GenericMind
Bluelighter
Someone must have forgot to tell those 30,000 people rallying in Sacramento last night that Bernie has already lost.
Bernie Sanders
- Thread starter Randy71
- Start date
manboychef
Bluelighter
If hillary gets the nomination she will lose so many independent voters that didn't get to vote in the primaries. There are more independent and non affiliated voters than democratic or republican voters.
If the republican party fails to nominate trump, and if hillary clinton in spite of here negative approval rating is nominated, it will force people to look at how broken or system is. First of all republican party and democratic parties are just clubs that have some clout. Most people are just too stupid to realize there is a different way.
If the republican party fails to nominate trump, and if hillary clinton in spite of here negative approval rating is nominated, it will force people to look at how broken or system is. First of all republican party and democratic parties are just clubs that have some clout. Most people are just too stupid to realize there is a different way.
Tryptamine*Dreamer
Ex-Bluelighter
Bernie Sanders has maybe a 0.001% chance of getting the nomination, but I'd love to see him as president with whatever flaws he may have. I don't know his positions on all the policies but when I read about him several years ago, what I read led me to believe he was someone I could vote for with enthusiasm - but I am in Texas so the general election is decided before they ever run, Republicans win for president here unless something was damn wrong with the opposition - Trump I assume it will be and I think he'd have an excellent chance against him but the delegate count did not look good for Sanders when I checked a week or so ago. And the two big states left are leaning heavily in favor of Clinton against Sanders. But those take place on June 7th and there is plenty of time for things to change. Poll numbers can swing wildly in just a few days if any info came out and a gradual change would suffice given how much time is left.
And if you were to ignore superdelegates, there are less than 300 delegates separating them (1,716 to 1,433) but Clinton has 524 superdelegates to Sanders's 40. And the superdelegates can vote for anyone when the time comes to nominate a candidate but usually go with the one with the most unpledged delegates. As someone who just had to look this up/no expert on how the nomination process goes, I'll quote the AP
The concept of superdelegates really sounds undemocratic from that snippet of information but maybe I am missing something. I'll just assume their purpose is to override the will of the people if they think they are getting an unelectable candidate, a candidate drops out/dies, or whatever. I doubt they'd defy the will of the people in large numbers absent some kind of scandal or other unforeseen events like serious health issues cropping up. If they ever just said "screw you" to the electorate and chose the loser, surely that would be the end of the superdelegate system. But it seems they overturned the will of the voters in 1984 - perhaps they put the system in place two years earlier for that reason since that's when they were created.
Personally, I think superdelegates should be eliminated as they have given Clinton a big advantage probably even before the first primary (wasn't watching then) but she now has over 500 compared to 40 for Sanders and people are more likely to vote for the one they think will win - and that gives an unfair advantage to anyone who has a large number of superdelegates in the beginning. Maybe Bernie Sanders would be doing better now if Hillary Clinton had not had a huge advantage with superdelegate numbers to start with. And we have had two Bush's and a Clinton before we got Obama and now we'll probably have another Clinton, political dynasties for America. Wonder which of the Obama girls will keep it going? Or perhaps it will be Chelsea. Maybe they'll run against a Bush some time in the future. Not saying Hillary would be a bad president, but 20 of the last 28 years has seen Clinton and Bushes as presidents and the first Bush was Reagan's VP. That does not matter much to me, but some people don't like the idea of 2 or 3 families running the country for the better part of half a decade.
But if Trump wins, I think I'll just vomit all over myself. But I don't know much about him, just that the Republican party stands against most of the things I believe in.
I want Sanders over Clinton because he wants real universal healthcare, free college tuition (some other countries do this), legal weed for states that support it, and some other issues that I care less about. But I do like a couple of Clinton's stances over those of Sanders and on most issues they are the same. But universal healthcare has been something I've wanted bad since I first paid attention to politics and as far as I know, he is the first popular candidate to support tuition free college in the USA (and tuition rates are skyrocketing - up almost 500% since 1985 compared to a rise of 117% in the consumer price index which I think is the best measure for inflation - defined as
And if you were to ignore superdelegates, there are less than 300 delegates separating them (1,716 to 1,433) but Clinton has 524 superdelegates to Sanders's 40. And the superdelegates can vote for anyone when the time comes to nominate a candidate but usually go with the one with the most unpledged delegates. As someone who just had to look this up/no expert on how the nomination process goes, I'll quote the AP
AP said:
The concept of superdelegates really sounds undemocratic from that snippet of information but maybe I am missing something. I'll just assume their purpose is to override the will of the people if they think they are getting an unelectable candidate, a candidate drops out/dies, or whatever. I doubt they'd defy the will of the people in large numbers absent some kind of scandal or other unforeseen events like serious health issues cropping up. If they ever just said "screw you" to the electorate and chose the loser, surely that would be the end of the superdelegate system. But it seems they overturned the will of the voters in 1984 - perhaps they put the system in place two years earlier for that reason since that's when they were created.
Personally, I think superdelegates should be eliminated as they have given Clinton a big advantage probably even before the first primary (wasn't watching then) but she now has over 500 compared to 40 for Sanders and people are more likely to vote for the one they think will win - and that gives an unfair advantage to anyone who has a large number of superdelegates in the beginning. Maybe Bernie Sanders would be doing better now if Hillary Clinton had not had a huge advantage with superdelegate numbers to start with. And we have had two Bush's and a Clinton before we got Obama and now we'll probably have another Clinton, political dynasties for America. Wonder which of the Obama girls will keep it going? Or perhaps it will be Chelsea. Maybe they'll run against a Bush some time in the future. Not saying Hillary would be a bad president, but 20 of the last 28 years has seen Clinton and Bushes as presidents and the first Bush was Reagan's VP. That does not matter much to me, but some people don't like the idea of 2 or 3 families running the country for the better part of half a decade.
But if Trump wins, I think I'll just vomit all over myself. But I don't know much about him, just that the Republican party stands against most of the things I believe in.
I want Sanders over Clinton because he wants real universal healthcare, free college tuition (some other countries do this), legal weed for states that support it, and some other issues that I care less about. But I do like a couple of Clinton's stances over those of Sanders and on most issues they are the same. But universal healthcare has been something I've wanted bad since I first paid attention to politics and as far as I know, he is the first popular candidate to support tuition free college in the USA (and tuition rates are skyrocketing - up almost 500% since 1985 compared to a rise of 117% in the consumer price index which I think is the best measure for inflation - defined as
and I am not looking this up, but I think only healthcare costs have risen faster/more than tuition costs over that period. Maybe free college tuition would drastically slow it, I don't think there has been nearly that increase in costs for k-12 education. And universal healthcare like the rest of the developed world has would slow or stop the rise in healthcare costs. The USA is near the bottom when it comes to quality of healthcare compared to other wealthy nations even though we spend more per-capita than any other nation ($8,713 - Switzerland is second at $6,466 and only 4 out of the top 34 nations spend over $5,000 per-capita). So much of that going to health insurance companies that do whatever they can to avoid paying when you do get sick.
Last edited:
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
I'm holding out for free cars for everyone. Once he promises that I'm comin on board!
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
He is actually in bowling green Kentucky today and a bunch of my friends are going to his rally. Thought about going the longer he is in this race the worse for Hilary. Go Bernie!
cashfl0w_d0nkey
Bluelight Crew
Doubtful, seeing as improving the public transit infrastructure in the country is a common goal of Sanders and Clinton.
It's not "free stuff" it's tax reallocation. Education and health care should be a human right. Even if you won't benefit directly you will benefit in other ways; society being educated and healthy is good for everyone. When you take away "entitlements" like food stamps society turns into a shit hole of festering crime and corruption (more so, I mean)
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
troll feed...
cashfl0w_d0nkey
Bluelight Crew
I'd rather call him out than let it stand unchallenged.
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
So wait how doesn't society benefit if everyone gets a free car? More people are mobile to get better jobs, drive their kids to school taking strain off public infrastructure, etc .. Really the benefits to society are endless really.
Because it would be bad for the environment and unrealistic to build so many cars. It makes more sense to make free public transportation available for everyone though, by building high speed trains and buses everyone can use for very cheap or free and so on.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
sigh
the automobile industry would go out of business bro. Did I really have to explain that?
Either that or the government buys them from the industry. Which lets do the math.
Lets say 150 million drivers. Lets say $17k for a new car. That's a $2.7 tril bill to the govt.
Plus we have enough cars on the roadways. The object is to remove them.
Last edited:
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Why don't they get the money from the super rich/wallstreet to buy people cars just like with free college? They could be Priuses so better for the environment!
Because that makes absolutely no sense and would be a waste of money when you can build free/low cost public transportation that will benefit everyone.
Resources aren't unlimited you have to prioritize what will do the most good.
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
I think you all are failing to see the social benefits and the upward mobility it would provide. We would just need to get all car companies to merge into a collective and produce one small efficient car for everyone and maybe a bit nicer one for government officials.
I'm not sure how many ways I can write "because it's inefficient and a waste of resources" it would be like wanting to educate everyone by getting them a private tutor. Not everyone drives, the number of cars involved is unrealistic, etc. Where as everyone can use public transportation and it will provide jobs, etc.
Having a car is not a human right but we could argue that transportation is. Also we're not talking about communism where the government will totally own the means of production but democratic socialism, the government will provide things like healthcare and education but the private sector will still be alive competing with the government. Somehow this works in Canada without devolving into work camps and secret police.
Of course the real answer is you're a fucking troll who doesn't want to get it either because you're pushing people buttons and/or you're so brainwashed you don't see the difference between communism and democratic socialism.
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
I'm just saying if arbitrary label things human rights why not vehicles? To clarify I meant one vehicle per house hold. Health care is not a human right though having fair access to be able to purchase it is reasonable. I say this as someone with decent medical debt. Bernie is selling lies for the most part though I will say it's hard not to agree with him on certain things. I hope a lot of you bernie people look past trumps faults and vote for him if Hilary get the nod.
please dnftt guys.
alasdair
alasdair
Yes and I've showed over and over how it's not arbitrary, how we can sit down and rationally think about it. We get that you live in a world of total sociopathic monsters i.e. libertarians. and don't want to get it but anyone with a soul does.
Doesn't it bother you that Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Switzerland have happier populations with a higher life expectancy than your self-proclaimed 'greatest nation'? All these nations have healthy economy's with often a budget defficit and national debth, in relation to tGDP, less than that of America.
Why would you out of nothing than just some outdated political convictions, decide to have a society where people have more miserable lives than they could have? Because your own life is miserable and you want everybody else to be as miserable as you are? is that it?