Bernie Sanders

mrussel1

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.

i_lov_it

person with the most $$$ wins...

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.

I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.

I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.

It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.

mrussel1

When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.

I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.

It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.

Yep, that's how it works. Can we have some campaign finacne reform, please?

mrussel1 said:

When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.

Well, sorry but the average American (at least) is rather uninformed and reckless are they not? (I'm restraining myself while thinking of a classic George Carlin routine.) What say we work to build a better educated America and encourage people to make better, more informed choice, eh?

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.

I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.

It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.

Yep, that's how it works. Can we have some campaign finacne reform, please?

mrussel1 said:

When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.

Well, sorry but the average American (at least) is rather uninformed and reckless are they not? (I'm restraining myself while thinking of a classic George Carlin routine.) What say we work to build a better educated America and encourage people to make better, more informed choice, eh?

Because Jill Stein has zero history of accomplishing anything, let alone winning an election.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.

I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.

It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.

Yep, that's how it works. Can we have some campaign finacne reform, please?

mrussel1 said:

When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.

Well, sorry but the average American (at least) is rather uninformed and reckless are they not? (I'm restraining myself while thinking of a classic George Carlin routine.) What say we work to build a better educated America and encourage people to make better, more informed choice, eh?

Because Jill Stein has zero history of accomplishing anything, let alone winning an election.

You really are afraid of change, aren't you? Go ahead, play it safe but let me ask you, has the status quo made life for us and the rest of life on earth better? In my nearly 65 years of walking around on this planet I totally believe things in general are definitely not getting better (more and more frequent wars, more disease, continued population explosion, more international strife, more religious fanaticism on all sides, more acceleration of species die off, more radioactivity, shall I go on?) and if we don't make some changes quick, we are all fucked.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.

I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.

It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.

Yep, that's how it works. Can we have some campaign finacne reform, please?

mrussel1 said:

When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.

Well, sorry but the average American (at least) is rather uninformed and reckless are they not? (I'm restraining myself while thinking of a classic George Carlin routine.) What say we work to build a better educated America and encourage people to make better, more informed choice, eh?

Because Jill Stein has zero history of accomplishing anything, let alone winning an election.

You really are afraid of change, aren't you? Go ahead, play it safe but let me ask you, has the status quo made life for us and the rest of life on earth better? In my nearly 65 years of walking around on this planet I totally believe things in general are definitely not getting better (more and more frequent wars, more disease, continued population explosion, more international strife, more religious fanaticism on all sides, more acceleration of species die off, more radioactivity, shall I go on?) and if we don't make some changes quick, we are all fucked.

I fear incompetence, not change.

And you seriously think things are not better today? 100 years ago we were embroiled in a world war, the first of two that devastated the planet. The influenza epidemic just killed millions world wide. Polio devastated children. Blacks were under the yoke of Jim Crow. You call that a draw with today?

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.

I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.

It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.

Yep, that's how it works. Can we have some campaign finacne reform, please?

mrussel1 said:

When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.

Well, sorry but the average American (at least) is rather uninformed and reckless are they not? (I'm restraining myself while thinking of a classic George Carlin routine.) What say we work to build a better educated America and encourage people to make better, more informed choice, eh?

Because Jill Stein has zero history of accomplishing anything, let alone winning an election.

You really are afraid of change, aren't you? Go ahead, play it safe but let me ask you, has the status quo made life for us and the rest of life on earth better? In my nearly 65 years of walking around on this planet I totally believe things in general are definitely not getting better (more and more frequent wars, more disease, continued population explosion, more international strife, more religious fanaticism on all sides, more acceleration of species die off, more radioactivity, shall I go on?) and if we don't make some changes quick, we are all fucked.

I fear incompetence, not change.

And you seriously think things are not better today? 100 years ago we were embroiled in a world war, the first of two that devastated the planet. The influenza epidemic just killed millions world wide. Polio devastated children. Blacks were under the yoke of Jim Crow. You call that a draw with today?

Yes, I believe we are in worse shape today.

100 years ago we were not changing the climate (although the wheels were set in motion that way with the beginning of the industrial revolution).

Yes, some social issues have improved but others have degraded.

Epidemics occurred throughout history but today a massive pandemic looms on the horizon due to our over-use of antibiotics.

Though I do not cherish the thought, epidemics and infant mortality helped limit our population. Today we continue to breed like rabbits. The projected human population by 2050 is 9.7 billion the end of the century is 11.2 billion. It was a little less than 2.6 billion when I was born.

As far as I know and reasonably can assume, 100 years ago we did not consume more than the earth provided for us by August of each year (AKA earth overshoot day) as we do now.

100 years ago we could not annihilate all of the large animal life on earth (including people) with our bombs.

Etc...

But on a positive note, we did not have rock and roll in 1916.

mrussel1

I'm not sure I can wrap my arms around this perspective. Epidemics and pandemics are not useful tools to limit population and the grief and emotional destruction brought on by infant mortality and world wars do not come close to being offset by the "virtues" of population control. Since when does the end justify the means?

Free

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.

I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.

It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.

Yep, that's how it works. Can we have some campaign finacne reform, please?

mrussel1 said:

When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.

Well, sorry but the average American (at least) is rather uninformed and reckless are they not? (I'm restraining myself while thinking of a classic George Carlin routine.) What say we work to build a better educated America and encourage people to make better, more informed choice, eh?

Because Jill Stein has zero history of accomplishing anything, let alone winning an election.

You really are afraid of change, aren't you? Go ahead, play it safe but let me ask you, has the status quo made life for us and the rest of life on earth better? In my nearly 65 years of walking around on this planet I totally believe things in general are definitely not getting better (more and more frequent wars, more disease, continued population explosion, more international strife, more religious fanaticism on all sides, more acceleration of species die off, more radioactivity, shall I go on?) and if we don't make some changes quick, we are all fucked.

What people had against Obama before he won (out of fear) was that he "had no experience". Remember that? There will always be lots of people so deathly afraid of change they will make every excuse in the book. The same goes for those willing to vote based on their fears rather than a candidate mostly aligned with their values.

rustneversleeps

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

who?

mrussel1

Free said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.

I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.

It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.

Yep, that's how it works. Can we have some campaign finacne reform, please?

mrussel1 said:

When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.

Well, sorry but the average American (at least) is rather uninformed and reckless are they not? (I'm restraining myself while thinking of a classic George Carlin routine.) What say we work to build a better educated America and encourage people to make better, more informed choice, eh?

Because Jill Stein has zero history of accomplishing anything, let alone winning an election.

You really are afraid of change, aren't you? Go ahead, play it safe but let me ask you, has the status quo made life for us and the rest of life on earth better? In my nearly 65 years of walking around on this planet I totally believe things in general are definitely not getting better (more and more frequent wars, more disease, continued population explosion, more international strife, more religious fanaticism on all sides, more acceleration of species die off, more radioactivity, shall I go on?) and if we don't make some changes quick, we are all fucked.

What people had against Obama before he won (out of fear) was that he "had no experience". Remember that? There will always be lots of people so deathly afraid of change they will make every excuse in the book. The same goes for those willing to vote based on their fears rather than a candidate mostly aligned with their values.

Whatever makes you feel good. But you have no idea what experiences motivate others to vote how they do. The difference between Obama, a federal and state senator who won elections is quite different than Stein who can't garner 5% in MA.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

I'm not sure I can wrap my arms around this perspective. Epidemics and pandemics are not useful tools to limit population and the grief and emotional destruction brought on by infant mortality and world wars do not come close to being offset by the "virtues" of population control. Since when does the end justify the means?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I am not a monster! I wasn't giving my perspective, just the fact that in earlier times, population rose very slowly due to limiting factors like epidemics and infant mortality. Of course those are things we do not welcome! Of course I think death by illness and death in child birth is tragic when viewed from an individual point of view. My goddaughter just had a baby. Am I glad she and the baby are doing fine? Of course!

Mother Nature always controls population by her own means. If a species overshoots it population, die off will occur wither through increased predation, starvation, disease, or a combination of factors. Left unchecked, that will happen to humans. So a limited population is a good thing and we can achieve the same thing- zero or negative population growth- through birth control.

Population is slowing in many countries but what is often not recognized is that even when countries have zero population growth by births, the overshoot of people living longer means that the population in that country will still rise for many years. We may not be moving fast enough to avoid a die off of an unpleasant (but necessary) means.

Bentleyspop

rustneversleeps said:

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

who?

Ben Stein?

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.

I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.

It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.

Yep, that's how it works. Can we have some campaign finacne reform, please?

mrussel1 said:

When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.

Well, sorry but the average American (at least) is rather uninformed and reckless are they not? (I'm restraining myself while thinking of a classic George Carlin routine.) What say we work to build a better educated America and encourage people to make better, more informed choice, eh?

Because Jill Stein has zero history of accomplishing anything, let alone winning an election.

You really are afraid of change, aren't you? Go ahead, play it safe but let me ask you, has the status quo made life for us and the rest of life on earth better? In my nearly 65 years of walking around on this planet I totally believe things in general are definitely not getting better (more and more frequent wars, more disease, continued population explosion, more international strife, more religious fanaticism on all sides, more acceleration of species die off, more radioactivity, shall I go on?) and if we don't make some changes quick, we are all fucked.

I don't understand how you think Jill Stein would have a positive impact on any of these things though Brian. Is she even capable of that??
I also think that a LOT of things are a LOT better than they used to be. But yeah, some things are worse. The US Green Party is unfortunately unlikely to fix any of those things, unfortunately. While I do certainly support the Green Party when it comes to environmental issues and clean energy initiatives, I think they are too much a one party platform. Even though the environment is very, very high on my list of major issues, I still don't vote Green, as much as I admire some of their principles. There is a good reason for that: I have no real confidence in their ability to actually lead a nation or to make most of their initiatives actually happen. I like a strong third party (In Canada anyway - i don't think the US system can handle one right now; the system is rigged against one), but Green doesn't seem to be one.

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

I'm not sure I can wrap my arms around this perspective. Epidemics and pandemics are not useful tools to limit population and the grief and emotional destruction brought on by infant mortality and world wars do not come close to being offset by the "virtues" of population control. Since when does the end justify the means?

For me it's not about justification or anything. The fact is that humans have managed to beat natural population controls, which is very very very bad for the world overall. Natural population control is SO important to life on Earth... and humankind has fucked it all up with medicine and technology while not doing anything to compensate for the lower death rates, I.e. birth control. It is very very stupid on our part.

brianlux

Bentleyspop said:

rustneversleeps said:

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

who?

Ben Stein?

Steinbenner. You know, the baseball dude.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Donations To Jill Stein Up 1000% After Sanders’ Clinton Endorsement

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donations-jill-stein-1000-sanders-clinton-endorsement/218447/

Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.

I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.

It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.

Yep, that's how it works. Can we have some campaign finacne reform, please?

mrussel1 said:

When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.

Well, sorry but the average American (at least) is rather uninformed and reckless are they not? (I'm restraining myself while thinking of a classic George Carlin routine.) What say we work to build a better educated America and encourage people to make better, more informed choice, eh?

Because Jill Stein has zero history of accomplishing anything, let alone winning an election.

You really are afraid of change, aren't you? Go ahead, play it safe but let me ask you, has the status quo made life for us and the rest of life on earth better? In my nearly 65 years of walking around on this planet I totally believe things in general are definitely not getting better (more and more frequent wars, more disease, continued population explosion, more international strife, more religious fanaticism on all sides, more acceleration of species die off, more radioactivity, shall I go on?) and if we don't make some changes quick, we are all fucked.

I don't understand how you think Jill Stein would have a positive impact on any of these things though Brian. Is she even capable of that??
I also think that a LOT of things are a LOT better than they used to be. But yeah, some things are worse. The US Green Party is unfortunately unlikely to fix any of those things, unfortunately. While I do certainly support the Green Party when it comes to environmental issues and clean energy initiatives, I think they are too much a one party platform. Even though the environment is very, very high on my list of major issues, I still don't vote Green, as much as I admire some of their principles. There is a good reason for that: I have no real confidence in their ability to actually lead a nation or to make most of their initiatives actually happen. I like a strong third party (In Canada anyway - i don't think the US system can handle one right now; the system is rigged against one), but Green doesn't seem to be one.

Again, see my first post in "Setting the Bar". That's why I wrote it, to answer these very types of questions.