ErasureAcer
Banned
This country is dead if Bernie does not win. Climate change alone will kill us all.
Damn i legit shed a tear on that feel the bern video.
Also every time i hear bernie listen, i may be partisan, but i think he's better and better at talking and inspiring people.
I also think like half of europe is pushing for him.
#FeelTheBern
This country is dead if Bernie does not win. Climate change alone will kill us all.
As a Canadian I simply cannot understand why anyone voting democrat wouldn't choose Bernie. He is exactly what your country needs.
As a European, I share the sentiment.
You are insane, More and more that you post it seems you are really need some prespective since it seems like your posting are getting crazier.This country is dead if Bernie does not win. Climate change alone will kill us all.
I'm a canadian and I am not convinced Bernie winning is what the US needs but some of the ideals that Bernie has introduced with the momentum need to keep going even if he doesn't get the Nomination.Noam Chomsky says it is a great error, if the momentum around the ideals in this Bernie campaign does not carry on after this presidential race is over.
Step one is recognizing that unlike in a parliamentary system, our President is not necessarily a representative of a ruling party or coalition. Based on the redistricting done after the 2010 Census, the deck is heavily stacked against Democrats winning a majority in the House of Representatives in the near future. The best that a President Sanders could hope to get would be a divided Congress with his party with a normal majority in the Senate and the opposition controlling the House and at worse they could control all of Congress.
This is of critical importance because although Sanders is running for President, almost all of his stated goals are legislative. With the current political climate and the fact that very few of his proposals would get bipartisan support, the long and short of it are that he would have virtually no chance of successfully enacting any of his policies. When American Presidents are constrained by Congress at home, they often refocus on foreign affairs, where they have broad Executive powers. Now here's the question: is Bernie Sanders still the right guy for the job if the focus is on foreign affairs? Aside from the more ardent anti-interventionists, I think most people would prefer Clinton in that role.
Does that make sense?
Did anyone read this by the New York Post?
http://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/
Seems unbelievable to me, but you guys judge.
Step one is recognizing that unlike in a parliamentary system, our President is not necessarily a representative of a ruling party or coalition. Based on the redistricting done after the 2010 Census, the deck is heavily stacked against Democrats winning a majority in the House of Representatives in the near future. The best that a President Sanders could hope to get would be a divided Congress with his party with a normal majority in the Senate and the opposition controlling the House and at worse they could control all of Congress.
This is of critical importance because although Sanders is running for President, almost all of his stated goals are legislative. With the current political climate and the fact that very few of his proposals would get bipartisan support, the long and short of it are that he would have virtually no chance of successfully enacting any of his policies. When American Presidents are constrained by Congress at home, they often refocus on foreign affairs, where they have broad Executive powers. Now here's the question: is Bernie Sanders still the right guy for the job if the focus is on foreign affairs? Aside from the more ardent anti-interventionists, I think most people would prefer Clinton in that role.
Does that make sense?
This country is dead if Bernie does not win. Climate change alone will kill us all.
Step one is recognizing that unlike in a parliamentary system, our President is not necessarily a representative of a ruling party or coalition. Based on the redistricting done after the 2010 Census, the deck is heavily stacked against Democrats winning a majority in the House of Representatives in the near future. The best that a President Sanders could hope to get would be a divided Congress with his party with a normal majority in the Senate and the opposition controlling the House and at worse they could control all of Congress.
This is of critical importance because although Sanders is running for President, almost all of his stated goals are legislative. With the current political climate and the fact that very few of his proposals would get bipartisan support, the long and short of it are that he would have virtually no chance of successfully enacting any of his policies. When American Presidents are constrained by Congress at home, they often refocus on foreign affairs, where they have broad Executive powers. Now here's the question: is Bernie Sanders still the right guy for the job if the focus is on foreign affairs? Aside from the more ardent anti-interventionists, I think most people would prefer Clinton in that role.
Does that make sense?
I would argue Hilary Clinton is super experienced but seems a bit too war mongery for my tastes though definitely not anywhere close to GOP levels.
I don't think that's the right way to look at this, and I don't think that's how any significant number of voters will see it either.
Like I said, I can understand anti-interventionists preferring Sanders since he is clearly more of a Dove than Clinton. I do question how strong that sentiment is in the populace at large and even in the Democratic party, though. This is not 2008. We have had 8 years of non-intervention and I think that pendulum is swinging back in the opposite direction toward a more assertive and muscular foreign policy. I do worry about Trump going up against Sanders for this reason.
Well, I can agree that I do not have a lot of faith in American pragmatism when it comes to modern politics.
This country is dead if Bernie does not win. Climate change alone will kill us all.
I have yet to figure out who I'm voting for since I've voted Republican traditionally but lately the party has gotten... extreme.
But what I have noticed is this weird, "Sanders probably won't be able to do the things he wants to" so we should vote for Hilary instead. Or the more common, but baffling, "Sanders can't win the election so we should vote for Hilary" which seems like some kind of strange logic loop to me.
Like I said, I can understand anti-interventionists preferring Sanders since he is clearly more of a Dove than Clinton. I do question how strong that sentiment is in the populace at large and even in the Democratic party, though. This is not 2008. We have had 8 years of non-intervention and I think that pendulum is swinging back in the opposite direction toward a more assertive and muscular foreign policy. I do worry about Trump going up against Sanders for this reason.
Well, I can agree that I do not have a lot of faith in American pragmatism when it comes to modern politics.
When will liberals realize top down change doesn't work. Whichever democrat becomes president will not be able to install his or her agenda due to a republican House and senate. So you can get rid of the fatalistic language on what will happen when your guy loses.
I don't see any of the energy and focus that conservatives typically have on congressional elections, coming from the left. I haven't seen it since 2006. I certainly don't see it from Sanders or his camp, whih is almost exclusively focused on one man. I've yet to be impressed by Hillary's campaign but she's laying the groundwork for state democrats/House and senate candidates. Sanders couldn't care less.
When will liberals realize top down change doesn't work. Whichever democrat becomes president will not be able to install his or her agenda due to a republican House and senate. So you can get rid of the fatalistic language on what will happen when your guy loses.
I don't see any of the energy and focus that conservatives typically have on congressional elections, coming from the left. I haven't seen it since 2006. I certainly don't see it from Sanders or his camp, whih is almost exclusively focused on one man. I've yet to be impressed by Hillary's campaign but she's laying the groundwork for state democrats/House and senate candidates. Sanders couldn't care less.
Bernie has been calling for a political revolution and has been constantly saying that it's about the people and not him that will bring change. There are already efforts of Bernie's supporters rallying behind like minded House and Senate candidates through means such as r/GrassrootsSelect. ex. Tim Canova and John Fetterman. Tim recently did an AMA in the main sub.
It's not circular or a self-fulfilling prophecy. The idea isn't "I won't vote for Bernie in the primaries because he can't win the primaries." It's "I won't vote for Bernie in the primaries because he can win the primaries but probably can't win the general." You can argue how accurate the premise is but there's nothing inherently contradictory about the logic.I have yet to figure out who I'm voting for since I've voted Republican traditionally but lately the party has gotten... extreme.
But what I have noticed is this weird, "Sanders probably won't be able to do the things he wants to" so we should vote for Hilary instead. Or the more common, but baffling, "Sanders can't win the election so we should vote for Hilary" which seems like some kind of strange logic loop to me.
That's where the real change will come. It'll be well after Bernie's term(s) before there are enough to make a dent in Congress though. There just aren't enough like minded people in the populace yet.
True or not, articles like those ones from the new York Post will do tremendous damage to his reputation. And I don't like the focus on increasing taxation to give more free handouts to people who can't afford it. It's just going to cause the rich to find loopholes in tax law, move their assets elsewhere, or just plain leave the country entirely. Sure there are the super rich that are greedy and do bad things for society, but there are also the bill gates and mark zuckerbergs that do a lot of great things.
The younger generation's(my interpretation) tendency to vilify the rich and successful is baffling to me.
You mean like every other modern nation on the planet does, and does successfully, without the rich finding loopholes and moving their assets / leaving the country?
That's what I don't get about you Americans. You're not special. You're just making it harder on yourself by not believing it can be done. You've been beaten down and made to think in a cynical way. And this has been done and is continually being done strategically to keep you down. Look to the rest of the world America.
True or not, articles like those ones from the new York Post will do tremendous damage to his reputation. And I don't like the focus on increasing taxation to give more free handouts to people who can't afford it. It's just going to cause the rich to find loopholes in tax law, move their assets elsewhere, or just plain leave the country entirely. Sure there are the super rich that are greedy and do bad things for society, but there are also the bill gates and mark zuckerbergs that do a lot of great things.
The younger generation's(my interpretation) tendency to vilify the rich and successful is baffling to me.
It's actually quite the opposite, I think things are generally pretty good for most americans in the context of the world. No wars, little disease, cheap food and clothing, cheap gas, decent internet availability, decent education options, and work and opportunities are out there if you work for them.
It's actually quite the opposite, I think things are generally pretty good for most americans in the context of the world. No wars, little disease, cheap food and clothing, cheap gas, decent internet availability, decent education options, and work and opportunities are out there if you work for them.
I always try to look at things in a historical context and the "oppressive" mega corporations like Walmart, amazon, Google, apple, and wall street seem like a benign tumor compared to the full blown cancer of communism, fascism, Nazism, genocide, corruption, drug cartels, and disease in other parts of the world and other parts of history.
Bernie getting people upset about the rich and corporations is no different to me than trump getting people upset about Muslims and refugees. They are both really just emotional plays that don't mean much to me. Talk about how you're going to fix global warming, or how you're going to get young people to care about stem carreers more than youtube videos.
See this is the propaganda working on you.
The establishment has you believing that you are fortunate in your American life.
The US gets beaten out considerably by a lot of modern nations on quality of life metrics, especially when you look towards median income stats instead of average stats since your income inequality inflates average numbers when the majority don't experience that quality of life.
Lol, the propaganda..
Oh right you were that guy so out of touch with reality in that thread about people who have kids instead of weekends in France or something. Makes total sense now.
Well there goes some more classic centrist rhetoric. Comparing Bernie (supposed far-left) to Trump (supposed far-right) is a traditional technique of the centrists and capitalists to demonize any freeing alternative that might come from the left (because unrealistic etc).
Saying that this is "emotional" to talk about 1% vs 99% etc. is a way of saying that you shouldn't discuss anything because your life is good enough (thanks to capitalism and market freedom of course) and that politics is only for people that can talk with reason, be reasonable (i.e. moderate centrist). Why are you talking about you losing your job, being unemployed for 5 years or struggling because of your student debt ? You can have an iPhone 6©. Our nation has no segregation history (nor genocidal roots), we don't have any disease nor cancer, there is no corruption, no scandals whatsoever. You can even surf on Facebook©, Youtube©, Google©, Netflix©, Twitter© without any problem. You don't have Ebola like every country outside our great nation. So why are you so emotional ? Why can't you join the reasonable upper-middle class sweet american dream ?
Nothing new in the rhetoric you bring. Same old.
Sent from my iPad Air 2©
The like minded just need to be galvanized. Too many are just beat down by the system and don't believe change can happen. Clinton may be able to compromise some deals over her term to get some policy in, but she's not going to drive a political revolution that forces platform changes by congressmen ahead of re-election or drives voters out during the mid-term.
So while Bernie Sanders may not be able to accomplish much over the first 2 years. The political revolution you guys need starts here and ends in the mid-terms.
As far as I understood quite some democrats who support Hillary over Bernie play it safe, because they think that Bernie can't. Can't win the election, can't do anything once in office. Furthermore the issue that far too many americans don't seem to understand how tax brackets work.
What are the 2 % tax hike for the lowest incone compared to the free health care they get for that? They save so much.I understand how the brackets work in a progressive tax system. But I saw how the brackets might be under Sanders and I was like, "Well, I guess I'm not going to vote for that guy." Bumping up the tax burden on even the lowest income earners doesn't seem like a great path to success.
As a Canadian I simply cannot understand why anyone voting democrat wouldn't choose Bernie. He is exactly what your country needs.
What are the 2 % tax hike for the lowest incone compared to the free health care they get for that? They save so much.
It's interesting you brought this up and I agree with you here. Even if the majority of Bernie supporters back Hillary in the general election resulting in a win, I doubt supporters from the dem base as a whole will continue on the work and be actively engaged.
What are the 2 % tax hike for the lowest incone compared to the free health care they get for that? They save so much.
Aye. I mean, look at this shit:
![]()
Someone please tell me how this shit is in anyway sustainable for the 99% of us that aren't super wealthy, especially with wages that have been stagnant for longer than most here on this forum have been alive.
Even the ACA has merely slowed down the already exorbitant cost of US healthcare. Barely anyone is even talking about the impending collapse of student loans and how an entire generation is being shut out of growing their wealth. I only hear "well this is a problem we should maybe look at some point in the future so here's a bunch of quarter measures to maaaaaybe consider". Don't even get me started on tens of millions of baby boomers retiring in the next decade and how that's going to affect healthcare.
As we currently are and how we will be projected to be in the future, I only see more pain and suffering if we don't address the real, fundamental problems inherent in the American system.
Stagnant wages, little shared wealth, crumbling infrastructure that people don't want to pay for, rising healthcare, crippling student loans and an education system overall that is highly unequal, and the further eradication of lower skilled jobs due to foreign labor and/or automation - all of this nonsense is happening now and all of this nonsense will get worse year by year. And all we can offer now is to merely patch it up. Funny thing about patches is that they tend to easily break when pressure is applied. And then people blame the patch itself instead of blaming why and how the hole even happened. And rinse repeat this stupid dance this country has been having for over 40 years now.
So what happens when the next recession piledrives us through the floor? Or I guess we can continue haggling over mere percentages in federal taxes while ignoring all the apocalyptic shit that is at our doorstep.