It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is Bernie Winning?

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

Actually I do not hate Trump, but I feel he is a wildcard. He has no political baggage, but then he has no track record to look at.

Hillary is a effing scary war monger, and corporate owned.

Cruz and Rubio -rolls eyes-

No I don't hate trump and feel he is a better choice than 3 of the others.


Things change; I see Sanders as a better choice in a world that requires less workers all the time. With robotics and AI coming to age, we will need more educated humans as machine will be doing more than simple labour.




posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: alan2102z

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
(Not that I necessarily support Bernie. I actually think he's The Chosen One 2.0.)


Manchurian Bernie?


Go ahead and share with us the details.


Ha...well this is wildly off-topic on this thread. I am not out to derail it. Suffice it to say, I think our corrupt Congress wants the candidate with the biggest spending plan and the policies that put the most power in the hands of government. That's Bernie. I think the 'Establishment' cannot wait for Congress to misappropriate....err, spend $18 trillion on Bernie's plan for America. In looking back at 2008, I can see that Hillary actually dragged Obama across the finish line by keeping her name the Michigan ballot. Keep in mind, she actually won the national popular vote.

And I think after Bernie emerges the nominee looking like a true grassroots underdog, without having to sling mud, the pundits will say, "Hillary just couldn't overcome all the distrust thanks to the negative press surrounding her email scandal that dragged on and on." Hillary will never see prison, I think she is just playing along to make it seem plausible when Bernie wins. The Clintons, Bushes, and even Trump will profit under a Bernie administration. That's my take anyway.

(ETA: And, btw, Hillary is responsible for causing this email scandal to drag on and on. She didn't have to turn over 55,000 emails in PAPER format, but she chose to. Perhaps she was stalling for some other reason. But, I think she wanted it to be an anchor sinking her campaign.

AND, the State Department could have auto-scanned all those pages to OCR text in TWO DAYS. Instead they are acting like they have to go through and read each one by hand.)
edit on 23-2-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: alan2102z

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

originally posted by: alan2102z
One further thing: I speak of what Bernie has done "against all odds". Keep in mind that the MSM has been crazily prejudiced against Bernie from the very start. They refuse to cover his rallies, they refuse to give him (more than token) airtime, etc. Only recently, as his insurgency has gained obvious mass momentum, has this let up to some extent. TPTB DO NOT WANT people to be talking about inequality and massive private sector corruption and all the big important issues! That's why they ignored him. But they can't ignore him anymore, and it is likely that they cannot ignore the big issues anymore. The people are starting to FORCE the conversation onto what is important. THAT'S PROGRESS, FOLKS. Whether or not Bernie wins.


I can't find the article, but I read that Sanders and Hillary were getting almost exactly equal TV time.

Additionally, Sanders has spent DOUBLE what Clinton has on advertising. How is this "miraculous?"


www.politicususa.com...
ABC, CBS, And NBC News Made An Intentional Decision To Ignore Bernie Sanders
By Jason Easley on Fri, Dec 11th, 2015
snip
"The networks are ignoring Bernie Sanders because his anti-corporate message is dangerous to their well being. The broadcast and cable networks both have a habit of ignoring stories that can hurt their bosses’ bottom lines."

Yep!


This was written in December, before Sanders was really picking up steam..

You realize the networks give candidates airtime based on their level of support, because that translates directly to the amount of people watching that particular network to see their candidate, right?

You know that other Dem candidate that isn't getting any TV time.. Right - you don't even remember his name without googling it, do you. Let me help you out. Martin O'Malley isn't getting any TV time either - and it's not because the networks hate him but because he has limited support.

The networks put Trump and Hillary's ugly mugs up there not to promote an agenda, but because that's the car wreck the American People want to rubberneck. Now that people want to oogle the Sanders car wreck too he'll get equal time.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: alan2102z
WHY IS BERNIE WINNING? That's the question.

...

This is especially true of the young, who are unencumbered with the ridiculous "anti-socialism" baggage of old right-wing farts. They are also free from the toxic racist, sexist and homophobic baggage of older generations. The old right-wingers are dying off, thank God, and being replaced with more-enlightened younger people.
...


He is my preferred candidate (given the viable choices), but

1) He is not winning

2) "Old Right-Wing Farts" are always dying off and being replaced with "more-enlightened younger people" - many of whom invariably turn into "Old Right-Wing Farts" with grandchildren who are "more-enlightened younger people." It's a viscious cycle which (probably thankfully) paralyzes our government from doing much of anything besides fleecing us continually for the interests of a few.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GoShredAK

There are tons of Hillary supporters. The reason you don't see any is likely because of your personal bubble and that ATS treats Hillary supporters almost as bad as they treat Hillary.

People often forget that ATS isn't an accurate representative of the opinions of the entire country. Heck that is true of the whole internet at large with all the personal echo chambers you can go to and just hear people who agree with you all the time.


Well, I do travel outside of my "bubble" from time to time. Geez. They Aren't here.

I get what you're saying though about echo chambers, and now I am just wondering who supports her and why?

We all have bubbles, but I have tried and honestly haven't met a Hillary supporter, in this state at least.

We've got a lot of trumps and berns.
edit on 23-2-2016 by GoShredAK because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2016 by GoShredAK because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: alan2102z

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: alan2102z

American here......I despise social programs. None of them work because the government always finds a way to mess them up with corruption.


Thanks for your reply.

The problem is that the private sector has consistently found ways to mess things up with MUCH WORSE corruption. Can you say multi-$TRILLION ripoffs? With no prosecutions? THAT is what the private sector hath wrought! Government might be bad, but lack of government is worse.


You are missing the point here completely. Your logic is false, because we have not had a truly free market. These trillion dollar ripoffs you speak of are due to BIG GOVERNMENT in bed with BIG BUSINESS aka Corporatism.

The anger that people have against the oligarchy is palpable, but too many conservatives think its all big governments fault, and too many liberals think its all big business fault. In fact, it is Statism and Corporatism (whether red or blue colored at any given time) that is the cause of these problems.

Enough with the anti-capitalistic nonsense - you are basing your argument on a false premise.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23
"Old Right-Wing Farts" are always dying off and being replaced with "more-enlightened younger people"

True. Did I say otherwise? And that very thing is what causes moral improvement over time. It has been slow, but it does happen. Slavery, for example, used to be practiced everywhere, routinely. It was a universal institution. Now it occurs only in special circumstances, in backward hellholes. That's progress. Many generations of right-wing old farts had to die off before, finally, the moral enlightenment and progress could occur. And we're far from done!

One hopeful thing is that the speed of communication makes it much easier to become (relatively) enlightened. It is possible that moral improvement will occur faster now than before. I'm not saying that is likely, just possible.



- many of whom invariably turn into "Old Right-Wing Farts" with grandchildren who are "more-enlightened younger people."

Yep. But not quite as bad as their parents. And thus things get progressively better, though only by small increments over a long time.



It's a viscious cycle

Actually it is a virtuous cycle. Things are getting better, albeit slowly. Older generations die off, taking their relatively retarded ideas, mindsets and habits with them. Newer generations turn into older ones, and regress, but never back as far as their parents.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: alan2102z

Actually it is a virtuous cycle. Things are getting better, albeit slowly. Older generations die off, taking their relatively retarded ideas, mindsets and habits with them.


More enlightened like this?


I will take the older, "retarded", generation over this entitled, whimpy crap.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
Your logic is false, because we have not had a truly free market. These trillion dollar ripoffs you speak of are due to BIG GOVERNMENT in bed with BIG BUSINESS aka Corporatism.

Privatization of everything, dismantling of governmental checks and controls on banking and finance, and so on, essentially letting the wolves guard the hen house -- all done (cynically) in the name of the "free market" -- is what paved the way for the multi-$trillion ripoffs. Can you say "Glass Steagle"? And much more along similar lines. Big government was not to blame; it was the ANTI-big-government radicals -- the neoliberals (austrians, "libertarians", mont pelerin crowd) -- that set us up for the crisis that we're in.

That does not mean that big government is always good. Far from it! I myself am opposed to the bulk of what the government does. "Big government" = military/industrial/security/prison/intelligence complex, i.e. the whole structure of militarism, fascism and empire that is rotting our country. I'm 100% in support of dismantling big government, defined correctly.

Before we take a meat-cleaver to big government, we have to get clear on our targets. The meat-cleavering has to be selective.

The neoliberals -- the wealthy elites who concealed their agenda of greed, theft and corruption under the "anti-big-government" banner -- wielded the meat cleaver selectively to PRECISELY THE THINGS WHICH OUGHT TO BE RETAINED AND SUPPORTED, rather than the things that really do need to be cut. As a result of that, we're in a much deeper crisis than otherwise would exist.

"Anti-big-government" sentiment has been brilliantly used by the elites to tear down the things that were checks on their wealth and power. "Anti-big-government" sentiment winds up being, effectively, pro-oligarchy, pro-corporate, pro-militarism, pro-fascism, pro-empire, and even anti-human. That's the way it actually works. If the "anti-big-government" crowd would simply focus on the REAL big government -- military/industrial/security/prison/intelligence complex -- then I would sign on. Sadly, they don't. Most "anti-big-government" folks are pathetic dupes of the elites.

YES, LET'S GET RID OF BIG GOVERNMENT. Start by cutting the Pentagon's budget in half, then after 5 years in half again. Then, cut the prison-industrial complex down to 1/3 of its present size. Then, shut down 80% of the U.S.'s overseas military bases. Then, cut the CIA and NSA budgets back by half, and then in a few years half of that. Get rid of the whole ridiculous "homeland security" structure. STOP ALL THE WARS. Stop supporting Israel. And so on. Get the picture? THAT is the big government that needs to be dismantled. But that is the big government that the elites and the rich LOVE, because it is so profitable. And that is the big government that the shallow "anti-big-government" poseurs -- like the tea party people, etc. -- NEVER mention. Why? Hmmm. Why, indeed. Maybe because they are owned by the elites? No, that isn't it. Not "owned", exactly, but DUPED, YES.

PS: BTW, I was briefly a Ron Paul fan. I loved his anti-war stance -- or at least what I THOUGHT was his antiwar stance. Later, when I looked at his actual record, it became clear that his "antiwar" stance was more claim than reality. Good GOD do I ever wish the anti-big-government people would actually, materially object to and denounce REAL BIG GOVERNMENT. But they don't! They all support big government! They support the WORST ASPECTS of government! Incredible.


edit on 23-2-2016 by alan2102z because: typo

edit on 23-2-2016 by alan2102z because: minor addition

edit on 23-2-2016 by alan2102z because: added ps



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
More enlightened like this?


BFD. ONE whiny pouting little bitch. And you are taking HER to be representative of tens of millions? You should be ashamed.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove





The second the internet goes down for discussing these things, and I'm left with no other option is the day I buy a gun and say # it and go all "pitchfork" and get myself killed at least fighting.

I don't think they'll do that considering this. Our ability to vent, bitch and get it out of our system is one of the few things protecting them as much as it harms them


I hear you, but they won't do it overnight. It will be done slowly and under false pretence and hidden.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Signals
It's a simple formula, Hitlery's doing it to.

Promise able-bodied people that should be working FREE STUFF.


The only people who repeat this "free stuff" mantra over and over again are conservatives. Most liberals and DEFINITELY most Socialists understand that the costs for social programs come from taxes.


Yes, and what happens when the taxes are too high or when you run out of other people's money?



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Why is Bernie winning?

He's not

[/thread]
edit on 23-2-2016 by BatheInTheFountain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Signals

Bernie's taxes aren't that high...

For someone whom (I assume) is relatively old and a conservative, you sure don't pay much attention to the past. Tax rate under FDR? 90%. Nixon? 70%. Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy like crazy, but then brought them back up somewhat after realising that Reaganomics was stupid.

Now, under which President was the economy most successful?
Because it sure as hell hasn't been all that well under the latest three.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Answer the question and stop making assinine assumptions about fellow poster's age and political leanings.

What are you going to do when you run out of other people's money?!?



Not one Sanders supporter on ATS can answer this simple question...



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
Why is Bernie winning?
He's not
[/thread]


See up thread. There is more than one way to "win". Bernie has already won -- some things.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Signals

Bernie's taxes aren't that high...

For someone whom (I assume) is relatively old and a conservative, you sure don't pay much attention to the past. Tax rate under FDR? 90%. Nixon? 70%. Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy like crazy, but then brought them back up somewhat after realising that Reaganomics was stupid.

Now, under which President was the economy most successful?
Because it sure as hell hasn't been all that well under the latest three.


I keep hearing about Reaganomics being "stupid", but as someone who actually lived in the 80s, I remember most people had jobs, savings, and money to burn.

Just curious where YOU were at that time?



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

What were the write-off and deductions like in those days?

I bet you will find the net government income from taxes were not what you think.




posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Do you realize Reagan had a Democrat House of Representatives for 8 years?

(He was the only President to have that "Honor" btw)

So I wonder why Democrats supported all those "Cuts"?




posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Signals
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
Answer the question and stop making assinine assumptions about fellow poster's age and political leanings.

What are you going to do when you run out of other people's money?!?


Not one Sanders supporter on ATS can answer this simple question...


If thieves steal money from you, does it become "other people's money"?




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join