Bernie Sanders for President

1323335373864

Comments

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,486

    Is this directed at me? I wasn't criticising him or trying to discredit him. I think he is the most principled candidate. I don't blame him for having to run a campaign in a less than ideal way. That is way the game is rigged. I was agreeing with the last part about the super pac.
    I'm not trying to discredit him. I think he is a fine man. But he's not a perfect man and more importantly, the slurs that are hurled at Hillary by Bernie Backers can be pointed right back at him. That's been my point every time someone posts something disparaging about Clinton. Like I've said 20x, let's talk policy.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,486
    Free said:

    I have nothing to discuss with a closet Hillary supporter who is immune to reality of the media, real voter suppression, and actual facts about Hillary.
    I've been clear that I prefer Hillary. And your facts about Hillary include the murder of JFK jr. I'll be nice and continue to call it confirmation bias, rather than immaturity.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,486
    edited March 2016
    ckravitz said:

    You keep asking this question and yet never a response. Let me try... he knows that his popularity is huge on campuses, including educators and administrators, and that increasing our taxes to pay for the outrageous costs doesn't kill the golden goose like attempting to actually reduce those costs would. What college administrator or professor wants to hear about caps or reduced funding? I'm pretty sure that answer is none.
    Well I hope you are not correct, but you could be. More importantly, say that we do start using federal tax dollars to pay the cost of STATE universities (since there are no fed ones). What power will the federal government have to reign in those costs when they are administered by the states? Why won't the cost curve continue to spike up unabated, necessitating increasing taxes to support them?

    For my Canadian friends like PJ Soul, maybe you have a solution. Are universities overseen by the provinces or federal gov't in Canada? What is the solution?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    edited March 2016
    mrussel1 said:

    It's not irrational. If you disagree, that's great. Say why. Hate to see another AMT thread go down the drain.
    It surprises me you would say thst
    Free said:

    :lol: Downright laughable.

    And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.

    We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.

    Still supporting Bernie.

    For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
    Mrussel hasn't done anything to indicate that he is a Clinton fan. (Edit: I guess I missed it lol)
    All he is trying to do is bring facts and logic to the discussion and apparently you can't handle that.
    I am with you on the Bernie support, and I do think the deck is stacked against him, but your demeanor on this forum is more akin to that of an irrational Trump supporter than a rational liberal.

    Mrussel, your patience is admirable and your contributions here add much value and truth to the discussions you join.
    You are a true moderate, and by that I mean that you hold the facts of an issue dearer than your own opinions and feelings. As a true liberal, I admire that, but I can't keep my heart out of the issues as much as I'd like to.
    Post edited by rgambs on
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    PJ_Soul said:

    I think the premise you're discussion is somewhat ridiculous. This is not the first time I have seen people try to discredit good people because they aren't Jesus fucking Christ. It's just criticizing him for running for President in the most principled way he possibly can under the existing system. Finding fault in that just seems so rigid and illogical to me. I personally don't admire people who defy simple reality and logic while they're trying to accomplish a goal, so "accusing" Bernie of NOT doing that actually ends up being a compliment, lol.
    I can only guess who you're talking about here... :confounded:
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,306

    Is this directed at me? I wasn't criticising him or trying to discredit him. I think he is the most principled candidate. I don't blame him for having to run a campaign in a less than ideal way. That is way the game is rigged. I was agreeing with the last part about the super pac.
    No no, not directed at you. :) I'm just talking about the premise of him being a hypocrite simply because he has to work within an existing system in order to even have a campaign. Some people who are worried about him actually winning are trying to use this as an argument against him. This isn't the first time I have seen this suggested, and it irritates me.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,306
    Free said:

    I can only guess who you're talking about here... :confounded:
    Please do, because I have no idea who you have in mind! :lol:
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    edited March 2016
    mrussel1 said:

    I've been clear that I prefer Hillary. And your facts about Hillary include the murder of JFK jr. I'll be nice and continue to call it confirmation bias, rather than immaturity.
    I never said such a thing. I'd like to see Where you're getting this baloney.
    Post edited by Free on
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    edited March 2016
    mrussel1 said:

    Well I hope you are not correct, but you could be. More importantly, say that we do start using federal tax dollars to pay the cost of STATE universities (since there are no fed ones). What power will the federal government have to reign in those costs when they are administered by the states? Why won't the cost curve continue to spike up unabated, necessitating increasing taxes to support them?

    For my Canadian friends like PJ Soul, maybe you have a solution. Are universities overseen by the provinces or federal gov't in Canada? What is the solution?
    I have heard Clinton say a few times that she claims she's going to make college more affordable. So let's see it: show us her policy.

    European countries offer free University. It can be done.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    edited March 2016
    rgambs said:

    It surprises me you would say thst Mrussel hasn't done anything to indicate that he is a Clinton fan. (Edit: I guess I missed it lol)
    All he is trying to do is bring facts and logic to the discussion and apparently you can't handle that.
    I am with you on the Bernie support, and I do think the deck is stacked against him, but your demeanor on this forum is more akin to that of an irrational Trump supporter than a rational liberal.

    Mrussel, your patience is admirable and your contributions here add much value and truth to the discussions you join.
    You are a true moderate, and by that I mean that you hold the facts of an issue dearer than your own opinions and feelings. As a true liberal, I admire that, but I can't keep my heart out of the issues as much as I'd like to.
    Apparently you missed the threads of him denying reality about the media, insisting polls and math are accurate, and downgrading voter suppression in Arizona and saying it never happened. OK

    ... And this quote from you yesterday? Yeah you're a Bernie fan.
    So you are voting for Trump then, right? Sad as it is, that's the reality. You cast a vote for the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee one way or the other, any other narrative is just a pipe dream
    Post edited by Free on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,486
    Free said:

    I never said such a thing. I'd like to see Where you're getting this baloney.
    Ok. Bullshit all you want.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,486
    Free said:

    Apparently you missed the threads of him denying reality about the media, insisting polls and math are accurate, and downgrading voter suppression in Arizona and saying it never happened. OK

    ... And this quote from you yesterday? Yeah you're a Bernie fan.
    So you are voting for Trump then, right? Sad as it is, that's the reality. You cast a vote for the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee one way or the other, any other narrative is just a pipe dream
    The polls have been as accurate as polls traditionally are. The only one they got wrong, materially, was Michigan. And yes, math is always accurate. I've never said Bernie has zero chance, I've challenged the talking points that have been thrown out there. And as I've said 100x, incompetence and suppression are different. You have a bad habit of using the wrong words to articulate your positions.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,486
    Free said:

    I have heard Clinton say a few times that she claims she's going to make college more affordable. So let's see it: show us her policy.

    European countries offer free University. It can be done.
    I haven't seen it. And it's a gap in her arguments, no doubt. But this is a major platform for Sanders. And there is a big difference between US and Europe and it starts with the 10th amendment. All powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,306
    edited March 2016
    Free said:

    I have heard Clinton say a few times that she claims she's going to make college more affordable. So let's see it: show us her policy.

    European countries offer free University. It can be done.
    Yes, European countries do it quite successfully, at least as far as the quality of post-secondary education goes.
    In Canada students pay too much tuition IMO, but it is still subsidized by the government, though it is largely provincial governments that fund universities and that determine tuition rates through both funding and government mandated tuition freezes. I.e. BC students enjoyed several years of tuition freezes thanks to the NDP provincial government in the 90s. So back then (thankfully when I was a university student), it cost about $1100 per term for a full time course load (plus books). That's very manageable, and did not restrict access to university for poorer people, and kept student debt low. Other provinces currently have tuition freezes, others have had them and lifted them like in BC, others will enact them in the future I'm sure. Obviously tuition freezes are accompanied by funding promises. Anyway, the BC Liberals lifted that tuition freeze several years ago, and now tuition has more than tripled since then. A term costs like $4000+ now (so $8000 - $12,000 a year, depending on how many terms you attend). And that is pretty unaffordable for normal people in a place where the cost of living is high and salaries aren't. Of course, it's not so unaffordable that regular people can't go to university, or that it's really building a bigger bridge between rich and poor. It just means that more and more students are graduating with way bigger student debt loads. So that sucks, but it's nothing at all like in the US, where students are priced out of the best schools. (btw, colleges are cheaper, but I don't know what the tuition rates are. In Canada, colleges are on a lower level than universities. They often serve as a bridge for those who couldn't get into university directly out of high school.... Not to discount the usefulness of some college programs though. Some of them are insanely useful).

    But anyhow, either way, the government pays for some of it, and students pay for some of it. Apparently there are a small number of private universities in Canada, but I don't even know what they are, as most of them are simply religious schools. They aren't the competitive, with the best reputations, as is the case in the US with the likes of Harvard, Yale, etc etc. They seem to be a total non-factor in Canada. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that these weird private institutions are forced to be relatively competitive with public universities, since hardly anyone even wants to go to them in the first place, lol.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,486
    rgambs said:

    It surprises me you would say thst Mrussel hasn't done anything to indicate that he is a Clinton fan. (Edit: I guess I missed it lol)
    All he is trying to do is bring facts and logic to the discussion and apparently you can't handle that.
    I am with you on the Bernie support, and I do think the deck is stacked against him, but your demeanor on this forum is more akin to that of an irrational Trump supporter than a rational liberal.

    Mrussel, your patience is admirable and your contributions here add much value and truth to the discussions you join.
    You are a true moderate, and by that I mean that you hold the facts of an issue dearer than your own opinions and feelings. As a true liberal, I admire that, but I can't keep my heart out of the issues as much as I'd like to.
    I am a moderate and thanks for the kind words. I have no issue with people voting their hearts. But I prefer it's hearts informed by the brain. They are compatible. I've been called a liberal all my life by all my work colleagues. It's rather refreshing to be thought of in this light!
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    mrussel1 said:

    Ok. Bullshit all you want.
    Actually I'm serious. You've been talking about that bullshit for a week now. I have no clue what you're talking about so please, find where I said that.

    I may not like Hillary, but I rely on info from credible sources. I'm not into alarmist tabloid news.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    edited March 2016
    mrussel1 said:

    The polls have been as accurate as polls traditionally are. The only one they got wrong, materially, was Michigan. And yes, math is always accurate. I've never said Bernie has zero chance, I've challenged the talking points that have been thrown out there. And as I've said 100x, incompetence and suppression are different. You have a bad habit of using the wrong words to articulate your positions.

    Still in denial, huh? Deliberate voter suppression in AZ. And you wonder why I won't discuss anything with you anymore
    Post edited by Free on
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    Free said:

    Apparently you missed the threads of him denying reality about the media, insisting polls and math are accurate, and downgrading voter suppression in Arizona and saying it never happened. OK

    ... And this quote from you yesterday? Yeah you're a Bernie fan.
    So you are voting for Trump then, right? Sad as it is, that's the reality. You cast a vote for the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee one way or the other, any other narrative is just a pipe dream
    Your blathering about polls and math being meaningless is ridiculous. So what if the polls are right most of the time right? Doesn't matter I guess.

    Yeah, I am a big Bernie guy. You can take that to the fucking bank.
    I do, however, live in the real world, where facts and math and reality matter. The plain truth of reality is that Bernie as a write-in almost guarantees a Republican president. How is that good for progress?
    Now, you deny historical fact and plain truth and go about your day, but if that scenario plays out will you still deny reality and math and the polls which told you it was a certainty?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Free said:

    Apparently you missed the threads of him denying reality about the media, insisting polls and math are accurate, and downgrading voter suppression in Arizona and saying it never happened. OK

    ... And this quote from you yesterday? Yeah you're a Bernie fan.
    So you are voting for Trump then, right? Sad as it is, that's the reality. You cast a vote for the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee one way or the other, any other narrative is just a pipe dream
    I'm not mrussel (and he clearly doesn't need people coming to his defense), but I have watched you misconstrue his posts. I'm not sure if you are intentionally obfuscating, or just don't understand his points. Since I'm pro-poll and pro-math, I'll say that Michigan was the only state that the polls called incorrectly as I recall. Bernie also did well with greater margins in a few states than the polls predicted. But the bottom line is that polls are a pretty good indicator, and have historically been so. Were that not the case they wouldn't be relied on by ALL campaigns in formulation of strategy. And you accuse him of insisting that math is accurate??? Uh, it is. I'm not sure what your alternative to math is, but I'm pretty sure Tarot cards and tea leaf readings have been historically less accurate than math. Your last point was puzzling. Mrussell never said that voter suppression wasn't a problem, or wasn't happening. What he said was that it affects all candidates. Your complaint was that the voting issues in AZ hurt Bernie specifically and that's why he didn't win the state. His response was that all candidates were affected, and that this wasn't some sort of anti-Bernie conspiracy.

    And now you claim Gambs isn't a Bernie supporter? OK. You seem to have all of the answers, and are an awesome consensus builder.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    Polls mean nothing. Keep believing them math heads. Over analyzing statistics does not prove anything. This entire election is brought to you by the system at large. That math they tell you about? It's to keep the mathematicians busy. The media influences voters behavior. It's a complete manipulation game, not a math game. It's also a rigged game. And gambs, you tell me that I'm not realistic? That's pretty fucking funny.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    edited March 2016
    I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.

    P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
    Post edited by Free on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,486
    Free said:

    Polls mean nothing. Keep believing them math heads. Over analyzing statistics does not prove anything. This entire election is brought to you by the system at large. That math they tell you about? It's to keep the mathematicians busy. The media influences voters behavior. It's a complete manipulation game, not a math game. It's also a rigged game. And gambs, you tell me that I'm not realistic? That's pretty fucking funny.

    Don't you have prom coming up or something.. followed by graduation? I'm sure you have a big summer ahead. You should probably worry about that for a while.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,486
    Free said:

    Actually I'm serious. You've been talking about that bullshit for a week now. I have no clue what you're talking about so please, find where I said that.

    I may not like Hillary, but I rely on info from credible sources. I'm not into alarmist tabloid news.
    ..as if the edit button doesn't exist on these posts. I could care less at this point. It was the precise point I stopped taking you even marginally seriously.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    Free said:

    Polls mean nothing. Keep believing them math heads. Over analyzing statistics does not prove anything. This entire election is brought to you by the system at large. That math they tell you about? It's to keep the mathematicians busy. The media influences voters behavior. It's a complete manipulation game, not a math game. It's also a rigged game. And gambs, you tell me that I'm not realistic? That's pretty fucking funny.

    Is Alex Jones a Pearl Jam fan?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    edited March 2016
    mrussel1 said:

    ..as if the edit button doesn't exist on these posts. I could care less at this point. It was the precise point I stopped taking you even marginally seriously.
    I take it you never found that info. :lol
    Post edited by Free on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,486
    edited March 2016
    Free - I sincerely apologize. It wasn't you that accused Hillary of murdering JFK jr. It was JC29856. My bad on this one.
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Free said:

    I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.

    P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.

    What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,486
    jeffbr said:

    What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.
    Awesome post. You hit it directly. I was about to launch into 95/5/5, response distribution and MOE... and then dovetail into a Six Sigma conversation... but maybe that would be going too far.

    On a far more interesting note, how about Trump's horrible unforced error on abortion today? Think that might get some air time this fall?
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    edited March 2016
    jeffbr said:

    What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.
    I studied and worked in media marketing for a while. Polling is marketing-based, more so than math-based. Taking opinions on a sample of people and determining an outcome. When you trying to predict something as big as an election with polls? It's an educated guess, not an accuracy. It's also manipulation, another word for marketing. Poll outcome *predictions* released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.

    Corporately owned media limits information to the public based on the bias of the corporation. The US media is now owned by six, count them, SIX corporations. The mainstream media used to be a public service. It is now owned and operated by these 6 corporations and they tell the reporters what to say. Journalists are not allowed to do independent investigative journalism anymore. They are told what to say and if they don't, they get fired. That is a fact, unless you work for independent media. They lie constantly in the mainstream media, just look at Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch.

    Like it or not, the media determines the election based on manipulation of the public especially voters who don't do their homework. And behind that manipulation is the corporations. Every candidate receives money from corporate interests, except Bernie, which explains why he is not covered well by the media. If you're going to be vote, Research the candidates on THEIR websites, and not the media websites and channels. They're more likely to be lying to you to appeal to their bias agenda.
    Post edited by Free on
  • Free said:

    Poll outcomes released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.

    It is ridiculous how CNN presents exit polls with lightening quick precision.
    And they preface it by saying "again, these are early exit polls and too early too predict a winner"
    Tell me that doesn't influence others who have not voted yet.
    Good point Free.
This discussion has been closed.