Bernie Sanders for President

Gern Blansten · February 2016

brianlux said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

ldent42 said:
the whole process is stupid. What the fuck makes Iowa so special? (no offense to people living in Iowa)
Even though this is a windbag newspaper up here in Canada it is nonetheless unbiased towards America and nice to hear opinions in the press.
From this article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/frustrated-with-status-quo-iowa-voters-turn-to-fringe-candidates/article28475706/?cmpid=rss1&google_editors_picks=true
Hundreds of rallies, thousands of attack ads and countless minutes of bombardment by phone later, Iowa has become the contest that mirrors, if not exaggerates, anger on both sides of the U.S. political divide.

“Many Americans don’t feel the American dream is available to them any more,” the former senator from neighbouring Minnesota, Norm Coleman, told The Globe and Mail over the phone. “The Democrats are looking to a socialist, and the Republicans to Donald Trump. … It is not a pretty picture.”

Accurate opinion? - I don't know, it is the news that is fed to us.
Sounds about right to me. I see no error in this thinking except YET AGAIN the world "Socialist" is substituted for "Democratic Socialist" and I still don't believe the average American see Trump as anything but a blow hard.

But this also begs the question, "What exactly is the American Dream and does that dream not entail within nightmare in the long run?". If the American dream is based on consumption and wealth for all without regard to the true nature of sustainability then I would say we are definitely barking up the wrong dream.

If by the American Dream we are talking about equity and fairness, then Bernie Sanders is the one to go with. (Plus, I read somewhere that some of his positions on things like trade are actually conservative enough in nature to attract some republicans. )

The "American Dream" is being able to have a steady job with decent pay in order to support your pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

The best way to provide the foundation for the American Dream at this point in our country's timeline is:
1. Force our corporations to manufacture in the USA...using tariffs and duties to make foreign manufactured goods too expensive
2. Increase taxes on the wealthy in order to improve our educational system

chadwick · February 2016

Jason P said:

ldent42 said:
the whole process is stupid. What the fuck makes Iowa so special? (no offense to people living in Iowa)
fixing posts a bit around here
chadwick & John Wayne were both born there.

HughFreakingDillon · February 2016

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:
when will America learn how to run an election.
I want to know why in the hell these primaries go on for sooooooo long. It's pretty ridiculous.

it completely overshadows every other thing in the world for nearly an entire year, including the CURRENT PRESIDENT. bizarre.

cincybearcat · February 2016

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:
when will America learn how to run an election.
I want to know why in the hell these primaries go on for sooooooo long. It's pretty ridiculous.
it completely overshadows every other thing in the world for nearly an entire year, including the CURRENT PRESIDENT. bizarre.

It's the original reality show....the public loves privately while they complain about it publicly.

ldent42 · February 2016

The only people that "love" primaries are those coked up Poli-Sci grads in suits.

Normal people doesn't even know about them.

rr165892 · February 2016

chadwick said:

Jason P said:

ldent42 said:
the whole process is stupid. What the fuck makes Iowa so special? (no offense to people living in Iowa)
fixing posts a bit around here
chadwick & John Wayne were both born there.

And Corey Taylor and Slipknot and Stone Sour

gimmesometruth27 · February 2016

i think the primary system is a joke. the earlier states have the advantage and get to narrow the field. it is not fair to the other states.

i say have one big election to narrow the field to 2 on each side. then have another one to determine the two nominees, and then have the actual election. done.

PJ_Soul · February 2016

gimmesometruth27 said:
i think the primary system is a joke. the earlier states have the advantage and get to narrow the field. it is not fair to the other states.

i say have one big election to narrow the field to 2 on each side. then have another one to determine the two nominees, and then have the actual election. done.

Agreed.

ldent42 · February 2016

I dunno what we need more than one election for tbh. I could understand it before "the information age" but nowadays, not so much.

gimmesometruth27 · February 2016

nowadays you can't escape the campaign. it is on every news site, every tv channel, every talk show, all over social media every day. i think the long campaign puts people at a disadvantage. it gives them a whole lot of time to make the one major gaffe that they can never recover from. plus it leads to voter fatigue, not to mention candidate fatigue.

HughFreakingDillon · February 2016

or how about do it like Canada? each party chooses their own party leader without pomp and circumstance and billions wasted? then you have 6 weeks of campaigning and then the election. then the new leader takes over almost immediately. not 3 months down the road.

Leezestarr313 · February 2016

HughFreakingDillon said:
or how about do it like Canada? each party chooses their own party leader without pomp and circumstance and billions wasted? then you have 6 weeks of campaigning and then the election. then the new leader takes over almost immediately. not 3 months down the road.

I think it is the same in Germany.
Why does everything have to be different and more complicated in America? All the measurements, like length and weight and temperatures, and now that.

bootlegger10 · February 2016

ldent42 said:
the whole process is stupid. What the fuck makes Iowa so special? (no offense to people living in Iowa)

I agree. Clearly they don't pick winners either based on prior years.

It bugs me that Ted Cruz is deemed a winner when he got 27% of the vote, Trump got 24% and Rubio got 23% (or something like that). To me that just seems like a three way tie at this point. If the vote took place a week prior or a week after the order probably would change a little but the three would be right there within a few % of each other. It sucks that people are dropping out because 1 out of 50 states voted. Granted, those people that dropped out should have done so long ago because they would have got trounced if all 50 states voted.

pjhawks · February 2016

Leezestarr313 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:
or how about do it like Canada? each party chooses their own party leader without pomp and circumstance and billions wasted? then you have 6 weeks of campaigning and then the election. then the new leader takes over almost immediately. not 3 months down the road.
I think it is the same in Germany.
Why does everything have to be different and more complicated in America? All the measurements, like length and weight and temperatures, and now that.

for spite.

Gern Blansten · February 2016

bootlegger10 said:

ldent42 said:
the whole process is stupid. What the fuck makes Iowa so special? (no offense to people living in Iowa)
I agree. Clearly they don't pick winners either based on prior years.

It bugs me that Ted Cruz is deemed a winner when he got 27% of the vote, Trump got 24% and Rubio got 23% (or something like that). To me that just seems like a three way tie at this point. If the vote took place a week prior or a week after the order probably would change a little but the three would be right there within a few % of each other. It sucks that people are dropping out because 1 out of 50 states voted. Granted, those people that dropped out should have done so long ago because they would have got trounced if all 50 states voted.

Those people are dropping out because they have no chance. It national polls gave them any hope they would still be in the race.

I think it's good that the process is long....it's an important decision

bootlegger10 · February 2016

Gern Blansten said:

bootlegger10 said:

ldent42 said:
the whole process is stupid. What the fuck makes Iowa so special? (no offense to people living in Iowa)
I agree. Clearly they don't pick winners either based on prior years.

It bugs me that Ted Cruz is deemed a winner when he got 27% of the vote, Trump got 24% and Rubio got 23% (or something like that). To me that just seems like a three way tie at this point. If the vote took place a week prior or a week after the order probably would change a little but the three would be right there within a few % of each other. It sucks that people are dropping out because 1 out of 50 states voted. Granted, those people that dropped out should have done so long ago because they would have got trounced if all 50 states voted.
Those people are dropping out because they have no chance. It national polls gave them any hope they would still be in the race.

I think it's good that the process is long....it's an important decision

I agree that the process shouldn't be quick. I wonder if they should have 3-5 states vote initially. It would be interesting to see the impact on the campaigning. SInce Iowa is first the candidates all pretend to find Jesus to get the big evangelical vote in Iowa. If 5 states voted last Saturday they may not pander as much. Cruz would have won 1 out of 5 states and clearly wouldn't get the bump he got coming out of Iowa.

jeffbr · February 2016

bootlegger10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

bootlegger10 said:

ldent42 said:
the whole process is stupid. What the fuck makes Iowa so special? (no offense to people living in Iowa)
I agree. Clearly they don't pick winners either based on prior years.

It bugs me that Ted Cruz is deemed a winner when he got 27% of the vote, Trump got 24% and Rubio got 23% (or something like that). To me that just seems like a three way tie at this point. If the vote took place a week prior or a week after the order probably would change a little but the three would be right there within a few % of each other. It sucks that people are dropping out because 1 out of 50 states voted. Granted, those people that dropped out should have done so long ago because they would have got trounced if all 50 states voted.
Those people are dropping out because they have no chance. It national polls gave them any hope they would still be in the race.

I think it's good that the process is long....it's an important decision
I agree that the process shouldn't be quick. I wonder if they should have 3-5 states vote initially. It would be interesting to see the impact on the campaigning. SInce Iowa is first the candidates all pretend to find Jesus to get the big evangelical vote in Iowa. If 5 states voted last Saturday they may not pander as much. Cruz would have won 1 out of 5 states and clearly wouldn't get the bump he got coming out of Iowa.

Exactly right. Iowa and New Hampshire are completely different states with completely different campaign strategies, so Iowa means jack shit for New Hampshire other than a little momentum. Cruz won Iowa due to all of the crazy religionists, but has absolutely no shot in New Hampshire. I'd like all of the states to vote at the same time in the primaries so that we don't get this idiotic pandering going on. Force the candidates to use a more universal message to the country, rather than targeted messages to small, ultimately inconsequential states.

The Juggler · February 2016

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:
when will America learn how to run an election.
I want to know why in the hell these primaries go on for sooooooo long. It's pretty ridiculous.
it completely overshadows every other thing in the world for nearly an entire year, including the CURRENT PRESIDENT. bizarre.

It's actually nearly 2 years. They were debating 8 months ago for primaries that just started this week.....and the buildup to that was happening for months when their campaigns were getting started. I hate how long it takes. It should not be "quick" but there should be no need to start forming your campaign 2 years before the actual election.

Gern Blansten · February 2016

I wonder if GOP voters really buy the doom and gloom that their candidates are preaching.

Gas is $1.40/gallon, unemployment is below 5%.....yet you would think we're on the brink of disaster.

gimmesometruth27 · February 2016

Gern Blansten said:
I wonder if GOP voters really buy the doom and gloom that their candidates are preaching.

Gas is $1.40/gallon, unemployment is below 5%.....yet you would think we're on the brink of disaster.

they want to take the country back!!!

back to a time when:

women stayed in the home and had to have the kids that were accidentally conceived or conceived through rape
the (christian) church had greater power over our society
there was less regulation of any sort
there were less environmental protections to interfere with business
to when african americans were a subservient minority that had less influence on our culture
to when gays could not be seen together in public, let alone marry, because it is yucky
there was no medicare or social security, or assistance of any kind
there was no obamacare
america was the dominant military in the world and nobody questioned our intentions or motives

short list off the top of my head.

Bernie Sanders for President

Comments

Categories