Bernie Sanders
Comments
-
Trump is the establishment. You don't think he would use the office to further his business interests? He is a business man, not a president.polaris_x said:
i believe he wants to lower it 20% from 35% to 15% ... either way - that's why I said he probably will serve the establishment ... in any case - ultimately, one has to ask if the status quo is acceptable ... my values dictate that answer is a firm no ... so, really - the only way to contribute to real change is to not continue this cycle of voting for the lesser of evils ...PJ_Soul said:Lowering corporate taxes by 35% is a big part of the definition of perpetuating the will of corporations, no?
0 -
He's already been a part of the establishment. He has happily played that game from the money side for years. Of course he's not going to suddenly stop doing it.cottagesteeze said:
Trump is the establishment. You don't think he would use the office to further his business interests? He is a business man, not a president.polaris_x said:
i believe he wants to lower it 20% from 35% to 15% ... either way - that's why I said he probably will serve the establishment ... in any case - ultimately, one has to ask if the status quo is acceptable ... my values dictate that answer is a firm no ... so, really - the only way to contribute to real change is to not continue this cycle of voting for the lesser of evils ...PJ_Soul said:Lowering corporate taxes by 35% is a big part of the definition of perpetuating the will of corporations, no?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
would any of his radical ideas get through both houses?cottagesteeze said:
Trump is the establishment. You don't think he would use the office to further his business interests? He is a business man, not a president.polaris_x said:
i believe he wants to lower it 20% from 35% to 15% ... either way - that's why I said he probably will serve the establishment ... in any case - ultimately, one has to ask if the status quo is acceptable ... my values dictate that answer is a firm no ... so, really - the only way to contribute to real change is to not continue this cycle of voting for the lesser of evils ...PJ_Soul said:Lowering corporate taxes by 35% is a big part of the definition of perpetuating the will of corporations, no?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/donald-trump-the-anti-establishment-candidate-connections-to-wall-street-blackwater-and-the-cfr/55418460 -
Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
-
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.PJ_Soul said:Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
0 -
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.mrussel1 said:
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.PJ_Soul said:Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
0 -
polaris_x said:benjs said:
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.JC29856 said:
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.rgambs said:
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.JC29856 said:
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she winsFree said:
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.JC29856 said:All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him.
Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I know I won't be voting for the lesser of evils.polaris_x said:
i believe he wants to lower it 20% from 35% to 15% ... either way - that's why I said he probably will serve the establishment ... in any case - ultimately, one has to ask if the status quo is acceptable ... my values dictate that answer is a firm no ... so, really - the only way to contribute to real change is to not continue this cycle of voting for the lesser of evils ...PJ_Soul said:Lowering corporate taxes by 35% is a big part of the definition of perpetuating the will of corporations, no?
0 -
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.polaris_x said:
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.mrussel1 said:
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.PJ_Soul said:Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
0 -
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.polaris_x said:
fear politics!?benjs said:
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.JC29856 said:
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.rgambs said:
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.JC29856 said:
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she winsFree said:
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.JC29856 said:All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him.
Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.'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 10 -
inroads internationally ... I don't think he will get very far on any of his radical ideas ...mrussel1 said:
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.polaris_x said:
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.mrussel1 said:
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.PJ_Soul said:Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
I think the whole nature of SCOTUS just goes to show how weak the constitution really is - if partisan politics can dictate decisions at the highest court - it's fundamental principles are flawed ...0 -
Radical ideas... like being open to nuking Europe because if you've got 'em you may as well consider using 'em?polaris_x said:
inroads internationally ... I don't think he will get very far on any of his radical ideas ...mrussel1 said:
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.polaris_x said:
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.mrussel1 said:
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.PJ_Soul said:Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
I think the whole nature of SCOTUS just goes to show how weak the constitution really is - if partisan politics can dictate decisions at the highest court - it's fundamental principles are flawed ...
I'm actually not quite sure what you're saying. That his radical ideas won't be possible in terms of international relations? Or domestic? Or neither? I think it depends on the radical idea.Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
i don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but you have to start somewhere ... voting in someone who will continue to support wall street and the military industrial complex just doesn't fly for me ... obviously, you and I don't have a vote but if I had one - getting fear mongered into voting for someone I don't want also is a failure of democracy ...benjs said:
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.polaris_x said:
fear politics!?benjs said:
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.JC29856 said:
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.rgambs said:
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.JC29856 said:
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she winsFree said:
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.JC29856 said:All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him.
Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.0 -
Well Marbury v Madison set those wheels in motion in the first 25 years of the Republic.polaris_x said:
inroads internationally ... I don't think he will get very far on any of his radical ideas ...mrussel1 said:
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.polaris_x said:
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.mrussel1 said:
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.PJ_Soul said:Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
I think the whole nature of SCOTUS just goes to show how weak the constitution really is - if partisan politics can dictate decisions at the highest court - it's fundamental principles are flawed ...
I disagree on international policy. He can get far. Congress controls the purse and that was intended to restrain the military, but the defense budget is so big now and then you get into the "support the troops" mantras, that it's just about impossible to de-fund. There are really very few constraints to the president's power outside of impeachment today. He can be an utter menace.
0 -
i know we've talked about this before and really I don't think anyone knows for certain what he would do and what he would be able to get away with ... I just don't buy into the fear mongering also ...mrussel1 said:
Well Marbury v Madison set those wheels in motion in the first 25 years of the Republic.polaris_x said:
inroads internationally ... I don't think he will get very far on any of his radical ideas ...mrussel1 said:
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.polaris_x said:
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.mrussel1 said:
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.PJ_Soul said:Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
I think the whole nature of SCOTUS just goes to show how weak the constitution really is - if partisan politics can dictate decisions at the highest court - it's fundamental principles are flawed ...
I disagree on international policy. He can get far. Congress controls the purse and that was intended to restrain the military, but the defense budget is so big now and then you get into the "support the troops" mantras, that it's just about impossible to de-fund. There are really very few constraints to the president's power outside of impeachment today. He can be an utter menace.0 -
You could be right. He may be so unqualified to be commander in chief, that he delegates those responsibilities to his joint chiefs, his secy of state or someone. We don't know. But I'm not a fan of the unknown. It's just another reason not to vote for him. But I do think liberals everywhere should fear his SCOTUS nominees.polaris_x said:
i know we've talked about this before and really I don't think anyone knows for certain what he would do and what he would be able to get away with ... I just don't buy into the fear mongering also ...mrussel1 said:
Well Marbury v Madison set those wheels in motion in the first 25 years of the Republic.polaris_x said:
inroads internationally ... I don't think he will get very far on any of his radical ideas ...mrussel1 said:
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.polaris_x said:
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.mrussel1 said:
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.PJ_Soul said:Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
I think the whole nature of SCOTUS just goes to show how weak the constitution really is - if partisan politics can dictate decisions at the highest court - it's fundamental principles are flawed ...
I disagree on international policy. He can get far. Congress controls the purse and that was intended to restrain the military, but the defense budget is so big now and then you get into the "support the troops" mantras, that it's just about impossible to de-fund. There are really very few constraints to the president's power outside of impeachment today. He can be an utter menace.0 -
Simply the fact that you're saying that no one has any clue what he'll do even though he's been saying what he'll do is more than enough reason not to vote for him.mrussel1 said:
You could be right. He may be so unqualified to be commander in chief, that he delegates those responsibilities to his joint chiefs, his secy of state or someone. We don't know. But I'm not a fan of the unknown. It's just another reason not to vote for him. But I do think liberals everywhere should fear his SCOTUS nominees.polaris_x said:
i know we've talked about this before and really I don't think anyone knows for certain what he would do and what he would be able to get away with ... I just don't buy into the fear mongering also ...mrussel1 said:
Well Marbury v Madison set those wheels in motion in the first 25 years of the Republic.polaris_x said:
inroads internationally ... I don't think he will get very far on any of his radical ideas ...mrussel1 said:
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.polaris_x said:
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.mrussel1 said:
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.PJ_Soul said:Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
I think the whole nature of SCOTUS just goes to show how weak the constitution really is - if partisan politics can dictate decisions at the highest court - it's fundamental principles are flawed ...
I disagree on international policy. He can get far. Congress controls the purse and that was intended to restrain the military, but the defense budget is so big now and then you get into the "support the troops" mantras, that it's just about impossible to de-fund. There are really very few constraints to the president's power outside of impeachment today. He can be an utter menace.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
-
Can we talk about the millennial vote? Because I've posted several articles about it and that they're not voting for Clinton, and some discussion would be good.tonifig8 said:0 -
I've noticed several attempts by Sanders, Obama, and the Clinton camp making attempts of getting more millennials to support her. Obama was even acting like a condescending prick today over the airwaves telling morning radio shows that if we don't vote for Clinton that we're basically voting for Trump. Huh. My non vote for Clinton or Trump equals ZERO points/vote for either of them. I'm not getting in the way of their two party election. The reality is that Clinton should be winning by 20 FUCKING POINTS against a racist piece of garbage like Donald Trump. That isn't my fault Obama, that's the DNC's fault for giving us such a terrible candidate. Oh wait, it's the GOP's fault and all those clinton haters who are spreading rumors/smearing her. Last I heard Obama was a Muslim, yet he was elected to a Christian nation.Free said:
Can we talk about the millennial vote? Because I've posted several articles about it and that they're not voting for Clinton, and some discussion would be good.tonifig8 said:0 -
Exactly. When we don't contribute to the 2 party system race, it's a non vote, neither for or against either of the two favored ones. But the whole point thing is strictly a media tool; take the media and its daily polls away and it really doesn't matter. Don't you wonder about the pure function of points and points? It's for pure drama, and to get the public pissed off and to encourage a specific outcome, a specific forecast to keep the public entranced and to make the public think their vote actually counts. We've seen what the popular vote does, and fails a country, after 2000.tonifig8 said:
I've noticed several attempts by Sanders, Obama, and the Clinton camp making attempts of getting more millennials to support her. Obama was even acting like a condescending prick today over the airwaves telling morning radio shows that if we don't vote for Clinton that we're basically voting for Trump. Huh. My non vote for Clinton or Trump equals ZERO points/vote for either of them. I'm not getting in the way of their two party election. The reality is that Clinton should be winning by 20 FUCKING POINTS against a racist piece of garbage like Donald Trump. That isn't my fault Obama, that's the DNC's fault for giving us such a terrible candidate. Oh wait, it's the GOP's fault and all those clinton haters who are spreading rumors/smearing her. Last I heard Obama was a Muslim, yet he was elected to a Christian nation.Free said:
Can we talk about the millennial vote? Because I've posted several articles about it and that they're not voting for Clinton, and some discussion would be good.tonifig8 said:Post edited by Free on0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help