Hard to get people to turn out to vote if their vote doesn't matter. It should still be for the people. When the people in NH vote 60/40 in favor of Sanders, the delegates should be 60/40 not 50/50. People need health care, not mandatory heath insurance laws. People need their Government to care about the people 1st and large corporations second. As it stands now big Oil, big pharma and big insurance will frack the earth, taint the water supply, over charge for prescriptions and insurance us to the poor house with the governments blessing.
On what basis do you say that? Bernie has a reputation for being friendly and a straight shooter when dealing with other members of Congress. Granted a lot of it is bs but a lot of the GOP Congress has spent 25 years hating on Hillary.
I am less critical of that view than believing that Sanders is going to lead a revolution. I've heard this argument before but that presumes that the steadfasted and ideologically consistent Sanders will ultimately compromise those beliefs. It may happen since Reagan who ran as a principled conservative made many compromises yet still is the hero of the Right. The difference though is that Reagan came in at a time when the country was far to the left of him and he did succeed in moving the country rightward. Sanders would be succeeding a moderate left Obama so if he was prepared to compromise his beliefs it wouldn't be that much of a revolution. I think there is a good point that Obama gave in too much before negotiations began. In hindsight that does appear to be a tactical error. That said if Obama had stuck to a far harder line would that have made it easier to negotiate? I doubt it and think the opposite would've happened. The GOP would've hardened their positions further while Dems like Landrieu wouldn't have gone along with it. Conservative rhetoric frames the Dems and Obama as having deliberately taken this country far leftward and been uncompromising in doing so. Just consider how often we hear conservative posters on Clutchfans say that Obama railroaded a liberal agenda. If they feel that way about a moderate left Obama what will be the response to an unbashedly leftist Sanders whose rallying cry is that he is going to lead a revolution? I still think Clinton will win and represents the best chance against the Republicans but you're right a lot could change between now and November.
FYI I did not say Burlington is comaprable to the US as a whole. lol Project management experience, "scalability" omg an expert. Look your free floating anxiety regarding perhaps some changes in your own corporate insurance should not out way factors like 1) American society as a whole cannot afford to continue pouring trillions down the adminstrative sinkhole of economically inefficient private insurance healthcare that produces no overall benefit. 2) Of course there is the concern for the 19 million still uninsured and the tens of millions who are uninsured barely able to keep up with their premiums and forgoing preventive care because they cannot afford, copays, out of network expenses etc. Some times I wonder if the generally young health guys on clutch actually have any personal experience with health care expenses.
I wouldn't worry too much about the Super Delegates. If Sanders wins an decisive amount of the vote in the primaries many of those delegates will change. In 2008 there were many super delegates that were pledged to Clinton who by the convention had switched to Obama.
Then what is the point of citing his experience as mayor of a small rural city with a fairly homogenous population as being valuable towards being President of the United States? Do you believe that someone who had been the CEO of a 10 person company decades ago gives them the experience to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Do you understand what the term "scalability" means? As opposed to pinning your hopes on a proposal that is unlikely to be passed by Congress and whose funding mechanism is less likely to get passed? Look we can agree that there are some very big problems but solutions that lack practicality aren't really going to do much. I think anthropogenic climate change is a huge issue. I don't think a solution where we ban all fossil fuels is realistic. I think gun violence is a major problem. I don't think a solution where we do away with private gun ownership is going to happen and will likely create a host of other problems. I'm flattered you think I'm young. I'm probably younger than you but I don't think I'm in the young category anymore. That said as someone whose had five major surgeries, runs a small company and pays for his own health care I'm acutely aware of health care expenses.
Presidents don't enact legislation anyway, neither Ms. Clinton or Mr. Sanders or Mr. Obama for that matter can lead major legislative change if moneyed powers don't want change (like the insurance lobby did for the ACA) But, there will never be changes in Congress unless someone leads the charge and makes it plain that people should vote in the interest of the general public, that hot button social issues are a red herring fooling voters about issues actually make a difference in their lives. Remember, the forces for corporate lobbying invest billions of dollars in maintaining the illusion. The election of a president gives the opposing opinions one of the few opportunities to approach an equal volume of advocacy. For a lot of people, and especially young people, Mr. Sanders campaign is the first time they have heard a real progressive platform or envisioned a government not run by corporate lobbyist. The idea of the revolution is more important that the expected legislation at this point.
There are entire 24 hour cable networks dedicated to maintaining this illusion, led by FoxNews. Combine that with varied radio networks and the onslaught of advertising and shilling in newspapers and on media websites, and you have a recipe for entrenched power to remain in power. Legislative power is in Congress. And Congress is damn near owned by lobbyists working on behalf of moneyed interests who the public can't see due to what they "know" from their media sources. Any president, has to break through the illusions. Obama was measurably effective at this early in his first term. Which is why Fox stopped covering the totality of his live speeches and went to showing only snippets or cutting away early while speaking over him with in studio commentary. To further sell the point, Fox went so far as to claim the president was overexposing himself to try and detract from his public comments.
The idea that Bern represents any semblance of a "revolution" just shows the idiocy of those who might vote for him. A revolution is the people over-turning the government, typically violently. The Burnmeister is the people requesting a whole lot more government because they think the government will save them. We might need a revolution but the Burn is just a comical character spouting silly ideals to an ignorant public. I will admit, the crap he says is different from the crap most of these idiots are saying but a revolutionary he is not.
Sanders is just a social safety net guy who wants to unscrew the U.S. system away from the interests of a few families and finance. No revolution there. There is no "government save me" in plans to make college more affordable. There is no "government save me" in not wanting serious illness to bankrupt your family. No "government save me" in not wanting to country to go into another depression while society foots the bill for the bad bets of the finance class. It is more "give me a fair chance to earn my keep" than the typical libertarian blather used to dismiss "collectivists". The closest we have had to Revolution was 1980. The U.S. hasn't been the same since Reagan was the front man of that Rand-inspired, anti-labor, pro-corporate movement. And the U.S. is still dealing with the fallout of decades of those policies.
From 2001-09, Bernie got pretty much the same amount of his sponsored or co-sponsored legislation enacted into law as Hillary did. I think people look at the fact that he's been consistent in his views for decades, and then take that as evidence that he's unwilling to compromise, which to me is an overstatement. He worked with McCain to get the VA bill through a year ago, and I don't get the impression that he's nearly has reviled or distrusted by his Republican senate colleagues as Hillary is.
revolution as in winning at the ballot box, certainly not more probably should make that clear, more of a democratic socialist revolution than socialist revolution... confusing really...everything will be just fine.
It is rigged. 1) The same channels e.g MSNBC did not include superdelegates, in 2008, which can change whenever with the elected delegates as they are now doing to make it look like Hillary and Bernie are neck and neck 2) the whole disgraceful debate schedule with Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the limit of only 6 debates, largely on weekends to protect Hillary, rather than the 26 debates between Hillary and Obama in 2008. Of course Debbie backed down when it looked like Hillary was in trouble in Iowa and New Hampshire 3) there are now reports that Hillary is meeting with corporate guys to give corporate money to help her so she can keep up and overcome Bernie's small contriubutors. Obviously the corporations can overwhelm Bernie's 3 million plus individual contributors, but eventually it might just get just too embarassing and despite the propaganda they can't actually force people to vote for her or the other establishment favorites.
Political revolution. There's no violence even implied in Bernie's comments. As long as billionaires and corporations can buy elections, buy legislators, and write their own laws then we're going to continue to circle the drain as a country.
#FeelTheFraud <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DlDgOIdD3BY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Holy ****. And liberals say we don't need voter ID laws. SMH. As the saying goes...Vote Early and Vote often!!!
I'm not too concern with the primaries and other have stated why. I was thinking of the general election and being here in TX I know the feeling of your vote not counting. I wish they do away with the electoral system and change the voting day to one of the federal holidays or add a federal holiday for current voting day. The last time 60% of the eligible voters vote is in 1968. Since, the avg voter turnout for presidential election is 53%. Among 30 or younger, it's a pathetic 25%. Among under 44, it's not much better at 40%.
Compromise is simply the nature of current political situation. If he's elected to the WH and the GOP hold Congress, he have no choice but to compromise. And I'm very doubtful that he wouldn't. He hasn't shown that he's a nutcase and isn't willing to move. In fact, most candidates on both side are probably of this mold except for Cruz.
