Exactly. If Bernie's followers decide that his own political decision to support Hillary in an effort to best serve Americans (under the circumstances) is completely fucked, then I'd say that they made a mistake following him in the first place, since they obviously don't trust his judgment or his political decisions.
If you know anything about Bernie, The best way to serve Americans is to have them rise up and be the leaders themselves. His campaign is never been about him solely, it was about him raising up all of us so all of us can lead. Which is happening. More and more progressives are taking the lead and running for office... For the right reasons.
Your knee-jerk reaction it to Sanders and what his supporters should do, it's pretty uncalled for. No one with a brain follows blindly, so stop making this about "how poor of a leader he is if his supporters don't get behind him and vote for Hillary".
What knee-jerk reaction? You know I am a big fan of Bernie, right?
It's really hard to tell.
I'm not surprised, because you are completely unwilling to look at things objectively.
If you call blaming a leader for not getting his supporters to vote for Hillary objective? I have nothing.
I never blamed him for not getting his supporters to vote for Hillary. I think it's really weird that that is how you're reading it.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Exactly. If Bernie's followers decide that his own political decision to support Hillary in an effort to best serve Americans (under the circumstances) is completely fucked, then I'd say that they made a mistake following him in the first place, since they obviously don't trust his judgment or his political decisions.
If you know anything about Bernie, The best way to serve Americans is to have them rise up and be the leaders themselves. His campaign is never been about him solely, it was about him raising up all of us so all of us can lead. Which is happening. More and more progressives are taking the lead and running for office... For the right reasons.
Your knee-jerk reaction it to Sanders and what his supporters should do, it's pretty uncalled for. No one with a brain follows blindly, so stop making this about "how poor of a leader he is if his supporters don't get behind him and vote for Hillary".
What knee-jerk reaction? You know I am a big fan of Bernie, right?
It's really hard to tell.
I'm not surprised, because you are completely unwilling to look at things objectively.
If you call blaming a leader for not getting his supporters to vote for Hillary objective? I have nothing.
I never blamed him for not getting his supporters to vote for Hillary. I think it's really weird that that is how you're reading it.
You are aware of 3rd party candidates, are you not?
Exactly. If Bernie's followers decide that his own political decision to support Hillary in an effort to best serve Americans (under the circumstances) is completely fucked, then I'd say that they made a mistake following him in the first place, since they obviously don't trust his judgment or his political decisions.
If you know anything about Bernie, The best way to serve Americans is to have them rise up and be the leaders themselves. His campaign is never been about him solely, it was about him raising up all of us so all of us can lead. Which is happening. More and more progressives are taking the lead and running for office... For the right reasons.
Your knee-jerk reaction it to Sanders and what his supporters should do, it's pretty uncalled for. No one with a brain follows blindly, so stop making this about "how poor of a leader he is if his supporters don't get behind him and vote for Hillary".
What knee-jerk reaction? You know I am a big fan of Bernie, right?
It's really hard to tell.
I'm not surprised, because you are completely unwilling to look at things objectively.
If you call blaming a leader for not getting his supporters to vote for Hillary objective? I have nothing.
I never blamed him for not getting his supporters to vote for Hillary. I think it's really weird that that is how you're reading it.
You are aware of 3rd party candidates, are you not?
Well I am Canadian, so yeah, I understand the concept, lol. I don't know what your point is.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Looks like it is coming. I'm not sure I like the free tuition deal at all... I think it's a political liability and economically untenable considering the cost of tuition. But I'll wait for details before getting too worked up about it. I'll be annoyed if I have to pay for my kids' tuition and pay for other's as well.
And I have no kids. I'll be highly annoyed if i have to pay for anybody's!!
Here's a solution. Don't have kids if you can't afford them!!!
Looks like it is coming. I'm not sure I like the free tuition deal at all... I think it's a political liability and economically untenable considering the cost of tuition. But I'll wait for details before getting too worked up about it. I'll be annoyed if I have to pay for my kids' tuition and pay for other's as well.
And I have no kids. I'll be highly annoyed if i have to pay for anybody's!!
Here's a solution. Don't have kids if you can't afford them!!!
I have no kids and am very happy for my tax dollars to go towards affordable education (it's subsidized in Canada). You do it for kids up to the age of 18, so why would you balk at paying it until they're 22 and just when education gets really useful? And wtf? Anyone who can't pay for their adult kids to attend US post-secondary shouldn't have any?? You're not serious, are you?? I guess you really love the idea of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, eh?
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
Looks like it is coming. I'm not sure I like the free tuition deal at all... I think it's a political liability and economically untenable considering the cost of tuition. But I'll wait for details before getting too worked up about it. I'll be annoyed if I have to pay for my kids' tuition and pay for other's as well.
And I have no kids. I'll be highly annoyed if i have to pay for anybody's!!
Here's a solution. Don't have kids if you can't afford them!!!
I have no kids and am very happy for my tax dollars to go towards affordable education (it's subsidized in Canada). You do it for kids up to the age of 18, so why would you balk at paying it until they're 22 and just when education gets really useful? And wtf? Anyone who can't pay for their adult kids to attend US post-secondary shouldn't have any?? You're not serious, are you?? I guess you really love the idea of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, eh?
We're all getting a little testy...
Here's my thing, like I posted earlier with the graph. It appears to be a fact that a college education is necessary for today. You can see that we are creating barely any jobs for non college grads. So it is incumbent on us to prepare our kids for the next phase of this country without saddling them with mounds of debt. However, I don't think it should be limited people making under 125K (in fact, you are really talking about people between 50 and 125 since there are so many grants available for the truly poor). If it's a requirement for the new economy, like HS was starting in the 50s/60s, then let's make it broadly available. Second, it should be limited to JUCO type schools to control costs. Make them four years rather than 2. I'd be on board with this. Basically, the current university system will break the bank. If a family cant' afford it, then the gov't certainly can't (using taxes). WE need a different system.
Looks like it is coming. I'm not sure I like the free tuition deal at all... I think it's a political liability and economically untenable considering the cost of tuition. But I'll wait for details before getting too worked up about it. I'll be annoyed if I have to pay for my kids' tuition and pay for other's as well.
And I have no kids. I'll be highly annoyed if i have to pay for anybody's!!
Here's a solution. Don't have kids if you can't afford them!!!
I have no kids and am very happy for my tax dollars to go towards affordable education (it's subsidized in Canada). You do it for kids up to the age of 18, so why would you balk at paying it until they're 22 and just when education gets really useful? And wtf? Anyone who can't pay for their adult kids to attend US post-secondary shouldn't have any?? You're not serious, are you?? I guess you really love the idea of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, eh?
Quit throwing out ASSumptions about ideas I love or don't love. That last one is especially ASSinine. It surely doesn't inspire me to answer any of your previous questions, because I'm really not in the mood for your judgmental bullshit when I give you the answer that doesn't match your Canadian world view.
Looks like it is coming. I'm not sure I like the free tuition deal at all... I think it's a political liability and economically untenable considering the cost of tuition. But I'll wait for details before getting too worked up about it. I'll be annoyed if I have to pay for my kids' tuition and pay for other's as well.
And I have no kids. I'll be highly annoyed if i have to pay for anybody's!!
Here's a solution. Don't have kids if you can't afford them!!!
I have no kids and am very happy for my tax dollars to go towards affordable education (it's subsidized in Canada). You do it for kids up to the age of 18, so why would you balk at paying it until they're 22 and just when education gets really useful? And wtf? Anyone who can't pay for their adult kids to attend US post-secondary shouldn't have any?? You're not serious, are you?? I guess you really love the idea of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, eh?
We're all getting a little testy...
Here's my thing, like I posted earlier with the graph. It appears to be a fact that a college education is necessary for today. You can see that we are creating barely any jobs for non college grads. So it is incumbent on us to prepare our kids for the next phase of this country without saddling them with mounds of debt. However, I don't think it should be limited people making under 125K (in fact, you are really talking about people between 50 and 125 since there are so many grants available for the truly poor). If it's a requirement for the new economy, like HS was starting in the 50s/60s, then let's make it broadly available. Second, it should be limited to JUCO type schools to control costs. Make them four years rather than 2. I'd be on board with this. Basically, the current university system will break the bank. If a family cant' afford it, then the gov't certainly can't (using taxes). WE need a different system.
Reason. Fiscal responsibility. I love you Mrussel.
OUR new system ought to include financial partnerships with the business community demanding specialized labor. If we're going to reduce the goal of American education to work-force training (which I begrudgingly accept as the goal in the 21st century), then business needs to bear some of the burden. When did on-the-job training and apprenticeships get tossed out if the mix? The same time they became anti-union?
We also need to rethink these Club Med style college campuses our states are currently developing to attract these entitled millennials. I paid my entire way through a state school with loans ( I paid it, not my parents, not the govt). I came out with what I consider reasonable debt. But at the time, my college had one dining hall , one gym, a handful of computer labs, pay phones in the dorm hallway, shared bathrooms, etc. I walk on that same campus now for various events, and it's a fucking spa world! No wonder it's costing a fortune when they have to attract all these entitled kids with their "amenities." All that extra shit costs money, and much of it has nothing to do with being educated in the classroom. I absolutely know these kinds of cuts wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it would certainly help for state schools to focus on their basic function and quit with the designer options for average middle class kids who can't afford and don't need all that shit.
My college experience was like yours so the club med deal is my suspicion too. I believe that is a major driver in the rising expenses. It will be interesting to see what the platform will be on this subject. Hopefully limited to junior colleges or something inexpensive. It won't change my vote but I will care greatly.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
Exactly. If Bernie's followers decide that his own political decision to support Hillary in an effort to best serve Americans (under the circumstances) is completely fucked, then I'd say that they made a mistake following him in the first place, since they obviously don't trust his judgment or his political decisions.
If you know anything about Bernie, The best way to serve Americans is to have them rise up and be the leaders themselves. His campaign is never been about him solely, it was about him raising up all of us so all of us can lead. Which is happening. More and more progressives are taking the lead and running for office... For the right reasons.
Your knee-jerk reaction it to Sanders and what his supporters should do, it's pretty uncalled for. No one with a brain follows blindly, so stop making this about "how poor of a leader he is if his supporters don't get behind him and vote for Hillary".
There's a lot to catch up on here on this thread and I admit I haven't read it all but this bolded statement above by Free caught my attention in a big way because this is something that mainly only Bernie supporters and Green Party supporters seem to recognize. The crux of this idea is that if America is a democracy, Americans are going to be an integral part of the democratic process. Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein are the best candidates to want to work to make that happen. It seems to me a vote for Hillary is not a vote for moving closer to democracy but, rather, moving closer to Corporatocracy and a vote for Trump is a vote for Chaosocrazy.
So bottom line is, if you support the idea of a democracy, come along, join us. Start supporting candidates who believe in democracy. Don't get left in the dust!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
^^^ Club med seems a little brash. Wouldn't you like to at least study in comfort knowing that for the rest of your life you will be working?
Well the amenities are driving up the cost and then students complain about their massive debt.
In this day and age regardless how it's come to this if you take away all those amenities going to school suddenly does not seem like a motivating factor to do something.
^^^ Club med seems a little brash. Wouldn't you like to at least study in comfort knowing that for the rest of your life you will be working?
Well the amenities are driving up the cost and then students complain about their massive debt.
In this day and age regardless how it's come to this if you take away all those amenities going to school suddenly does not seem like a motivating factor to do something.
I thought getting an education was the motivating factor?
Granted I attended only one semester at my Cal State University, but I paid for it myself and was prepared to continue to do so. Ended up taking another road, but the fact that the experience was pretty much professor, students, and interaction on that level took nothing away from it. Sure it'd have been nice to have some cushy shit, but it wasn't needed for what we were there for.
WASHINGTON — House Democrats roughed up Sen. Bernie Sanders in a closed-door session Wednesday after he deflected questions about when he would formally back Hillary Clinton for president, with a group of members booing him at one point, according to three Democrats who attended the meeting.
The vast majority of House Democrats endorsed Clinton’s candidacy early in the primary process, but Sanders was invited to attend the weekly meeting as a courtesy extended to all presidential candidates. When Clinton appeared last month, she was applauded and praised for her commitment to help Democrats regain control of Congress this fall.
Many Democrats have been reluctant to publicly criticize Sanders for continuing his campaign because they want to ensure that the supporters he activated through the long primary contest will come out and vote for the Democratic ticket in November. But some members let out their frustration with the Vermont senator on Wednesday morning, with one member calling Sanders’ appearance before the caucus a “total display of self-obsession.”
During the discussion, Sanders told the group “the goal is not to win elections” and took a dramatic pause, before adding that the aim was to win the battle of ideas, according to multiple sources in the room.
A series of Democrats pressed Sanders to say when he would end his efforts and endorse Clinton and work to unite the party. But after Reps. John Garamendi of California, Mark Takano of California and Joyce Beatty of Ohio, failed to get a concrete answer from the senator, roughly a dozen members booed him inside the room.
A series of Democrats pressed Sanders to say when he would end his efforts and endorse Clinton and work to unite the party. But after Reps. John Garamendi of California, Mark Takano of California and Joyce Beatty of Ohio, failed to get a concrete answer from the senator, roughly a dozen members booed him inside the room.
During one exchange several members chanted “timeline, timeline” when Sanders’ sidestepped a question on when he would back Clinton.
Asked about his message to the House Democratic Caucus, Sanders said as he left the session, “We’ve got to get a large voter turnout. If we get a large voter turnout, Democrats will regain control of the Senate and I believe they’re going to take the House back.”
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra, who presided over the meeting, said he never heard any boos during the session, but downplayed the dissent, saying the discussion was “animated.” He said members did focus on the need to unify, and Sanders informed House Democrats that Clinton was announcing her support for his approach on college affordability.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
^^^ AKA "Get in line you insubordinates!"
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
There’s been truly horrible news the past couple of days: Google Alton Sterling or Philando Castille if you somehow missed it. And there’s been nasty political news: Donald Trump and his ‘sheriff’s star.’ Those events are, sadly, predictable, and all the more troubling because of that predictability.
Buried in the newsfeed, however, is one event that seems weird — and troubling too, though in a different way. That’s the story that members of the House Democratic caucus booed Bernie Sanders in a meeting on Wednesday.
Really? Booed the guy that 45 percent of Democrats supported in the primary? Booed the guy that all year long has been the most favorably viewed politician in America? Booed the guy that got more votes from young people in the primaries than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump combined?
I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised. The boo-ers, anonymously, told reporters that they didn’t like the fact that he hadn’t yet officially endorsed Hillary Clinton, that he was continuing to press for changes to the platform. If all you care about is getting reelected, then this insistence on issues is annoying. But it’s precisely the thing that’s drawn people to Bernie in such numbers.
I’ve spent a good deal of the past year volunteering for Bernie, most recently as one of the five people he named as his representatives to the platform drafting committee. That means I’ve gotten to travel to a number of his rallies, always filled with cheering people. They’re not there because he’s so much fun to listen to: his talks are 90-minute lectures about issues. There’s nothing focus-grouped; it’s more like a classroom. And that’s what people liked, because those issues actually matter to people’s lives.
His willingness to keep fighting for those issues is a great favor to the Democratic party. In the last few days the Clinton campaign has acceded to his suggestion of free public college for most students — and in the process they’ve built a bridge to alienated young voters. It’s possible that the rural, working-class voters who backed Sanders as they’ve backed no Democrat for decades might actually be swayed away from Trump if she’ll do the same thing on the TPP trade agreement. One other huge issue left unaddressed, an issue with huge generational implications: climate change, where Bernie is still pushing as he has for many years.
The point of politics, as Bernie explained, is not to win elections; it’s to win change. But the odd thing is, he’s done both. Coming from nowhere, against the entire party establishment, backed by virtually none of the House members who now insist he sit down and shut up, he came within a whisker of winning the nomination. You would think they’d show, if nothing else, some respect for his political ability.
Especially since that political ability lies in making a deep, real connection with voters. When Democratic politicians jeer him, they jeer those voters, which is a kind of political malpractice. I doubt Bernie cares very much, but the rest of us care.
This is a strange, unpredictable election. Bernie is doing everything he can to make sure the Democrats win, because in 2016 that requires paying attention to the things people care about. The platform, thanks to Bernie, is strong, and it’s getting stronger. Strong enough, maybe, to rescue the very people who are booing.
How interesting and strategic... Bernie gives himself a few days to decide the Hillary thing and Jill Stein offers to have him lead the Green Party. Today.
How interesting and strategic... Bernie gives himself a few days to decide the Hillary thing and Jill Stein offers to have him lead the Green Party. Today.
Said another way, Jill Stein offers the election to Donald Trump.
How interesting and strategic... Bernie gives himself a few days to decide the Hillary thing and Jill Stein offers to have him lead the Green Party. Today.
Said another way, Jill Stein offers the election to Donald Trump.
How interesting and strategic... Bernie gives himself a few days to decide the Hillary thing and Jill Stein offers to have him lead the Green Party. Today.
Said another way, Jill Stein offers the election to Donald Trump.
Definitely a real possibility. Luckily, Bernie knows that too.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
How interesting and strategic... Bernie gives himself a few days to decide the Hillary thing and Jill Stein offers to have him lead the Green Party. Today.
Said another way, Jill Stein offers the election to Donald Trump.
What ever you want to believe.
How can you think splitting the left vote doesn't, at best, send the election to the House, which is controlled by the GOP?
Comments
Discuss, disagree and debate politely....
http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/228366/forum-posting-guidelines
Here's a solution. Don't have kids if you can't afford them!!!
And wtf? Anyone who can't pay for their adult kids to attend US post-secondary shouldn't have any?? You're not serious, are you??
I guess you really love the idea of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, eh?
Here's my thing, like I posted earlier with the graph. It appears to be a fact that a college education is necessary for today. You can see that we are creating barely any jobs for non college grads. So it is incumbent on us to prepare our kids for the next phase of this country without saddling them with mounds of debt.
However, I don't think it should be limited people making under 125K (in fact, you are really talking about people between 50 and 125 since there are so many grants available for the truly poor). If it's a requirement for the new economy, like HS was starting in the 50s/60s, then let's make it broadly available. Second, it should be limited to JUCO type schools to control costs. Make them four years rather than 2. I'd be on board with this. Basically, the current university system will break the bank. If a family cant' afford it, then the gov't certainly can't (using taxes). WE need a different system.
OUR new system ought to include financial partnerships with the business community demanding specialized labor. If we're going to reduce the goal of American education to work-force training (which I begrudgingly accept as the goal in the 21st century), then business needs to bear some of the burden. When did on-the-job training and apprenticeships get tossed out if the mix? The same time they became anti-union?
We also need to rethink these Club Med style college campuses our states are currently developing to attract these entitled millennials. I paid my entire way through a state school with loans ( I paid it, not my parents, not the govt). I came out with what I consider reasonable debt. But at the time, my college had one dining hall , one gym, a handful of computer labs, pay phones in the dorm hallway, shared bathrooms, etc. I walk on that same campus now for various events, and it's a fucking spa world! No wonder it's costing a fortune when they have to attract all these entitled kids with their "amenities." All that extra shit costs money, and much of it has nothing to do with being educated in the classroom. I absolutely know these kinds of cuts wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it would certainly help for state schools to focus on their basic function and quit with the designer options for average middle class kids who can't afford and don't need all that shit.
So bottom line is, if you support the idea of a democracy, come along, join us. Start supporting candidates who believe in democracy. Don't get left in the dust!
Club med seems a little brash.
Wouldn't you like to at least study in comfort knowing that for the rest of your life you will be working?
Granted I attended only one semester at my Cal State University, but I paid for it myself and was prepared to continue to do so. Ended up taking another road, but the fact that the experience was pretty much professor, students, and interaction on that level took nothing away from it. Sure it'd have been nice to have some cushy shit, but it wasn't needed for what we were there for.
House Democrats boo Sanders
http://wtvr.com/2016/07/06/house-democrats-boo-sanders/
WASHINGTON — House Democrats roughed up Sen. Bernie Sanders in a closed-door session Wednesday after he deflected questions about when he would formally back Hillary Clinton for president, with a group of members booing him at one point, according to three Democrats who attended the meeting.
The vast majority of House Democrats endorsed Clinton’s candidacy early in the primary process, but Sanders was invited to attend the weekly meeting as a courtesy extended to all presidential candidates. When Clinton appeared last month, she was applauded and praised for her commitment to help Democrats regain control of Congress this fall.
Many Democrats have been reluctant to publicly criticize Sanders for continuing his campaign because they want to ensure that the supporters he activated through the long primary contest will come out and vote for the Democratic ticket in November. But some members let out their frustration with the Vermont senator on Wednesday morning, with one member calling Sanders’ appearance before the caucus a “total display of self-obsession.”
During the discussion, Sanders told the group “the goal is not to win elections” and took a dramatic pause, before adding that the aim was to win the battle of ideas, according to multiple sources in the room.
A series of Democrats pressed Sanders to say when he would end his efforts and endorse Clinton and work to unite the party. But after Reps. John Garamendi of California, Mark Takano of California and Joyce Beatty of Ohio, failed to get a concrete answer from the senator, roughly a dozen members booed him inside the room.
A series of Democrats pressed Sanders to say when he would end his efforts and endorse Clinton and work to unite the party. But after Reps. John Garamendi of California, Mark Takano of California and Joyce Beatty of Ohio, failed to get a concrete answer from the senator, roughly a dozen members booed him inside the room.
During one exchange several members chanted “timeline, timeline” when Sanders’ sidestepped a question on when he would back Clinton.
Asked about his message to the House Democratic Caucus, Sanders said as he left the session, “We’ve got to get a large voter turnout. If we get a large voter turnout, Democrats will regain control of the Senate and I believe they’re going to take the House back.”
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra, who presided over the meeting, said he never heard any boos during the session, but downplayed the dissent, saying the discussion was “animated.” He said members did focus on the need to unify, and Sanders informed House Democrats that Clinton was announcing her support for his approach on college affordability.
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/bernie-sanders-this-isn-t-about-my-ego-719966787657
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/07/08/why-democrats-should-be-cheering-bernie-sanders