Bernie has not been defined by the Right wing or the super PAC's. He and Kasich have high 'no opinion' numbers on them still. They are undefined. For whatever it's worth, both Hillary and Trump are very well defined. I don't think either of them have very much movement, either up or down, in a general election.
Bernie has got nothing to hide. HRC has got all kinds of skeletons in her closet that the RNC is salivating over.
He is the better candidate but he will not be the nominee. Hilary against Trump is what will be left - Trump will win if Bernie is not the nominee.
This is what I am afraid of. The party line Dems will get behind Bernie if he wins the nomination. I can't say the same for the younger voters and Bernie supporters that are tired of the traditional politicians. there is NO enthusiasm for HRC outside of the people that were already planning on voting for her since 2008.
This might be crazy talk, but would Bernie Sanders as an independent stand a chance?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Is this the commercial you're talking about? I think it's pretty good.
"if you have a presidential candidate that supports someone like our mayor"... that is a negative ad. You may like it because you agree with it, but it's a negative ad. And that was my counter to your point above talking about "Hillary crying".
We have a president that support this mayor. Where's your outrage, Free? Is it that selective?
You are really reaching here. Considering how brutal political ads and commercials can be, and you're going to say this one is negative. I can't help but laugh I'm sorry. anyone who supports this mayor is not on my list.
I will too. I don't like Hillary as a person but we can't afford to have another Republican in office at this time. just wish the DNC would wake up and see that Bernie is the better candidate for the general election.
He is the better candidate but he will not be the nominee. Hilary against Trump is what will be left - Trump will win if Bernie is not the nominee.
You gotta love the folks on here who declare who the next president will be. They know it, they proclaim it, dammit!!
Bernie has not been defined by the Right wing or the super PAC's. He and Kasich have high 'no opinion' numbers on them still. They are undefined. For whatever it's worth, both Hillary and Trump are very well defined. I don't think either of them have very much movement, either up or down, in a general election.
Bernie has got nothing to hide. HRC has got all kinds of skeletons in her closet that the RNC is salivating over.
He is the better candidate but he will not be the nominee. Hilary against Trump is what will be left - Trump will win if Bernie is not the nominee.
This is what I am afraid of. The party line Dems will get behind Bernie if he wins the nomination. I can't say the same for the younger voters and Bernie supporters that are tired of the traditional politicians. there is NO enthusiasm for HRC outside of the people that were already planning on voting for her since 2008.
This might be crazy talk, but would Bernie Sanders as an independent stand a chance?
If he went on the third-party ala Ralph Nader a long time ago, he would never have had a chance. Now? A completely different story and yes he would definitely have a chance.
Bernie has not been defined by the Right wing or the super PAC's. He and Kasich have high 'no opinion' numbers on them still. They are undefined. For whatever it's worth, both Hillary and Trump are very well defined. I don't think either of them have very much movement, either up or down, in a general election.
Bernie has got nothing to hide. HRC has got all kinds of skeletons in her closet that the RNC is salivating over.
He is the better candidate but he will not be the nominee. Hilary against Trump is what will be left - Trump will win if Bernie is not the nominee.
This is what I am afraid of. The party line Dems will get behind Bernie if he wins the nomination. I can't say the same for the younger voters and Bernie supporters that are tired of the traditional politicians. there is NO enthusiasm for HRC outside of the people that were already planning on voting for her since 2008.
This might be crazy talk, but would Bernie Sanders as an independent stand a chance?
No. He would syphon off votes from Hillary and end up helping the Republican nominee more than anything else. Plus, a lot of Democrats have supported him in this primary with their votes. It would be a slap in the face to them if he were to abandon the party now and run as an independent.
Is this the commercial you're talking about? I think it's pretty good.
"if you have a presidential candidate that supports someone like our mayor"... that is a negative ad. You may like it because you agree with it, but it's a negative ad. And that was my counter to your point above talking about "Hillary crying".
We have a president that support this mayor. Where's your outrage, Free? Is it that selective?
Yeah, definitely not a negative ad. If this is your idea of negative, then the skin is thin, my man.
Bernie has not been defined by the Right wing or the super PAC's. He and Kasich have high 'no opinion' numbers on them still. They are undefined. For whatever it's worth, both Hillary and Trump are very well defined. I don't think either of them have very much movement, either up or down, in a general election.
Bernie has got nothing to hide. HRC has got all kinds of skeletons in her closet that the RNC is salivating over.
He is the better candidate but he will not be the nominee. Hilary against Trump is what will be left - Trump will win if Bernie is not the nominee.
This is what I am afraid of. The party line Dems will get behind Bernie if he wins the nomination. I can't say the same for the younger voters and Bernie supporters that are tired of the traditional politicians. there is NO enthusiasm for HRC outside of the people that were already planning on voting for her since 2008.
This might be crazy talk, but would Bernie Sanders as an independent stand a chance?
No. He would syphon off votes from Hillary and end up helping the Republican nominee more than anything else. Plus, a lot of Democrats have supported him in this primary with their votes. It would be a slap in the face to them if he were to abandon the party now and run as an independent.
That's ridiculous. Are you forgetting that in most states, they have CLOSED primaries? All of us who are Independents haven't even been heard from yet, and Sanders is so popular, there is no way to guess exactly how much support he really has. Not to mention all of the states that hasn't even had primaries yet! As usual, per media, Bernie is wholly underestimated.
And seeing that many here like polls, check out what Bernie's margins are to beat Trump vs. Clinton's.
It's far from ridiculous. Ralph Nader had support too and what did he accomplish in 2000? He swung both New Hampshire and Florida away from Gore, either of which would have given that election to the Democrats.
Plus, Nader ran as an independent from the beginning. Bernie Sanders didn't do that. He chose to run as a Democrat. Carrying the fight to the convention is one thing. Launching an independent bid is something else entirely. If he doesn't get the nomination I expect him to bow out gracefully.
Is this the commercial you're talking about? I think it's pretty good.
"if you have a presidential candidate that supports someone like our mayor"... that is a negative ad. You may like it because you agree with it, but it's a negative ad. And that was my counter to your point above talking about "Hillary crying".
We have a president that support this mayor. Where's your outrage, Free? Is it that selective?
You are really reaching here. Considering how brutal political ads and commercials can be, and you're going to say this one is negative. I can't help but laugh I'm sorry. anyone who supports this mayor is not on my list.
Yeah, they are brutal and I'm not talking about the degree, but the definition of a negative ad is one that seeks to elevate a candidate by denigrating the other candidate. That's what happened here. It's by definition, a negative ad. And it's what Sanders is supposedly above.
Bernie has got nothing to hide. HRC has got all kinds of skeletons in her closet that the RNC is salivating over.
This is what I am afraid of. The party line Dems will get behind Bernie if he wins the nomination. I can't say the same for the younger voters and Bernie supporters that are tired of the traditional politicians. there is NO enthusiasm for HRC outside of the people that were already planning on voting for her since 2008.
Don't be naive. First, how in the world would you know what Bernie has to hide? Maybe he cheated on his taxes. Maybe he had a one night affair at a conference. You have no idea.
Second, what he stands for can be easily spun into a negative political ad. How do you think this would play in PA, South Florida (little Havana), AZ and states where the population tends to be over 40? That is people who grew up in the Cold War?
"Did you know that while in Nicaragua celebrating the anniversary of the brutal Communist rule by the Sandanistas, Bernie Sanders praised the Cuban Gov't of Fidel Castro [Cut to widely available video] “In 1961, [America] invaded Cuba, and everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world,” said Sanders.
“All the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society,” he said.
“You know, not to say Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect - they are certainly not - but just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people does not mean to say the people in these nations feel the same,” continued Sanders.
Then in 2005, Sanders spurned US companies to cut a deal with a company controlled by Hugo Chavez, strongman dictator of Venezuela.
In November, let Bernie Sanders and his socialist allies in Congress know that this is America and we don't want to be Nicaragua, Cuba or Venezuela. We're going to make America Great Again
And then I'd run an ad on the fact that he went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon. And that's without doing more than 2 min. of oppo research. Imagine when millions are lined up against him. Just ask Ted Cruz what kind of weekend he had...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,077
Same question here, mrussel. Why do you spend so much time fighting Bernie here? I'm sincerely curious about this.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Same question here, mrussel. Why do you spend so much time fighting Bernie here? I'm sincerely curious about this.
Because I'm fighting for objective arguments. I'm sincerely interested in discourse that is grounded in fact and reason. I'm a lifelong Democrat. I've never voted for an R in my life and my first election was 92. And I'm a contributing member of the party. So when I hear people who think Sanders will do better in a general than Hillary, I think that is flawed and I'm going to say so (I'm not saying impossible). When I see the spurious, un-grounded trash about HRC (how about Free accusing her of murdering JFK jr??), I'm going to say something. When I see the fantasy land perspective that he's going to win the nomination when it's literally, maybe 10/90 at best, I'm going to challenge it.
Who would have though that John Kerry's war record would have cost him the election? No one until the Swift Boat Vets. How about the Willie Horton ad for Dukakis? How about the NRA taking down Al Gore in TN in 2000? People who think Bernie is a good guy therefore is going to win the general when he has an "unsure" rating of up to 30% in some polls, tells me that he is going to get trashed with negative ads. Hillary is well defined. It's so bad that Drudge is already bringing back Bill's mistresses. That's all they got.
I find this argument that Bernie's poll numbers against the Repubs is untrustworthy because he hasn't been vetted like Hillary extremely fallacious and self-serving. Since Hillary has been so thoroughly vetted and scrutinized for so many years, shouldn't she also have a huge ADVANTAGE over Bernie because of all the exposure of her supposed positives, i.e. her "experience", her "accomplishments", her "battle-tested leadership", ad nauseam? After all, being in the public eye for all these years has given her a yuuuge headstart in terms of name recognition, right? And, having had this advantage, her unfavorability ratings are in the negative, just slightly less than Trump. This tells me that people see Hillary for the untrustworthy flip-flopper she truly is. She has spent her entire political career holding a finger to the wind, triangulating her positions accordingly. The woman doesn't have a principled bone in her body, and she has been around long enough that her inauthenticity is transparent. And unlike you, I don't take the unsure number to be negative. I interpret the 30% unsure polling number to be what it says; people who dont know Bernie well enough to have a firm opinion. And, I have enough faith in my candidate to feel that those "unsure"s will feel the Bern once they are informed.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,077
Same question here, mrussel. Why do you spend so much time fighting Bernie here? I'm sincerely curious about this.
Because I'm fighting for objective arguments. I'm sincerely interested in discourse that is grounded in fact and reason. I'm a lifelong Democrat. I've never voted for an R in my life and my first election was 92. And I'm a contributing member of the party. So when I hear people who think Sanders will do better in a general than Hillary, I think that is flawed and I'm going to say so (I'm not saying impossible). When I see the spurious, un-grounded trash about HRC (how about Free accusing her of murdering JFK jr??), I'm going to say something. When I see the fantasy land perspective that he's going to win the nomination when it's literally, maybe 10/90 at best, I'm going to challenge it.
Who would have though that John Kerry's war record would have cost him the election? No one until the Swift Boat Vets. How about the Willie Horton ad for Dukakis? How about the NRA taking down Al Gore in TN in 2000? People who think Bernie is a good guy therefore is going to win the general when he has an "unsure" rating of up to 30% in some polls, tells me that he is going to get trashed with negative ads. Hillary is well defined. It's so bad that Drudge is already bringing back Bill's mistresses. That's all they got.
Yes, Hillary is well defined... like a big bronze plaque on CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS. She's business as usual, mrussel. Business as usual is great if you're a CEO. Business as usual is great if you don't want citizens involved in the political process. Business as usual is great if you think a corporation is a person (have you ever dated one?). Business as usual is great if you don't mind polar ice melting and turning places like New York into a Underwaterworld. Good luck (to all of us) with all of that stuff if Hillary wins. Business as usual.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The numbers for Hillary create both a ceiling and a floor for her. She is pretty stable. Fortunately, Trump is as well. He is the only one with unsure numbers like Hillary (2 pts higher) And she had a huge head start on Bernie, you're right. Look at the poll averages in the link I provided below. Set the graph for a year and you can see how Bernie has climbed while HRC has consistently hovered in the 50-60% range over the past half year. That's to be expected in a competitive race.
You can interpret the 30% to be positive. I don't draw any conclusions, but it is RISK. You can't underestimate what the term 'Socialist' means to the generation that grew up in the Cold War. It doesn't mean Sweden or Canada. It means Russia. And no group heads to the polls more consistently than older people, with far better turnout than the youth. So again, it is risk to the progressive agenda started again by Obama. That's what worries me.
I don't know when you started voting, but if you're old enough to remember the Swift Boat veterans, you know what can happen to a good man with a good history.
Same question here, mrussel. Why do you spend so much time fighting Bernie here? I'm sincerely curious about this.
Because I'm fighting for objective arguments. I'm sincerely interested in discourse that is grounded in fact and reason. I'm a lifelong Democrat. I've never voted for an R in my life and my first election was 92. And I'm a contributing member of the party. So when I hear people who think Sanders will do better in a general than Hillary, I think that is flawed and I'm going to say so (I'm not saying impossible). When I see the spurious, un-grounded trash about HRC (how about Free accusing her of murdering JFK jr??), I'm going to say something. When I see the fantasy land perspective that he's going to win the nomination when it's literally, maybe 10/90 at best, I'm going to challenge it.
Who would have though that John Kerry's war record would have cost him the election? No one until the Swift Boat Vets. How about the Willie Horton ad for Dukakis? How about the NRA taking down Al Gore in TN in 2000? People who think Bernie is a good guy therefore is going to win the general when he has an "unsure" rating of up to 30% in some polls, tells me that he is going to get trashed with negative ads. Hillary is well defined. It's so bad that Drudge is already bringing back Bill's mistresses. That's all they got.
Yes, Hillary is well defined... like a big bronze plaque on CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS. She's business as usual, mrussel. Business as usual is great if you're a CEO. Business as usual is great if you don't want citizens involved in the political process. Business as usual is great if you think a corporation is a person (have you ever dated one?). Business as usual is great if you don't mind polar ice melting and turning places like New York into a Underwaterworld. Good luck (to all of us) with all of that stuff if Hillary wins. Business as usual.
This is total hyperbole. Where is Hillary anti-global warming, pro Citizens United, anti-choice, anti-Obama Care. Regardless, I'm not arguing that HRC would be a better president than Bernie. It doesn't matter what I think. Like I said, I'm in VA. My primary is over. But it sounds like your problem is with Obama. That's a different subject all together.
Same question here, mrussel. Why do you spend so much time fighting Bernie here? I'm sincerely curious about this.
Because I'm fighting for objective arguments. I'm sincerely interested in discourse that is grounded in fact and reason. I'm a lifelong Democrat. I've never voted for an R in my life and my first election was 92. And I'm a contributing member of the party. So when I hear people who think Sanders will do better in a general than Hillary, I think that is flawed and I'm going to say so (I'm not saying impossible). When I see the spurious, un-grounded trash about HRC (how about Free accusing her of murdering JFK jr??), I'm going to say something. When I see the fantasy land perspective that he's going to win the nomination when it's literally, maybe 10/90 at best, I'm going to challenge it.
Who would have though that John Kerry's war record would have cost him the election? No one until the Swift Boat Vets. How about the Willie Horton ad for Dukakis? How about the NRA taking down Al Gore in TN in 2000? People who think Bernie is a good guy therefore is going to win the general when he has an "unsure" rating of up to 30% in some polls, tells me that he is going to get trashed with negative ads. Hillary is well defined. It's so bad that Drudge is already bringing back Bill's mistresses. That's all they got.
Yes, Hillary is well defined... like a big bronze plaque on CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS. She's business as usual, mrussel. Business as usual is great if you're a CEO. Business as usual is great if you don't want citizens involved in the political process. Business as usual is great if you think a corporation is a person (have you ever dated one?). Business as usual is great if you don't mind polar ice melting and turning places like New York into a Underwaterworld. Good luck (to all of us) with all of that stuff if Hillary wins. Business as usual.
This is total hyperbole. Where is Hillary anti-global warming, pro Citizens United, anti-choice, anti-Obama Care. Regardless, I'm not arguing that HRC would be a better president than Bernie. It doesn't matter what I think. Like I said, I'm in VA. My primary is over. But it sounds like your problem is with Obama. That's a different subject all together.
"Hyperbole." Good word. One of my favorites! But I really don't see where I used hyperbole. A little humorous drama? OK, maybe, but gross exaggeration? I don't think so.
What has she said in terms of significance regarding global warming? Nothing substantial. What about the particular corporations that keep her afloat? How environmentally responsible are they? I'd like to know. Bernie on the other hand has stated that he is very worried about global warming and it's affect on the planet.
"Where is Hillary pro Citizens United, anti-choice, anti-Obama Care?" I didn't say anything about that so not sure where that comes in.
Where did indicate I have a problem with Obama? Generally, Obama has done a decent job. Would have done better without all the Republican obstruction of course.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The numbers for Hillary create both a ceiling and a floor for her. She is pretty stable. Fortunately, Trump is as well. He is the only one with unsure numbers like Hillary (2 pts higher) And she had a huge head start on Bernie, you're right. Look at the poll averages in the link I provided below. Set the graph for a year and you can see how Bernie has climbed while HRC has consistently hovered in the 50-60% range over the past half year. That's to be expected in a competitive race.
You can interpret the 30% to be positive. I don't draw any conclusions, but it is RISK. You can't underestimate what the term 'Socialist' means to the generation that grew up in the Cold War. It doesn't mean Sweden or Canada. It means Russia. And no group heads to the polls more consistently than older people, with far better turnout than the youth. So again, it is risk to the progressive agenda started again by Obama. That's what worries me.
I don't know when you started voting, but if you're old enough to remember the Swift Boat veterans, you know what can happen to a good man with a good history.
My first vote in a presidential election was in 1976. I supported a progressive, Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana, but my primary (Ohio) was the last one, and he had withdrawn by then, so I instead voted for Sen. Mo Udall, a progressive and strong environmentalist. We got stuck with centrist Jimmy Carter. In 1980, I was a volunteer coordinator for Ted Kennedy in Cincinnati. Dems stuck with the "safe" choice and Carter was creamed by Reagan. In 1984 and 1988, Dems nominated establishment hacks Mondale and Dukakis, rejecting progressives like Paul Simon, Jerry Brown, Gary Hart, and Jesse Jackson, and we again got creamed. That opened the door to the Clinton created Democrat Leadership Council, who convinced the party that the way to win the White House was to out-Republican the Republicans. We got Bill Clinton, a "Democrat" who gutted the welfare programs, passed the oppressive crime bill in 1994, crammed NAFTA down our throats, and granted most-favored nation trading status to China, the world's worst human rights abuser, laying the seeds for the great American manufacturing exodus. In 2000, Dems again stuck with the establishment and Al Gore; that delivered us GWB. Sure I remember the Swift Boating, and I recognize the potential for lowball tactics against Bernie. But that was a reelection campaign by an incumbent during wartime, not buffoons like Trump or neo-Nazi religious fanatics like Cruz. I believe we are at a historic crossroads for progressive politics. We must not settle once again for quasi-liberals like Hillary (and Obama) and hope they stick to their progressive promises. They never do, because they aren't principled, they are panderers who will say what they must to obtain power. WE must vote with the courage of our convictions if we want to truly succeed at taking this country back for the 99%. Finally, Bernie is not counting on the reliable older white demographic to win the presidency. He states emphatically at every rally that he can only win if we get a large turnout of young, working poor, and working class people who traditionally don't vote. We know the hard task ahead; we have the strength, the will, and the message to achieve it. Speaking truth to power is the only way we bring the change we need to restore American democracy and an economy that works for us all.
You're absolutely accurate with everything you say here. But there's no evidence that the liberal wing would not have been demolished and in fact I would argue that Mondale was absolutely a liberal and he lost 49 states. Only by moving more moderate was Clinton able to capture the WH. The country still had the 70's hangover. And while in office he passed the welfare reform act as a compromise position with Gingrich because that's what Presidents have to do. Otherwise we have do nothing Congress like today. And don't forget Bernie voted for the Crime Bill.
Now I know you don't think he needs the older vote but I don't think that's true. You know that FL OH PA and important states have substantial older populations. It can't be ignored. Trump may be so bad a candidate that either HRC or Bernie win easily. But you know the super pac will hang socialist around his neck the the entire time.
Polls. We've seen how reliable and accurate they are.
I'm actually a big fan of polls and tracking them. They are accurate, and what's pretty cool is that you get to check their validity against actual election day results. Check em out at realclearpolitics.com Rassmussen and Fox tend to give the conservative candidate a little bump. What's even more interesting is watching them change against what's happening in the press and media/public perception. In '08 it was pretty close between McCain and Obama until the economy went in the total pooper in October, and then Obama got a bump, I'm figuring due to his confidence with how he would deal with the issue.
Brianlux, that's my point. You are saying it's BAU with HRC and I agree. But it's continuing Obama's agenda. Certainly domestically there is little daylight between Hillary and Obama. So criticizing what she would do as president is akin to criticizing him. She is more hawkish than he is so there is that which I'm not a fan of. But I have no real sense of what Sanders would do if he sat in the chair. Casting conscience votes is a lot different than making the decisions everyday. You can see it in Obama and his decisions. He is more hawkish than anyone would have guessed him to be.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,077
Brianlux, that's my point. You are saying it's BAU with HRC and I agree. But it's continuing Obama's agenda. Certainly domestically there is little daylight between Hillary and Obama. So criticizing what she would do as president is akin to criticizing him. She is more hawkish than he is so there is that which I'm not a fan of. But I have no real sense of what Sanders would do if he sat in the chair. Casting conscience votes is a lot different than making the decisions everyday. You can see it in Obama and his decisions. He is more hawkish than anyone would have guessed him to be.
Obama was the best choice at the time time so, yes, I voted for him but that doesn't mean I've always supported his every move. In fact, I have been critical of some of Obama's actions and of course I'm critical of business as usual but I don't see the relevance of any of that here.
So back to Sanders since that is the focus of this thread: What would Sanders do if he sat in that chair? I think that is asking the wrong question. I think the better question is, what would we do if he sat in that chair? Bernie will not be our dictator. He will inspire and motivate us to be more involved, more educated, more active. I'll even go further by saying I'm not at all a fan of any one person have power to dictate what will directly affect 322 million Americans and at least indirectly the rest of the world. I mean, really, whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people, for the people"?
Business as usual is not good for the people and a lot of the people are starting to get that.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Just catching up on this thread. I have to say... I am really enjoying seeing an educated debate on here. It's sad that we can't get this in the "mainstream" media.
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
considering how little obama accomplished without both houses ... pretty sure if Sanders got elected - he's a lame duck ...
look at the people that occupy these positions and i'm not sure how anyone could have any faith in an America that will veer from its current course ...
My comment about sitting in the chair was about foreign policy and the decisions that face the commander in chief. I'm saying that chair changes people because of the grave responsibilities that come with it. I don't think that can be fathomed from any seat in Congress.
Regarding domestic policy, he's been open about his policy commitments and I'm eternally grateful for that (compared to Trump) but I don't agree with all of them. Some I agree with at a more moderate level. So here's Education:
- I'm down with a trade tax so long as it's limited to high speed trading. I move my 401k, personal stocks and IRA money around and I don't think of that as 'speculation'. Additionally, I"m not sure fund managers should be taxed either because that will be passed down to us. I think his estimate of the revenue generated is overstated. The market will dictate fewer trades, if there's a tax. But that's a different argument. - I think I would be okay with free juco education for two years or career training. That would be paid by the trade tax presumably. Although there's a much greater issue facing secondary education and that's the cost. - The other proposals around the loan interest rates are fairly straightforward, with caveats. The loans should be written at the discount rate (the rate at which banks borrow from each other). However, Bernie says the gov't should not make money on the loans. I agree with that, but the gov't has to pay someone to service the loans. That's not cheap. A typical rate is probably 70-80 per account on on file. So that cost has to be baked in somewhere.
It's easy to blame banks for student loans but that's misguided. The universities are creating the bill. Bernie rightly points out that education used to be much cheaper and how unfair it is today. But his prescription is to tax other to pay for it. Why isn't the first prescription to attack the causes of skyrocketing costs?
Comments
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
You are really reaching here. Considering how brutal political ads and commercials can be, and you're going to say this one is negative. I can't help but laugh I'm sorry. anyone who supports this mayor is not on my list.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
And seeing that many here like polls, check out what Bernie's margins are to beat Trump vs. Clinton's.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Plus, Nader ran as an independent from the beginning. Bernie Sanders didn't do that. He chose to run as a Democrat. Carrying the fight to the convention is one thing. Launching an independent bid is something else entirely. If he doesn't get the nomination I expect him to bow out gracefully.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Second, what he stands for can be easily spun into a negative political ad. How do you think this would play in PA, South Florida (little Havana), AZ and states where the population tends to be over 40? That is people who grew up in the Cold War?
"Did you know that while in Nicaragua celebrating the anniversary of the brutal Communist rule by the Sandanistas, Bernie Sanders praised the Cuban Gov't of Fidel Castro [Cut to widely available video] “In 1961, [America] invaded Cuba, and everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world,” said Sanders.
“All the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society,” he said.
“You know, not to say Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect - they are certainly not - but just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people does not mean to say the people in these nations feel the same,” continued Sanders.
Then in 2005, Sanders spurned US companies to cut a deal with a company controlled by Hugo Chavez, strongman dictator of Venezuela.
In November, let Bernie Sanders and his socialist allies in Congress know that this is America and we don't want to be Nicaragua, Cuba or Venezuela. We're going to make America Great Again
Who would have though that John Kerry's war record would have cost him the election? No one until the Swift Boat Vets. How about the Willie Horton ad for Dukakis? How about the NRA taking down Al Gore in TN in 2000? People who think Bernie is a good guy therefore is going to win the general when he has an "unsure" rating of up to 30% in some polls, tells me that he is going to get trashed with negative ads. Hillary is well defined. It's so bad that Drudge is already bringing back Bill's mistresses. That's all they got.
You can interpret the 30% to be positive. I don't draw any conclusions, but it is RISK. You can't underestimate what the term 'Socialist' means to the generation that grew up in the Cold War. It doesn't mean Sweden or Canada. It means Russia. And no group heads to the polls more consistently than older people, with far better turnout than the youth. So again, it is risk to the progressive agenda started again by Obama. That's what worries me.
I don't know when you started voting, but if you're old enough to remember the Swift Boat veterans, you know what can happen to a good man with a good history.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
Regardless, I'm not arguing that HRC would be a better president than Bernie. It doesn't matter what I think. Like I said, I'm in VA. My primary is over. But it sounds like your problem is with Obama. That's a different subject all together.
What has she said in terms of significance regarding global warming? Nothing substantial. What about the particular corporations that keep her afloat? How environmentally responsible are they? I'd like to know. Bernie on the other hand has stated that he is very worried about global warming and it's affect on the planet.
"Where is Hillary pro Citizens United, anti-choice, anti-Obama Care?" I didn't say anything about that so not sure where that comes in.
Where did indicate I have a problem with Obama? Generally, Obama has done a decent job. Would have done better without all the Republican obstruction of course.
Sure I remember the Swift Boating, and I recognize the potential for lowball tactics against Bernie. But that was a reelection campaign by an incumbent during wartime, not buffoons like Trump or neo-Nazi religious fanatics like Cruz. I believe we are at a historic crossroads for progressive politics. We must not settle once again for quasi-liberals like Hillary (and Obama) and hope they stick to their progressive promises. They never do, because they aren't principled, they are panderers who will say what they must to obtain power. WE must vote with the courage of our convictions if we want to truly succeed at taking this country back for the 99%.
Finally, Bernie is not counting on the reliable older white demographic to win the presidency. He states emphatically at every rally that he can only win if we get a large turnout of young, working poor, and working class people who traditionally don't vote. We know the hard task ahead; we have the strength, the will, and the message to achieve it. Speaking truth to power is the only way we bring the change we need to restore American democracy and an economy that works for us all.
Now I know you don't think he needs the older vote but I don't think that's true. You know that FL OH PA and important states have substantial older populations. It can't be ignored. Trump may be so bad a candidate that either HRC or Bernie win easily. But you know the super pac will hang socialist around his neck the the entire time.
So back to Sanders since that is the focus of this thread: What would Sanders do if he sat in that chair? I think that is asking the wrong question. I think the better question is, what would we do if he sat in that chair? Bernie will not be our dictator. He will inspire and motivate us to be more involved, more educated, more active. I'll even go further by saying I'm not at all a fan of any one person have power to dictate what will directly affect 322 million Americans and at least indirectly the rest of the world. I mean, really, whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people, for the people"?
Business as usual is not good for the people and a lot of the people are starting to get that.
I have to say... I am really enjoying seeing an educated debate on here.
It's sad that we can't get this in the "mainstream" media.
livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446
1995- New Orleans, LA : New Orleans, LA
1996- Charleston, SC
1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY
2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2
2020- Nashville, TN
2022- Smashville
2023- Austin, TX x2
2024- Baltimore
look at the people that occupy these positions and i'm not sure how anyone could have any faith in an America that will veer from its current course ...
Regarding domestic policy, he's been open about his policy commitments and I'm eternally grateful for that (compared to Trump) but I don't agree with all of them. Some I agree with at a more moderate level. So here's Education:
- I'm down with a trade tax so long as it's limited to high speed trading. I move my 401k, personal stocks and IRA money around and I don't think of that as 'speculation'. Additionally, I"m not sure fund managers should be taxed either because that will be passed down to us. I think his estimate of the revenue generated is overstated. The market will dictate fewer trades, if there's a tax. But that's a different argument.
- I think I would be okay with free juco education for two years or career training. That would be paid by the trade tax presumably. Although there's a much greater issue facing secondary education and that's the cost.
- The other proposals around the loan interest rates are fairly straightforward, with caveats. The loans should be written at the discount rate (the rate at which banks borrow from each other). However, Bernie says the gov't should not make money on the loans. I agree with that, but the gov't has to pay someone to service the loans. That's not cheap. A typical rate is probably 70-80 per account on on file. So that cost has to be baked in somewhere.
It's easy to blame banks for student loans but that's misguided. The universities are creating the bill. Bernie rightly points out that education used to be much cheaper and how unfair it is today. But his prescription is to tax other to pay for it. Why isn't the first prescription to attack the causes of skyrocketing costs?
...But she refuses to debate with Bernie... because she's scared of losing NYS!
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/hillary-demonstrates-her-weakness-by-not-committing-to-ny-debate-with-sanders/