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: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   
He needs some of those Super Delegates. The ordinary ones the commoner decides on apparently don't count for much.




posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Great point!!!



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: alan2102z



Sems that you can't count.

Hillary has 503 to Sanders 70 votes, and you say he is winning?

No wonder the left is so messed up. Keep the Dream, because reality doesn't match your dream.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

The super delegates aren't locked in. She was in the same situation against Obama.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO
I don't know. Women's empowerment mostly, but I'm not a Hillary supporter. I'm just not going to blindly believe they don't exist because the internet doesn't think they do.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
From what I understand, the government spent 7.7 trillion on Wallstreet 'too big to fail' bailouts and another 7 trillion on Iraq war. The cost of the bailouts alone would of covered 50 years of medicare for every citizen.

So rather spending our (my) tax money on bailouts and wars I'm totally in favor seeing that money spent social programs instead.

But I think Bernie is popular because he represents the anti-establishment where as Clinton or anyone from the right are obviously not.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: alan2102z
Seems you can't count.
Hillary has 503 to Sanders 70 votes, and you say he is winning?
No wonder the left is so messed up.


Seems you can't read very well. Up thread I explained why Bernie has already won in some respects. The whole point of his campaign, IMO, is to alter the conversation, to open the door a crack to issues long neglected. Whether he literally wins the presidency or not is another matter. It would be nice if he did, but even then I would not expect anything great. What would be great is the way in which the discussion gets opened up.

As for the delegate count, I posted this on ATS somewhere but don't know offhand where; here it is again:
static.currentaffairs.org...
"Some in the media have rushed to declare Sanders’s campaign moribund in the wake of his recent loss in Nevada. This is absurd; after all, out of 50 states, only three have voted, one being a tie, one being a major Sanders win, and one being a small Clinton win. The media has dishonestly pointed to Hillary Clinton’s higher superdelegate count as evidence of her strong lead, despite knowing full well that superdelegates are highly unlikely to risk tearing the party apart by taking the nomination out of voters’ hands, and are thus mostly a formality." end quote.

But, regardless, I get the point that HRC is a machine that probably won't be stopped. She will probably be nominated, and Trump will win, perhaps in a landslide.

THIS comment, on glenn greenwald's excellent site theintercept.com, encapsulates pretty well my view:
theintercept.com...
"What I’m sensing will happen is this: The Democratic Establishment will get their way. Hillary Clinton will be their 2016 presidential nominee. Donald Trump, with a Republican pickup, will get elected the 45th president. Trump will serve either one or two terms (it doesn’t matter how many). If Trump turns out to be a two-termer, his Republican Party will definitely lose majorities in the U.S. House (first) and the U.S. Senate between the midterm elections of 2018 and 2022. (Historically, only Franklin Roosevelt, even to more than one term, held on to same-party majorities in both houses of Congress. And even his Democratic party suffered losses in 1938 and 1942.) If Trump is a two-termer, the year the Democrats win back the White House will be 2024. By that time, the Democratic Party will either remain the party of the DLC Clintons or it will get back to the truly domestically liberal FDRs. I think, if the inside Democrats care about their future, what will need to happen is that the FDR-like move to an ideologically driven left-wing party will get reborn. (There’s lately developing trends suggesting that is brewing. That’s what that 18 to 29 vote, from all three states, was revealing.) This 2020s Democratic Party will be adjusted for modern living. And they will achieve this by first seeing the departures of out-of-touch, Old Guard people which start with the Clintons and Al From. And then the careerists, like the ones in the Congressional Black Caucus PAC (most notably John Lewis, who is not to be respected any longer), will finally leave the stage. And replacing them will be a party which is forward thinking on domestic policies, less corporatist, less globalist, and not merely transactional. This is long overdue." end quote

"What needs to happen is that the FDR-like move to an ideologically driven left-wing party will get reborn."

Yep. The DP needs to be pulled back to its left roots, back from the far-right turn that it has taken over the last few decades. This will happen, inevitably, because young people are much more left/progressive than the older generation, and because the ongoing economic stagnation/crisis will impel masses of people to turn left. There are NO solutions on the right.

In the big picture, Bernie is acting as canary in the coal mine. He is an early warning marker of where things must go, and will go, eventually, even if not this very election. It is not Bernie THE INDIVIDUAL that is winning; it is the ideas that he represents that are winning, that are being embraced by the young generation, and which will soon be embraced by scores of millions of people SINKING in the economic morass. It is still at an early stage. Give it 5-10 years.
edit on 25-2-2016 by alan2102z because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Also from theintercept.com -- this is truly great!

Young people are "frighteningly" [sic] liberal and socialistic. They are concerned about corruption, greed and inequality, especially inequality. They don't trust bankers, politicians or journalists. They are skeptical of capitalism. IOW, THEY ARE WAKING UP.

Folks, this is the future, staring you in the face. It may only be 18-26ers today, but every election cycle their pool will get bigger and bigger, while millions of right-wing old farts die off or become senile and irrelevant. Further, economic stagnation will impel people of all ages to the left. Capitalism as we've known it is at the end of its rope, or near. The shift will come. America will once again become a hotbed, like it was a century ago, of radical left and socialistic ideas. The only sad part is that so many scores (hundreds?) of millions will have to suffer unnecessarily in the interim. We did not have to go so far right, essentially turning the entire show over to the wealthy and the corporations. But we did. And now the pendulum will swing the other way, finally.

theintercept.com...
Top GOP Pollster: Young Americans Are Terrifyingly Liberal
Jon Schwarz
Feb. 24 2016, 1:27 p.m.
"According to new polling by right-wing political consultant Frank Luntz, Americans 18 to 26 are extremely liberal — so liberal that “the hostility of young Americans to the underpinnings of the American economy and the American government” should “frighten every business and political leader” and “excite activists for Sanders and, to a lesser degree, Clinton activists.”
Luntz’s poll found that young Americans are optimistic about both the country’s future and their own: 61% say the best days of the United States are still ahead of us rather than behind us, and 88% are somewhat, very or extremely optimistic about their economic prospects. But they have concerns, too. Their biggest, in order, are “corruption,” “greed” and “inequality.”
snip
In response to the question, “Which type of political system do you think is the most compassionate?”, 58 percent said socialism and 9 percent said communism. Just 33 percent chose capitalism. 66 percent of the poll’s respondents said corporate America “embodies everything that is wrong about America.”
snip
Finally, more young Americans declared that the “most pressing issue facing America today” is income inequality than anything else. Income inequality was followed by education — specifically its cost. Respondents said they most respect nurses and doctors, followed by teachers and soldiers. The least-respected professions are bankers (2 percent), real estate agents (2 percent), elected officials (4 percent) and business leaders (6 percent). Wisely, just 7 percent of young Americans respect journalists." end quote.

edit on 25-2-2016 by alan2102z because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: samaka
From what I understand, the government spent 7.7 trillion on Wallstreet 'too big to fail' bailouts and another 7 trillion on Iraq war. The cost of the bailouts alone would of covered 50 years of medicare for every citizen. So rather spending our (my) tax money on bailouts and wars I'm totally in favor seeing that money spent social programs instead.

YES. THANK YOU. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF MONEY OR ANYTHING ELSE.

and while we're on the subject of wasted or stolen $TRILLIONS:

crooksandliars.com...
Report Reveals $8.5 Trillion Missing From Pentagon Budget
6/03/15
"Yahoo Money' The Daily Ticker is reporting that is has discovered a Reuters investigation that reveals $8.5 trillion – that's trillion with a "T" – in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996 that has never been accounted for."
end quote.

Hmmm. 8.5 $trillion misplaced, never accounted for. Well, you know, mistakes DO happen, right? I mean, surely you know what it is like to lose your car keys! You can hardly expect the Pentagon to be perfect, right?





posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: alan2102z
On some level, Americans understand that these things are essential for a decent society -- whether or not they are called "socialism".
I don't believe for a second morally wrong programs are essential for a decent society.

For example, how is taking away 16% of someone's money and then giving it back 50 years later at 0% interest helpful? That seems incredibly wrong and something I want no part of due to the bad morals, yet I'm forced into it by immoral people such as yourself who think you have a right to force it on me along with the rest of your globalist slavery.

There were lots of private roads and private bridges in the USA before the government grew large. Let me know how those were bad and didn't work out. Let me know, please. I expect no reply to that of course. How would you reply to something you know nothing about? Because you don't have any clue or care about spending trillions of other people's money because it isn't yours and so of course you wouldn't need to bother finding out if its doing any good.

The last time I asked for this I got in return entirely unconvincing opinion, including a government opinion issued by the agency itself justifying its own existence. You have some gall coming around and telling me you have to steal my things to have a decent society. I don't think your "society" is a civilized place, and I can't help but notice as your socialism has risen, CHAOS has increased at the same pace as your beloved socialism that you have zero evidence for that any single one of your program works.

Your guess-based socialist policies have ruined America (including both North and South America esp. Venezuela), yet here you are to insist they are helpful. No, offer evidence. There is plenty of evidence old-fashioned free-market capitalism, served cold, is wonderful for nurturing a middle class and bringing people out of poverty. I can offer evidence of that, do you care?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: centarix
[
There is plenty of evidence old-fashioned free-market capitalism, served cold, is wonderful for nurturing a middle class and bringing people out of poverty. I can offer evidence of that, do you care?


Please do.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: centarix

originally posted by: alan2102z
On some level, Americans understand that these things are essential for a decent society -- whether or not they are called "socialism".
I don't believe for a second morally wrong programs are essential for a decent society.

For example, how is taking away 16% of someone's money and then giving it back 50 years later at 0% interest helpful? That seems incredibly wrong and something I want no part of due to the bad morals


OK, I get that you don't like social security. But you should face the facts about it. It largely wiped-out poverty in the elderly -- which used to be a HUGE problem. Huge as in people dying 10 or 20 years before their time because they were too poor to afford decent food, medicine, heat in winter, etc. What would you do about that problem? Give those elders a copy of the U.S. Constitution and a lecture about self-reliance? What?



There were lots of private roads and private bridges in the USA before the government grew large. Let me know how those were bad and didn't work out.

Spare me. The interstate highway system was essential for the economic development of the U.S., and there is NO WAY that any private firm or even group of firms could possibly (or would ever) undertake such a project. The same with other big infrastructure projects: they are undertaken only by governments, NOT by the private sector.

If you want the U.S. to passively go down the tubes, losing ground to China/BRICS/Eurasia until it is a pathetic has-been, then you should by all means fight evil "big government" and especially its infrastructure programs! It is infrastructure that makes growth and prosperity possible. China -- i.e. the Chinese GOVERNMENT, not the private sector -- knows this, and has spent $trillions building-out the infrastructure of a modern, advanced, 21st-century civilization. As a result, they will dominate the late 21st century. The U.S. will be very lucky at this late date just to break its fall -- let alone remain in first place. And I credit people like you with ensuring that the U.S. will fall. People like you are the enemy of American prosperity.



Let me know, please. I expect no reply to that of course.

I guess you don't know me very well.



How would you reply to something you know nothing about? Because you don't have any clue or care about spending trillions of other people's money because it isn't yours and so of course you wouldn't need to bother finding out if its doing any good.

No, my friend, I am afraid it is you who are clueless. Your ideas, if embraced widely, are a 100% guarantee of steady decline for the U.S.



You have some gall coming around and telling me you have to steal my things to have a decent society.

You have some gall coming around and telling me that anything I have said endorses stealing. The precise opposite is true. I want the wholesale theft to END.



I don't think your "society" is a civilized place, and I can't help but notice as your socialism has risen, CHAOS has increased at the same pace as your beloved socialism

Lol. What "socialism" has risen?! The OPPOSITE of socialism has risen. The U.S. has lurched wildly to the right, embracing neoliberalism (i.e. capitalistic privatization, marketization, etc.), for freaking DECADES. If you think this is "socialism" then you need to get a dictionary, just for starters, plus a few more I.Q. points would help.

The U.S. has by far the weakest social democracy of any of the OECD countries, and it is getting worse.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Oh btw, centarix, I would like to remind you (and anyone else who is interested) that I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO BIG GOVERNMENT, i.e. the military/industrial/security/prison/intelligence complex, and the deep state (google for):
see here.

You see, there is "big government", and then there is "big government". There is a good big government, that helps scores of millions of people stay out of poverty, and that builds infrastructure on which all economic growth is based, that ensures that millions of kids have adequate nutrition, that places sensible controls on banks and financial entities (without which their unchecked lust for mega-profits results in huge economic crashes and multi-$trillions in debts to be paid by the public), and that does many other good things. And then there is bad big government, which wages stupid and immoral wars, props-up fascist dictators the world over, wastes $trillions on military BS, wastes more $trillions on so-called "security" and "intelligence", locks up far more of its citizens -- often guilty of nothing of consequence -- than any other country on earth, and so on.

The brilliance of the neoliberal PTB was in arousing popular hatred and resentment of "big government" AS A WHOLE (including all the good stuff), and then, with that popular support, proceeding perversely to enact policies which selectively attacked the good stuff, while leaving 100% intact the bad stuff -- or even INCREASING the bad stuff! The tea-party version of the anti-big-government idea -- right in line with this neoliberal con game -- is in effect pro-fascism, pro-neofeudalism, i.e. it advances the cause of plutocracy, oligarchy, impoverishment of most of the population, and so on, while engaging in still more impossibly-expensive and morally bankrupt militaristic ventures overseas.

Centarix is a good example of the general type: duped by the neoliberal PTB into hating "socialism" and "big government", while not really having any clue of what those words mean or what the implications are. It is people like Centarix -- and there are many millions of them -- who guarantee that the U.S. is going to have a long, slow decline for decades, with only difficult, agonizing recovery. With tens of millions buffaloed into hating "big government", while having no clue as to the actual part of big government that deserves to be hated (and dismantled), we are assured of a very rocky road ahead for many decades.

On the optimistic side, however, and as I've said throughout this thread (starting with the very first post): the deluded old right-wing tea-party-type farts are dying off, a couple million every year, and are being replaced with more-enlightened progressive young people. The change will take a couple more decades at least, and the U.S. will have slipped into irreversible decline by then, but at least the fall can be broken to some extent by a smarter, younger generation. They have a long, tough row to hoe, but by God I do believe they will make it! Call me a Pollyanna, but I think they will make it. Even though old farts like me won't be around to see it.

edit on 25-2-2016 by alan2102z because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I was just mopping my kitchen floor and the phone rang - it was to let me know (and it was a real human guy person speaking, a fellow Sanders activist) where the Caucus site is for March 5, (a week from Saturday). I will be attending. It's not even two miles away. Just today got my renewed registration switching from Unaffiliated to Dem.

Yesterday, Bernie was here in our city - and the lines to get in to see him went all the way around the block. There were THOUSANDS of people. I wanted to go, but had work to do.....so did all of my colleagues and friends.

Go Bernie.

I will be there next Saturday - maybe even with bells on!!!!

EDIT: And just now I got another call asking me if I want to volunteer - door to door, or phone outreach.
I said send me the info........

This is going to happen, folks.
Bernie is not stopping. It will be Bernie vs Donald. Quite a show.

edit on 2/25/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

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?



Yup, people could afford to pay taxes.

Lots of people made tons of money.

Bernie won't win.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: maplecustom
Question: is this remotely correct?

source: taxfoundation.org...

"U.S. Workers Face a Tax Burden of 31.5 Percent.
Average Worker Pays over $17,000 in Income and Payroll Taxes.
Washington, DC (July 16, 2015)—U.S. wage earners face a 31.5 percent tax burden on their pre-tax income according to a new report from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation"

I live in a democratic society (scandinavia) close to what Bernie Sanders is proposing. I pay aprox 35% tax. free education and free healthcare. I`s this really such a huge leap for you when talking about income tax?

Im struggling to understand that this would bee a deal breaker.

My wife to be is American so I'm quite interested in how things are turning out for you guys.



What's your unemployment rate and welfare?

How many people are the workers supporting, basically.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: alan2102z



Sems that you can't count.

Hillary has 503 to Sanders 70 votes, and you say he is winning?

No wonder the left is so messed up. Keep the Dream, because reality doesn't match your dream.


it's 72-71 without the supers.

she has about 25% of total delegates needed with the supers.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: samaka
From what I understand, the government spent 7.7 trillion on Wallstreet 'too big to fail' bailouts and another 7 trillion on Iraq war. The cost of the bailouts alone would of covered 50 years of medicare for every citizen.

So rather spending our (my) tax money on bailouts and wars I'm totally in favor seeing that money spent social programs instead.

But I think Bernie is popular because he represents the anti-establishment where as Clinton or anyone from the right are obviously not.


The ME wars haven't broken 2 trillion.

Wall Street QE costs about 1 trillion a year. The *claim* is that there has only been 4 years of QE.

So that's 6 trillion. Still way too much, but not 14.7 trillion.

Why should the government go into debt for Medicare? Oh wait...



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy


GOP doesn't use those. Seems like they would make the others be redundant unles there was a land slide one way or the other.

So even if Bern got 60% she still wins?




top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join