Yes, an increasingly shitty state where gay and transgender people have more rights than ever before and we have the best standard of living in human history?
Bernie Sanders endorses Tim Canova (Debbie Wasserman Schultz's opponent)
- Thread starter TI82
- Start date
- Status
Elfforkusu
Member
Not familiar with the wealth inequality stats or climate change I guess?
If you narrowly define success as social issues, yes, we're doing better than ever.
Frozenprince
Banned
I'm gonna get blasted for this. I'm sure.
Income inequality is not the flagship issue people want it to be. It's a trend that has adversely effected people, yes, but for the most part (read), poverty levels are down to historical lows, and trends show it stabilizing at around 15%.
Wealth distribution and concentration isn't fair, and it gives many corporations and wealthy people advantages the rest of us don't. To be sure.
But it's not the definitive issue of our time. The country is the best it's ever been to live in. Violent crime, trending down, firearms related deaths, trending down, disease, hunger, poverty, et al, trending down.
There are obvious issues that need to be addressed, stagnant wages and cost of living are one of them (and more important than the wealth gap is the adjusting of income to livable levels from state to state, not just at a federal level). But the country isn't shitty.
The US is still a great country, it's just got issues, just like every other country on earth.
You need to live in another country. Unless you are making more then the median income in the US, the quality of life difference between the US and other modern nations has a significant gap and is continuing to trend downward for you, really having started in the 80s.
The barometer shouldn't be "we're not shitty", it should be "we should be the best at providing a good quality of life for all our citizens". Your country is the richest in the world, yet the median citizen and below rarely feels the success of your country.
If you need me to provide the multitude of statistics showing the quality of life gaps, especially when you look at median instead of average (since your wealthy inflate average numbers due to income disparity), then I'll be happy to do so.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
There was one senator who backed Sanders? Did anyone back the others? It seems as right from the beginning there was only one choice: Hillary. Not even remotely a level of competition, just most of the democratic base congregating behind Hillary.
What Sanders stands for (getitng money out of politics) is it really so surprising that he dislikes the DNC? It seems he dislikes the concept as a institution.
Remember this?:
( https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...p_hp-top-table-main_dnc-1100am:homepage/story )
The thread we had on that was clear: Bernie Supporters saying that this proved the corruption. Hillary supporters saying that this is good and this is what is needed to beat the 800-900 million campaign on the republicans side. But really it's a question of optimism.
Established democrats saying; Giving Bernie a shot is throwing it out the toilet. Bernie supporters saying that they can do this without the DNC.
Then the DNC is too powerful, and the grassroots movement is beat down again.
For better or worse, Sanders sees the DNC as evil, and the only one who has fallen to his side was that lady; http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/tulsi-gabbard-backs-sanders-219928
I understand Sanders, and I don't think it is a good insult to mocking him for being pure. He has been a independent and unpopular in 30 years in congress. He is way too stubborn to not say his mind. I think that is a good quality to have in a trustworthy politician, but not a good quality in someone who wants to win.
There was a really interesting interview with Chris Hedges and Ralph Nader about Sanders. Nader explains when and how the effects of campaign finances started changing the way the Democratic party worked; https://youtu.be/yePIn0zwGCc?t=4m3s
It is some really scary stuff, and I think- For better or worse, is what Sanders is gung-ho about when he talks about the DNC and corruption. Maybe the correct word is more like *corruptable* as John Stewart puts it: https://youtu.be/WLuM7wCWZvg?t=2m
I still feel that, at least from a principle point of view, you should always, always, always vote for the candidate you support, even if they are unpopular. I see it as cultist and predatory to bait or shame people into that if they don't vote for the viable powerful candidate that their votes don't matter.
Sanders rhetoric might have been wrong, because it accomplishes little to point fingers and say corruption. We cannot confirm or deny or relate to that. We can just point to that the system is not very democratic, its' not very fair and it doesn't give a lot of chances to politicians who are not extremely powerful politically. If we want to elect the best person for the job, surely that shouldn't come down to who can collect the most funds and have the most other politicians and endorsements?
I don't think he is losing fair and square, because it seems to me that you cannot win if you have 800-900 million behind you. the vast difference in people who you can reach and the influence you have. Then you might say, that, political fundraising and money in politics and endorsements from both the media, and influential figures is a staple of the American process. Fair enough, but is that a good system? Is that a good argument to keep things the way they are?
I get the impression (from most gaffers) that people are generally fed up with the DNC, the electoral college or the way the delegates work. It seems super confusing to me that there is not a modernized version of voting where every vote matters, and where there is not these problems with votes not being valid because they weren't registered in the right caucaus, or as the right party. Seems really confusing. Why cannot every vote just be a national tally instead of having delegates that psychologically affect the outcome and talks about flips and that sort of stuff? I can see it would have made sense 100 years ago, but even the vast differences in the state sizes, doesn't it just add to the polarization of the country as a whole?
excelsiorlef
Member
We in Canada have the benefit of you know not having a party as fucking right wing as the GOP to try and fight against. After 4 years of Conservative majority rule, things like abortion and queer rights weren't dismantled. Do you know what long term damage the GOP would do with the same level of control the Cons here had? Roe v Wade would likely be in the fucking dust.
googleplex
Member
You have to understand that the reason wealth inequality is such a hot button issue now is because the demographic that has historically held the most influence in this country. I.E white straight males are now seeing their influence, and buying power become less and less due to globalization and demographic changes. To be frank, the wealth gap has never been seen as a problem until now is because less crumbs are falling from the rich people tables and into the mouths of white males. Now suddenly, its time to eat the rich!
Not to say income inequality isn't a real issue. But the reason Bernie pushing this message now doesn't resonates with minorities is. When the fuck has our wealth or buying power EVER been equal? It become doubly insulting when Bernie in is surrogates continually try and link the wealth gap with institutionalized racism.
Frozenprince
Banned
I'd rather not. Considering your track record regarding knowledge of US politics or quality of life in general, you've been proven to have a woefully inadequate understanding of either, at best.
I'd never claim wealth or income inequality is not an issue. It is, one that needs to be worked on and addressed.
I just don't believe it's the issue. I agree on your sentiments in general, as well. It's why I view Bernie's campaign through an idealists lens. He is so unwilling to compromise on his ideals or belief structure that he cannot see the forest for the trees.
I'v lived below the poverty line. I know that life. I know what it's like to scrape and fight and not know what bills you'll need to pay this month and which ones you'll have to fight without till next month. I just won't be bought hook line and sinker on an ideologues rantings about how the rich are the cause of all our problems, when in 2010 and 2014, nobody could get off their asses to vote in midterms. Or how Scott Walker won his recall election because nobody went out to vote, or how the GOP has been allowed to strangle our government from functioning because of the apathy of the left when it comes time to turn action into words.
gutter_trash
Banned
how is that Vancouver progressive utopia going with that Million Dollar condo market?
I really haven't seen people claim racism, misogyny or discriminatory views just because some may not be voting for Hillary. The main issue is what party will a Bernie or Hillary supporter vote for if their candidate isn't elected in the primary. If you don't vote or vote for a different party, your actions do have consequences. If Trump is elected because a significant amount of voters didn't vote for the democratic candidate, you can count on the following to be part of the republican agenda:
1. SCOTUS nominees that will tilt the balance to the right possibly for decades. This will ensure that:
A. Citizens United remains unchallenged
B. Roe vs. Wade would be challenged and very possibly overturned
C. Gay right to marriage would be challenged and possibly overturned, to the point that states could regulate it
2. The push for LGBT antidiscriminatory laws would cease from the executive branch.
3. Minimum wage would remain stagnant.
4. The push for pay equality between gender would cease from the executive branch.
5. Affordable Care Act will be overturned.
Bernie has really poisoned the well with me, but there's no chance I'd vote for anyone but a democrat. The difference in platform is astounding, and the consequences for minorities, lgbt, and the poor would be disastrous.
I don't need a track record when I have statistics and facts that back me up showing the median quality of life in the US has significantly trended downward compared to many modern nations.
Also I've been to just under 25 USA states, I have lived a couple months on the East Coast (Boston) and a while in West Coast (San Fran). I personally think I have a good understanding of US quality of life. Especially when seeing first hand places in Baltimore and Chicago. I had never seen anything like that in Canada. Actually Chicago is a great example of income disparity. But you can dispute that as it's anecdotal. Do you dispute the studies by The Economist or the OECD on quality of life or "where to be born"? Both those look at average quality of life instead of median, and even on an average metric the US is lacking.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Exactly. I became a Bernie supporter this cycle, but now that Hillary will win I will vote for her. Republicans really want to fulfill the agenda posted, and I just can't have a part in letting that happen. Will vote every chance I get.
The hate for Bernie is strong if it can get people to defend DWS.
What is it about Bernie's entire campaign - and the support he's achieved - that makes you think he would endorse someone as corrupt as Debbie just out of political expediency? All of a sudden he should say - hey forget all that stuff I've been saying about corruption the political system, I'm endorsing DWS because she's the chair of the DNC and not doing so will make it difficult for me to get elected?
Seriously the Bernie-hate has made people here completely irrational.
What is it about Bernie's entire campaign - and the support he's achieved - that makes you think he would endorse someone as corrupt as Debbie just out of political expediency? All of a sudden he should say - hey forget all that stuff I've been saying about corruption the political system, I'm endorsing DWS because she's the chair of the DNC and not doing so will make it difficult for me to get elected?
Seriously the Bernie-hate has made people here completely irrational.
In no way, shape, or form is the number of senators that back you a barometer for how fair the Democratic Primary process is to you. That's ridiculous, and if anything an indictment of Sanders that after all this time as a politician he hasn't been been able to make any friends or cultivate any meaningful relationships within the party who he wants to nominate him.
Bernie Sanders is owed fair treatment within the process. And until he, his surrogates, and his supporters pony up evidence to the contrary (we'll all die waiting), fair treatment is what he has received. He is NOT, however, entitled to support. That you have to work for, and Bernie hasn't worked for it. Simple as that.
Also, it's shit like what follows in your post that has become annoying this election season: half-baked purity tests that don't take context into account.
The DNC didn't roll back their self-imposed restrictions on corporate donors and lobbyists because they suddenly love corrupt money. They did it out of necessary. They did it because, until the rules are applied across the board, it makes no damn sense to handicap yourself for the sake of purity. They did it because Republicans were outspending and beating them in elections across the country. They did it because real victories will always be better than moral victories. You and Bernie Sanders would rather the DNC go into battle against the GOP blindfolded and with their hands tied all for the sake of some bullshit purity standard that Bernie doesn't even meet half the time. Well, y'all have fun with that. I'd rather the DNC do what it has to do to win elections, so we can actually effect some change in this country.
Interesting strawman. Can you point out who is defending DWS?
Frozenprince
Banned
Idealism is great until it runs into reality.
They might actually believe DWS is doing a bang up job.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
Yes, when those social issues are literally a life and death matter for me and others, yes, I am going to fucking define success as progress on them.
side note not about you specifically: That's the sad thing about libertarians - they say they're for free markets and free social positions... but they only ever fucking vote on the economics. They don't actually give a shit about the social issues because they don't actually affect them. Hence why the philosophy is full of white guys here in the states.
Wealth Inequality: See the poverty post below. Inequality isn't the biggest issue- it's a side effect of otherwise incredibly positive upward momentum. Those "damn Neoliberals" increased Income Inequality in Chile. They also turned it into one of the big success stories in the region because the inequality came alongside mass increases in economic output and standard of living.
Climate change: The planet's going to get eaten by the sun someday anyway.
Opposing a primary of a sitting US Congresswoman != Defending her as DNC chair.
Frozenprince
Banned
How quick people are to forget that we had to march for our fucking rights less than two damn years ago.
And we STILL ain't even close to there yet.
excelsiorlef
Member
Care to acknowledge my post above?
Frozenprince
Banned
No. It isn't. This has been covered, to you specifically, a bunch.
See excelsiorlef's post as an example of reality in other countries. As far as the GOP, I understand what would happen. I just disagree that picking Bernie would lead to a GOP victory. I personally think the opposite.
Anyways, getting off topic, just responded to an off topic post. If you want to debate further, please PM me.
Frozenprince
Banned
Please stop acting like you're the only one who's lived in another country. It's quite pretentious.
I know this is a little hard to understand, so bear with me here.
A) The US is an entirely different country to any of the, I'm sure, EU countries that you will link me. B) The reason these EU countries can spend so much on domestic reform is because many of them have exceedingly small populations with very few concentrated urban/metro areas, and because the US fronts Europe's defense bill. The US has more demographics in one city than most EU countries have in their entire country. C) No, Bernie Sanders is not competitive in a general election, he cannot even win a primary election under his own merit while barely being campaigned against at all.
This is me simplifying things as much as I can.
You have no. Idea. What you are talking about.
I know this is a little hard to understand, so bear with me here.
A) The US is an entirely different country to any of the, I'm sure, EU countries that you will link me. B) The reason these EU countries can spend so much on domestic reform is because many of them have exceedingly small populations with very few concentrated urban/metro areas, and because the US fronts Europe's defense bill. The US has more demographics in one city than most EU countries have in their entire country. C) No, Bernie Sanders is not competitive in a general election, he cannot even win a primary election under his own merit while barely being campaigned against at all.
This is me simplifying things as much as I can.
You have no. Idea. What you are talking about.
excelsiorlef
Member
Do not use my post to defend your own bullshit. That's not acknowledging my point, that;s twisting it to avoid tackling it.
My point is the GOP fundamentally presents an obstacle that isn't present in other countries you like to compare the US to.
Not to mention the 300 million vs 30 million or less element.
Also The fact is Sanders is not going to be the nominee and he frankly would probably be a disaster as the nominee.
This line of dialogue is fundamentally about the fact that he isn't going to be the nominee and instead of backing off and putting his effort towards helping the nominee and the only party that can stop Trump he seems content to do whatever damage to the DNC and the Democratic Party.
Everyone who is attacking Bernie for endorsing Canova is essentially defending DWS. The idea that he should support her, or abstain, just because she is the DNC chair is absurd.
Progressive candidate running against the establishment endorsed progressive candidate running against the establishment. What a crime! How will the Democratic party ever survive??
Frozenprince
Banned
Well.
Yeah.
Whether Bernie likes it, or wants to admit it or not. He signed on to the DNC for this election and, gasp, needs to play nice with the establishment (I know, I know) he is now a part of if he wants to actually get some shit done. Campaigning down ticket against his own party, corrupt idiot that she is or not, is not going to accomplish what he wants.
Edit:
I'm just gonna leave this here for my own amusement. Don't mind me.
If his goal was to play nice with the establishment, he would have just sat aside and watched Hillary's coronation like he was supposed to. The base of his support doesn't come from people who want him to play nice, it comes from people who recognize that the establishment is corrupt and want to blow it up.
Trump took on the entire RNC establishment and now he has them groveling at their knees. Perhaps Bernie is an imperfect candidate for the left, but the desire is the same. DWS, along with HRC, is the living embodiment of everything we stand against. Perhaps Warren will be that candidate in 4-8 years. No one ever said progress was easy or rapid.
That's not true at all. I think it's ridiculous that the only person downticket that he has endorsed is the person running against what he appears to see as his nemesis.
I don't defend DWS and think she's not great at all, but how does that not show how petty he is? Out of all of the candidates who may share his views he could endorse he chooses the person running against the woman he's railed against? Come on that's childish, and thinking that has nothing to do with DWS.
Why should the DNC play ball with him at all at this point? He admits he only joined the party to run on the ticket and is openly hostile to literally everybody who doesn't pass his purity test. When the election is over I wouldn't be surprised to see him making the rounds on the very lucrative speech/event circuit to capitalize on his newfound followers.
Get real. He's frankly had more partnerships with both sides of the party than the vast majority of the existing Senators.
You should take more cues from this guy who's making better points.
It's right to question Bernie's allegiances. It's wrong to say he's incapable of forming allegiances because he's been doing that for decades already.
excelsiorlef
Member
He actually endorsed a few more, like 3 or 4 others lol
But he also managed to attack Emily's List while doing it sooo...
He was asked about that election specifically so he discussed it. Which other primary challenge would you like him to comment on? You're acting like the dude should have given a roll call of every candidate he's supporting.
DWS is the issue here. She's lobbied hard against many progressive causes, and she is openly anti-Democratic. She even refuses to debate her primary opponent while extoling the virtue of debates for the Presidential election. She is corrupt and I'm proud of Bernie for taking the brave position of opposing her.
excelsiorlef
Member
To be fair he didn't have to answer the question, he could have walked away like he did in Puerto Rico when he was asked about Nevada.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
It's not just the senators though! I'm asking you again; How fair and even was the opportunity of the other democratic candidates (ignoring Sanders)? And do you seriously feel that the DNS, and the senators and most people in congress, and almost any of the largest media outlet, all aligning with Hillary, as something that doesn't skew things in Hillarys favor?
In my mind, It sounds very opportunistic, populist and shady. It sounds like there wasn't much of a actual platform. I think you're being unfair of contemplating that there is no problem unless there is proof. At the very least- And I am not throwing accusations at Clinton, but at very least, surely you can see why it would make people uncomfortable?
We can all agree that many of the core issues facing America are done through corporate lobbying. That isn't illegal, and corruption is not something you can really prove, because it comes down to the convinctions of the politicians to let themselves be, or not be influenced.
And this extends to Sanders as well; I have my doubts, that if he had gotten the nomination- Would he have left all those hundreds of millions at the DNC on the floor!? A part of me doubts this, but suffice to say, if he took those DNC money it would hurt his credibility a lot too!?
You're wrong in assuming that I think I'd rather have Sanders lose the election for a moral victory. That is you reading your own bias into other peoples posts. You propose that it is a half baked purity test and it doesn't take things into context.
If you see the Nader interview I posted- That's exactly what he says. The republicans were out-campaigning the democrats, and so the democrats started getting into the finance campaigning. You claim that the RNC rolled back those restrictions out of necessity, but they where kept in place during the election 2012? And Hillary being as famous and as powerful and experienced as she is- For the DNC to unload the coffers restriction in 2015 leading up to the election, begs ill.
Again- I've never said that Hillary is corrupt. There is no proof, but I am still concerned about it. I don't understand why the DNC has to be so inherently linked to any of the candidates, or endorse any of the candidates at all. How is their endorsement
Furthermore, I am not sure it is as necessary as you say it is. Yes, it has cost the democrats elections in the past, but I don't think it is a good argument to use the past as a shield for what to do and not to do. At the very least, you have to take into consideration the advancement of technology and the values upheld by the public.
I understand the argument, and I agree with you that I would rather want Hillary win, than Bernie loose. Were I disagree with you, is that I am not as cynical as some Hillary supporters. I think he could do it if the dems rallied around him. But I don't think that they are because they are fundamentally happy with how things have been going.
That doesn't mean that Bernie is infallible pure. That's just buzzwords Hillary supporters throw out. It doesn't mean anything. It boils down to the question if you believe that a candidate elected through scrupulous campaign methods will have the chops to put a stop block on it. I have my doubts, but I am not certain. Which is why I asked.
You don't need to attack me on this, or assume I'm a Bernie-or-Bust!
Isn't it more likely that he will endorse Clinton at the convention? He has always talked out against (what he saw as) corruption in the democratic party. He might be fully acknowledging that he cannot win, but still hoping that by bumping chest he can make Hillary sweat a little.
I don't think he is trying to sabotage the democratic party. I think he is trying to cause a stir and making people think about money in politics, and that is not a bad thing.
Hillary doesn't have to move an inch further left for him, right? Maybe he thinks that if he stirs up the pot, and make Hillary come out and talk to his base a little more.
He has called Hillary a good friend in the past, he has always said the democrats are a million times better than the reps, and that he would do anything to stop Trump from winning.
I don't think it is incorrect for him to keep fighting until the convention for the values of his base and fight for the progress he has talked up so much. I think he will proactive in fighting against Trump, and I think Obama will also be there to heal both camps. She was always going to win, and Trump is a maniac. It's a good thing he keeps on fighting. For the democratic process.
With that being said, I don't think his outbursts at Hillary is very productive at this point. He is repeating himself, and he is a lot more attractive when he talks about the positive changes. There is also the matter of his scrutinized campaign manager, whom I understand to be quite bad (from other gaffers impression here)!
No need to demonize Bernie. Frustration and being a sore loser, as unbecoming as it is, is natural for a competitor who really gave it their all.
Pretty much.
I'm happy he did answer the question. Crooked establishment Democrats need to be primaried.I donated to Canova months ago, even though I don't live anywhere near Florida.
The fact that Bernie opposes Democrats like DWS is a feature, not a bug. Calling it a "tantrum" is just absurd.
shadowsdarknes
Member
He's always pushed this issue. He didn't just wake up last year and say, "Holy shit white people aren't doing as well as they should!"
KingDonkeykong
Neo Member
He got millions of dollars in small donation to make his campaign last until August. However, the demographic in the district isn't in his favor comic August.
You know, I don't think I've ever seen you in a Canadian aboriginal thread.
Lol you also think because you spent a few months in Asia you understand their cultures.
On the subject, I think what Sanders is doing is annoying and, without endorsements to other candidates it really does seem like sour grapes. I don't think it's nearly that big of a deal, we already know Sanders is a salty sore loser. The race in Florida can play out on its own merits if it is a safe blue district.
QuiteWhittle
Member
How much influence will Sanders have when he lost the state, county, and congressional district by >30 point margins?
No, it's a tantrum because he's losing and decided to only attack the DNC chair. If it weren't her, he still would have attacked the DNC chair.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Sounds like a bit of a stretch.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
If he was supporting other downticket candidates during his campaign then the case can be made. As it stands he gives out zero downticket support and raises no money for others besides himself. The fact he is targeting DWS in her congressional district, which does not effect her chairmanship, is petulance. Again more of the same from Sanders' amatuer hour campaign.
You could have just googled it
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-progressives-fundraising-221887
I thought Trump's not going to win anyway. Demographics, no chance, yadda, yadda...
They'll just pivot to attacking who he backed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked