The meaning of 'socialism' has been completely warped in the United States.
I am immensely impressed with Bernie Sanders
- Thread starter vicissitudes
- Start date
- Status
The meaning of 'socialism' has been completely warped in the United States.
Maybe for some it's not an empty rhetoric phrase but something they believe.
Sure, maybe. It still has nothing to do with politics. It's also potentially alienating to the citizens who disbelieve or believe differently.
The US system certainly kills good candidates who aren't in the middle of the middle.
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
Bernie would have a small chance if the vote system were similar to this:
https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Lol bisexual too. I'm going to hell for sure
I really like Bernie. I wanna vote for him in the primary.
Henchmen21
Banned
Than you vote for stagnation
As opposed to those real down to earth republicans like Trump and Bush. You know, hard working folk who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I'm voting Sanders, and I would love him to have the chance to win, but I'm more looking at it in terms of how much he can do to make the conversation more leftist.
He might be from the northeast but the area he's from is all about the rural lifestyle. It snows for like six months, it's got hippy subculture, people are all about hunting, the cost of living isn't super high, it's not like the people known for burying biodegradable shoes in their backyards are then turning around and playing golf - they're out snowshoeing and creating vegetable gardens and starting up arts and crafts small businesses. The cities are sandwiched by farmland, you can't get from one place to another without passing fisheries and family-owned furniture stores made with Adirondack maple tree wood, etc, etc. You get the picture.
That's the environment Bernie has lived in since 1968, his entire net worth is rumored to be less than half a million, he's about as non-elite as you can possibly get as a politician.
source: I've lived like 20 minutes away from Burlington my entire life.
The status quo is preferable to what would really happen if Bernie Sanders got into the general election.
Spider from Mars
tap that thorax
He has the same chance of being her VP as he does winning a general election, which is 0%. Juan Castro is getting the VP nom, friends.
vicissitudes
Banned
Ronald Reagan was the oldest elected president when sworn in. Before him, William Henry Harrison was the oldest elected president when sworn in. Before that, Andrew Jackson. It can happen again. People are living longer than ever. Bernie seems very healthy and has not taken a sick day in years.
The electoral map is decided by how people vote. If we as American citizens want to change the electoral map, it is our job to do so, not the job of one individual.
Most who have heard his speeches and know about his stances would say he is anything but out of touch. He seems to resonate more with the average American worker than anyone else in the field.
While I agree that it's an unfortunate term, we should also remember that racial integration used to be a negative term until it was explained to the masses that segregation is not a good thing. Gay marriage used to be a negative term until it was explained to the masses that we need to protect equal rights for all.
This is only a reflection of the current point in time, but it's something we can all work to change. Every politician, at one point in time, had zero name recognition to the mainstream.
this, like most political positions it has become an overwrought hyperreal caricature of itself in the public perception
RustyNails
Member
It's not just a reflection of current point in time. It's reality. And the reality says there have been many candidates like Bernie where excited people such as yourself bought their message and called for an unheard of change in politics. "But only if the rest of the people beard him, he can win!". You should really talk to Ron Paul support groups.
He is never going to win a national election with his profile. You just don't get why.
Macho Madness
Member
shadowfall
Member
I cannot vote here as I am not citizen yet. But if I could, definitely vote for Bernie. He seems like a real nice guy who means what he says. He is all about middle class and working poor. I was worried that with his socialistic ideas he might be all about freebies and subsidies for poor but he seems like he wants to help the working people.
There is something wrong in country where the wealthiest 1% has more wealth than the other 90%. As some one coming from another country, I would really be happy if he can help out in the immigration process for legitimate tax paying work visa holders.
Finally we never heard about his foreign policy. Hopefully it is better than previous regimes. My only worry about Bernie is his support for Gun rights.
There is something wrong in country where the wealthiest 1% has more wealth than the other 90%. As some one coming from another country, I would really be happy if he can help out in the immigration process for legitimate tax paying work visa holders.
Finally we never heard about his foreign policy. Hopefully it is better than previous regimes. My only worry about Bernie is his support for Gun rights.
I swing left and, while I'm not a fan of guns, that issue is a non-starter for me. I love that Bernie isn't so left on that issue. Might help slightly endear him to center-right people.
Joel Was Right
Member
Says something about the electorate when the best man isn't "electable".
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
I've been a Bernie supporter for a long time. He's the one candidate who actually cares. If he gets the nomination, I'll vote for him. If not, it's back to a third party candidate like in 2008 and 2012.
Thanks. If that's the case, then it's quite amusing that for all of the castigation upon Hillary for receiving donations from the banks and corporations, majority of those donations come from individuals rather than from the institutions themselves. Whereas Bernie's funding presumably comes from individuals who donate to the PAC which then funds Bernie? (I would think?)
I think that is disingenuous. You know that Obama wasn't going to be able to bridge party lines purely because of his skin color. The last seven years did not show how a centrist failed to bridge party lines; instead, the last seven years showed the depth of the hate and fear of racist hyper conservatives. That sort of high emotion is far outside the control of one man even if he is the POTUS.
I also think that while it's noble to have high ideals for what the heart of the democratic process is, the value of people who can 'politick' is poorly judged. The public may dislike how politicians game and deal each other, but in the end the governance of a country doesn't run on principles, it runs on pragmatism and compromise. The 300 million other people in this country isn't going to agree with you opinion for opinion. In the end there are also people (your fellow citizens) who desperately want the opposite of what you do. And there will be representatives who represent those people. Ultimately you want the representatives overall to get along, because when they don't you get a dysfunctional Congress.
Just recently I visited Hillary's wikipedia page for the first time (it is intensely sourced lol). There's a particular line from her college years: "In contrast to the 1960s current that advocated radical actions against the political system, she sought to work for change within it." I think it's still quite an accurate description of Hillary today. The approach Bernie has, and the approach Hillary has, both are legitimate. People will call Hillary a chameleon or a liar or someone who goes with the flow of the times, but that's a merit in a different way. After all, there are people who break under changes as opposed to adapting to them.
This is overly hopeful. Republicans ran over Clinton and he wasn't even black or female. In the end he had to govern in the center too. Resting your hopes on one man to make all the difference in changing Washington is unrealistic. Those young people who might be enchanted by Bernie now, they won't remember to vote in midterms. Four years later they'll be disenchanted by the lack of dramatic change in Washington.
vicissitudes
Banned
Reality changes with the passage of time. Name recognition also changes with the passage of time:
Now look, are there Politicians who don't ultimately get enough name recognition in time to win elections? Absolutely. If the New Hampshire primaries are tomorrow, Bernie still has no name recognition, is way behind, and that hasn't changed for the past year, then I can readily admit he has no chance. But the reality seems to be, we are still many months away from any primaries, and Bernie is gaining in name recognition.
His stance on ISIS and US involvement is: Saudi Arabia, which is in the region, has the third-largest military budget in the world. They have more than enough firepower to take down ISIS. It is up to the Muslim nations in that region to take the lead in fighting ISIS, with the US and other European nations lending support. Makes a lot of sense to me.
Macho Madness
Member
Most of the country wouldn't agree.
LegendofLex
Member
Changing the makeup of the Supreme Court would be a more long-term step forward, unless we somehow got a Democratic Congress alongside Bernie.
legacyzero
Banned
Huh?? Who is this "Bernie Sanders" person??
....OH..
....OH..
At the end of the day most Democrats are going to get in line behind Clinton. We also get a chance to make history again. Clinton is setting up infrastructure for the fall. That money she is raking in is going to be wisely spent on turnout efforts and ground game. I welcome the corporations if it means downballot coattails. Bernie will not have the money to fight back.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
Don't know if this was posted, but he's doing more work, and not letting up.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/10/senators-fcc-broadband-pricing/
http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/10/senators-fcc-broadband-pricing/
All that needs to be said toAt the end of the day most Democrats are going to get in line behind Clinton. We also get a chance to make history again. Clinton is setting up infrastructure for the fall. That money she is raking in is going to be wisely spent on turnout efforts and ground game. I welcome the corporations if it means downballot coattails. Bernie will not have the money to fight back.
benjipwns
Banned
I knew the creationists were wrong, the Earth isn't 6000 years old, it's only 80 years old!
airmangataosenai
Member
Sanders supporters seem mainly fueled by a fundamental misunderstanding of what sort of powers the president actually wields. Even entertaining the idea that he could actually become president, I have no doubt that his supporters would quickly abandon him once he fails to actually enact any of his policy proposals they are currently so excited about.
I think back to how liberals keep bringing up how Obama hasn't closed Guantanamo as if he hasn't done everything in his power to do it. One we're two years in and we still don't have free schooling for al citizens and single payer healthcare, they'll write him off as "More of the same" and let the Republicans run the score board even farther than these supposed liberals did with Obama in 2010.
That or he loses and Ginsberg dies under a Republican president.
I think back to how liberals keep bringing up how Obama hasn't closed Guantanamo as if he hasn't done everything in his power to do it. One we're two years in and we still don't have free schooling for al citizens and single payer healthcare, they'll write him off as "More of the same" and let the Republicans run the score board even farther than these supposed liberals did with Obama in 2010.
That or he loses and Ginsberg dies under a Republican president.
None of this post makes Hillary seem like a remotely attractive candidate. She's the McDonald's of Democrats. She's an institution. She's been around forever. She offers relatively little substance. People flock to her anyway.
These debates always seem to boil down to: "here's Bernie's stance on this issue. Vote Bernie." Vs. "Hillary is probably going to win. Look at all this money. Vote Hillary."
bald guy said:
Wtf point do you intend to get across with this line of reasoning? "The president doesn't wield as much power as the common man thinks so... Support the less-agreeable candidate?"
It's not about electing the liberal Superman to come in and turn us into Norway. It's about normalizing left-leaning ideals.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Basically. The US Constitution does not allow for Bernie to be significantly different from Hillary.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Doesn't it stand to reason that if he beats Hillary, and Hillary would beat any Republican candidate, then he, too, would beat any republican candidate? I guess the concern is that undecided voters would break toward the GOP, but I'm not so sure they would. Sanders has been very deliberate in playing up economic issues that resonate across party lines and downplaying social issues.
benjipwns
Banned
Wouldn't you rather vote for the winner than for someone you want to be elected?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No, because the electorate in the primaries and the electorate in the presidential election have different compositions.
Mass Effect
Member
And that's the entire point. The SC appointments alone would go a long way to help fix the system. I mean, unless National sentiment changes drastically in the next year (which it could of course, but very unlikely), I'd rather not risk having Republicans win. And that's really the sad truth of it all.
I was going to say that we could maybe elect him next time, but I didn't know how old he was; he's 73. That sucks. He probably won't get his shot then, but like I said, this is the nature of politics. As much as I want someone like him, it just won't work with the current demographics. Even if by some miracle he won the presidency, I bet he'd face very stiff and hostile opposition from congress. He wouldn't be able to get anything done.
AstroNut325
Member
The thought of a Republican controlled executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government scare the f*** out of me!
airmangataosenai
Member
It really doesn't matter regarding Sanders. He was always merely a proxy for the support for the Draft Warren movement, and she actually is electable since she's better at tempering her rhetoric and focusing her message on specific, simple concepts.
We are the third largest country in the world, building a consensus is close to impossible. Get used to it.
We are the third largest country in the world, building a consensus is close to impossible. Get used to it.
gutter_trash
Banned
Sanders will do well in Iowa and NH...... the two whitest states in the Union.
Once the primaries move to more diversified States, he will find out that the Clinton brand loyalty resonates strongly among minorities and that will be that.
The Democratic primaries will be over by North Carolina
Once the primaries move to more diversified States, he will find out that the Clinton brand loyalty resonates strongly among minorities and that will be that.
The Democratic primaries will be over by North Carolina
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Regardless, I think it's important that anyone who agrees with Sanders votes for him in the primaries in order to send a message to the DNC that there is a real demand for more liberal candidates.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Yea, that's the most realistic outcome to this. There was an article on 365 or something about it
Citizens United basically ensured that any candidate who doesn't fundraise millions through their superpacs have no shot. So yeah it's a pretty fucked ruling in regards to the political landscape. It's why political dynasties have an even greater chance of continuing.
vicissitudes
Banned
Sanders detractors seem mainly fueled by a fundamental misunderstanding of what sort of power American citizens yield. Yes, it's true that under the current Republican Congress, Bernie won't get much done. I don't blame Obama for that. It's also true that the American people have the power to either put pressure on Congress to enact liberal legislature, or vote out the Republican representatives.
People said lifting the federal gay marriage ban would never happen under the current Supreme Court, but it happened. It's up to the people - to continually vote, at all major elections, put pressure on Congress, and work on these issues at a local level. We should not be looking to any one Presidential figure to solve all the problems - that simply will not happen.
We need higher voter turnout in congressional as well as presidential elections, and Bernie is in favor of expanding voter rights (for that matter, so is Hillary). We all know it's an ongoing battle. But we need to start somewhere.
benjipwns
Banned
Citizens United is the reason for the system that's existed since 1976?
Obama didn't beat Hillary in 2008 by running on a shoestring budget. At this point in the cycle he had raised $31 million vs. her $21 million in the prior quarter. (Ted Cruz is the only candidate this time around who started his campaign before this reporting quarter.)
Obama had raised $56 million in the first six months of 2007, that was more than Howard Dean raised for all of 2003 ($53 million) both operating under the press restrictions that Citizens United overturned when restoring First Amendment protections.
Obama didn't beat Hillary in 2008 by running on a shoestring budget. At this point in the cycle he had raised $31 million vs. her $21 million in the prior quarter. (Ted Cruz is the only candidate this time around who started his campaign before this reporting quarter.)
Obama had raised $56 million in the first six months of 2007, that was more than Howard Dean raised for all of 2003 ($53 million) both operating under the press restrictions that Citizens United overturned when restoring First Amendment protections.
I really don't understand how the top 1/10th of 1% can possibly have anymore than they already do. Like, once you have a certain amount of money you can do literally do whatever you want forever until you die. Why would they possibly want more when they can sustain their own families' generation for like the next THOUSANDS years with what they currently have? Is their top desire to literally control every human on Earth?
I wish Bernie would win. He would restore faith in America for me. But he won't and then the reality of contemporary America sets in. Fuck.
Will these issues ever be solved? Ever?
I wish Bernie would win. He would restore faith in America for me. But he won't and then the reality of contemporary America sets in. Fuck.
Will these issues ever be solved? Ever?
benjipwns
Banned
When you get Bill Gates rich, it's often less about what you want than about the fact that your wealth multiplies itself.
This is not to say the rich don't do things to get richer, just that depending on how your wealth is setup you'll just accumulate more without actively having to do anything.
I forget who it is, but there's some rich feller who makes it a point to live only off his interest. This is still like millions or billions a year.
Magic Johnson just to take one example, has become massively richer over the last five to ten years than all his days of fame. His various investments create more wealth than his basketball salary and endorsements ever did. Michael Jordan is similarly setup.
You do have to lookout for your wealth though, just to sustain yourself let alone crazy thinking like sustaining a millennia of descendants, to again use a basketball example, see: Iverson, Allen or Walker, Antoine.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll