RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2016 02:41 pm
@maxdancona,
I wish he would finally admit that he knew that he couldent get any of his proposals through congress. You know, I would like him to admit he has been lying ever since he started his campaign.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2016 02:44 pm
@maxdancona,
Half of Bernies supporters will probably return to the republican party after the primaries.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2016 02:51 pm
@maxdancona,
Bernie is a socialist not a democrat. He dosent care how much he hurts the party as long as he can advance his personal agenda. I am willing to bet when it is apparent he has lost the dem. primary he decides to run third party.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2016 03:28 pm
"Bernie has one decision to make; his supporters have another."

Bernie attracted people who hate the system as it has become, and loathe corrupt politicians.

The reason we respect him and fund his campaign is because of what we know about him. I like the choices he's made. Some want him to run third party, most want him to fight to the last moment.

Most in #BernieOrBust mode would never vote for the poster girl of graft.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-bernie-or-bust/index.html
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2016 05:04 pm
2008 was a very different year. Democrats were trying to replace a Republican president who had job disapproval ratings in the mid-60s to low 70s throughout the summer and fall of 2008. Democrats -- both Obama and Clinton-- were pledging to change the direction of the country in a year when more than 80% of Americans consistently told pollsters the country was on the wrong track.

So Democrats could afford a little disunity. They had the wind at their backs.

They don't have the wind at their backs now. They're trying to win a third straight election, something that's been done only once by a party in the past 56 years (the GOP in 1980/1984/1988). President Obama's approval/disapproval numbers right now, according to Gallup, are 51%/45% -- but that's not overwhelmingly positive the way Bush's numbers in 2008 were overwhelmingly negative. And the "right direction/wrong track" numbers are still negative -- not as negative as they were in 2008, but they'd have to be as positive now as they were negative in 2008 for the two elections to be analogous for the Democrats. We'd need 80+% of the country to be happy with the way things are going; we have about 30%.

(And even in 2000, when the country was extremely happy with the status quo under a retiring Democratic president, the Democrat who wanted to be his successor couldn't put the election away.)

No, the Democrats can't afford the luxury of a sustained fight. Not this year.

Oh let's fight anyway. A little while longer, June at least? There's still be months left to fight the real bad guys, yes?



Then again, we could fight in the streets like it's 1968, when ...

... the Democratic Party establishment, led by the authoritarian Mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley, rigged the nominating process at the Democratic National Convention.
In the run-up to the Convention, over 80% of Democratic primary voters sided with the two anti-war candidates, Sen. Robert Kennedy (D-NY), the victim of an assassination, and Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D-MN). The will of the electorate was ignored by party elites. Daley’s backroom maneuvers secured the nomination for a candidate who had not won a single primary — Vice President Humbert Humphrey.
Daley’s authoritarian manipulation of the process produced chaos and violence both inside and outside of the convention. During a convention speech, Sen. Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT) denounced what he described as the “Gestapo tactics” of the Chicago PD — tactics that a federal commission later described as a “police riot” orchestrated by Daley. The violence and chaos inside and outside the 1968 Democratic National Convention, not to mention the betrayal of the anti-war sentiments of the electorate by the party establishment, led to the party’s demise that November and six more years of carnage in Vietnam.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz isn't as stupid and malicious as Daley, but we get the point. There's going to be a lot of yelling "RELAX!" at each other, some calls to simmer down, shut up, or go away.

Matthew Yglesias makes the case that Bernie will -- sooner than the convention in July -- back down, endorse Clinton, herd his sheep in behind her. He uses the tired trope of comparing Jill Stein to Ralph Nader and using the word 'spoiler', but even without that mistake, some of Bernie's herd will still go astray, most certainly. Even Noam Chomsky encourages swing state voters to wait until the last minute, watching to see if your state is in Electoral College play before casting a ballot, saving Hillary Clinton and the rest of us from Donald Trump.

But the 2016 election is much more likely to be disrupted by the Libertarians, Gary Johnson and William Weld, who are already polling at ten percent. Bill Kristol, the very model of modern autocratic arrogance, has selected the GOP's alternative to Trump without soiling his gloves on any of those messy primaries or that nasty voting business. And he has picked obscure conservative blogger David French, the Rick Santorum of 2016. What fun.

Update: More from Steve Benen on French. And this from Non Prophet News details the historical ramifications of strong alternate party bids, from Teddy Roosevelt to Strom Thurmond to George Wallace to Ross Perot. Notably not Nader. That's a myth, as we all should know by now.

I'll have to miss the state convention here in Deep-In-Hearta; Mrs. Diddie's new hip and Mom's 90th birthday take precedence over the desire I have to get in a fight with some Clinton folks and wind up in the Bexar County Jail, to say nothing of the thrill of listening to the minions cheer Hillary's coronation, watching as the parliamentarians run Robert's-Rules-roughshod over the Sanders delegation, and generally drive off what remains of a Democratic progressive wing in the party. To be followed by a reprise at the DNC in Philly in July.

So enjoy, Texas Democrats! You've once again managed to silence the voices that would lead to an invigorated Democratic Party in Texas in favor of a conservative, corporate-controlled Republican Lite version, the kind of Democrats that haven't won a statewide election in a generation. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Dream big of turning Texas blue like you usually do. In the meantime you'll find me reporting on the only progressive presidential nominating convention left, the US Greens here in August.
Posted by PDiddie at Wednesday, June 01, 2016
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2016 05:46 pm
@RABEL222,
I am in. How much would you like to bet Rabel?

This is one of the rare cases in an internet debate where it will be possible to prove without a doubt that you are full of crap.

Lilkanyon
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2016 07:46 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Bernie is a socialist not a democrat. He dosent care how much he hurts the party as long as he can advance his personal agenda. I am willing to bet when it is apparent he has lost the dem. primary he decides to run third party.


I agree with this one. I was on the fence for a long time about Bernie...now I'm just tired of him. Trump is the biggest threat to this country in generations, yet all he cares about is his own ego. He is too extreme and maybe Clinton is not liked by everyone, shes no Obama, he was an enigma...but I see Sanders as much an extremist for the left as a Tea Party candidate on the right. With a GOP controlled congress, he stands NO chance of passing anything.
Also he seems totally tone deaf to the congress as well. Hes not preaching to a dummy. I know who owns it and his idea of "more progressive supreme court justices" is laughable. He is as ridiculous as Trump. At least Clinton understands she does need the congress.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2016 07:49 pm
@DrewDad,
There are a lot of similarities with Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders as the 2008 Barak Obama vs Hillary Clinton. In 2008 the Democratic primary between Clinton and Obama lasted almost to the end of the primaries. I remember hearing news reports that a big chunk of Hillary supporters would never support Obama. Ultimately in the end, Hillary accepted that Obama was going to win the nomination. Hillary also gave her FULL support to Democratic nominee Obama.

As far as the reports that a big chunk of Hillary supporters would never support Obama never came to fruition. Obama ultimately won the general election easily. He also won all of the important swing states such as Florida and Ohio. He also won states that the Democrats had not won in over 35 to 40 plus years such as Virginia and North Carolina. I believe Obama had won every single blue state as well as every single purple state and won two red states. I cannot see Obama winning the general election in such an overwhelming victory if a substantial portion of Hillary supporters had truly not voted for Obama like they were claiming.

I suspect that Bernie Sanders will ultimately give his full support to Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination. I also, believe that the VAST majority of Bernie Sanders supporters will ultimately support and vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election regardless to what the Sanders supporters are now saying.

As far as Bernie Sanders running as a third party is simply wishful thinking coming from the republicans.
Lilkanyon
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2016 08:01 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:

There are a lot of similarities with Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders as the 2008 Barak Obama vs Hillary Clinton. In 2008 the Democratic primary between Clinton and Obama lasted almost to the end of the primaries. I remember hearing news reports that a big chunk of Hillary supporters would never support Obama. Ultimately in the end, Hillary accepted that Obama was going to win the nomination. Hillary also gave her FULL support to Democratic nominee Obama.

As far as the reports that a big chunk of Hillary supporters would never support Obama never came to fruition. Obama ultimately won the general election easily. He also won all of the important swing states such as Florida and Ohio. He also won states that the Democrats had not won in over 35 to 40 plus years such as Virginia and North Carolina. I believe Obama had won every single blue state as well as every single purple state and won two red states. I canno

t see Obama winning the general election in such an overwhelming victory if a substantial portion of Hillary supporters had truly not voted for Obama like they were claiming.

I suspect that Bernie Sanders will ultimately give his full support to Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination. I also, believe that the VAST majority of Bernie Sanders supporters will ultimately support and vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election regardless to what the Sanders supporters are now saying.

As far as Bernie Sanders running as a third party is simply wishful thinking coming from the republicans.



Difference being, technically Sanders is an Indie and has gone to war with the DNC. I dont recall Clinton calling foul like Sanders has....who knows what he will do...but right now? I fear him more then Trump. It always looks bad to those still making up their mind when a party seems divided.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2016 07:01 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Bernie is a socialist not a democrat. He dosent care how much he hurts the party as long as he can advance his personal agenda. I am willing to bet when it is apparent he has lost the dem. primary he decides to run third party.

No bet.
0 Replies
 
Angelgz2
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2016 02:51 pm
@revelette2,
"I agree with a lot of Bernie Sander's ideals."

Yes, and thus they are "ideals". We live in a real world were people are self-centered. I pose the question to all socialists but never gotten a good answer:

Three men goes to work each earns $10, tax is 20% so each pays $2. One man is out of work and collected $5 from government. $1 for the government to improve infrastructure. Assume they spend all their money: GDP is $30. Now, a socialist government took over and now tax is 40%. The three men who works gets only $6 and that guy who doesn't work also gets $6 -- hoary, income equality! Government now have $6 to spend on healthcare, infrastructure...etc. So right now GDP is still $30. Next year, one man realized WTF? The guy that doesn't work gets $6 and I work my A$$ off and I still get $6!!!? So why do I work so hard getting a post-graduate degree just to make the same $$$ as that guy who washes the toilet or not work at all? He now quits his job and claims social welfare. The other two men soon realizes this too and quits their jobs. The 4-men nation now has a GDP of ZERO.

The only way the world will ever achieve income equality is absolute dictatorship. Why didn't communism work? It's the same beautiful idea where everyone is equal and there's no evil wall street crooks. Ideal is only good on paper, NEVER good in practice.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2016 03:03 pm
@Angelgz2,
I don't see where you pose a question. But, I have a question for you Angel.

Do you work?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  5  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2016 03:07 pm
@Angelgz2,
I don't think anyone disputes your math here....when people say things like income inequality, they're usually referencing things like CEO's making 400 times more money than their lowest paid employee compared to decades ago when they made like 50 time more than their lowest paid employee.

Also they're talking about money accumulation, where the top 1% of people control 50% of all the wealth in America, compared to 30 years ago when the top 1% of people only controlled 30% of the wealth (something like that).

That's what people are generally pissed off about.

Almost no one expects a janitor to make as much as a CEO or someone on welfare to make as much as someone working 40 hours a week.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2016 04:21 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
If Hillary writes off the tens of millions of Bernie supporters, she will lose.


This is the bull shyt the Bernie people have been pushing from the word go and I'm getting tired of it. When the loud sob loses they should just ignore him like any other loser. Most of the things he claims are his ideas have been dem ideas that the republicans have been against. Bernie is a liar who is disliked by most of the democrat politicians who know him. He like Trump is loud and obnoxious. They are two of a kind.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2016 04:32 pm
@maxdancona,
If you can determine how to pay off I'd be willing to bet a burger and a malt. He seems to me to be all about Bernie because he needs democrats to pass just one of his proposals. And rather than cultivating them he is pissing some of the best of them off. Not one who is pushing his ideals but his cult. Its personal with him.
0 Replies
 
Angelgz2
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2016 06:53 am
@maporsche,
That's true. However, this is a slippery slope here. Supply and demand determines how much a person's "talent" is worth and if a government tries to control it there's ought to be consequences. Mass media feeds people the idea that 1% of the people makes significantly more money than the rest of us and that's simply not true. You hear from the news some executive from AIG makes xyz billion a year but he's just one guy. Tax him 80% isn't going to solve America's poverty simply because PURELY income wise, the super rich doesn't take home that much more than your 99%.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/one-percent-control-third-of-wealth.htm

Government aren't stupid and they know that to maximize tax revenue the only thing they can do is to raise taxes starting from the MIDDLE CLASS -- because that's the largest piece of the pie. Yet the middle class is the most important class in a nation because if they spend less or work less, the effects are disastrous. So from reading the above link, you probably have figured out why the rich gets richer. Certainly it's because America's pro-investment policies. Capital gains are taxed at 20% and most corporate CEOs have incomes paid as stock options. Hold it for longer than a year, you'll only have to pay 20% -- less than the average Joe.

Some propose a total wealth tax like France. However, from a pure economic perspective, that again, is not such a good idea. Do you think AIG or JP Morgan is stupid? The second you create a total wealth tax, they will simply move offshore as we already seen corporations moving headquarters to countries like India, Cayman Islands...etc that has either more loose tax laws or pro-business laws. US will become a bad place to invest and the rich will begin hiding their money, away from the US which ultimate shrink the nation's investment income, total spending, and GDP. Why do you think China has been slowing recently? Read some paper and you'll find that it's President Xi's policy to crack down the richest and the most corrupt government officials. It's certainly a nice thing and ethical thing to do -- there's no doubt about it. However, the ultimate effect is those super rich government officials moving their wealth offshore. Name brand stores and restaurants are now practically empty vs 10 years ago.

Again, ideals are ideals and they always sound GREAT as theories. You know back in the 60's-80's China tried to tweak Marx's guideline, by setting how much a certain profession "should" make and the government decides what profession is "best" for you. You know what the ultimate result is? People who knows someone in the government bribe their way to get into those professions, despite a lack of proper training. Least qualified people lead state run corporations, farm production and of course, the government itself. In the end there were food shortages and millions of people died of hunger.

It's true that income disparity -- someone makes billions while another barely making survival wage is a sad thing. However, like I mentioned you can hate rich people all you want, hate the idea of income gap...etc, but you can't change human nature. Greed will always be there and there's no policy that can cure it -- you can't kill human nature. Not When Marx, Lenin, Stalin was alive and certainly not today. Maybe some day human nature will evolve to become more compassionate and not be so self-centered, but as it stands it's very unlikely. That's why history always repeats itself. Another violence will break out, another revolution against the rich and another lesson learned. Many years later it'll be forgotten again...
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2016 07:21 am
@Angelgz2,
Angelgz2 wrote:
It's true that income disparity -- someone makes billions while another barely making survival wage is a sad thing. However, like I mentioned you can hate rich people all you want, hate the idea of income gap...etc, but you can't change human nature. Greed will always be there and there's no policy that can cure it -- you can't kill human nature.

What folks don't realize is that income inequality is a problem for everyone, including the rich.

Income at the top depends on everyone else being able to buy stuff. I don't have a problem that there are rich people; my concern is where our society will end up in 20 more years if this wealth concentration continues.
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2016 01:32 pm
@maporsche,
Quote:
I don't think anyone disputes your math here....when people say things like income inequality, they're usually referencing things like CEO's making 400 times more money than their lowest paid employee compared to decades ago when they made like 50 time more than their lowest paid employee.

Also they're talking about money accumulation, where the top 1% of people control 50% of all the wealth in America, compared to 30 years ago when the top 1% of people only controlled 30% of the wealth (something like that).

That's what people are generally pissed off about.

Almost no one expects a janitor to make as much as a CEO or someone on welfare to make as much as someone working 40 hours a week.


You made excellent points. I agree with all of your points. Many people hear the phrase income inequality or income disparity don't fully comprehend what that phrase actually mean. You pretty much broke down what the true meaning of income equality. As you already stated, income inequality or income disparity didn't just happen overnight. This has been a growing trend that has continue to grow more and more.

Somehow society or our government has to find away to take back SOME of that wealth from the SUPER wealthy and REDISTRIBUTE it back to the working class like it used to be. Yes I said like it used to be. There was a time when the wealthiest people and corporations paid SUBSTANTIALLY more taxes than what they are paying now. Yes this is income redistribution. It needs to be brought back. Substantially increasing (true) taxes on the SUPER wealthy would be one method. The more we increased taxes on the SUPER wealthy, the more we will be able to DECREASE taxes on the working class. Yes this is income redistribution. It is important to not allow the SUPER wealthy to offset tax increases with tax loop holes. It's also important to not allow the SUPER wealthy to offset tax increases by way of government subsidies. Either one of those two items would essentially undo any tax increases placed upon the SUPER wealthy. In turn, that wouldn't truly be tax increases on the SUPER wealthy if they found ways to manipulate or offset the tax increases.

A second way of addressing income inequality or income disparity is to better regulate Wall Street and the Banking industry. Make too big to fail truly mean something. Don't allow banks to ever get too big to fail. Have real laws and more important real enforcement of the laws. Ensure that no one is getting wealthy resulting from illegal activities on Wall Street. More important ensure the government has the resources, the manpower, and the laws to go after ALL law breakers on Wall Street. Real enforcement with REAL JAIL TIME, real punishments and real ENOURMOUS FINES.
-
I believe we can address the ever growing problem of income inequality and income disparity. We just need elected officials to become much more aggressive than what we have seen.
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2016 01:54 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
Half of Bernies supporters will probably return to the republican party after the primaries.


That is an interesting prediction. I have a different prediction. I predict that the vast majority of Bernie Sanders supporters will ultimately come out to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. Especially if their choice is between Trump and Clinton. Don't get too caught up with the current talk and current polls. Once Hillary wins the nomination, I predict Sanders will give Hillary Clinton his full support. I also predict that before election day Hillary Clinton poll numbers will look better and that Trump numbers will look worse. You, me, and a whole lot of other people are making predictions. I can't say nor can anyone else say with absolute certainty what is going to happen come election day. I hope my prediction comes to fruition and I hope the Democrats keep the White House. Keep my fingers cross.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2016 02:21 pm
@Real Music,
Well, to put kind of corny pun on it, your post is music to my ears. Hope like crazy you're right.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
GOP Empire Strikes Back - Discussion by parados
Government School Indoctrination - Discussion by H2O MAN
The Democrats will win again in 2016 - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Romney 2012? - Discussion by snood
Can Obama Lose? Will he be a one-term president? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Obama care 2014 - Discussion by wts
The 'I voted' thread! - Question by Cycloptichorn
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bernie's In(sane)
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/16/2019 at 03:04:35