ErasureAcer
Banned
This country is dead if Bernie does not win. Climate change alone will kill us all.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bernie can win in 2016
- Thread starter Dark_AnNiaLatOr
- Start date
- Status
Vigilant Walrus
Member
excelsiorlef
Member
You seriously need to calm down and find some perspective
Prodigal Son
Member
My chills got chills
I'm an european Berniever, I like him
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?
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.
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.
ugaboga232
Member
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.
Maquoketa Town Hall with Bernie just started.
Watch here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZYIf_obMR0
Watch here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZYIf_obMR0
veloxStrix
Banned
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.
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.
Your Entertainer
Member
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.
I'm voting for Bernie because his policies are the ones I agree with most - it's that simple. There's no question he'll face obstructionalism from the GOP - but that's true of either him or Hillary. Bernie's ideas absolutely depend on sparking voters to elect new lawmakers who will support change and aren't confessed right-wing lunatics. I think someone like Bernie is absolutely the candidate that can inspire progressive voters to turn out in the midterms. He can also continue to spark national conversation of progressive ideas - like he already has. When it comes to compromise, starting from farther left is more likely to lead to a left-leaning final agreement.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Hillary might actually be better suited to dealing with climate change due to knowing how to use political power a bit better...
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/21/10809684/epa-carbon-trading-section-115
Vigilant Walrus
Member
It makes sense
I think by his own admission he has said that he knows of the congress gridlock, and that it will require a continued grassroots movement to undermine the congress.
It has to start in local elections and the appointment of judges and state legislature laws, where considerable amount of stuff is getting passed. John Oliver had a real great segment on it and the conflict of interests with ALEC; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIMgfBZrrZ8
If the democratic party has considerable amount of people who are center, and center-right, that too needs a shaken up. The only way to vet it is to be resilient and keep going, highlighting it in the media. The leeches on the other side keep reintroducing the same bills and attaching them to all sorts of different laws and amendments. It's a constant struggle that goes both ways, but it just has to be fought by giving no way.
Obama was a center guy, with some liberal points of view, and he still didn't manage to agree a lot with congress or even people within his own party who wanted him to shy away from things like income inequality.
I think Sanders being critical to of the Democratic party is a good thing, and it speaks to his character and reflection of the problems that supposedly democratic party faces.
Essentially, Sanders in office is one thing, but the next thing and just as important is people starting to be active and paying attention in politics at a local level. Making sure that racists and right wing nut jobs don't run unopposed because so many people have become apathetic and don't tune in. That's how this idiots end up in congress in the first place.
it's lack of interest, it's lack of wanting to participate in the process. Maybe networks like C-Span needs a reform like the rest of the political newsscape to make politics better too.
As for foreign policy, I'd pick Bernie I think. I like what he says about Israel, and his desire to break back and focus on humanitarian aid. I like that he wants US troops to go in along with the UN in intervention. Syria was fucked up because of Russia Veto'ing the shit out of that on the security council, and the fact remains that US have had an abusive middle eastern intervention for almost 15 years now.
I just think there Obama/Hilary were too confrontational and comfortable with it. I respect Hilary for regretting voting yes on the Iraq war in 2002. In my mind, it takes guts for a politician to come out and say they were wrong. It's one of the things I respect about her the most, because very few politicians will admit they made a mistake!
brainchild
Banned
They knew what they were doing by using that track from Interstellar.
Great video.
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.
ugaboga232
Member
Oh I agree, humans are bloodthirsty. I guess the people of america will elect what they want. Bernie would be cool, hilary a very strong second, and then things fall off very quickly.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
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.
That right there is the American. Instead of picking who they want to run the country, they choose the candidate so that their team wins. It's causing deadlock and a dearth of radical ideas because people are too afraid of losing to try radical ideas. America was not always this way.
What non-intervention?
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.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
You see what you wanna see. Sanders has had big rallies, big crowds, broken records with individual donors- something people have been saying was impossible.
The fact of the matter is that what he is saying resonates with a hell of a lot of people. It's why he pulls better with conservatives than Hilary does.
And like Cornel West says, he is not an opportunist. He is not a one-foot-in-each-camp person; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN2V7-Me7zI
Congress will only change if the grassroots movement has an effect that last longer than the election. people need to pay attention and elect the right people in local elections. it's absolutely essential to undermine the worst apples in congress.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFxMJo6r-bQ
Too bad the NY march got postponed because of the storm.
Too bad the NY march got postponed because of the storm.
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.
Rich Uncle Skeleton
Member
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.
7DollarHagane
Banned
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.
The younger generation's(my interpretation) tendency to vilify the rich and successful is baffling to me.
I don't think that's true at all.
I've been to 21 states and talked with many Americans. There is enough like minded people to this kind of political thinking, there is a majority of enough. Sure, there is the other side of America I've also seen but they are in the minority of the populace, just in the majority of the active.
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.
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 by political and corporate interests. Look to the rest of the world America.
7DollarHagane
Banned
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.
How naive.You should check some sociological books and journalistic papers that studied how billionaires spend their money for almost nothing, how it helps them secure their lineage and how it helps them building a good marketing image (just look at your post).
That tendency to glorify the 1% rich and "successful" is baffling to me.
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.
You need to experience what it's like living outside the US. You aren't living a dream unless you part of the social class that has the rest believing they are living a dream.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that may bring up the US to the rest of the modern worlds median quality of life.
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©
7DollarHagane
Banned
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.
My champagne tastes and dislike for being a parent have nothing to do with the hard statistics I'm talking about.
For example, let's talk about "Freedom"
Here is the report on freedom ranking among nations - http://www.freetheworld.com/2015/freedomIndex/Human-Freedom-Index-2015.pdf
The US is ranked 20th, being beaten by a good number of the modern western nations. And it has been on a decline for a while.
You should expect more as a US citizen. Especially when you have the strongest economy in the world. That economic strength needs to work for the majority instead of the minority.
Bernie is the candidate that is starting to galvanize people to ask why.
7DollarHagane
Banned
This is not a way to silence discussion, its a way to question- Is "income inequality" really a top priority issue? Is it better to take that wealth and give it to the government to use? What would be the effect of doing that? Would it be used effectively? Would the average person be better off?
Also the trope of the public being pacified by consumer products is tired. Just don't.
The free flow of information and ideas the world has today does much more to expose and stop corruption and everything else you mentioned.
People are so eager to trust the government that couldn't manage to not accidentally sell thousands of firearms to drug cartels to manage the wealth of the richest corporations and individuals.
https://news.vice.com/article/the-u...lly-helped-arm-el-chapo?utm_source=vicenewsfb
I'd rather they not get more involved.
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.
Voters like 7DollarHagane just need to be better educated on the realities of the world.
Income inequality is probably the greatest problem facing your nation today. It is what has been lowering your quality of life metrics, your freedom indexes, and various other metrics that gauge how great a nation is to live in, since the trickle down economics put in place and accelerated by your previous governments and your establishment.
The average person (median income) born in a country like Sweden, Australia, Canada, Germany, etc will have a better quality of life then someone born in the US today.
Honestly, from a personal standpoint, I used to pay attention to American politics and statistics because I liked debating online with Americans about it, but with a candidate like Bernie Sanders I'm torn because part of me wants you to catch up with the rest of us for the Americans I know that I like. The other part of me wants you to vote Trump to tank your economy like Bush did so other economies rise up again.
Income inequality is probably the greatest problem facing your nation today. It is what has been lowering your quality of life metrics, your freedom indexes, and various other metrics that gauge how great a nation is to live in, since the trickle down economics put in place and accelerated by your previous governments and your establishment.
The average person (median income) born in a country like Sweden, Australia, Canada, Germany, etc will have a better quality of life then someone born in the US today.
Honestly, from a personal standpoint, I used to pay attention to American politics and statistics because I liked debating online with Americans about it, but with a candidate like Bernie Sanders I'm torn because part of me wants you to catch up with the rest of us for the Americans I know that I like. The other part of me wants you to vote Trump to tank your economy like Bush did so other economies rise up again.
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.
What are the 2 % tax hike for the lowest incone compared to the free health care they get for that? They save so much.
- Too idealistic
- Not as pragmatic as Hillary
- Wants things Republicans will never ever EVER want
- Supreme Court peeps are on the line
- Too Socialistic for America's unfettered Capitalistic shitpit
There are the top five things people have against him. Not that I agree with them, but these are the most common views you see against arguing against a candidate who is almost on point with all of the major social issues of this country.
Am I reading the charts wrong?
I guess technically the major tax hikes are in the form of a premium that is supposedly "paid by employers", but you'd be naive to think that low-income earners aren't going to have to pay for it through lower employment rates and less frequent raises/promotions.
I doubt they will if Bernie wins. People get so invested before election day and then that just fizzles out afterwards.The reality will hit that Bernie will have to compromise, deal with the stupid media, and the gop, and that will suck the life out of most supporters.
The tea part was a well funded astroturf movement that kept it going for years. Meanwhile people couldn't make any moves off of occupy and I'm hoping BLM will at least become someones local platform.
Besides a true movement wouldn't end if Bernie lost imo. If he really wanted change he would still stay engaged with his supporters to get like minded people elected.
Plus both Hillary and Bernie supporters need to wise up and realize that a republican win will drop us back into the hole we are trying to get out of. They hold congress, a lot of state/local positions, so getting the white house even for four years will be disastrous.
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.
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.
Fucking nailed it. We're dealing with the results of our problems, but never the problems that produce these results.
ultratruman
Banned
Sanders has voted to reduce nasa funding and has opposed liberal immigration reform.
Zok310
Banned
Looks like Bernie had a good Saturday.
http://usuncut.com/politics/nationwide-march-for-bernie-sanders-sweeps-across-35-cities/
http://usuncut.com/politics/nationwide-march-for-bernie-sanders-sweeps-across-35-cities/
- Status