• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Bernie Sanders

RedLeader said:
Has he said this on record? (I don't actually know)

If he says that he represents the will of his people and millions of his people would want him to run independent...
Click to expand...

I doubt he has said this on record (I'm just a UK resident, I know nothing) but the feeling I get he is a social democrat, at best, rather than even a democratic socialist, let alone a Marxist-Leninist loon as his opponents may fear. So he's going to accept the democracy as it stands, super-delegates and all, if he loses. Experience tells me the system, not the individual, let alone the massed ranks of millions of voters, wins.

I'd love to be wrong.
 
He's said on the record he wouldn't run Independent if he lost the Democratic nomination but that was before he even really started campaigning. With as much support as he's garnered I would hope he'd reconsider if he did lose the nom.
 
GenericMind said:
Superdelegates don't really matter. They haven't been involved in deciding on a nominee since 1984. It's all posturing.
Click to expand...

This is quite a unique race though, isn't it? We have open warfare between the DNC and one of it's candidates. With the party leadership so adamantly focused on disrupting the Sanders campaign, those superdelegates aren't going to roll over if Sanders wins the pledged count imo. They DO matter, but in recent history have been much more unified in electing the popular candidate. I'm not so sure it's going to play out that way this time.
 
People would literally riot in the streets and the Democrat Party would be destroyed if Sanders won the popular vote and the Superdelegates still elected Hillary. The DNC is already risking irreparable damage by what it's doing now. Doing something that crazy would absolutely lead to the collapse of the party. I don't think even they are dumb enough to try something like that.
 
I think you are right, but I've been so blown away by the level of smugness and hostility from establishment dems we've seen so far that I'm really not sure just how far they'll take it.
 
sigh

It would be different if we had a more pluralistic and proportional political system. As of now, in the sort of republic we have, I think there's too much power vested in the party leadership. If there were to be 5 parties that represent certain constituents from the center-left to the left, and these parties were more unified in their ideals, I wouldn't mind party leadership having a larger role in selecting a leader, as people would be voting for a party platform, not an individual with their own platform.

Having worked in a state legislature for a democratic representative, dismantle the party leadership, I say. It's all undemocratic fuckery.
 
Well according to early polling, both Sanders and Clinton absolutely demolish Trump. It turns out he's not very popular with the general public. Who knew?

Cruz fares a little better but from what I've seen so far, both democratic candidates poll much higher.
 
Bardeaux said:
Well according to early polling, both Sanders and Clinton absolutely demolish Trump. It turns out he's not very popular with the general public. Who knew?

Cruz fares a little better but from what I've seen so far, both democratic candidates poll much higher.
Click to expand...
depending on who you read, clinton beats him handily and sanders destroys him.

alasdair
 
There is also the possibility of a three-person race (let's say Clinton/Trump/GOP-pick) where it's so close all around that none of the three gets sufficient electoral college support for the win, and it goes to the House of Reps for a vote (which would likely be the GOP-pick). So just as everyone says that a Trump third party run would hand it to Clinton, well it could instead hand it to the GOP. Especially if the Bernie people were to boycott...
 
RedLeader said:
There is also the possibility of a three-person race (let's say Clinton/Trump/GOP-pick) where it's so close all around that none of the three gets sufficient electoral college support for the win, and it goes to the House of Reps for a vote (which would likely be the GOP-pick). So just as everyone says that a Trump third party run would hand it to Clinton, well it could instead hand it to the GOP. Especially if the Bernie people were to boycott...
Click to expand...

This is so true. I keep hearing about the GOP white knighting another nominee if Trump is nominated. If it does go to the house I am sure they would elect Ryan, or Romney (Which people are speculating will be the white knight). Dark times we live in.
 
"White Knight". Damn, that's Orwellian considering the Republican party is the party of open, unabashed nastiness. The corrupt wing of the Democratic party at least hide it.

White Knight.

Bernie will smoke whatever Black Knight cloaked in white they put up.
 
except maybe kasich. Cruz is far radical right. You need independents to win. trumps well trump. Kasich is moderate and could snag some independent voters away from bernie. I think hes the GOPs best shot at the white house.

A hillary nomination and a trump nomination could destroy both of their respective parties i think. The funny thing about that is hillary isn't really much of a democrat and trump isn't much of a republican.
 
^Sanders would probably be a moderate centrist only 50-60 years ago. Conservative icon Eisenhower is to the left of Sanders. Let's just let that sink in and weep for the direction our country has taken over this time.
 
ikJ2QNH.jpg


Seeing this one a lot today, though unsure if it's his actual quote. Is it bad form to call US banks "Panamanians" when no US bank has been implicated in the Panama Papers yet? Is this supposed to be like a slang term now, that "Panamanian" really means of any nationality that off-shores? Or is Sanders actually taking an educated guess, that eventually ties between the US banks and Panama will be found, and stating it as fact (Bush Jr taught everyone not to do this...)?

I could see this point being spun against Sanders' credibility if taken literally today. How would a Sanders supporter answer the question of "Why isn't Sanders waiting for the evidence to come out before he accuses US bankers of being in Panama?" I mean, go after the proven off-shoring in our country (now that's got the spotlight). Go after Clinton for supporting the trade deal and receiving money from parties that were implicated. Go after Congress for making loopholes. So many objective things that could be argued without jeopardizing his air-tight credibility.

Or am I wrong and this really isn't meant to be taken literally?
 
I don't think it's a problem. Obama just held a press conference yesterday and basically said there's massive offshore tax evasion going on in the U.S.
 
I overheard this Candian conversation about how Bernie was the best bc he would make America the most like Canada. I literally almost vomited and that isn't me joking. This country is okay and people are happy and very laid back. But it is much more authoritarian and the work ethic isn't very good in general. The paint guys at the places im at do three cars a day at most where they do 9 to 12 in American shops. But they get paid differently here so I guess things hopefully even out. Canada is fine I bet Scandinavia is great as well, but at the end of the day it isn't American. I guess we are voting this election to go back to being more American(trump/Cruz)status quote(Clinton) or socialist(sanders). Lol as I type this I'm watching Canadian news and there is a story about a law passed for free tampons for girls in school bathrooms country wide. This is what America will come the asking for "free" stuff never ends especially if they were allowed to take guns IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top