Let's talk Sanders.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-01-2016, 10:38 AM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2016 10:41 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Let's talk Sanders.
(18-01-2016 10:53 PM)yakherder Wrote:  My own vote would still go to a third party. I firmly believe that breaking the two party rule is more important than any of the other standard issues in the debates.

The mistake American third parties have made is going big and failing out. How the hell would a third-party president even get anything done, anyway?

Even in other countries with effective two-party systems the consistent representation of other parties stems from organisation at lower levels. Perhaps a strongly presidential system throws a biasing factor into the works? Most other developed countries are semi-presidential or parliamentary...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 01:03 PM
RE: Let's talk Sanders.
(17-01-2016 07:32 AM)Kd_wants_to_battle Wrote:  I feel like if it came to Trump vs Bernie, Bernie would win because he doesn't seem to have a negative rep like Trump and Hillary have. The only negative thing I see about Bernie is that he's a socialist, but even then do most American citizens know what that means?

No, most Americans don't know what it means, but they think they do -- they think it means "communist", and that might hurt Sanders in a general election.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
19-01-2016, 02:25 PM
RE: Let's talk Sanders.
(19-01-2016 10:38 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 10:53 PM)yakherder Wrote:  My own vote would still go to a third party. I firmly believe that breaking the two party rule is more important than any of the other standard issues in the debates.

The mistake American third parties have made is going big and failing out. How the hell would a third-party president even get anything done, anyway?

Even in other countries with effective two-party systems the consistent representation of other parties stems from organisation at lower levels. Perhaps a strongly presidential system throws a biasing factor into the works? Most other developed countries are semi-presidential or parliamentary...

The way things are now, the president and congress have basically turned into an us vs. them based organization. Democrats and Republicans are by default uncooperative with each other just for the sake of not wanting to be seen as supporting the opposing side regardless of whether or not they otherwise would have backed a proposed solution. That is going to happen, to some degree, regardless of whether it's a ruling party, third party, or independent in office. With the second of the two, however, a Democrat or Republican could theoretically get on board with an issue without being automatically labeled as a libtard, republicunt, etc.

In any case, I don't have enough faith in the direction the world is taking to think it really matters that much who gets elected one way or another, and am too apathetic and restless to really give a shit anyway, so I figure I might as well vote for one I actually like. If each election a few percent more realize they have the option to not vote for a ruling party puppet, then perhaps in a half century or so we may actually get someone who somewhat represents the people.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 06:39 PM
RE: Let's talk Sanders.
(19-01-2016 01:03 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 07:32 AM)Kd_wants_to_battle Wrote:  I feel like if it came to Trump vs Bernie, Bernie would win because he doesn't seem to have a negative rep like Trump and Hillary have. The only negative thing I see about Bernie is that he's a socialist, but even then do most American citizens know what that means?

No, most Americans don't know what it means, but they think they do -- they think it means "communist", and that might hurt Sanders in a general election.

True. I don't know, I've seen bad stuff about him from news articles, but when it comes to people I haven't seen anyone that is truly against him. Maybe he has a chance. I truly hope so because if anyone is going to make this country better it's him. (Assuming Congress is cooperative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 07:22 PM
RE: Let's talk Sanders.
(19-01-2016 06:39 PM)Kd_wants_to_battle Wrote:  Assuming Congress is cooperative.

They won't be. He'd spend the next 4 to 8 years getting vetoed and voted down. The best thing he's got going for him is that he won't fuck things up quite as much as the alternatives.

But change? Forget it. Anyone who still buys the change rhetoric hasn't been paying attention. If there is going to be change, its catalyst will not be the president.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like yakherder's post
19-01-2016, 09:57 PM
RE: Let's talk Sanders.
My cynical self says Sanders will not be allowed to be the nominee. If it begins to look inevitable that he will win, he will develop cancer suddenly or have a heart attack. Or maybe he'll be shot after the California primary. That's what happened to Robert Kennedy.

My hopeful self says Sanders has been outstanding in every debate. He has progresive social policy to offer the left and a pro-gun stance to offer disaffected republicans. And unlike most politicians, as people learn more about him they like him better. He seems like a fantastic choice.

It's possible both of me are right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 10:21 PM
RE: Let's talk Sanders.
Apathy is rampant, but nobody gives a shit!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DerFish's post
20-01-2016, 01:47 AM
RE: Let's talk Sanders.
(19-01-2016 10:21 PM)DerFish Wrote:  Apathy is rampant, but nobody gives a shit!

Who cares?

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Old Man Marsh's post
20-01-2016, 06:34 AM
RE: Let's talk Sanders.
(19-01-2016 07:22 PM)yakherder Wrote:  They won't be. He'd spend the next 4 to 8 years getting vetoed and voted down. The best thing he's got going for him is that he won't fuck things up quite as much as the alternatives.

But change? Forget it. Anyone who still buys the change rhetoric hasn't been paying attention. If there is going to be change, its catalyst will not be the president.

Even if he accomplished nothing, at least he wouldn't nominate more Scalia-level morons to the supreme court. If Cruz gets in we'll probably get Roy Moore on the court.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
22-01-2016, 09:19 AM
RE: Let's talk Sanders.
(13-01-2016 09:10 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  So, what are the realistic chances that this guy will become your president?
I think if he can beat Hillary he will be President by the years end.

He's been doing much better in the polls, but he still has an uphill battle. She has the kind of name recognition that money can't buy. She's much better known among minority voters. The media is doing her no shortage of favors between better coverage and announcing that she "wins" each and every debate. Also, anecdotally speaking, most middle-aged and older women I know support Clinton because "we need a woman in the White House". Me saying that that's sexist tends to be met with denial, or then they bring up liking her pragmatic nature or disliking his socialism, or whatever. Sanders does well with white self-identified liberal voters, which is already a minority of US voters. If a good chunk of them support Clinton for sexist reasons, that's bad.

That being said, he's doing much better in Iowa and New Hampshire (the first two primary elections) than he is doing nationally; well enough that he could win both states. If he does, this might get the media talking about him more, getting him better recognition. Even with that, it's still a seriously uphill battle.


(13-01-2016 09:10 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  What a ride if he does win though. From the worst candidates in US history with the likes of Trump and Carson, to what could possibly be your best president yet (at least best in my life time so far. JFK and your old ones like Abe were alright.).

My hope of all hopes is that Sanders and Trump win the nomination. I used to want Trump to run third party, splintering the GOP vote, but he's not going to win the general anyway, so we don't really need that. If he splinters the vote, you can be damn sure that both the Trump supporters and detractors will come out in full force to try and counter that. They'll still lose the presidential election, but they'll all be pulling the red lever for congress seats, and that may skew things further in their favor. My hope is that Trump wins, and a lot of the non-Trump Republicans can't bring themselves to vote for either candidate and just stay home, forgetting to go and vote for the congress seats. Then, they might lose more seats in both houses.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: