Let's talk about Bernie

[preacherman76]

I think it's a sad pronouncment and condemnation of our entire country when a man who screams xenophobia and fear from his podium, along with his vague assertions that his economic and social change plan "is gonna be great", is even a passing thought, compared to a man that proclaims healthcare, equality, reform, ending a large part of money's influence in politics, and education, also wanting to change the system.

I think its sad that people let CNN and or FOX think for them, and don't even know the man addressed all this, and has laid out a plan for nearly every subject you brought up. Some of the proposals were better then others grant you. Sanders wants to change the system to some unrealistic utopia that is destine to dramatically fail soon as its implemented. Of course it will never be implemented, cause there is no way in hell he gets enough votes in congress or the senate to do anything he promises. Nor will there be enough rich people left here for him to steal from in order to accomplish what he's proposed. Im almost surprised there are enough people supporting him where he even has a chance to get nominated. Then again he is running against evil incarnate.

Maybe he thinks companies staying here isn't really important. Maybe he doesn't understand that keeping a thriving middle class requires industrial jobs. I mean we are talking about a guy who never even collected his first pay check till he was 40 years old.

Its too bad to, cause he see's the problems well. And doesn't appear to be bought off.

[F3SS]

What did Benire do before 40?

[Merc14]

What did Benire do before 40?

He was visiting Nicaragua fro sure. http://www.buzzfeed.com/meganapper/sanders-in-1985-sandinista-leader-impressive-castro-totally#.jvEARz2Qlx

Bernie's most remarkable skill is to not see the bad side of bad guys.

[Paranormalcy]

Employment in New York and Vermont

After graduating from college, Sanders initially worked in New York City in a variety of jobs, including Head Start teacher, psychiatric aide and carpenter.^[34] In 1968 Sanders moved to Vermont because he had been "captivated by rural life." After his arrival there he worked as a carpenter, filmmaker and writer^[35] who created and sold “radical film strips” and other educational materials to schools.^[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

But honestly, what does it matter? His working as an usher at a theater or changing a tire doesn't do anything for us one way or the other right now. Maybe Trump sold lemonade, maybe he was a pimp, maybe Hillary was an underground bloodsport gladiator. I'm not concerned about what people did, unless it was like an assassin or babyfarmer or drug kingpin or something, but I AM cocerned with their ideas now and what they ARE doing.

[WoIverine]

I'd be very surprised if he could take it away from Hillary. She's got a sizable amount of super delegates locked down already.

[Yamato]

I can dig that you really hate Trump. There are plenty of things I myself just cant stand about the guy. But it surprises me that you really cant see, even just from the reactions of both sides of the establishment coin, that there is no way it would be business as usual if he was elected president. I have heard some high ranking officials on both sides all but promise there is no way they let him become president The powers that be are CLEARLY terrified of him.. I could see how some might find it tempting to support Sanders in light of who is left after Trump. Personally If it ends up being Sanders vs any other republican left on the card besides Trump, I don't think I'll even be able to vote at all. But part of me is warming up to the idea of Trumps ego smashing through the white house like a wrecking ball. Id bet the farm that if Trump is elected, his time spent there would look little to nothing like it would be under Hilary.

Explain how this "no way" works so I can see it too. Are we just guessing based on his ego? Where does this blind faith come from that the next President is going to "Change" so many things? It's the exact same thinking that liberals had for Obama in 2008. Just because your politics are different from liberals is no excuse, it's the exact same belief.

It would surprise me if you can't see it's just more -and on some issues a lot more- of the same old. I may have been the first to point out how much I was enjoying the damage Trump is doing to the GOP, and I've said more than once it will be just as deserved when the fire turns on Hillary Clinton. So just for the sake of doing damage, I appreciate the dog and pony show.

That's a far cry from having a President in the White House that thinks along with his supporters he can single handedly change everything he wants. Pick up a copy of the Constitution and read it brother. People need to be beaten over the head with it anymore. Now Scalia is dead and the GOP obviously haven't read Article 2 either.

[Paranormal Panther]

Bernie's most remarkable skill is to not see the bad side of bad guys.

Al Sharpton comes to mind. He sure can pick 'em!

[Yamato]

He was visiting Nicaragua fro sure. http://www.buzzfeed....lly#.jvEARz2Qlx

Bernie's most remarkable skill is to not see the bad side of bad guys.

Who are you, Mr. Somoza? If you support that dictatorship one more time, I'm going to kick you where the sun don't shine like you're an Iran-Contra.

[Paranormal Panther]

Who are you, Mr. Somoza? If you support that dictatorship one more time, I'm going to kick you where the sun don't shine like you're an Iran-Contra.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Politicians, of both main political parties, foster questionable and unfortunate alliances and relationships. Just look at our support of Saudi Arabia, which is one of the worst countries in the world. We also downplay human rights violations in China, and I know what other country comes to your mind.

[Yamato]

The US does have a widespread record of supporting dictatorships. Better to deal with dictators who do what we say than socialist revolutions (the world is ending). It now looks like we support it so much, we're asking for it for ourselves too. That Clinton and Trump are so popular proves it. If Trump does half of what he says he will, he will be a dictator.

Merc13 says Sandinista and Sanders in the same sentence enough times and nobody else checks him for it, so I will. Like we're supposed to think Bernie Sanders of all people wouldn't support a socialist overthrow of a dictatorship?

Maybe the Sandinistas aren't pacifist enough for him. (highly probable) Neocons LOVE to invent hatred over groups they don't like, and then weave their patriotic narrative in such a way that implicitly requires these groups to be pacifists in the world. Which is incredibly hypocritical. A more modern day example with the same strings would be Hezbollah.

[Paranormal Panther]

The US does have a widespread record of supporting dictatorships. Better to deal with dictators who do what we say than socialist revolutions (the world is ending). It now looks like we support it so much, we're asking for it for ourselves too. That Clinton and Trump are so popular proves it. If Trump does half of what he says he will, he will be a dictator.

Merc13 says Sandinista and Sanders in the same sentence enough times and nobody else checks him for it, so I will. Like we're supposed to think Bernie Sanders of all people wouldn't support a socialist overthrow of a dictatorship?

Maybe the Sandinistas aren't pacifist enough for him. (highly probable) Neocons LOVE to invent hatred over groups they don't like, and then weave their patriotic narrative in such a way that implicitly requires these groups to be pacifists in the world. Which is incredibly hypocritical. A more modern day example with the same strings would be Hezbollah.

Both sides do that. Elements, of the Left *and* the Right, champion copperheads or rattlesnakes to suit their purposes. They then claim that the opposite side likes venomous snakes. They sometimes get bit by the snakes they handle, and they sometimes share their pet reptiles with each other.

[Yamato]

Yeah. Tell Merc13 both sides do it. 10 times out of every 11 posts ought to do it.

[Merc14]

Yeah. Tell Merc13 both sides do it. 10 times out of every 11 posts ought to do it.

Umm, Usually I don't respond to you because well, you're nuts nut I am not sure what you are saying here.Are you suggesting Bernie was not a fan of the Sandinistas and Castro or are you saying you support(ed) their regimes? I just want to get your drug addled ass on record here for others and back to ignore for you.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Merc14

[Michelle]

...even though he’s received 56,000 more votes than Clinton, Sanders is actually losing.

He can blame the Democrats’ complex nomination process, which many of his supporters claim is “rigged” in Clinton’s favour. Under this system, Sanders’ big national lead is utterly irrelevant.

Clinton and Sanders are instead competing for “delegates”, who are assigned to them state-by-state. Some states award their delegates proportionally, based on each candidate’s percentage of the vote, while others simply award all their delegates to whoever finishes first.

Make sense so far? Kind of? Good, because it’s about to get even more convoluted. In addition to these regular delegates, there are also a total of 712 “super delegates” — party leaders and elected officials who can ignore the voters and support whomever they like. At the moment, Clinton has 98 per cent of them in her corner.

The result? After Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton trails Sanders with 42 per cent of the vote, but destroys him in the one count that actually matters, with 90 per cent of the delegates.

cont...

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/do-super-delegates-rig-the-democratic-primaries-in-hillary-clintons-favour/news-story/590348429e8eb7fcbee22961c2a909aa

[Paranormalcy]

She is winning by CURRENT delegate and superdelegate totals. Supers can change at any point, and though some have sworn to vote for her no matter what, it is common and in fact an unwritten law, for supers to change to whoever the emerging candidate is, just like happened when Barack suddenly told Hillary it was "not your turn". The media and DNC walks a fine line of deception and bribes, mentioning the delegates to try to discourage people voting for Bernie because Hillary is "obviously already the winner", but also don't mention it MUCH because Bernie beats Hillary in polls and actual popular vote, and they know if Bernie loses sue to superdelegates but wins MASSIVELY (as it appears he's going to) in popular, it will be 10x worse than when Jeb illegally crowned his brother President, though the Democratic candidate won the popular vote.

[Merc14]

...even though he’s received 56,000 more votes than Clinton, Sanders is actually losing.

He can blame the Democrats’ complex nomination process, which many of his supporters claim is “rigged” in Clinton’s favour. Under this system, Sanders’ big national lead is utterly irrelevant.

Clinton and Sanders are instead competing for “delegates”, who are assigned to them state-by-state. Some states award their delegates proportionally, based on each candidate’s percentage of the vote, while others simply award all their delegates to whoever finishes first.

Make sense so far? Kind of? Good, because it’s about to get even more convoluted. In addition to these regular delegates, there are also a total of 712 “super delegates” — party leaders and elected officials who can ignore the voters and support whomever they like. At the moment, Clinton has 98 per cent of them in her corner.

The result? After Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton trails Sanders with 42 per cent of the vote, but destroys him in the one count that actually matters, with 90 per cent of the delegates.

cont...

http://www.news.com....ee22961c2a909aa

It is still up in the air of Crazy Bernie keeps winning primaries but if he does and the superdelegates vote against the base's wishes then there would be hell to pay and it would likely fracture the democrat party so it may get very interesting as we get closer to the convention given the players here. The DNC chair (Debbie of the hair) is obviously in the bag for Hillary and Hillary has spent a lot of time and presumably money, securing pledges from the Super Delegates and as we all know, the Clintons are a dangerous enemy to have so the Super-Delegates will be very motivated to stick to their pledges.

The DNC base, however, is seemingly turning on the Hillary and if the popular vote favors Bernie but the Super Delegates stick to their pledges and push Hilary the barker over the top I believe there will be a mass sit-down of democrat voters on election day. This will be very interesting to watch. interesting article on this quandary http://observer.com/...superdelegates/

Edited February 18, 2016 by Merc14

[Michelle]

From my previous link if anyone is interested...

Understandably, Sanders’ fans aren’t happy. In their view, Clinton is being propped up by the party’s unrepresentative establishment at the expense of an outsider with the support of ordinary Democratic voters.

At the time of writing, two petitions started by the progressive activist group MoveOn, both demanding that super delegates follow the will of the voters, had 322,000 signatures. It should be noted that MoveOn endorsed Sanders in January.

“This process is undemocratic and fundamentally unfair to Democratic primary voters,” the group’s executive director, Ilya Sheyman, said.

“Democracy only works when the votes of the people — not the decision of a small number of elites — are what determines the outcome of elections.

“Super delegates must stand with voters and honour the outcomes of primaries and caucuses held across the country. The party’s base simply will not tolerate any anti-democratic efforts by super delegates to thwart the will of the people.”

[Paranormalcy]

And I've signed both of those petitions, for all the good they do, and one calling for Schultz to resign and another calling for Hillary to just end her candidacy. The last one isn't realistic but it sure would be responsive to the obvious will of the voters and not the corporate elites. As bad as ANY other candidate is, we do NOT need dynasty presidents, not ones THIS close (married to or brother) - this is a bad precedent.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Here, the party decides the leader and anyone not in the leader's electorate gets no say at all whether or not they get elected, we decide via who we elect in our area whether or not the party gets enough seats to form a government. It's mad and it's something very few people understand (c.f. Facebook whenever a "leadership spill" happens and the party ditches leaders, including sitting PMs, and all the people screaming blue murder that "we" elected them, how dare the party remove them).

I think Our mad system is STILL more representative than the Democrats system of Superdelegates who can vote however they please irrespective of the popular vote.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Sir Wearer of Hats

[Merc14]

From my previous link if anyone is interested...

Understandably, Sanders’ fans aren’t happy. In their view, Clinton is being propped up by the party’s unrepresentative establishment at the expense of an outsider with the support of ordinary Democratic voters.

At the time of writing, two petitions started by the progressive activist group MoveOn, both demanding that super delegates follow the will of the voters, had 322,000 signatures. It should be noted that MoveOn endorsed Sanders in January.

“This process is undemocratic and fundamentally unfair to Democratic primary voters,” the group’s executive director, Ilya Sheyman, said.

“Democracy only works when the votes of the people — not the decision of a small number of elites — are what determines the outcome of elections.

“Super delegates must stand with voters and honour the outcomes of primaries and caucuses held across the country. The party’s base simply will not tolerate any anti-democratic efforts by super delegates to thwart the will of the people.”

The two petitions are daft. What a load of knuckleheads Bernie's base must be to think that Hillary would end her candidacy after two small, relatively inconsequential, primaries, one of which was a tie and the second of which was in Bernie the reds backyard, when she is leading in the polls and the big states are yet to come? LMAO. If it was a near tie would these children sit out the election when the superdelegates choose Hillary over the unelectable Sanders? That is what the s-delegates are, afterall, there to ride roughshod over the pack of leftist jackals that populate their base (see the creation of the superdelegate for the reason) and keep things realistic when they get out of control. Hopefully they pout and stay home on election day.

[Michelle]

It's funny no one is blaming Obama for this. He is the one responsible.

[Yamato]

Umm, Usually I don't respond to you because well, you're nuts nut I am not sure what you are saying here.Are you suggesting Bernie was not a fan of the Sandinistas and Castro or are you saying you support(ed) their regimes? I just want to get your drug addled ass on record here for others and back to ignore for you.

So you melt into instant ad-hominem attacjs at the first sign of the lack of your own ignorance. You have to stop running away from me if you also want to get me on record. Make up your mind freely. You sound very confused and I think the hostility is erupting out of your confusion. These two questions are poor unless you've got your Column A and Column B.. Your us vs. them mentality is hoping to turn me into a Sandinista while showcasing your black and white, rigid, with-us-or-against-us worldview..

The reason you ignore me is because you've had such bad results in the past from not-ignoring me. You want a safe place to spill your right-wing propaganda, and you'll defend it with rabies and slobber, you need a circle of toadies who like your non-stop partisan crap, and those individuals will forgive and excuse your bad behavior here as always.

But I don't, and so you must grovel with it sir. It's inevitable on a public forum on the internet Merc.

When we can get over our little tiffs with each other, we can start discussing ideas and issues like adults in such a way that has absolutely nothing to do with you and me. Though if I'm drug addled, it should be even easier. I'm ready to begin that process right now. At this point you can either accept my invitation or further convince me to start checking your work more frequently. Throw mud lose ground, your choice.

[Merc14]

So you melt into instant ad-hominem attacjs at the first sign of the lack of your own ignorance. You have to stop running away from me if you also want to get me on record. Make up your mind freely. You sound very confused and I think the hostility is erupting out of your confusion. These two questions are poor unless you've got your Column A and Column B.. Your us vs. them mentality is hoping to turn me into a Sandinista while showcasing your black and white, rigid, with-us-or-against-us worldview..

The reason you ignore me is because you've had such bad results in the past from not-ignoring me. You want a safe place to spill your right-wing propaganda, and you'll defend it with rabies and slobber, you need a circle of toadies who like your non-stop partisan crap, and those individuals will forgive and excuse your bad behavior here as always.

But I don't, and so you must grovel with it sir. It's inevitable on a public forum on the internet Merc.

When we can get over our little tiffs with each other, we can start discussing ideas and issues like adults in such a way that has absolutely nothing to do with you and me. Though if I'm drug addled, it should be even easier. I'm ready to begin that process right now. At this point you can either accept my invitation or further convince me to start checking your work more frequently. Throw mud lose ground, your choice.

r

No, the reason I ignore you is posts like this one, 4 paragraphs and you still can't answer a simple question. I had discussions with you, all endless, boring, circular arguments based on some utopian delusions you have but the one thing you NEVER do is answer a ****g question. Back on ignore for you, snipe away and folks, please note, he couldn't ask the simple question I asked regarding his inane post.

[Yamato]

r

No, the reason I ignore you is posts like this one, 4 paragraphs and you still can't answer a simple question. I had discussions with you, all endless, boring, circular arguments based on some utopian delusions you have but the one thing you NEVER do is answer a ****g question. Back on ignore for you, snipe away and folks, please note, he couldn't ask the simple question I asked regarding his inane post.

It doesn't matter whether I'm a Sandinista or not, that does not matter to the principle, Merc. I wasn't even born yet to be a Sandinista regime founding rebel socialist.

As for Bernie Sanders, I don't see the problem or the issue with a socialist supporting a socialist overthrow of a dictatorship. Do you? Bernie Sanders is consistent. There's your answer.

[Paranormal Panther]

And I've signed both of those petitions, for all the good they do, and one calling for Schultz to resign and another calling for Hillary to just end her candidacy. The last one isn't realistic but it sure would be responsive to the obvious will of the voters and not the corporate elites. As bad as ANY other candidate is, we do NOT need dynasty presidents, not ones THIS close (married to or brother) - this is a bad precedent.

The game is fixed and rigged. Sanders should be the winner if he receives the most votes, but this convoluted nonsense might lead to a horrifying Clinton coronation. If I have to hear her grating voice for four years, I'll lose what's left of my mind! Let's hope that she does more barnyard imitations in front of large crowds.