Big business, they are the reason Sanders' is losing; The party machine is the reason Sanders is losing; The man has keep the South uneducated (and apparently do not have televisions or the internet) and that is why black folks in the South didn't vote for Sanders; The media, they are the reason Sanders is losing. .......... I am sure soon there will be claims of voter fraud from the Sanders voters.... Really it is anything other than the fact that he is not a democrat, running in a democrat primary, he is from the North East and while he has vaguely good ideas, he cannot articulate them in any specificity because they fall flat. Sanders has less votes than Trump.... another fire brand candidate.
I don't know if you were joking or not about watching the debate but it is well worth while to watch it. We might not learn anything new but this debate was good for understanding the candidates further and the very harshness of the debate helped to define key differences. I watched about half of it live and am listening to it again now. For those wondering the whole debate is here. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MpuWBjS62zM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I know this makes for an entertaining meme but simply not true. Sanders won NH by about 20% points and got 15 delegate votes to Clinton's 9. It wasn't an equal distribution.
I have no problem with Glynch being the voice of the far left. More power to him and we need him to balance out some of the voices on far right on Clutchfans D&D. What I find entertaining is his attacks on me as the voice of the contented middle, and the mouth piece of major media. I'm sure Major and Nook might be jealous that they aren't so honored.
I thought Sanders attack on her Goldman transcripts and fees was effective and warranted. She should be addressing that, but I doubt she'll have to. Other than that I though she was much stronger on virtually all fronts, but since I'm biased towards her, it may well have been a draw or a Bernie win to someone else. But no knock out by Sanders. The debates have been good for her. She's improved to where I think she was forceful and energetic without being frantic and shrill. Or at least less shrill to those who are open to her. Possibly "likable enough" to a wider audience. That's what she, and the party, needed -- so thank you Bernie! She's ready. I really don't like the sloganeering that substitutes for debate, but that's been the way for a while, so it's unlikely to change. Both were guilty and the audience egged it on. 538s forecasts have been awful so far. They've blamed it on data, lack of polls, lack of history etc. NY should be different. It's a high profile, diverse state with 10 polls quoted since April. Each has her up by 10+. I don't see the debate changing that much. We'll see on 4/19. Will the Sanders crew mellow on 4/20?
Almost everytime in which she was called out, she would change the subject. Sanders mocked her for "standing up to big banks" while accepting large sums of money from them (particularly giant sums for speeches which she is refusing to released using a ridiculous double-standard argument when the person she is running against didn't give any speeches). Sanders called her out for using a racist term, she didn't even address it. Sanders called her out for her support of fracking (at home and abroad during her time as Secretary of State) and she didn't respond. Sanders called her out on Libya and she basically blamed Obama (despite riding Obama's coattails throughout most of the debate). Sanders called her out on her lack of compassion for Palestinian civilians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No real response. Sanders called her out on her newfound fight for raising the minimum wage to $15/hour. She danced around it. Those were the highlights.
I watched. My opinions of the candidates were reaffirmed and unchanged. Sanders comes off as a man who genuinely wants the best for the US and the world even if the position is unpopular as shown in his support of Palestine and criticism of Israels response and not vilifying responsible gun owners or gun manufactures. Clinton comes off as smug, shifty, say what ever it takes politician as shown with her complete avoidance of the failed war on drugs, waffling on the social security issue, her weak fund raiser transcript argument, and flip flopping mid debate on $15 min wage etc. She avoided questions all night trying to land zingers and sound bites. I'll never vote for her. If she wins I'm probably writing in Willie Nelson.
I'm really struggling with who to vote for in the general. I view her a corrupt warmonger pretending to be a progressive. Really hoping Sanders' momentum continues (particularly in NY & CA) otherwise it's a tough choice.
Yes...... and Clinton looked stronger on foreign policy, gun control and HOW he will break up big banks. In fact he gave very little in "how" he will do anything. Sanders came across as more aggressive, and cranky. Clinton came across as controlled but smug. I don't know how anyone can watch that debate and conclude "Sanders clearly won" unless they are seeing what they wanted to see. Regardless, Sanders needed a real "turning point" and I didn't see that at all. We will know when the votes are counted in NY though.
In the end this debate didn't change anything IMO. If you're tilted for one side you're likely more tilted towards that side. I honestly expected Sanders to do more to reach out to a greater demographic but instead it felt like he consolidated his base more. Which is a bad thing since his base is not enough to get him the delegates. Granted, Hilary was going to come out fine regardless unless something drastic happens so Sanders was fighting uphill, but he didn't overcome that hill in my view as someone okay with both candidates. If anything, I feel the everlasting impact of this debate is more people being pissed at the other side and slightly higher likelihood of a Cruz presidency. That's about it.
You can see how much excitement Hillary is creating, with her whole D&D fanbase living in the Bernie thread lol. I think Bernie has lost the last few debates, but he won this one when considering the target audience. There were a roughly equal number of blows exchanged, but Bernie's blows were relevant to a huge % of democratic voters whereas Hillary's blows were more "aha!" victories for old upper middle class people and rich people/corporations. I think he will substantially improve his standing in the primary, but I'm still not optimistic he will win. She has done a lot for NY, at a time where PTSD was rampant and she has pressed that wound repeatedly without consequences. It's pretty impossible to overcome something like that. On a side note, I find it INCREDIBLE that people are questioning that Bernie is not endorsing the Department of Treasury hand picking portions of corporations to sell off. If he does it, he's a crazy commie, and if he doesn't do it he is not strong enough lol. Give me a F break. No one cares how banks run their business internally, that's their business. What's everyone else's business is if the total size poses a systemic risk CONSIDERING what the bank has chosen to internalize.
I've finally had the chance to watch the debate completely and my own takeaways from this debate is that both did generally well and neither is going to change much. Both scored some hits to each other but I don't nothing here tonight really will be a game changer. That said the abrasiveness of the debate did help to further define and distinguish them. Sanders hit Clinton hard and successfully on the transcripts of her speeches. Clinton's deflection though about Sanders' tax returns was an interesting turn and not an issue that has been out there. That said she made it an issue and one that Sanders' didn't handle well. Saying "Jane does the taxes and has been too busy" came off as almost throwing his wife under the bus. How long Clinton can deflect though from her transcripts probably won't last and this is clearly an issue that hurts her. Clinton hit Sanders hard though on guns and Sanders own words show that he is pandering to his rural constituency. I agree though that Sanders doesn't owe the Sandy Hook parents an apology but it's an issue that makes him look uncaring and callous at worst. Like Clinton's transcripts it's an issue that there really isn't a good way for him to deal with it. I think Clinton looked very bad on the minimum wage discussion and that plays very much into the narrative that she changes position as the wind blows. As Factcheck.org pointed out Clinton is factually correct that she has supported The Fight for $15 but how she is doing so is based very much on spin. My own opinion is she would be better off acknowledging for country wide she is for $12 / hour but supports local efforts to go higher and leave it at that than trying to say she's always been for $15 /hour. On Sanders most damning attacks that she is bought in sold by money interest be it Wall Street or fossil fuels this one I think is a wash. She successfully defended it when Sanders couldn't point to any actual quid pro quo and as FactCheck.org pointed out her donations from fossil fuel interests are small and are mixed in with other donations. That said this is a matter of perception and there is no getting around that she has gotten a lot of money from special interests and the perception will continue to hold. Sanders still has problems with foreign policy as Clinton tellingly pointed out it is easy to diagnose the problems but harder to actually come up with solutions. As Clinton noted while Sanders' position is really about the same as Clinton's (even though Clinton's rhetoric is more pro-Israel both are for a two state solution that gives territorial rights to the Palestinians) she has actually done something about it. Further his positions are complicated when he attacked Clinton in regard to Libya yet he voted for the resolution supporting the position that the Obama Admin. took, seek and empower UNSC resolution. That he tried to dismiss it because it was a 100-0 vote shows either he didnt' consider the implications of it or wasn't that aware of what was in the resolution. The two key points about this debate and what really sums up the difference between the two and their supporters was during the fracking / Carbon Tax debate and during the social security debate. In the fracking / Carbon Tax debate said that now isn't the time for incremental change while Clinton said she agrees change is needed but we need a strategy for getting there that involves bridge steps and she wasn't going to get behind his bill that wasn't going anywhere. Right there pretty much sums up things. Sanders wants to see things change now but how that get's there he isn't that clear. Clinton has laid out a strategy that does go much slower. On the Social Security debate Sanders pressed Clinton on the question of whether she would support lifting the cap on earnings. She gave a very qualified yes that she would but she would also consider many other methods. Sanders was dismissive of this because it wasn't an enthusiastic agreement of his approach only. In this regard Sanders showed a rigidness of thought that there was only one approach his. While that is fine from an ideological standpoint and an uncompromising stance does arouse passion I would question whether that is something we want from a leader of a country as large and diverse as the US. Finally while the crowd brings a lot of energy it did get distracting and at times difficult to follow the debate. It also got caused the candidates to play too much to the crowd and talk over. I think the debate would've been more substantive if the crowd wouldn't have been so rowdy and the candidates focused on the issues more than try to get applause points.
The most impressive comment from Hillary, at least to me, was about a woman's right to choose. From PolitiFact: Hillary Clinton said abortion has been ignored during the Democratic debates. Clinton got on the topic during the April 14 debate in Brooklyn, N.Y., when she said she would only appoint a Supreme Court justice who believed that Roe vs. Wade is settled law. Her statement: "And I want to say something about this since we're talking about the Supreme Court and what's at stake. We've had eight debates before, this is our ninth," Clinton said. "We've not had one question about a woman's right to make her own decisions about reproductive health care, not one question." The line got a big applause from the audience. But was it correct? Our ruling: Clinton says in nine Democratic debates "We've not had one question about a woman's right to make her own decisions about reproductive health care, not one question." We could not find any example of a moderator asking a direct question about abortion, however Clinton and Sanders both raised the topic in multiple debates. We rate this claim True. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-says-democratic-debate-moderators-/
I agree she danced around some issues but frankly your take of the debate seems very selective. Except Sanders couldn't cite any specific example of favoritism from her fundraising even when pressed by the moderators. As stated before this is more a criticism on perception than there is evidence of malfeasance or even quid pro quo. She didn't in the debate but has apologized for it before. Further as the brought up again in the debate that Sanders voted for the very crime bill that was at issue. Both candidates have admitted that their support was problematic yet Clinton is the only one who gets criticized for it. Actually she gave a very detailed response that she supported fracking as part of a strategy to move from coal using natural gas as a bridge and that she supported that strategy abroad in Europe to counter Russia's control over European energy supplies. For those not familiar Russia is the major supplier of natural gas to Europe and has used the control in disputes with Europe over things such as Ukraine. She didn't blame Obama in Libya because she said she supported his policy. She blamed Obama regarding Syria where she differed with him on the No Fly Zone. Also as noted Sanders had voted for the Senate Resolution but gave a weak answer that showed he might not have been aware of what was in it. No doubt Clinton's rhetoric was far more pro-Israeli but she did go to lengths discussing how she negotiated the 2012 cease fire and did state clearly that she supports a two state solution. Note too that Sanders himself said several times he was very pro-Israel. Overall both their positions are essentially the same. I agree that was a very weak point on her part and one that I think she would've been better off just saying that she is for a national $12/hr wage while supporting individual state and local efforts for a higher wage. As said again though your highlights seem very selective as opposed to what was actually said in the debate. I will admit that I'm biased too but I will point to the FactCheck.org report that I posted in this thread to back up my takes above.
Bernie in January: "The Democratic Party needs major reform," the presidential contender said during Sunday night's NBC/YouTube debate in Charleston, S.C. "To those of you in South Carolina, you know what, in Mississippi — we need a 50-state strategy so that people in South Carolina and Mississippi can get the resources they need." http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/266218-sanders-dems-need-50-state-strategy
I'm going to try to have a few more references and sources in this post. I would recommend not letting Labels (emphasis on capital 'L') affect your opinion. Systematic analysis of his platform puts him right in line with FDR and the old Democratic (soon to be new) Party. Now if you still like labels to help you organize your thoughts, respected historian Noam Chomsky has called Bernie Sanders a "New Deal Democrat". As far as policy is concerned, Bernie's policies, if enacted, would increase velocity of money, increase human capital through increased access to education and health care, and ultimately provide a sufficient safety net that will allow the population to enjoy the economic freedom necessary to realize their potential (FDR said that economic freedom is fundamental to help realize all of the other freedoms ensured to us by the Constitution.) Now if you disagree with FDR's premise, that's a different story. [/b][/QUOTE] The problem with that view though is if all of the candidates got equal coverage how do you know Bernie Sanders would be doing so much better? O'Malley might be doing better or Chafee with Sanders an also ran. For that matter if the argument is that the media and the party haven't been fair to all candidates why should they stop with those names? Why shouldn't they give Lyndon LaRouche or the Rent is too Damn High! guy the same amount of coverage? I sympathize that it's not fair that the media or the party arent' giving the same amount of coverage and support to all candidates they can't though for obvious reasons. [/b][/QUOTE] I have absolutely no way of unequivocally saying that Bernie would have increased support if the media gave him coverage. I have simply tried to articulate that for most working people (which is the majority of America), hearing about a candidate that is looking to guarantee you healthcare, a minimum wage of $15, and free college tuition for either you or your child on national media would at the very least peak your interest and encourage you to do your own research on the internet or discuss with your fellow community members. This just an extension of saying that people have self-interests that they look out for. And as the polls show, Bernie's policies are fairly mainstream. I think that it is more fair enough ground to imply that Bernie would have more support if the media monopoly that influences our older generations would give more detailed and balanced proposals of Bernie's vision for the U.S. The only two mediums that have adequately been able to send his message is social/virtual media and his ground game. This is corroborated by the fact that Bernie does amazingly well among 18-29 years (wins 80-20 in every state) and that he always seems to make up ground in states where there is enough time to campaign in. Again, his message and character are contagious, there's a reason he has so many freelancing and able volunteers that will work for by sheer virtue of his platform and the years of consistent fighting for what he believes to be true, regardless of political expediency. My speculations are more than fair and have plenty of evidence to back them up. The dude has erased a 60 point national deficit against what should be the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation. As far as the other candidates you mentioned, I believe they should give fair coverage to them as well. The difference is those candidates were not drawing huge crowds to rallies and did not have the backing of social media to propel them. There was literally no story with those guys. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders has been a story for almost year, drawing massive crowds even in states like Kansas (!). Most recently, he drew a crowd of 30,000 people in Washington state park. No live news coverage at all. I mean you want a story, that is one hell of a story. And the biggest thing is, this is not about Bernie. The electorate is changing, their is huge unrest in this country and movement is forming. The Bernie Sanders campaign is being sparked by this shift, and that is one hell of a story. Why is nobody in the media talking about this movement? Why nobody in MSM talking about the Democracy Spring protests where more people were jailed than ever in history? Why did nobody talk about the protests oustside CNN headquarters? Why did CNN say Clinton won the first few debates even though online polling and their focus groups said that Bernie overwhelmingly won? These are important questions that need to be answered. My answer is that there is a conflict of interest with what the people want and what the owners of the corporate media want. What is your answer? What are these "obvious reasons"? [/b][/QUOTE] Except that if you're arguing low turnouts consider then that one Clinton pasted Sanders in those races. If those races the turnout was even lower than 8 years ago what does that say about Sanders' success in those if he still got beat by large margins in those states this year. Two, if you're arguing that the low turnout numbers show that Clinton's support isn't something to crow about consider that caucus turnouts are less than primary turnouts and Sanders has dominated in caucus states with less population. Another poster here earlier pointed out that the total of Sanders caucus victories are less votes than the difference between Clinton and Sanders in just FL alone. [/b][/QUOTE] What do the low turnouts say about Sanders' support in the South? It means that a candidate like Barack Obama would have won the nomination by now, that's what it says. Just because I'm saying there's low voter turnout doesn't mean I'm saying that Bernie would have had more support in those states if the turnout had been higher. All I'm saying is Clinton should've won by even more, and really should have made him nonviable in some states if she had amazing organization. What, you think it's unfair that I'm raising expectations for one of the best organized political machines ever? Though to be fair, there has been very little voter registration drives in part of the DNC this year. They have not made it a priority to get people registered and excited. The responsibility has been solely put on the campaigns. This not is only is very stupid when taking into account the general election, it implies again that the DNC has actively favored Clinton. There is only one candidate that is drawing new voters and young people into the political process, and that is Bernie Sanders. He wins big with independents, and she wins big wither registered democrats, it would be in Clinton's best interests to have fewer new people enter the party. [/b][/QUOTE] First this is a frequent charge that Clinton is corrupted that said I've yet to see any definitive proof that there has been a quid pro quo for campaign donations. There has been a lot of speculation, implication, and accusation but a lack of specific evidence.[/b][/QUOTE] I know glynch posted this already but here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg Now, other than this damning video, there may be very few concrete, well-known examples. But the larger implication for taking donations is that, if you look at her platform, she literally can't propose anything that is ultimately, against the interests of the her donors. Hillary used to be in support of single-payer as a first lady, why can't she now? Because she takes money from insurance companies and Big Pharma, and replacing Obamacare would destroy the greediest middlemen in the history of this country. Would she actually break up the banks, if need be (prior to another financial meltdown that is) under Dodd-Frank? I doubt it, the regulatory committee has just released their second report affirming that the banks are too big to fail. Is Obama, who was funded by the banks, made public statements threatening to break them up? No. Let's lower the expectations, would she reinstate Glass-Steagall, and prevent banks from playing casino capitalism with out money? No, that is not part of her platform because she knows she can't do it, at not without an overly complicated bill that leaves loopholes. Why did she support the war in Iraq? She was taking money from the military-industrial complex. There were millions of people protesting that war, why did she do it? If you want to deny corruption, then you're implying that she has a very hawkish mentality that re-emerged when she advised Obama to overthrow Libya, his worst mistake as president by his own admission. She wants establish a no-fly zone in Syria and risk further involvement in the middle east. Why? There is little historical precedence to suggest this would be good idea and in the best interests of the men and women who fight for this country. (this may not have anything to do with corruption, but it at the very least exposes her repeated short-sightedness when it comes to these issues) She actively supported trade deals to Panama as secretary of state, a deal that any person with common sense knew was built to help the wealthy hide their money. Her current campaign manager is linked banks in Panama, does that mean anything? Did that have anything to do with her donors? You decide. Bernie supporters are acting like he was some kind of prophet when he talked about this trade deal during his 8.5 hour filibuster of the Bush tax cuts, but the reality is it didn't take it a genius to figure it out. Now, you might just like war or think her strategy will lead to peace (lol), so maybe my arguments mean little to you. You may also be very wealthy and avoided taxes by hiding your wealth in Panama, so maybe it's in your best interests to vote for Clinton. [/b][/QUOTE] Next I will give credit that Sanders is more consistent and I think he's a good well meaning guy that said he is a politician and he has compromised and pandered too. He admits it when he says he compromised on the Crime Bill that people like to club Clinton with and also that he panders to his rural constituency over guns. [/b][/QUOTE] Yea, he compromised, he also went to the Senate floor and argued that a lot of those provisions would disproportionately hurt blacks. He at least showed he had some level of foresight in regards to this issue. That being said, it was a horrific bill and I think he, along with the Clintons, should publicly denounce it and apologize. I still don't really get the differences between Clinton and Sanders on guns. Other than past votes, what is different about their policies on gun control? If you're gonna cite that joke interview by the Daily News, I would suggest getting different a source. I still don't understand how he "panders". He supports common sense gun laws: Background checks, closure of gun show loopholes, and prohibition of assault rifles. In regards to manufacturers, he has articulated that he believes that if they sell products knowing that they may be used to kill people, they should be able to be sued. However, if they sell a legal product to someone who has passed a background check and is not asking for say, 10,000 round of ammunition, why should they be held liable if that person goes off and kills three people. I really understand what the hell pandering is. Please enlighten me. Now if you believe that gun manufacturers should always be held liable, we have a policy disagreement. [/b][/QUOTE] Everyone loves the idea of Cincinnatus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus). The problem though is that the nature of the US Presidency is far far different than pre-Imperial Rome. To be willing to subject yourself to the type of scrutiny and grind just to try to get to be President and then preside over the largest economy and military in the world facing daily crisis, meanwhile with political opponents blocking most of your moves, while critics mercilessly mock you and people protest you over all sorts of things takes a certain amount of megalomania. It's not something I think any sane person would want. The idea of the accidental president, the well meaning outsider who comes in and saves the day with no other ambition, is appealing but not one that could or probably should happen. The challenges that a President faces are unlike anything that most people will experience. Just look at how much it's aged the last three occupants of the office. Ambition and preparation are factors that should be considered when it comes to running this country and dealing with the type of threats that a president might face. Ideology and issues matter but one has to consider that the President isn't the chief legislator. For that matter don't doubt that Sanders isn't ambitious. No one runs for president unless they have an outsized ambition. [/b][/QUOTE] I never said that Sanders wasn't ambitious, I just said that his ambition doesn't compromise his principles. If Elizabeth Warren was running he wouldn't be. To a certain degree, his ambition is fueled by the pain of the working families of this country and outrage over the status quo, not simply by the allure of the presidential chair. I do feel that Clinton's ambitions have compromised her principles, and deep down she probably wishes she could promise the things Bernie promises. But she can't, and she knows she is too deep in. [/b][/QUOTE] That's speculative. Maybe, maybe not. As noted whose to say that O'malley or Webb aren't more successful. Further that still ignores that Sanders raised a ton of money and could've run more advertizing, have better targeted advertizing and outreach. Consider that in 2008 Clinton was also the early favorite while Obama the insurgent. Clinton's name recognition didn't stop Obama. [/b][/QUOTE] Obama delivered a great speech in the 2004 convention, fit the mold of an effective politician, and was favored by the media. He got some pretty good MSM coverage. Also, he was an amazing orator and that made up for the fact that he literally had no record in the Senate. Also, he should be noted that advertising doesn't get you a ton of votes. Strong ground games and social media are what really get you followers. [/b][/QUOTE] Sure it takes guts as noted it also takes an outsized ambition. Leaving that aside though this post just continues to show how much the Sanders campaign and Sanders supporters are wallowing in victimhood and blaming others. It's the media's fault. It's the DNC's fault. It's corporations fault. It's Clinton's fault. [/b][/QUOTE] Sanders supporters keep highlighting shortcomings of the media and the DNC because if they don't, nothing will change. If you want to live in a country where the major issues like income inequality, climate change, and poverty are not given the degree of urgency that they deserve then be my guest. More than 50% of people in 2006 still believed that Sadaam Hussein had a role in 9/11. What a joke. Sanders supporters understand the degree of severity of issues, so if their constant cries of outrage sound like whining to you, it is because they fundamentally understand the degree to which these problems can destroy our future. They know what is at stake, and they understand Hillary's incrementalist policies will definitely not address an issue like climate change in an adequate manner. I would do some research into the issue Sanders talks about. Really try to grasp the severity of the consequences we face if they are not addressed, and whether or not Clinton's policies, if passed, would adequately address them. I do not believe they will, you are entitled to believe in what you want. [/b][/QUOTE] Have you considered that maybe Sanders is a flawed candidate who hasn't run as good a campaign as he could and that his views don't enjoy as much support as his supporters think?[/b][/QUOTE] As I have said, he is not the most well-articulated candidate possible. I believe that an Alan Grayson or Elizabeth Warren would have been more effective for debates. In regards to his actual campaign, he has some great personnel managing it in Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver. He has also employed a lot of great people to reach out to communities including undocumented immigrants and activists. If you want to judge the campaign in regards to the people he has surrounded himself with, he is running an exceptional campaign. As far as campaign strategy is concerned, he should have been far more aggressive in Iowa and not taken so many days of the campaign trail to go back to the Senate. Not much else to complain about other than that. [/b][/QUOTE] Sure he could still win the race isn't over. That said we've heard the same thing over and over again. Before Super Tuesday one Sanders supporters were saying the same thing. After Michigan they said the same thing. Just scroll back to earlier in this thread. [/b][/QUOTE] Before super tuesday, the Hillary Camp said the race would be over by february's end, then later by March's end, and now by April's end, notice a pattern here? The Sanders people kept saying that because they new the demographics that really favor Bernie were yet to come and they were right, he has won 7 states in a row. [/b][/QUOTE] And again if Sanders did get the support of the establishment then he woudln't be the outsider and a big portion of his appeal wouldn't be there. It's oxymoronic to both trumpet about how much of an outsider you are and how bad the establishment is and then expect it to support you. [/b][/QUOTE] The problem is the system is poorly built and favors establishment. That being said, they are the rules of the game and they're not going to change overnight and thus we have to play the game while expressing the distaste for the game. That shows you things will be different if Sanders gets elected. Has Hillary at least said she would shut down the superdelegates if elected? No. [/b][/QUOTE] Frankly you're living up to being whiny and a crybaby. Just reread the paragraph above. You're swearing and blaming everyone but your own candidate. You're arguing that you know what you're talking about but the whole paragraph is pretty much just a regurgitation of standard talking points laced with anger. I apologize if I sound condescending, I admit I frequently do. I have nothing against you personally and I'm sure you're a smart, well meaning guy and you've made some very cogent arguments. That said reread what you just wrote and compare it to any number of other posts here from Sanders supporters or out there social media. You're not saying anything original or deeply thought out. You're just ranting using talking points. [/b][/QUOTE] I got a little passionate, so apologies. Let's break it down it terms of the issues: Do you believe the MSM media (CNN, MSNBC, FOX) is adequately talking about the issues that affect the daily lives of Americans and does a good job of objectively evaluating candidates instead of judging them from the prism of a horserace? Do they fairly frame the discussion and provide an adequate set of options when talking about issues like the national debt for example? If yes, please elaborate Do you believe that Hillary Clinton will reject the TPP, break up the banks before another financial recession under Dodd-Frank, lift the cap on taxable income to expand social security, aggressively address climate change, and overturn Citizens United and move to public funding of elections? If you believe that she will at the very least aggressively pursue each of these policy initiatives then please elaborate. Do you believe that Hillary Clinton will not fill up her cabinet and the SEC with people who did not at any point work for Wall Street, Big Pharma, or the major insurance companies? Do you believe that she will aggressively enforce the existing regulations on banks ad big business that have largely been ignored for years? If so please elaborate. [/b][/QUOTE] So in other words there is no proof of malfeasance just an opinion. Honestly this sounds like complaining about how the Spurs play because it's boring and at times seems dirty. I feel safe to say that all of us Rockets' fans would gladly trade the Spurs record of the last 20 years with the Rockets. [/b][/QUOTE] Here, since you're too lazy to do your own research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwDJmCD6iDA [/QUOTE] The purpose of an election process is to determine which person represents the interest of the people. Polls are just a snapshot. According to many polls in October 2012 Romney was beating Obama. Like in basketball there is only one stat that matters. [/QUOTE] Fine, she does have very high unfavoribilities though, Fox and the right have been trashing her for years on end. Adding to the problem is that their claims are not entirely baseless. I do not think she can get around the fact that 55% of Americans don't trust her. At the very least, I do not appreciate the fact that the Clinton campaign seems to trumpet that she is more electable. There is no evidence out there to support this yet her and the MSM are absolutely convinced she is. So basically , we can't say anything, and I'm fine with that. the argument just doesn't work the other way around. [/QUOTE] That is a very limited view of what qualifies left versus right. If you look at them as a whole Mondale was to the left of JFK even considering the country was more to the right in 1984 versus 1963. [/QUOTE] I need to do more research here, I could very well be wrong. [/QUOTE] Sure I give Sanders a lot of credit. He has run a remarkable campaign and if you read my earlier post I say that it was necessary and important for Clinton to have a serious challenge on the right. Further I'm fully cognizant of Clinton's weakness. I've called her slimy myself and acknowledge that she doesn't arouse passionate support. As I said in another thread. In my lifetime, which is probably at least 20 years older than yours, I've never seen a presidential candidate that I agree with 100%. These are the candidates we have and further if we don't like any of them we don't even have to vote. When someone has asked me why I'm supporting Clinton I will say I take everything into account. She's a flawed candidate but so is Sanders. Drumpf and Cruz in my opinion are not viable alternatives. If I weigh Sanders flaws versus Clinton's given the what is at stake I think she is the better candidate. That she is ambitious to the point of preparing for decades, cold and calculating strike me as someone who is going to be better able to handle the grind and difficulty that the next president will face than someone who is likeable passion and ideas but not much else. [/QUOTE] I believe that the future of the Democratic Party lies in addressing the needs of what will become a Majority-Minority population in the coming years. I believe that when you have 40% of people not voting in the general election, there is a lot of room for growth. I believe that getting money out of politics will be the first step to truly transforming our democracy, and I am not convinced Hillary will achieve that goal. I believe that the great presidents of this country came into office with a vision for the country, and their success rode on having huge platforms that were very consequential (See FDR, LBJ). Their is only candidate with an ambitious, wide-ranging platform that will result in a transformative presidency. Hillary Clinton is ambitious, she's ambitious for the office, not for the future of this country. Bernie is ambitious for the great, untapped potential of not only this country, but for humanity. There's a reason why he is in the Vatican and she is at a California high dollar fundraiser. I also believe that 40 years of fighting and grinding in a political system that treats you with disrespect and apathy is more than enough qualification to become president. He does not give up, has unbelievable integrity and honesty, and is prepared to fight everyone in order to do the right thing. In other words, he has a dependable moral compass. Now, that might not mean much to you, and you may have a different set of values when looking at presidents, and that's up to you to decide. I also believe that in your lifetime, you have not had a candidate that represents the people the way Bernie Sanders does. You have had to deal with bought politicians throughout much of your life, and to a certain degree, I believe you have given up on the political process. I challenge you to gain faith that things can change, and ultimately, it's the ideas that we strive for that bring progress, not politicians that are cold, calculative, and compromising politicians. Politicians that simply follow the wind and that ultimately, have no real capacity to lead. I also believe that Bernie would have the right people for the job in his cabinet and appoint effective people to positions of authority, including the Supreme Court and the SEC. His administration would undeniable integrity and he would be able to use the existing powers of the presidency to full effect. Here is a great op-ed written by Elizabeth Warren on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/opinion/elizabeth-warren-one-way-to-rebuild-our-institutions.html Finally, I believe that Bernie's election would make the likelihood of a Democratic congress much more likely. He will be beholden to nobody, meaning his line of communication with the public will be extremely open, and he will effectively be able to use the bully pulpit like no president ever has. He will have a movement supporting him and putting Congress in the hotseat. The strategies of the DLC have run their course, they have failed, and ultimately, the democratic party must revert to the party they used to be or a third party will rise. I believe the former is easier to do considering we have just the candidate for the job running for president. The fact of the matter is, establishment thinking has been sinking the party for years, the time has come for representatives that represent the interests of the people, not corporate tools. Whether Hillary gets elected or not, that's where the wind is blowing. Finally, here is the perseverance that will fuel Bernie Sanders throughout his presidency and deliver the promises he has made to the working families of this country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU3NKvvxcSs
Thanks, I appreciate the compliment. The internet is the place where I found out about Bernie like many of his supporters, I hope that a lot more people really start bashing the MSM and start getting their news online so either the MSM will have to report or some new news agencies will gain popularity. As for Judoka, a complete analysis of the severity of the pronlems we face and the kinds of solutions we need points directly to Bernie Sanders' platform. As far the his opinions on the horserace is concerned, they are filled with MSM arguments but they are not entirely unfounded. I do think he doesn't understand the scope and severity of the issues at hand however.
