I saw Bernie Sanders live in Madison tonight.

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

disastermouse

Banned
Damn, was that a packed house! It's the first time I've ever gone to a candidate's rally even though I've always been into politics and always vote.

I'm not sure I can vote for Hillary if she's the Democratic nominee this cycle. If a reptile like Walker or Huckabee was the Republican, I might have to hold my nose and vote for her - but it'll be hard to do.
 
disastermouse said:
Damn, was that a packed house! It's the first time I've ever gone to a candidate's rally even though I've always been into politics and always vote.

I'm not sure I can vote for Hillary if she's the Democratic nominee this cycle. If a reptile like Walker or Huckabee was the Republican, I might have to hold my nose and vote for her - but it'll be hard to do.
Click to expand...

You need to bro. Vote for Bernie in the primaries, but when Hilldawg is the nominee, you damn well better get out and vote!
 
Bowdz said:
You need to bro. Vote for Bernie in the primaries, but when Hilldawg is the nominee, you damn well better get out and vote!
Click to expand...
Only if it's a real reptile. Maybe things just need to get worse before people come to their senses.

Hillary will likely just bring more of the same.
 
disastermouse said:
Damn, was that a packed house! It's the first time I've ever gone to a candidate's rally even though I've always been into politics and always vote.

I'm not sure I can vote for Hillary if she's the Democratic nominee this cycle. If a reptile like Walker or Huckabee was the Republican, I might have to hold my nose and vote for her - but it'll be hard to do.
Click to expand...

Which Republican candidate do you find preferable to Hillary?

Also, where did the phrase "hold my nose and vote for him/her" originate and why is it so popular?
 
If you genuinely want Bernie Sanders for president, surely Hilary would be significantly better for all the issues you value highly than any possible Republican nominee?
 
OP needs more pics:

QVC9GIb.jpg


unhIllU.jpg


eOl6SjR.jpg
 
disastermouse said:
Damn, was that a packed house! It's the first time I've ever gone to a candidate's rally even though I've always been into politics and always vote.

I'm not sure I can vote for Hillary if she's the Democratic nominee this cycle. If a reptile like Walker or Huckabee was the Republican, I might have to hold my nose and vote for her - but it'll be hard to do.
Click to expand...
it's either her or a 3rd Bush, take your pick
 
disastermouse said:
Only if it's a real reptile. Maybe things just need to get worse before people come to their senses.

Hillary will likely just bring more of the same.
Click to expand...

Look at ANYONE on the Republican side and tell me they will do a better job than Hilldawg. If you're going to Bernie rallies, you are a progressive and nobody on the GOP side will come close to Hillary in terms of policy. Ignore the fact that she was a more liberal senator than Barry O and ignore the fact that, despite some skepticism, she holds VERY similar policy positions to Bernie, the Supreme Court nominees alone make it crucial you get out and vote.

And no, things getting worse will not bring people to their senses, it will just make things worse and give us a bigger hole to dig out of.
 
disastermouse said:
Only if it's a real reptile. Maybe things just need to get worse before people come to their senses.

Hillary will likely just bring more of the same.
Click to expand...

That's a dumb philosophy.

Seriously, the next president will probably pick 2 of the supreme court justices.

We could be sitting on a conservative supreme court for like 30 fucking years because of people with that philosophy of yours.
 
Holy sheet at those pics, while I don't have hope for him being the frontrunner he definitely will make a mark in the primaries.

Anyway to see where he is making stops for the next few months.
 
I'm supporting Sander's as long as is viable. I think populism is on the rise across party lines and don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that he can't attract non-liberal voters.
 
RDreamer said:
That's a dumb philosophy.

Seriously, the next president will probably pick 2 of the supreme court justices.

We could be sitting on a conservative supreme court for like 30 fucking years because of people with that philosophy of yours.
Click to expand...
The Senate, the House, the Presidency, and the SC. Sounds like a good plan.
 
fredrancour said:
If you genuinely want Bernie Sanders for president, surely Hilary would be significantly better for all the issues you value highly than any possible Republican nominee?
Click to expand...
Would she? I'm not so sure. I don't think she's serious about reigning in Wall Street. I don't think she'll raise the Social Security tax limit significantly (i.e. Above $200k).
 
fredrancour said:
If you genuinely want Bernie Sanders for president, surely Hilary would be significantly better for all the issues you value highly than any possible Republican nominee?
Click to expand...

Then again, the only way you're going to get this country to accept socialism is by destroying it. Accept accelerationism in your dark heart and vote Republican.
 
RDreamer said:
That's a dumb philosophy.

Seriously, the next president will probably pick 2 of the supreme court justices.

We could be sitting on a conservative supreme court for like 30 fucking years because of people with that philosophy of yours.
Click to expand...
I've heard this argument before. Hell, I've made this argument before. I don't believe it anymore.
 
Odrion said:
Then again, the only way you're going to get this country to accept socialism is by destroying it. Accept accelerationism in your dark heart and vote Republican.
Click to expand...

No socialism will arise from the ashes. Straight up theocracy will. i dont know if you noticed this or not but the right is armed to the teeth and the left is not.
 
Bowdz said:
Look at ANYONE on the Republican side and tell me they will do a better job than Hilldawg. If you're going to Bernie rallies, you are a progressive and nobody on the GOP side will come close to Hillary in terms of policy. Ignore the fact that she was a more liberal senator than Barry O and ignore the fact that, despite some skepticism, she holds VERY similar policy positions to Bernie, the Supreme Court nominees alone make it crucial you get out and vote.

And no, things getting worse will not bring people to their senses, it will just make things worse and give us a bigger hole to dig out of.
Click to expand...

bolded the most important reason why people should not sit it out like they did in 2000


you guys do remember 2000, don't you?
 
fredrancour said:
If you genuinely want Bernie Sanders for president, surely Hilary would be significantly better for all the issues you value highly than any possible Republican nominee?
Click to expand...

Like Obama, she's almost indistinguishable from all realistic GOP contenders, apart from her opportunism regarding certain social issues. She's a neoconservative warhawk from a staunchly neoliberal (economic) generation. That's the only type of politician that has held the Presidency (and let's face it, most other higher political positions) in recent history. The only feasible reason for a progressive-minded person to vote for her would be to check a Republican senate and/or house. That is to say, for purely utilitarian reasons. And that is usually reason enough in this horrible political reality.
 
water_wendi said:
No socialism will arise from the ashes. Straight up theocracy will. i dont know if you noticed this or not but the right is armed to the teeth and the left is not.
Click to expand...
Religiosity is dropping quickly and I don't see it rising again in the near term.

I'm not voting for the slightly less odious corporate candidate anymore.
 
Malfunky said:
Like Obama, she's almost indistinguishable from all realistic GOP contenders, apart from her opportunism regarding certain social issues. She's a neoconservative warhawk from a staunchly neoliberal (economic) generation. That's the only type of politician that has held the Presidency (and let's face it, most other higher political positions) in recent history. The only feasible reason for a progressive-minded person to vote for her would be to check a Republican senate and/or house. That is to say, for purely utilitarian reasons. And that is usually reason enough in this horrible political reality.
Click to expand...

huh?
 
Progressive and Socialist ideology grows when a Nation experiences a depression. This has a historical precedent.

Vote Republican, and bring forth an age of darkness.
 
BUNTING1243 said:
huh?
Click to expand...

Like I said, there is only one type of politican that has held the White House in recent history. A Romney presidency would have been nearly indistinguishable from Obama, who has been nearly indistinguishable from W. Bush, who was nearly indistinguishable from Clinton. Don't let the rhetoric fool you.
 
Scott Walker is from my State, and I've always wanted someone from my homeland to destroy my world.

Vote Scott Walker, 2016.
 
Marauder Shields said:
I agree with you. People supporting to pick the lesser of two evils is why politicians can get away with fucking people over.
Click to expand...

No, people not paying any goddamned attention during the primaries and to local elections is why politicians get away with fucking people over. Of course when it's only 2 candidates, you pick the lesser of two evils. Why? Because it's moronic not to. When you can actually pick a bunch, though, that's when you support what you view. You help sway the primary process and then there's less chance of the lesser of two evils.

It's like people don't understand how our system works. You have to participate and try to push it (slowly) in a direction. By not voting or protest voting when the main event comes, you're doing nothing to help that. You're hurting yourself and everyone else.
 
Part of me swells up when I see this; I've often considered Bernie Sanders to be the most sane person in politics for years, and his views were always so commonsensical, so fucking obvious, that I always felt I was in a Truman Show, that people like him are a fluke in the system.

But then I see the momentum he's getting. The fact he consistently plans to speak in one area and they have to change the venues because it goes well over the original locations' vacancy. I see people finally waking up to America's central issues at the forefront, not lip service from people who have chapped lips from the corporations they're giving "service" to. That people in 2015 have come to reality of what life is in 2015. And I can only hope he becomes President.

I will be voting for this man and supporting him however I can, and I say this as someone who's almost always apathetic to politics. It almost always felt that it was a "pick the lesser of two evils" for most political campaigns, but this time it seems to be a very crucial turning point. It's no longer the lesser of evils, but ultimately if this country reshapes itself to care and consider everyone, or if we'll solidify ourselves in an oligarchical society, which would only breed fascism. I think a Republican candidate would guarantee that transition, and Hillary probably would to, but to a far lesser degree. Bernie is the only candidate running that based on his values would guarantee he'd be against it the entire way through.
 
Malfunky said:
Like I said, there is only one type of politican that has held the White House in recent history. A Romney presidency would have been nearly indistinguishable from Obama, who has been nearly indistinguishable from W. Bush, who was nearly indistinguishable from Clinton. Don't let the rhetoric fool you.
Click to expand...
Holy shit, dude. You cannot be serious.
 
Marauder Shields said:
I agree with you. People supporting to pick the lesser of two evils is why politicians can get away with fucking people over.
Click to expand...
man, Bush and Gore are just so alike. I'm voting for Nader!

voting for the lesser of two evils still means you get less evil. I can understand that being difficult to get excited about, but its always a decision worth making, even if its frustrating and personally disappointing. FWIW, I hope very much that Bernie gets to make a major impact in the process. I don't know if he can win the nomination, or even the presidency, but I do believe that what he's doing right now can have a great and positive impact on this country, so I want him to keep doing it.
 
Malfunky said:
Like I said, there is only one type of politican that has held the White House in recent history. A Romney presidency would have been nearly indistinguishable from Obama, who has been nearly indistinguishable from W. Bush, who was nearly indistinguishable from Clinton. Don't let the rhetoric fool you.
Click to expand...

Romney wouldn't pick the same supreme court justices as Obama.

If you think that distinction still makes them "nearly indistinguishable," then you're nuts and you don't understand how the country actually operates.

Seriously, if we had a Romney presidency, last week just doesn't fucking happen. Marriage equality doesn't happen. ACA possibly doesn't stand.
 
RDreamer said:
No, people not paying any goddamned attention during the primaries and to local elections is why politicians get away with fucking people over. Of course when it's only 2 candidates, you pick the lesser of two evils. Why? Because it's moronic not to. When you can actually pick a bunch, though, that's when you support what you view. You help sway the primary process and then there's less chance of the lesser of two evils.

It's like people don't understand how our system works. You have to participate and try to push it (slowly) in a direction. By not voting or protest voting when the main event comes, you're doing nothing to help that. You're hurting yourself and everyone else.
Click to expand...

I couldn't put it any better. Well said. There is nothing worse than people complain about voting for the lesser of two evils, but skip out on midterm primaries and elections. Not voting should never be an option for the rational person.
 
Malfunky said:
Any contesting arguments or are you just going to act bewildered over the fundamental truths of our political system?
Click to expand...
You could just look at red states vs. blue states to see that this is bullshit. How's Kansas looking right about now?
 
Haven't ramped-up on Poli stuff, gonna wait till 2016 when I can hopefully vote (citizenship...soon!). Is Sanders the left's version of Ron Paul? Popular with super progressives but ultimately unelectable?
 
monchi-kun said:
Haven't ramped-up on Poli stuff, gonna wait till 2016 when I can hopefully vote (citizenship...soon!). Is Sanders the left's version of Ron Paul? Popular with super progressives but ultimately unelectable?
Click to expand...

Most of Bernie Sanders' views are actually held by mainstream America, hence this overnight sensation he's getting. His talking points are what most people consistently poll in favor for, and his are not "flavor of the month" getting with the times. Many of his views he's had before even the dawn of the 21st century. He wanted gays to marry as early as the 1970's.

The question in America is if he has a chance in a post-Citizens United world, which itself is a cancer to democracy as a whole. That is his obstacle; he's relying on people to fund his campaign, and every other candidate is going to have a whale to get a Super PAC for them.
 
Malfunky said:
Like I said, there is only one type of politican that has held the White House in recent history. A Romney presidency would have been nearly indistinguishable from Obama, who has been nearly indistinguishable from W. Bush, who was nearly indistinguishable from Clinton. Don't let the rhetoric fool you.
Click to expand...

Romney wouldn't have even tried to pass universal health care, nor would he have tried to pass cap and trade. He wouldn't have tackled any Wallstreet reforms nor would he have started negotiations with Iran at all. He wouldn't have opened relations with Cuba, he was opposed to marriage equality, and he would have been even more lock step with Israel than Obama, who has done his best to navigate that morass. Beyond all of that, he would certainly not have nominated the same justices Obama did.

Furthermore, if you honestly think that Bush and Obama were "nearly indistinguishable", or that Clinton and Bush where "nearly indistinguishable", than you have not been following politics with any degree of seriousness or you are being willingly hyperbolic.

This kind of sentiment is what scares me about 2016. If you want change, you need to first and foremost vote progressives in in Congressional and Senatorial elections and take control of congress. Couple that with a competent leader in the White House who has the political acumen to navigate the landscape of American politics and you will get SOME change (note some because politics is messy). Sitting out one of the most crucial elections because "all politicians are the same lol" is a position born of willful ignorance.

Honestly, Sanders will do much more good in the Senate just like Elizabeth Warren will. Having a powerful liberal block in Congress will do more good than having a President Sanders with a Tea Party controlled congress with ZERO ability to compromise because they are so ideologically divergent.
 
RDreamer said:
Romney wouldn't pick the same supreme court justices as Obama.

If you think that distinction still makes them "nearly indistinguishable," then you're nuts and you don't understand how the country actually operates.

Seriously, if we had a Romney presidency, last week just doesn't fucking happen. Marriage equality doesn't happen. ACA possibly doesn't stand.
Click to expand...

Supreme court appointments are very important. You're absolutely right. But to pretend they're the sole responsibility of any individual president is silly. Like I said, there are utilitarian reasons to vote for someone like Clinton (and thus Obama or any other typical Democrat), which is to check the Republican agenda. But just because a particular party can begin to monopolize the judicial system doesn't mean the party leader deserves commendation.

Marriage equality was a hugely important step, but if that and the ACA are the only two accomplishments you can muster in defense of the democratic leader, you're grasping at straws. And demonstrating a willingness to ignore the entirety of his atrocious, arguably criminal record because a few good things happened in our shitty system.
 
Bowdz said:
Romney wouldn't have even tried to pass universal health care, nor would he have tried to pass cap and trade. He wouldn't have tackled any Wallstreet reforms nor would he have started negotiations with Iran at all. He wouldn't have opened relations with Cuba, he was opposed to marriage equality, and he would have been even more lock step with Israel than Obama, who has done his best to navigate that morass. Beyond all of that, he would certainly not have nominated the same justices Obama did.

Furthermore, if you honestly think that Bush and Obama were "nearly indistinguishable", or that Clinton and Bush where "nearly indistinguishable", than you have not been following politics with any degree of seriousness or you are being willingly hyperbolic.

This kind of sentiment is what scares me about 2016. If you want change, you need to first and foremost vote progressives in in Congressional and Senatorial elections and take control of congress. Couple that with a competent leader in the White House who has the political acumen to navigate the landscape of American politics and you will get SOME change (note some because politics is messy). Sitting out one of the most crucial elections because "all politicians are the same lol" is a position born of willful ignorance.

Honestly, Sanders will do much more good in the Senate just like Elizabeth Warren will. Having a powerful liberal block in Congress will do more good than having a President Sanders with a Tea Party controlled congress with ZERO ability to compromise because they are so ideologically divergent.
Click to expand...
Obama didn't try to push universal health care either. He punted on the public option and didn't even consider single payer. I understand why he didn't do that, but what he did accomplish is something I've always seen as an incremental beginning to true 'health care as human right'.

I'm starting to wonder how much time or room is left for incremental moves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I never understood why you can't go faster than light - until now
32
998
jason10mm replied
Adolescence on Netflix is the best TV series I've seen in years
2 3 4
167
8K
bitbydeath replied
So you're in the club and Ralph Fiennes slaps your gf's ass. What do you do?
2
59
2K
stickkidsam replied
whart? where is the light theme?
Opinion Event Science 
6
131
FeralEcho replied
  • Locked
Talking Shop w/Bernie Sanders - Killer Mike interviews Bernie Sanders in Atlanta
2 3
125
14K
DoubleYou replied
Top Bottom