Have you seen this ad? "Bernie Sanders - The President We Need"

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

"Free" Health Care is pragmatic. People (including employers) are actually starting to realize that while, yes, they will definitely pay more in taxes... those higher taxes will be more than offset by eliminating premiums, deductibles, co-pays and prescription costs.

Free public college tuition is also pragmatic, we need to boost up and invest in young people and that won't cost anyone a dime in higher taxes.

His plan for dealing with DAESH is pragmatic. Work with ME countries such as Jordan and Qatar.

Breaking up the "too big to fail/jail" banks.

The best thing, the most pragmatic thing we voters can do... is vote for someone who is not boxed in by lobbyists from the MIC, by the Financial Sector, by super wealthy individuals.

Feel the Bern bossman, you know you wanna.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Baddogma

PLUS, when you think about which of any of the hopefuls would be most 'presentable' as a world leader, Bernie has
"worthy of respect" written all over him.

What is your definition of a world leader? Someone who is kissing up to the same corrupt system most of us serfs are bitching about? OR One who continues the madness of corruption most of us are now feeling?

Personally, as a citizen of the United States, I want my government to take care of it's own damn people first before they pretend to care about the people of other countries! Ironic that the US government preaches all the BS it does to enforce it's ways on other countries while ignoring the same problems of it's own citizens?

They are paying blood money out to all the countries they need to keep on side in order to achieve their goal.

Meanwhile they forget about their own, or more like they start squeezing their own. Compete for less jobs, keep wages low for the 80% that work, cut the benefits of those that can't work, cut most public services, raise taxes etc, etc.

How anyone can vote for austerity I will never know, but it's going on here in the U.K.

The Conservatives used to be about investment, encouraging growth. Nowadays they are all about lucking out on the price of oil, thus keeping inflation down, thus making things feel a little better for people.

Remember when they told us they could do nothing about energy prices? This is the effect of not being able to do anything.

They actually done everything to ensure they couldn't do anything.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sanders, in a way, reminds me of FDR with the exception of being more than a tad further left than Roosevelt.

In retrospect, FDR's approach of using government to create jobs was about the only way out because banks and big industry had no courage to do so. His oft-called 'alphabet soup' series of programs; the WPA and CCC, as examples, took millions from the soup lines.

The CCC alone is still something that, though still plastered in politics, did so much creating parks and highways that are still in use today.

At the time, the slight lean to the left was, again, the only way out of the Great Depression. It worked and though it was never perfect, it did well enough to have us ready for the war that lay just ahead.

In closing, I wish we did have a candidate that was fully worthy of the office they seek but, here in 2016, none exist. In fact, we haven't had one since the devastated fall of the Carter Administration in 1980.

a reply to: seeker1963

Personally, as a citizen of the United States, I want my government to take care of it's own damn people first before they pretend to care about the people of other countries! Ironic that the US government preaches all the BS it does to enforce it's ways on other countries while ignoring the same problems of it's own citizens?

Did you actually watch the video?

You should. Your questions would be answered.
And I'm talking about the routine meetings of world leaders together, one on one.

a reply to: redoubt

In retrospect, FDR's approach of using government to create jobs was about the only way out because banks and big industry had no courage to do so. His oft-called 'alphabet soup' series of programs; the WPA and CCC, as examples, took millions from the soup lines.

This.
Yes. It's exactly the kind of thing Sanders is talking about. The ad opens with a quote by FDR.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: schuyler

they know they can beat Sanders in the General,

Oh, they know that, do they??

Real Clear Politics says different. Between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz, the only one who is 'ahead' of Sanders is Rubio. By 1 point. One tiny point.

So - how will each of them beat Sanders, schuyler?

What is the plan of each one?

Exactly. I think rather, they are talking about Hillary as the sure thing because they want her to win.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: crazyewok

Edit :actually your wrong
A US president has been elected FOUR times without the popular vote.

Let's deal with this one first. I NEVER SAID the popular vote always prevailed. So don't go claiming that's what I said. I didn't even come close to saying that.

That wasn't the issue. The issue was your claim that the Electoral College members do not vote against their remit. I say they do not, and you have found that over 200 years and what? fifty elections involving literally THOUSANDS of Electoral College Electors (535 each election these days, so that's 15,000 or so in the 20th century alone) that electoral college members have done so 157 times?

Wow. I'm impressed. And HALF those times were when the person they were "supposed to" vote for WERE DEAD!!!! I know we have some dead voters out there, but it's rare to compel people to vote for dead candidates.

So you're left with well less than a hundred instances over tens of thousands of votes where an elector has "gone rogue." And for the record, in NONE OF THESE CASES was the results of the election changed as a result. None.

Well, sir. I don't think that is a significant number and there's no reason to believe that suddenly, after 200 years, all the electors in the 22 states that can will suddenly throw the election.

That's just ridiculous.

Am I talking to a brick wall?

Yes the power to vote against the popular vote has been used sparingl.

But the situation in the 2016 may be alot diffrent.

Dont deny most of DC is up to its neck in corruption . And Sanders or Trump could turn things on its head. You really think the EC would be above changeing a few votes to get a establishment figure in? Putting the dead candidate examples aside they still voted against the popular vote a number of times, a president is set.

Only way I see the EC loosing its power is in a Trump verse Sanders vote or the popular vote for one candidate is so overwhelming that few counter votes would not be enough.

The thing is with democracy, you must use it or lose it, if you go a apathetic and think it's already fixed then that doesn't really help anyone. Might as well just hand over everything to a few rich people and be done with it. Try plutocracy or monarchy for a change to republican democracies

Tony Bennon the importance of the vote]edit on 29-1-2016 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

a reply to: crazyewok

Hey, ewok....
can we talk about the possiblity that Sanders will get the nomination? And how whatever opponent from the Republicans he faces could beat him? Leaving aside the obvious issue of voters being made to jump through hoops, and "counting" fraud (Ballot-box stuffing) and hanging chads and so on and so forth.

Please. I really want to know how the right wing thinks any of their contenders could beat him.

Now, to the issue of the popular vote being circumvented by the Electoral College four times out of over 50 elections. That is TRUE. And the reason it is true is because of the way the Electoral College is set up AND the requirement (in most, but not all states) that the votes are distributed in a "winner take all" fashion. The four times are:

George Bush (electoral vote winner) vs. Al Gore in 2000: Al Gore won the popular vote by 543,816 votes
Benjamin Harrison (electoral vote winner) vs. Grover Cleveland in 1888
Rutherford B. Hayes (winner) vs. Samuel J. Tilden in 1876: Tiden won the popular vote by 264,292 votes
John Quincy Adams won the electoral vote in 1824 but lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson by 44,804 votes in 1824

Most people, especially around here, come to the conclusion that "It's not fair!" But there's another way of looking at it, and that is,

It's not all about you.

That's right. Your cherished principal of one person one vote is not the only way to look at this. This republic was founded a union of STATES, not people. It is the "United States of America" not "The United People of America." It's been awhile since states had real rights, but that was the original intent. States by themselves as entities had a stake in this. That's why there is a Senate and a House. The House is "The people's house" contrasted with the Senate, which was originally devoted to the states. That changed with the direct election of senators and began the erosion of states' rights. The whole campaign to change this was fraught with misrepresentation of its own and frankly, it's a damn shame that it happened.

Today "states' rights" has become a euphemism for slavery, racism, and all sorts of bad stuff, but this is a result of a PR coup (started by Lincoln) the masses have bought off on--not reality. Originally it meant Rhode Island had equal stature with Virginia and Delaware had equal status with Georgia. It meant SMALL states were equal to large states and guess where all the small states were? In the North, New England. Rhode Island and Delaware are smaller than many counties in the western states. Notice which states were slave states and which weren't. So much for states' rights being racist.

Today's result of this situation means the small states have a slight edge, but also, it means the candidates cannot win simply by campaigning in New York, California, and a couple of other big states and calling it a wrap. In order to win they must cater to a much larger group of states, and once in awhile some small state like Wyoming, with a mere three electoral votes, can be a deciding factor. So you may think you;re "disenfranchised" because of the Electoral College, but without it, the fly over states might as well not vote at all, and that's a whole lot of disenfranchisement.

Besides which, the Dems especially have quite enough dead voters and people who manage to vote more than once to make up for it.

a reply to: schuyler

Can you please stick to the topic?

You said "they know they could beat Sanders."

I want to know how they know. (Unless what you're saying is that they "just know" he won't be their opponent because of whatever subversive crap the puppeteers have up their sleeves)

IN THE POPULAR VOTE.....................
How are they going to do that? What is each contender's plan?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

As far as comparing to other candidates? Only Clinton has any geo-political gravitas... at all (besides Sanders, I forgot to qualify). The GOP side is an embarrassment of differing levels.

I just can't find much to critique on the guy... yeah, the economics might give some on the right pause, but it's not like anyone else has a great plan or thinks things are great as is... and nobody should be fearful they'll be on the street under Sanders as he's pretty much about everyone getting help if they want it... and that "if they want it" is important.. .his vision is benevolent.

And a candidate that mirrors my views on the larger issues hasn't happened in memory for me... and one that is also rising like a rocket in the poles? Weird... like everyone woke up sane overnight (well, my idea of sane..which admittedly may vary).

Must be the lizard people or something, heh...

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: BuzzyWigs



This is probably the most crucial part of his campaign, but if Bernie takes Iowa & New Hampshire it's game on baby!

Go Bernie!

Saddened, I have to wait until March 8th to vote in the primaries, here in Michigan. though, I am excited this year! This is the first year I am actually aware of the primary vote date! (that is sad too!) I don't believe I am alone. I am going to stand up and hope this vote is heard here in Michigan.

dp

a reply to: CynConcepts

You made me smile What a refreshing attitude for ATSers.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I really like Bernie. He seems like a he has good intentions. I just don't know if I can afford him, or any of them anymore.

So I'm caught between a rock and a hard place you might say. There is plenty of time left before election day though.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I really want to like Bernie because Hillary makes skunk feces look like gold coins.

But I can't vote for anyone who would make government bigger and raise taxes.

While I would not vote for him in the general election. I do have respect for him. I would like to think that if things work as they should, he will be the Dem candidate. If they don't, well... America will just get that little bit more jaded.

He is the most honest of what the Dems have put forward, I like that. He believes what he says and says what he believes. I am just not in the camp that wants that for America. If he is the candidate, I wish him the best of luck, and I mean that genuinely.

originally posted by: Baldryck
While I would not vote for him in the general election. I do have respect for him. I would like to think that if things work as they should, he will be the Dem candidate. If they don't, well... America will just get that little bit more jaded.

He is the most honest of what the Dems have put forward, I like that. He believes what he says and says what he believes. I am just not in the camp that wants that for America. If he is the candidate, I wish him the best of luck, and I mean that genuinely.

Thank you for sharing that! My husband is the same way. We disagree completely on who we are supporting, yet recognize that we both want to see each other's candidate make it to November.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Now if Sanders would just choose the right VP:

Jill Stein's platform more viable than Bernie's

Senator Bernie Sanders' domestic proposals have got millions excited, but the (unfair and misleading) criticism that he'll raise taxes may be a tragic flaw, and it's one he opens himself up to by refusing to say that he'll cut the military. Stein would cut at least half of the single biggest item in the discretionary budget, an item that takes up at least half of that budget: military spending. She'd cut fossil fuel subsidies, as well, and expect savings to come from healthcare, including as a result of cutting pollution and improving food quality. But the big immediate item is the military. Cutting it is popular with voters, but not with Democratic or Republican presidential candidates.

source