Bernie Sanders
Comments
-
God almighty, what a shit storm!Free said:Tonig and Brian, some bad news. Nina and Rosario got credentials stripped and are not the only ones though; through reports, Clinton camp is going after sander deligates, didn't allow them on the house floor when they had legitimate access, taking their signs away when Hillary signs were allowed and threatening to take credentials away. Ah, forced unity!! Not what the Democratic convention is supposed to be about!
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/26/nina-turner-prominent-sanders-delegate-ejected-dnc#"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Yeah, it's good. Problem is there are just so damn few good ones.lukin2006 said:
It's good that you've found politicians that can be trust worthy ...brianlux said:
Pretty much true for me too.lukin2006 said:^^^ Your system is rigged just like mine in Canada. I've long given up the notion you can trust any politician.
But not completely for me. A good example: Tom Hayden, who served on the California State Assembly ('82-'92) and California State Senate ('92-2000) and is the author of the enormously wonderful book, The Lost Gospel of the Earth. I've met him twice, heard him speak and read his book a couple of times. I very much trust Mr. Hayden.
I used to trust municipal politicians, but they now are driven by personal agendas ...
it should be an interesting election with plenty of bs from both sides now.
My wife just told me I would make a better president than Trump would. What do you think? Should I go for it in 2020?"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Yes you should run. Don't sell yourself short ... I honestly believe a huge part of our problem is that government is no longer for the people, the wealthy have hijacked it and set the system up to benefit them only and part of the rigged system is making sure their candidate will win as to not rock the boat. These professional politicians dont necessarily know more than the rest of us ... their bought. But it'd sure be nice to see a system that affords the average citizen to run for president and be heard.brianlux said:
Yeah, it's good. Problem is there are just so damn few good ones.lukin2006 said:
It's good that you've found politicians that can be trust worthy ...brianlux said:
Pretty much true for me too.lukin2006 said:^^^ Your system is rigged just like mine in Canada. I've long given up the notion you can trust any politician.
But not completely for me. A good example: Tom Hayden, who served on the California State Assembly ('82-'92) and California State Senate ('92-2000) and is the author of the enormously wonderful book, The Lost Gospel of the Earth. I've met him twice, heard him speak and read his book a couple of times. I very much trust Mr. Hayden.
I used to trust municipal politicians, but they now are driven by personal agendas ...
it should be an interesting election with plenty of bs from both sides now.
My wife just told me I would make a better president than Trump would. What do you think? Should I go for it in 2020?I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon0 -
Go for it Brian!brianlux said:
Yeah, it's good. Problem is there are just so damn few good ones.lukin2006 said:
It's good that you've found politicians that can be trust worthy ...brianlux said:
Pretty much true for me too.lukin2006 said:^^^ Your system is rigged just like mine in Canada. I've long given up the notion you can trust any politician.
But not completely for me. A good example: Tom Hayden, who served on the California State Assembly ('82-'92) and California State Senate ('92-2000) and is the author of the enormously wonderful book, The Lost Gospel of the Earth. I've met him twice, heard him speak and read his book a couple of times. I very much trust Mr. Hayden.
I used to trust municipal politicians, but they now are driven by personal agendas ...
it should be an interesting election with plenty of bs from both sides now.
My wife just told me I would make a better president than Trump would. What do you think? Should I go for it in 2020?0 -
Only if I can wear my Pearl Jam, Hendrix, Neil Young or Dinosaur Jr t-shirts while campaigning and in office instead of a tie. Well, OK, maybe the t-shirts AND a tie, but that's as far as I compromise!Free said:
Go for it Brian!brianlux said:
Yeah, it's good. Problem is there are just so damn few good ones.lukin2006 said:
It's good that you've found politicians that can be trust worthy ...brianlux said:
Pretty much true for me too.lukin2006 said:^^^ Your system is rigged just like mine in Canada. I've long given up the notion you can trust any politician.
But not completely for me. A good example: Tom Hayden, who served on the California State Assembly ('82-'92) and California State Senate ('92-2000) and is the author of the enormously wonderful book, The Lost Gospel of the Earth. I've met him twice, heard him speak and read his book a couple of times. I very much trust Mr. Hayden.
I used to trust municipal politicians, but they now are driven by personal agendas ...
it should be an interesting election with plenty of bs from both sides now.
My wife just told me I would make a better president than Trump would. What do you think? Should I go for it in 2020?"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Something apparently happened with her, but this did not. She did not have her credentials taken and was not kicked outbrianlux said:
God almighty, what a shit storm!Free said:Tonig and Brian, some bad news. Nina and Rosario got credentials stripped and are not the only ones though; through reports, Clinton camp is going after sander deligates, didn't allow them on the house floor when they had legitimate access, taking their signs away when Hillary signs were allowed and threatening to take credentials away. Ah, forced unity!! Not what the Democratic convention is supposed to be about!
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/26/nina-turner-prominent-sanders-delegate-ejected-dnc#0 -
the exit out of the JPOA will have to be negotiated ... just like everything else ...mrussel1 said:
If we exit JPOA then there will sanctions which will tear the deal apart.polaris_x said:
it's not that the issues are insignificant just that you make assumptions that everything is going to happen like it's just a matter of him doing it ... the JPOA is an agreement with 6 other countries ... it's like BREXIT - it's not like it just happens ... ultimately if he wants the US to leave the JPOA - then aspects of the deal will get negotiated like everything else ... it's not like Iran is going to have nukes because Trump wants a new deal ... which by the way is his position not necessarily that he wants out ... the guy is a businessman through and through ... he's creating conditions for which he can best get his desired outcome ...mrussel1 said:
I guess I wrote all of this thinking you had knowledge of the ramifications of the positions. It's not like JPOA was insignificant. If your argument is these issues are unimportant or, I don't know these judges so I'm not worried, then I can't help you or convince you. But this is part and parcel of the Bernie or Bust supporters who have deluded themselves into thinking there are no consequences to this election anymore.polaris_x said:
ya ... i've seen the list ... but who on that list!? ... there is like over 10 people on that list ... and what if the US pulls out of the JCPOA? ... similar to all the other issues you've raised - these are international relations that is more complex than just being in or out ...mrussel1 said:
What? He published the list of justices. And JPOA did not need to be ratified by the Senate therefore he can pull us from the agreement. Your head is in the sand or you aren't paying attention.polaris_x said:
i'd say the same thing about s. korea and JPOA ... he doesn't wake up as POTUS and get to do these things arbitrarily ... it just doesn't work that way ... on SCOTUS - who's trump gonna nominate!? ... i'd like to actually see who this bogeyperson is ... his rhetoric is all over the place ...mrussel1 said:
You are cherry picking one point in a list. What about the SCOTUS? You think Sota would be a justice in a Trump Administration? What about JPOA and Obamacare?polaris_x said:
sorry if that was not sufficient to you but you haven't made the case that things are gonna be much different ... really!? ... the US leaving NATO? ... that's the kind of divisive rhetoric that has made elections a complete gong show ... the level of discourse is so low that people continue to barrel down a highway with no brakes on ...mrussel1 said:
Whew. Glad you typed these compelling words to alleviate the concern.polaris_x said:
sorry ... not gonna happen ... and in all honesty ... so what if it does? ... either s. korea pays for military support or it then relies on UN help ...mrussel1 said:
Negative. He could handle Korea and possibly NATO with an executive order.polaris_x said:
You make it sound like Trump represents the GOP ... I'm pretty sure most of the GOP have no interest in getting out of Korea or any other country for that matter ... it's just not gonna be on the agenda ... nor is leaving NATO ... and my guess is if Trump wins POTUS - Dems get the House back this November and we go full circle YET AGAIN ...mrussel1 said:
Yes, because the GOP controlled congress would push it through. A Trump victory means a strong GOP showing in the elections, so both House and Senate would likely have increased control. Right now a fillibuster and veto are the only things that protect against it. And if you think those three justices are bad, what will it look like when we have 2-3 more retiring justices? There will be a conservative super majority on the court. By contrast, with a Clinton victory, the progressives would take back the court starting with Scalia's seat.polaris_x said:
does your system of gov't really allow for all that? ... i don't think he can get any of that passed through either house ... obamacare is probably ripe for the pickings as that's been on the GOP agenda for some time ...mrussel1 said:
Have you not seen the judges he promised to appoint to the SCOTUS? They are all very conservative. Have you heard about leaving NATO? Pulling out of the Korean Peninsula? He promised to revoke JPOA as soon as he gets into office. He also promised to revoke Obamacare.polaris_x said:
convince me that any of that will change under a Trump presidency ... all I see with a Trump presidency is a combo of GWB and Rob Ford ... a lot of distractions and face palms but in reality - more of the status quo ... a further widening of the prosperity gap, more economic imperialism and a further corporatization of gov't ... all of which will happen under Clinton ...mrussel1 said:The irony is that YOU care more about her emails than you do about those things, a woman's right to choose, the CFPB and everything else that YOU are blind to because of your myopic view.
On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.
as for SCOTUS - it's already a joke ... alito, roberts and thomas ... horrible ...
And I disagree with the assessment that Dems could win the House and lose the POTUS. People rarely split tickets so it's about turnout. Elections come in waves.
i think all the lefties and moderates will give control of the house to the dems ...
as for obamacare ... that is probably in play ... in the end tho - much of the policies will be similar just like they were with the last few admins ...
listen ... i'm not even a bernie supporter ... all I know for certain - in the larger picture, there's been hardly movement in the US during obama as with W ... it's just swung as to what special interests get more of the pie ... is hillary gonna get the US out of the middle east? ... is the US still gonna support the apartheid regime in Israel? ... is there gonna be any real concrete movement against global warming ... the influence of corporations in foreign and domestic policy? ... anything? ... no ... it's gonna be business as usual ...
So no changes under Obama... Okay. CFPB, Card Act, Obergfell, JPOA... Maybe not the pace some would like but progress is incremental and these changes are not so solidified like social,security where they are untouchable. They must be protected.
sure ... there are always changes ... but these aren't changes that ultimately fix the crux of the problem in the US ... which is that gov't is no longer run for the people ... really ... CFPB is just another regulatory branch that won't do its job just like the FDA, EPA and FEMA ... gov't will send tons of money over there and appoint lifelong politicians and the banks will still screw over people ... and you know it will fail because ultimately these branches are co-opted by the special interests they are meant to protect ...0 -
^^
I can tell you from first hand experience that the CFPB is not in bed with the Banks. My company is vicariously subjected to at least 12 consent orders and they are far more draconian than any agreement I've ever been party to. The Card Act made real and material changes to fee structures which actually had the unintended consequences of Banks exiting the sub prime lending space, thereby creating the new online lenders with 100+% effective APRs. The CFPB is a clusterfuck for a thousand reasons, but not the ones you think.
At the end of the day, you'll never convince me that there's no difference between Trump and Clinton. And maybe vice versa. But I would argue that the things slowing down 'change' are the inherent separation of powers codified in the Constitution. Bernie would have the exact same problems as Obama or Clinton.0 -
Care to post a reputable source that they weren't?Cliffy6745 said:
Something apparently happened with her, but this did not. She did not have her credentials taken and was not kicked outbrianlux said:
God almighty, what a shit storm!Free said:Tonig and Brian, some bad news. Nina and Rosario got credentials stripped and are not the only ones though; through reports, Clinton camp is going after sander deligates, didn't allow them on the house floor when they had legitimate access, taking their signs away when Hillary signs were allowed and threatening to take credentials away. Ah, forced unity!! Not what the Democratic convention is supposed to be about!
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/26/nina-turner-prominent-sanders-delegate-ejected-dnc#0 -
Update:Free said:
Care to post a reputable source that they weren't?Cliffy6745 said:
Something apparently happened with her, but this did not. She did not have her credentials taken and was not kicked outbrianlux said:
God almighty, what a shit storm!Free said:Tonig and Brian, some bad news. Nina and Rosario got credentials stripped and are not the only ones though; through reports, Clinton camp is going after sander deligates, didn't allow them on the house floor when they had legitimate access, taking their signs away when Hillary signs were allowed and threatening to take credentials away. Ah, forced unity!! Not what the Democratic convention is supposed to be about!
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/26/nina-turner-prominent-sanders-delegate-ejected-dnc#
Following original publication of this story, other explanations surrounding what exactly transpired between Nina Turner and the DNC emerged, including those disputing her credentials had been stripped or that she was ejected from the hall—a potential distinction without a difference. Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP and himself a prominent Sanders surrogate, claimed via Twitter that earlier reporting, though based on a reliable source and verified prior to publication, was inaccurate.
This is from the website you posted. Is that enough?will myself to find a home, a home within myself
we will find a way, we will find our place0 -
Free said:
Care to post a reputable source that they weren't?Cliffy6745 said:
Something apparently happened with her, but this did not. She did not have her credentials taken and was not kicked outbrianlux said:
God almighty, what a shit storm!Free said:Tonig and Brian, some bad news. Nina and Rosario got credentials stripped and are not the only ones though; through reports, Clinton camp is going after sander deligates, didn't allow them on the house floor when they had legitimate access, taking their signs away when Hillary signs were allowed and threatening to take credentials away. Ah, forced unity!! Not what the Democratic convention is supposed to be about!
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/26/nina-turner-prominent-sanders-delegate-ejected-dnc#0 -
it's a relatively new branch ... pretty sure at some point the lobbyists from the financial institutions will add a rider to some bill that has to pass and it will be like most other agencies ...mrussel1 said:^^
I can tell you from first hand experience that the CFPB is not in bed with the Banks. My company is vicariously subjected to at least 12 consent orders and they are far more draconian than any agreement I've ever been party to. The Card Act made real and material changes to fee structures which actually had the unintended consequences of Banks exiting the sub prime lending space, thereby creating the new online lenders with 100+% effective APRs. The CFPB is a clusterfuck for a thousand reasons, but not the ones you think.
At the end of the day, you'll never convince me that there's no difference between Trump and Clinton. And maybe vice versa. But I would argue that the things slowing down 'change' are the inherent separation of powers codified in the Constitution. Bernie would have the exact same problems as Obama or Clinton.
i'm not trying to convince you there is no difference between trump and clinton ... what I am saying is that there is no difference in the big picture between republican and democrat ... both of whom are going to pursue their respective agendas ... and I don't disagree bernie would have the exact same problems ... I might have alluded to that very early in this thread even ... again - I'm not a bernie supporter ...0 -
Thanks for the updates. I didn't think to look back at the same news story.0
-
Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0 -
^^^That is hilarious. With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Excellent Q and A with Jane Sanders. If you have the time read through it.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/jane-sanders-why-bernie-voters-shouldnt-get-over-it-w4314280 -
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.'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 -
At least he got a pretty comfy personal jet as a payoff for his loyalty to Hillbilly Clinton. Sellout...benjs said:Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
0 -
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...benjs said:Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
edit: sorry ... to be more clear on your question ... sanders ran as a democrat probably because his best chance at changing things is to win as a democrat ... that's why ron paul ran as a republican ... people don't think 3rd parties can win so, people continue to work within this 2-party system ...Post edited by polaris_x on0 -
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.polaris_x said:
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...benjs said:Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.Post edited by Free on0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K 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