Forum Thread

Lists: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Endorsements

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 19 1 2 Next
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Wikipedia: List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016

    Wikipedia: List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016

    I am not one that cares one iota about endorsements by notable people, but since the subject was brought up in another thread, I thought I would share the list of endorsements for each of the Democratic Party candidates for president. Just click on the links and browse. No further comment from me.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Warren Mosler can be added to the Bernie column.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I wonder how much of this has become tribal. The one thing I agree with Dutch is that Americans, in general, are woefully ignorant about how government at the local, state and federal levels works and what it takes to get legislation passed. When some movie actor or athlete or a journalist opens his mouth and starts "explaining" I think, wow this guy doesn't know shit. Of course I'm one of those "elitists" who thinks he knows more than the average guy on the street or on a football field. But I have only one vote, the same as any other bloke who thinks we are electing a king.

    Endorsements, therefore, take the hard work of looking at the issues out of it. A person just needs to look to one of his "heroes" in the sports world or "La La Land", and if he/she endorses Trump, then that's good enough for him. Others follow and soon you have a cult like following of people who are passionate but largely ignorant...those who don't like to think beyond sound bites. Tom Brady fans, for example, become de facto Trump fans.

    I think this apples to a degree to all the candidates, both Democrats and Republicans. A favorite actor or athlete having charisma and a microphone can indeed sway a large chunk of his fans. I said I do not care one iota of who endorses who; it doesn't affect my vote. I appreciate, however, that is does influence the votes of others, perhaps in the same way family members and friends also influence a person's views of potential nominees. Tribalism.

    The bottom line is that our elections are not based on intellectual thinking about the issues, but rather emotional sound bites and charisma. And yes many of those TV sound bites are paid for by big money. I can't leave money out of the discussion.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    I wonder how much of this has become tribal. The one thing I agree with Dutch is that Americans, in general, are woefully ignorant about how government at the local, state and federal levels works and what it takes to get legislation passed. When some movie actor or athlete or a journalist opens his mouth and starts "explaining" I think, wow this guy doesn't know shit. Of course I'm one of those "elitists" who thinks he knows more than the average guy on the street or on a football field. But I have only one vote, the same as any other bloke who thinks we are electing a king.

    Endorsements, therefore, take the hard work of looking at the issues out of it. A person just needs to look to one of his "heroes" in the sports world or "La La Land", and if he/she endorses Trump, then that's good enough for him. Others follow and soon you have a cult like following of people who are passionate but largely ignorant...those who don't like to think beyond sound bites. Tom Brady fans, for example, become de facto Trump fans.

    I think this apples to a degree to all the candidates, both Democrats and Republicans. A favorite actor or athlete having charisma and a microphone can indeed sway a large chunk of his fans. I said I do not care one iota of who endorses who; it doesn't affect my vote. I appreciate, however, that is does influence the votes of others, perhaps in the same way family members and friends also influence a person's views of potential nominees. Tribalism.

    The bottom line is that our elections are not based on intellectual thinking about the issues, but rather emotional sound bites and charisma. And yes many of those TV sound bites are paid for by big money. I can't leave money out of the discussion.

    Again Schmidt, you are right. The problem here is compared to Europe that the "media" is more manipulated than over there as well in less "hands" than there. (only a few media moguls) Also because this is an "island" which is a bit British, that makes it ripe for stupidity.

    Actually it is an "historic" problem; in Europe they had many wars on their soil, that "hardened" them. Here they are "soft" because they never had to fight for themselves because of no wars on their soil. That is why our veterans come back from wars as vegetables because they've only had "movie" experience of wars but not the reality. I lost my parents due to the war, so I had to fend for myself and learned the hard way. Especially country living here is un-eventful so hat does not educate them about real life in this big world. We discussed "education" before; I think it is here not focused on "world and human" knowledge or interface but more on this "island" knowledge. Yes "tribalism" fits, as well religious influences to keep people dumb. Also in Europe you have to be better educated because all the different countries around you with whom you had interfaces etc. We had to learn for instance at school 4 languages because of it, as well our factory had French/German subcontractors etc..

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Actually it is an "historic" problem; in Europe they had many wars on their soil, that "hardened" them. Here they are "soft" because they never had to fight for themselves because of no wars on their soil.

    You do understand that well over 620,000 people died during the American Civil War, right? You also seemed to write off the hundreds of thousands of Americans who were killed or injured fighting in wars on your former continent that we were drawn into.

    That, and I'm pretty sure there would be plenty of Americans who take up arms if some country was stupid enough to try and invade us by land, sea, or air.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Wikipedia: List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016

    Wikipedia: List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016

    I am not one that cares one iota about endorsements by notable people, but since the subject was brought up in another thread, I thought I would share the list of endorsements for each of the Democratic Party candidates for president. Just click on the links and browse. No further comment from me.

    I'm also not someone who cares much of anything about endorsements by celebrities and other talking heads, but I do care about who the Super Delegates are backing. Secretary Clinton has the backing of 39 current Senators and 168 current members of the House. Senator Sanders has the backing of 2 current Senators and 9 members of the House.

    Those are the real "endorsements" we need to look at because those are the people that will be in charge of writing the legislation that the next President would like to see passed. If a President doesn't have the backing of his own party then that President will get absolutely nothing done when they are in office.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Wikipedia: List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016

    Wikipedia: List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016

    I am not one that cares one iota about endorsements by notable people, but since the subject was brought up in another thread, I thought I would share the list of endorsements for each of the Democratic Party candidates for president. Just click on the links and browse. No further comment from me.

    I'm also not someone who cares much of anything about endorsements by celebrities and other talking heads, but I do care about who the Super Delegates are backing. Secretary Clinton has the backing of 39 current Senators and 168 current members of the House. Senator Sanders has the backing of 2 current Senators and 9 members of the House.

    Those are the real "endorsements" we need to look at because those are the people that will be in charge of writing the legislation that the next President would like to see passed. If a President doesn't have the backing of his own party then that President will get absolutely nothing done when they are in office.

    Jared -- I had noticed the differences in the numbers of those Senators and Representatives backing Hillary versus Bernie, but didn't want to read too much into it. One could make the case that much of it is loyal "tribalism" for the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's long association with the party.

    On the other hand, Bernie has spent 25 years in Congress, and one would expect that his many friends in Congress would endorse him. That is a more troubling analysis that he might not have as many friends. I think he does, and that's why I lean more towards Democratic Party tribalism.

    "Likeability" is always a factor in voting, and I think Bernie is likeable, even more so than Hillary. But when it comes to charisma (a component of likability), I think Obama beats them both...except that some people harbor deep prejudices.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Jared -- I had noticed the differences in the numbers of those Senators and Representatives backing Hillary versus Bernie, but didn't want to read too much into it. One could make the case that much of it is loyal "tribalism" for the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's long association with the party.

    On the other hand, Bernie has spent 25 years in Congress, and one would expect that his many friends in Congress would endorse him. That is a more troubling analysis that he might not have as many friends. I think he does, and that's why I lean more towards Democratic Party tribalism.

    "Likeability" is always a factor in voting, and I think Bernie is likeable, even more so than Hillary. But when it comes to charisma (a component of likability), I think Obama beats them both...except that some people harbor deep prejudices.

    He likely has many friends in Congress, but even they must understand that the political revolution he is pushing for isn't necessarily possible at the Federal level. National politics is all about compromise and horse trading. A "my way or the highway" philosophy will never work with the way our government is set up. And as much as I love pretty much everything Bernie says, I don't see any scenario in which he will be able to convince 60 Senators and 218 members of the House to enact any of his legislative proposals.

    I was recently talking with a great friend about how I think Bernie would be a wonderful mayor or governor of a very blue city or state. He didn't necessarily see things the same way as me, but my point was that Bernie strikes a chord with progressives that no other politician outside of Elizabeth Warren is able to do. And unlike Elizabeth Warren, Bernie is not a policy wonk who writes policy papers and is able to pretty much lead the Senate Democratic caucus even though she is a junior member of the Democratic leadership team.

    That's why I think he would be a great mayor or governor. He wouldn't be able to have a national political revolution, but he would definitely be able to usher in a local or state political revolution.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Jared -- I agree. I would love to see Bernie elected as governor somewhere...maybe New York. He was born in Brooklyn. It would be an interesting campaign.

    On the subject of endorsements, it would seem that Trump is having a "Trump Fest" with Bobby Knight attending rallies with him. Quoting Knight in Evansville today:

    "I was very, very selective with players during the time I was here," he told a crowd during a Trump rally in Evansville, Indiana.

    "And I'll tell you one thing," Knight continued. "That man that was just up here a moment ago, I'll tell you, that son of a bitch could play for me."

    The crowd ate it up. It would seem to me that Trump is getting more out of his Bobby Knight endorsement than Cruz is getting out of his union with Carly Fiorina.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    But Bobbie...... you coached the importance of great defense. What or who would Trump defend ? Oh yes..... the never will die tax cuts for the super wealthy.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    I wonder how much of this has become tribal. The one thing I agree with Dutch is that Americans, in general, are woefully ignorant about how government at the local, state and federal levels works and what it takes to get legislation passed. When some movie actor or athlete or a journalist opens his mouth and starts "explaining" I think, wow this guy doesn't know shit. Of course I'm one of those "elitists" who thinks he knows more than the average guy on the street or on a football field. But I have only one vote, the same as any other bloke who thinks we are electing a king.

    Endorsements, therefore, take the hard work of looking at the issues out of it. A person just needs to look to one of his "heroes" in the sports world or "La La Land", and if he/she endorses Trump, then that's good enough for him. Others follow and soon you have a cult like following of people who are passionate but largely ignorant...those who don't like to think beyond sound bites. Tom Brady fans, for example, become de facto Trump fans.

    I think this apples to a degree to all the candidates, both Democrats and Republicans. A favorite actor or athlete having charisma and a microphone can indeed sway a large chunk of his fans. I said I do not care one iota of who endorses who; it doesn't affect my vote. I appreciate, however, that is does influence the votes of others, perhaps in the same way family members and friends also influence a person's views of potential nominees. Tribalism.

    The bottom line is that our elections are not based on intellectual thinking about the issues, but rather emotional sound bites and charisma. And yes many of those TV sound bites are paid for by big money. I can't leave money out of the discussion.

    Schmidt, People want to be in on the "know". Consequently they will be die-hard supporters at the first sound bite from a popular endorsement. Quoting that single sound bite to death like it was pulled from a huge repertoire of their knowledge. It is exactly what will get Trump probably elected.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: Actually it is an "historic" problem; in Europe they had many wars on their soil, that "hardened" them. Here they are "soft" because they never had to fight for themselves because of no wars on their soil.

    You do understand that well over 620,000 people died during the American Civil War, right? You also seemed to write off the hundreds of thousands of Americans who were killed or injured fighting in wars on your former continent that we were drawn into.

    That, and I'm pretty sure there would be plenty of Americans who take up arms if some country was stupid enough to try and invade us by land, sea, or air.

    Jared, you are showing your true colors; When was the civil war? When was the WWII? On the news MSNBC: 65% of people here don't own an passport as well have never been away from American soil. That says enough. They are totally indoctrinated by the "local" news ( owned by a couple of "moguls") Why do you think they vote for Trump? Yes Americans are "softies" including you, since you continually show your island mentality. Why invade this country? No one wants it; what good is a bunch of gun toting rednecks who want to run the world while drinking beer and sniffing pot? If people here are so wild about Trump then I guess there must be something wrong with their brains.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Jared, you are showing your true colors; When was the civil war? When was the WWII?

    The Civil War was fought between 1861 and 1865.

    World War II, which is kind of a catchall phrase because the unresolved issues from WWI are what eventually led to another great war on the continent, has a host of different "start" dates depending on if you use the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italians annexation of Albania in early 1939, or Germany's invasion of Poland in September of 1939.

    There hasn't been a continent wide war in Europe since.


    My thread was in response to your statement that "in Europe they had many wars on their soil, that "hardened" them. Here they are "soft" because they never had to fight for themselves because of no wars on their soil."

    Unless you were alive during the great religious wars of Europe's past then both Europe and the United States are "soft" by your standards because there hasn't been any major wars on either continent for many years.

    Dutch Wrote: On the news MSNBC: 65% of people here don't own an passport as well have never been away from American soil. That says enough. They are totally indoctrinated by the "local" news ( owned by a couple of "moguls") Why do you think they vote for Trump? Yes Americans are "softies" including you, since you continually show your island mentality. Why invade this country? No one wants it; what good is a bunch of gun toting rednecks who want to run the world while drinking beer and sniffing pot? If people here are so wild about Trump then I guess there must be something wrong with their brains.

    No need to make any personal attacks against me just because I happen to disagree with you on a variety of topics.

    The reason so few people have a passport is a little more complicated than "island mentality." For starters--Americans were able to travel to both Canada and Mexico without a passport until very recently. Another thing you seem to not understand is that the continental United States is 3,000 miles wide and 1,500 miles from north to south. Europe is a small fraction of that size.

    EU passport holders are able to travel freely throughout European countries the same way American citizens are able to travel freely throughout the fifty states. And some people just can't afford the air fare, hotel accommodations, and the various other expenses of traveling outside of North America. Sometimes it's just easier for a family to travel to one of our dozens of National Parks instead of paying $15,000 to travel to Europe for one week with their family.

    It's not as simple as it is in Europe where you can hop in your car and be in another country in a few hours.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Jared, again it shows that you are young and don't understand "history" and its consequences; again I state Europe had wars on their soil and had to rebuilt after WWII; did the US ? I guess not. You are looking only for excuses, because you are "patriotic". But the truth hurts I guess. The US military remained in a "war mood" after WWII and continued with its military structure/power until now. How much did we spent on that since WWII??? Did we help to make this a better world because of all our un-needed wars? No we are scared of our own shadow and as Trumps says we should be chopping of heads. Sorry the US has an huge inferiority complex and shows it daily. You are looking only at excuses related to the mentality here by injecting travel cost etc. Sorry this remains an ISLAND, that is the problem, MSNBC got the picture, without your excuses.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Jared, again it shows that you are young and don't understand "history" and its consequences;

    How old do I have to be before I understand "history" [sic]?

    I consider myself rather well read in "history" [sic]. Just because I wasn't alive during World War II doesn't mean I can't study and form an opinion on things.

    Neither you or I were alive during the Christian Crusades of the 11th and 12th Century, but I'm still able to form an opinion on them; neither you or I were alive during the European wars of religion, but I still understand the impact they had on the world; neither you or I were alive during the American Civil War, but I can guarantee you that I am well versed on its ramifications that are still being grappled with today.


    I hate to break it to you, but just because you are older than me doesn't mean you are smarter than me. There's nothing I hate more than being talked down to because I'm younger than the person I'm talking with. I understand "history" [sic] and its consequences better than most people regardless of their age, religion, or nationality.

    Maybe I should change my profile picture to one of my grandpa who is 90 years old, healthy, and still lives with my grandma at the home they have owned since 1955 in central Illinois. Would you have more respect for me if you thought I was a 90 year old man from Illinois? He has taught me many of the things I know about the world, so maybe you would...