated by how many votes they get from individual people, not dictated by how much money a candidate raises. If that's the case, then the wealthiest candidate would win and there would be no need for votes.

Campaign money is important in that it can buy ads to get the message out. But money is not needed to get the message out. I can also volunteer (which I plan to do) to get Bernie's message across and it doesn't cost him a penny. We have discussion forums like NeoGAF that, albeit small, can also sway minds, and it doesn't cost Bernie a cent. Bernie's Rally in Wisconsin a week ago on Youtube has 186,182 views, and 5,671 likes, and that's getting his message out, without costing him a dime.

Sure, but how many people will see Hillary Clinton's ads on TV in comparison with his video with 186k views? Somewhere in the millions I'm guessing. And I know he'll have money for some ads, but to dismiss the amount of money in the warchests as being irrelevant might be a little too much on wishful thinking for me.

I hope you're right, though.
 
So you're saying you like him more and still won't vote for him!?

This right here is complete bullshit. I don't care if you like Hillary or Jeb or even fucking Donald trump more, but being scared that a candidate you like may win the primary just fucking pisses me off

People like you are the reason people like Bernie don't win

Don't be a dipshit.

I don't vote for people, I vote for issues, and Hillary is my best bet in advancing my issues.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I dont see why the people who were cheated by Obama would run out to vote on more of the same? They voted for hope and change. They have 8 years of policy to see that meant diddly squat.

Hasnt he also been struggling to have a positive approval rating?

"Obama + even more Wall Street!" is a slogan you think will get the masses out to the polls?

Mark my words: A Clinton vs Bush election would have the lowest turnout of our lifetimes.



This.

This this this.

Im not holding my nose and voting for military contractors. If Bernie loses, then Im voting for either whatever the green party throws up, or Trump.

What? The dream does not end and die if Bernie loses. It will be passed on to Hillary.
 
Sorry, I must be a total coward, because the thought of taking a very real and very unnecessary risk by nominating Sanders and potentially getting two more Samuel Alitos out of it is pretty fucking terrifying to me.

It is a risk, but it is not the only risk.

I happen to believe that trusting Hillary to overturn Citizens United, when she is taking in tons of SuperPAC money, is a big risk. Continuing to have billionaires and large corporations buying the US government and undermining our democracy is a big risk.

If the fear is a Republican President who will appoint more conservative Supreme Court justices, then the response is to rally our support behind the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, in the general election, and volunteer and contribute and work against the Republican nominee in the general election. It should not be to select someone who does not best represent our interests.

I used to be for compromise and voting a centralist who can bridge party lines. But the last seven years has shown, unfortunately, that this is a strategy that does not work. The heart of the democratic process is to vote for representatives who best represent our values, in every branch of government and at every level, not to vote for whoever can get along most with whichever representatives are already in power.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
I dont see why the people who were cheated by Obama would run out to vote on more of the same? They voted for hope and change. They have 8 years of policy to see that meant diddly squat.

Hasnt he also been struggling to have a positive approval rating?

"Obama + even more Wall Street!" is a slogan you think will get the masses out to the polls?

Mark my words: A Clinton vs Bush election would have the lowest turnout of our lifetimes.



This.

This this this.

Im not holding my nose and voting for military contractors. If Bernie loses, then Im voting for either whatever the green party throws up, or Trump.
you are so lost down the bad logic rabbit hole that I have no words. If Bernie doesn't win you would consider Trump?

Do you have no concept of the consequence of another 4 years of republicans controlling the White House and likely House of Representatives? You like Bernie? You damn well better make sure that things like Citizens United have a chance to get overturned. So that way the next Bernie Sanders actually has a chance.
 

JustenP88

I earned 100 Gamerscore™ for collecting 300 widgets and thereby created Trump's America
Despite the odds, I'm keeping that "lesser of two evils" shit on hold until the general election. That's when I'll give in for SCOTUS reasons.
 
It is a risk, but it is not the only risk.

I happen to believe that trusting Hillary to overturn Citizens United, when she is taking in tons of SuperPAC money, is a big risk. Continuing to have billionaires and large corporations buying the US government and undermining our democracy is a big risk.

Hillary isn't going to be in any sort of position to directly "overturn" Citizens United, so I really don't know what you're talking about here.

If the fear is a Republican President who will appoint more conservative Supreme Court justices, then the response is to rally our support behind the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, in the general election, and volunteer and contribute and work against the Republican nominee in the general election. It should not be to select someone who does not best represent our interests.

I used to be for compromise and voting a centralist who can bridge party lines. But the last seven years has shown, unfortunately, that this is a strategy that does not work. The heart of the democratic process is to vote for representatives who best represent our values, in every branch of government and at every level, not to vote for whoever can get along most with whichever representatives are already in power.

Compromise worked for ages in Congress. It's the only way that place has ever fucking worked. Then Congress started doing dumb things like banning earmarks and everything went to shit. But luckily that stuff is mostly reversible.

It sounds like you're blaming Obama here for things that are largely self-inflicted wounds of Congress.
 
Supporting one is not akin to supporting the other. Basically, Paul's supporters would be dishonest about how much support he had, his chances, etc. They'd rig online polls, straw votes, etc. When he wouldn't pull traction, then they started to accuse the media of purposefully ignoring Paul in some sort of conspiracy. They'd often fail to discuss what it was they actually agreed with him on, just more kind of a "He's so smart, I agree with everything." It wasn't really like your post from earlier in the thread, but way more... cultish.

Thanks, that's interesting. I'm certainly not in favor of rigging polls or being dishonest.

This is my stance on the matter. I would love for it to be true that he could win if enough people believed and voted for him, but knowing my views differ from much of the country, I sadly don't believe.

I'm not sure that's true, but there's a great way to find out: we each vote for whomever represents our views best, and then see how the voting turns out. But to vote against our views, simply because of what we think other people's views are, is not a good use of our votes, in my opinion.
 

DedValve

Banned
I also just learned more about Bernie thanks to this thread and the quizz. Are there any good non- opinionated pieces about Bernie/Hilary? I'd love to take a more active role in politics without immediately trying to be swayed one way or the other.

I definitely lean more towards Sanders atm with what I've learned from him.
 

The Lamp

Member
4. I noticed Hillary ended her rally with the traditional "thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America" while Bernie ended his rally with "Thank you very much." In a country that was founded on religious freedom, with many religious groups and an ever-decreasing Christian population, one that preaches the separation of church and state, it makes so much sense to drop the "God" part from a political speech and just end with "Thank you very much" yet he's the only candidate I've seen who does this. (I also like that he identifies as Jewish but says he's "not very religious")

I agree with most of what you said but I don't see how this means anything at all. Politician or not, a human has the religious freedom to say "God bless you" if they feel like it. I'm not okay with the idea of thinking less of a candidate because they express that. Why would it matter to you if he's Jewish but identifies as "not very religious"? Sounds like an odd thing to be enthused by.
 

Real Hero

Member
Sorry, I must be a total coward, because the thought of taking a very real and very unnecessary risk by nominating Sanders and potentially getting two more Samuel Alitos out of it is pretty fucking terrifying to me.

Voting out of fear does seem cowardly even if it makes tactical sense
 

Mimosa97

Member
$$$

GCOVi0J.png


Of course, that shouldn't stop people from voting for whom they truly want to be president, but then you get into the whole "well I need to vote for X so that Y doesn't win" mentality.

Top contributors : Citygroup, Goldman Sachs etc...

LOL.

What a fucked up world we live in.
 

Moofers

Member
It is a risk, but it is not the only risk.

I happen to believe that trusting Hillary to overturn Citizens United, when she is taking in tons of SuperPAC money, is a big risk. Continuing to have billionaires and large corporations buying the US government and undermining our democracy is a big risk.

If the fear is a Republican President who will appoint more conservative Supreme Court justices, then the response is to rally our support behind the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, in the general election, and volunteer and contribute and work against the Republican nominee in the general election. It should not be to select someone who does not best represent our interests.

I used to be for compromise and voting a centralist who can bridge party lines. But the last seven years has shown, unfortunately, that this is a strategy that does not work. The heart of the democratic process is to vote for representatives who best represent our values, in every branch of government and at every level, not to vote for whoever can get along most with whichever representatives are already in power.

Yes. Bernie is the ONLY FUCKING PERSON to be talking about this massive issue. Nobody else is out there with the megaphone like he is, warning everyone about how we're quietly being bought by the richest people in the world. Our system over here is rigged and people either don't give a shit, or they don't know about it. Its totally fucked. I don't trust Hillary to lift a finger about it either. We'll get another 4-8 years of rich people getting whatever they want like they are now.

That situation in Wisconsin right now with Walker? Yknow, where he's enabling predatory payday loan places to prey on stupid poor people with even less regulation, and he's done away with the law that forces employers to give employees at least one day off each week? I honestly have no faith that anyone else will do a damn thing about shit like that. I can't remember which clown said it, but there's a republican out there rallying to sell off national parks and protected lands. Its total fucking insanity. These rich bastards are just bending the country over a barrel and having a shag until their greedy hearts are content. Its that fucking Simpsons bit where all the pigs are running up to the trough and gobbling up money while wiping their mouths with the US flag. So yeah, I don't have a lot of faith in anybody to change this as long as they are taking huge sums of money from fucking banks among others. Hillary falls into that camp, so people will have to forgive us for not being excited to get behind her now while Sanders is out there practically looking like Captain America in comparison.

Current US political system:
image_zpscd0bc7db.jpg


We NEED a political revolution, not more of the same or worse.
 
Hillary isn't going to be in any sort of position to directly "overturn" Citizens United, so I really don't know what you're talking about here.

She has said that she would pick Supreme Court justices who would overturn Citizens United:

“I will do everything I can to appoint Supreme Court justices who protect the right to vote and do not protect the right of billionaires to buy elections,” Mrs. Clinton said while on Day 1 of a two-day swing through Iowa.

While I believe her, I am more inclined to believe someone who's actually not taking any SuperPAC money.

Compromise worked for ages in Congress. It's the only way that place has ever fucking worked. Then Congress started doing dumb things like banning earmarks and everything went to shit.

It sounds like you're blaming Obama here for things that are largely self-inflicted wounds of Congress.

I'm not suggesting we don't compromise at all. However, if, as an individual, your personal stances on issues happen to be liberal stances, then you have two possible solutions:

1. Nominate a right-leaning Democrat as President, who doesn't best represent your views, in the hopes of more compromise with the Republican congress to get something done

2. Nominate a left-leaning Democrat as President, who best represents your views, and also participate in Congressional elections, and also work to get others to participate in Presidential/Congressional elections, in order to bring about representation in Washington that actually best represents your views.

I currently favor the second option.
 
Voting out of fear does seem cowardly even if it makes tactical sense

I am not "voting out of fear."

I agree with Clinton on more than enough things to comfortably vote for her for reasons unrelated to SCOTUS.

But yeah, the thought of Sanders getting the nomination and potentially losing what should otherwise be a very winnable election, and then having to witness the judicial fallout of that, is pretty damn scary.
 
Yeah, her husband's nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, have been disastrous for liberalism.

Totally in bed with Corporate America, those two.

And Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. I dont get your point?

you are so lost down the bad logic rabbit hole that I have no words. If Bernie doesn't win you would consider Trump? .

Absolutely.

Im tried of having to choose between increasing the military budget or a military budget that increases. Choosing between policies that benefit corporations only, or policies that only benefit corporations.

This country's political system is broken and Trump might be just the catalyst for the reset we need.
 
Even though I'm not American, took that quiz and came with 96% on Bernie Sanders. Now, off to read up and watch some other discussions with him.
 

Sephzilla

Member
I am not "voting out of fear."

I agree with Clinton on more than enough things to comfortably vote for her for reasons unrelated to SCOTUS.

But yeah, the thought of Sanders getting the nomination and potentially losing what should otherwise be a very winnable election, and then having to witness the judicial fallout of that, is pretty damn scary.

If it's such a winnable election then why does Sanders automatically negate that, especially if he manages to do the unthinkable and topple Hilary - who most viewed as a slam dunk candidate? Sanders would have so much momentum going into the election that he'd probably be a juggernaut.
 
If it's such a winnable election then why does Sanders automatically negate that, especially if he manages to do the unthinkable and topple Hilary - who most viewed as a slam dunk candidate?

Yeah I keep hearing how demographics mean the GOP can no longer win, and how theyre all batshit crazy and unelectable... but theyd all beat Bernie? Huh?

The point being that your assertion that Clinton would appoint "warhawk bank executives" to the Supreme Court is laughably stupid.

Do you have any proof that she wouldnt?

We're talking about Hillary, not her retired husband.
 
If it's such a winnable election then why does Sanders automatically negate that, especially if he manages to do the unthinkable and topple Hilary - who most viewed as a slam dunk candidate? Sanders would have so much momentum going into the election that he'd probably be a juggernaut.

Because primary elections don't have the same demographics nor turnout as the generals, so the likelihood is that Hilary would translate better to the national stage than Bernie. She'd have the money and machinery to get more people to the ballot box on Election Day, and a higher turnout always favors Democrats.
 
I agree with most of what you said but I don't see how this means anything at all. Politician or not, a human has the religious freedom to say "God bless you" if they feel like it. I'm not okay with the idea of thinking less of a candidate because they express that. Why would it matter to you if he's Jewish but identifies as "not very religious"? Sounds like an odd thing to be enthused by.

I don't think less of candidates who says "God Bless You." However, this country was founded on the idea of religious freedom. That you can practice any religion you want, and the government will stay out of it, and not push any particular religion onto you. Yet by having every Politician end a speech with Christian sayings, seems to go against this ideology. The idea that you need to be Christian to be electable, seems to go against this ideology.

Candidates should be elected based on their stances on issues, not based on what religion they practice. Just because the majority of the country is Christian, does not mean we must have a Christian President. Just because the majority of this country is white, does not mean we must have a white President. The fact that Bernie Sanders is not Christian but can be elected, simply reinforces this belief.
 
Do you have any proof that she wouldnt?

We're talking about Hillary, not her retired husband.

No, I don't, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining why a bank executive would never be nominated to the Supreme Court by a president of either party.

Clearly it's not worth anyone's time discussing anything with you.
 

JustenP88

I earned 100 Gamerscore™ for collecting 300 widgets and thereby created Trump's America
I agree with most of what you said but I don't see how this means anything at all. Politician or not, a human has the religious freedom to say "God bless you" if they feel like it. I'm not okay with the idea of thinking less of a candidate because they express that. Why would it matter to you if he's Jewish but identifies as "not very religious"? Sounds like an odd thing to be enthused by.

Because it's pandering. It's an empty statement made by politicians to endear themselves to the public. Someone saying it doesn't necessarily change the way I think of them, but it's refreshing to see a politician who does not feel the need to tack empty, stereotypical rhetoric on the end of their speeches.
 

LaNaranja

Member
In this thread, feel free to comment on how you came to support the candidate you are supporting, and how you are contributing.

I supported him as soon as I saw his 12 Steps Forward economic agenda. He said this stuff last year. I agreed with everything he had to say.

1. We need a major investment to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure: roads, bridges, water systems, waste water plants, airports, railroads and schools. It has been estimated that the cost of the Bush-Cheney Iraq War, a war we should never have waged, will total $3 trillion by the time the last veteran receives needed care. A $1 trillion investment in infrastructure could create 13 million decent paying jobs and make this country more efficient and productive. We need to invest in infrastructure, not more war.

2. The United States must lead the world in reversing climate change and make certain that this planet is habitable for our children and grandchildren. We must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energies. Millions of homes and buildings need to be weatherized, our transportation system needs to be energy efficient and we need to greatly accelerate the progress we are already seeing in wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and other forms of sustainable energy. Transforming our energy system will not only protect the environment, it will create good paying jobs.

3. We need to develop new economic models to increase job creation and productivity. Instead of giving huge tax breaks to corporations which ship our jobs to China and other low-wage countries, we need to provide assistance to workers who want to purchase their own businesses by establishing worker-owned cooperatives. Study after study shows that when workers have an ownership stake in the businesses they work for, productivity goes up, absenteeism goes down and employees are much more satisfied with their jobs.

4. Union workers who are able to collectively bargain for higher wages and benefits earn substantially more than non-union workers. Today, corporate opposition to union organizing makes it extremely difficult for workers to join a union. We need legislation which makes it clear that when a majority of workers sign cards in support of a union, they can form a union.

5. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. No one in this country who works 40 hours a week should live in poverty.

6. Women workers today earn 78 percent of what their male counterparts make. We need pay equity in our country -- equal pay for equal work.

7. Since 2001 we have lost more than 60,000 factories in this country, and more than 4.9 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs. We must end our disastrous trade policies (NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, etc.) which enable corporate America to shut down plants in this country and move to China and other low-wage countries. We need to end the race to the bottom and develop trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here, and not abroad.

8. In today's highly competitive global economy, millions of Americans are unable to afford the higher education they need in order to get good-paying jobs. Further, with both parents now often at work, most working-class families can't locate the high-quality and affordable child care they need for their kids. Quality education in America, from child care to higher education, must be affordable for all. Without a high-quality and affordable educational system, we will be unable to compete globally and our standard of living will continue to decline.

9. The function of banking is to facilitate the flow of capital into productive and job-creating activities. Financial institutions cannot be an island unto themselves, standing as huge profit centers outside of the real economy. Today, six huge Wall Street financial institutions have assets equivalent to 61 percent of our gross domestic product - over $9.8 trillion. These institutions underwrite more than half the mortgages in this country and more than two-thirds of the credit cards. The greed, recklessness and illegal behavior of major Wall Street firms plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. They are too powerful to be reformed. They must be broken up.

10. The United States must join the rest of the industrialized world and recognize that health care is a right of all, and not a privilege. Despite the fact that more than 40 million Americans have no health insurance, we spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation. We need to establish a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system.

11. Millions of seniors live in poverty and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country. We must strengthen the social safety net, not weaken it. Instead of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and nutrition programs, we should be expanding these programs.

12. At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, we need a progressive tax system in this country which is based on ability to pay. It is not acceptable that major profitable corporations have paid nothing in federal income taxes, and that corporate CEOs in this country often enjoy an effective tax rate which is lower than their secretaries. It is absurd that we lose over $100 billion a year in revenue because corporations and the wealthy stash their cash in offshore tax havens around the world. The time is long overdue for real tax reform.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
And Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. I dont get your point?



Absolutely.

Im tried of having to choose between increasing the military budget or a military budget that increases. Choosing between policies that benefit corporations only, or policies that only benefit corporations.

This country's political system is broken and Trump might be just the catalyst for the reset we need.
So watch the world burn is your hope? That is such a narrow-minded myopic, poorly thought out logic.

There are three branches of government you know? Trump being a colossal waste still means he is the guy that will stack the court in favor of conservatives for a generation. Who will find common ground with republicans that likely keep the house due to gerrymandering. That's not even speaking on foreign policy issues.
 

reckless

Member
Yes you are.

Everyone who posted that they want Hillary to win also stated that they were doing so only so that "a republican doesn't get into office". If that isn't voting out of fear, I don't know what is.

Better to vote out of fear than get a republican president, with a republican congress deciding the supreme court for the next few decades. At least in my opinion.
 
Seems like a cool guy.

100% unelectable though. So I am not wasting much interest or any $$$ on him.

Unfortunately this is really all that needs to be said. While my positions align more with Sanders, he is 100% unelectable in a general election.

He will be 75 on election night 2016 (would be the oldest elected president by over five years), he does nothing to expand the electoral map, he's from the northeast (seen as elite, out of touch, "not like us"), he's a self described socialist (and if you need to take the time to try and explain to the masses how your brand of socialism isn't a bad thing, you are already losing), and he has almost ZERO name recognition to the mainstream.
 
So watch the world burn is your hope? That is such a narrow-minded myopic, poorly thought out logic.

There are three branches of government you know? Trump being a colossal waste still means he is the guy that will stack the court in favor of conservatives for a generation. .

1. The current system isnt working. I dont see how hitting reset is a problem. Trump as president would mean change.

2. The president cant just put whoever he wants in the court. There is an approval process. Trump as president would mean gridlock. He wouldnt get a single nomination through, so wed be ok.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom