Sanders "Scorched Earth" Stance Will Only Help Trump
-
-
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
jaredsxtn Wrote:The thing is that his mathematical chance of success are so small that it would literally take a miracle for him to win the nomination. And while Hillary stayed in the race until the very end in '08, she never behaved like Sanders has. Well its also a vastly different kind of election. Obama had unprecedented support, making it easy (easier anyways) for Hilary to (more) gracefully step aside. Although I still think she did that more easily than Sanders is now simply because she had the Sec of State gig to most likely fall back on. It's not POTUS power, but its one of the closest to it. So she settled, which is markedly different than quitting, or conceding defeat. Also, for Dems it's kind of the opposite of 08. Where the party choice in Hilary for 2008 got clearly beaten by newcomer Obama, and she stepped aside before the wave forced her to do so.. with '16, it's similar in the fact that it's once again party choice Hilary Clinton trying to shake off the up-and-comer 'more of the people' voice in Sanders. Big difference here though is she is just struggling to maintain a convincing enough lead to sure up the win, meaning the party favorite is just barely winning, as opposed to clearly losing in the end by landslides. 3 million for now. But what happens when population dense California turns in their ballot? And all the other remaining states as well? Not to say that will change. But it certainly could change. Just seemed waayyy more clear in my mind that Obama should be the nominee back in 2008. But for now, maybe my opinion is skewed simply because I much rather prefer Bernie or Hilary any day of the week... but it really doesn't feel like Hilary is the clear and definitive choice for the Dem Party. Best calculated choice? perhaps. Best candidate to represent the party? Arguable. Winner of the popular vote for the ticket? We shall see.
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I was one that didn't immediately get on either bandwagon. It wasn't until I had spent considerable time examining the candidates' views on issues, that I started leaning towards Hillary. However, I knew Hillary had baggage and I researched that as well before I really felt comfortable with her. And when the campaigns started, and especially after the first debate, my respect for Bernie Sanders was still strong, even though I was then in Hillary's camp. Then things started changing. I was going to write a blog article on my observation on the evolution of Bernie Sanders in this campaign, but I just couldn't quite get my finger on why he seemed to becoming more aggressive and angry. Did he hire professionals that convinced him that he needs to be "less nice"? Or was it just frustration as the campaign season wore on and the writing on the wall became more apparent? Then I thought about how the guy is driving himself incessantly, sometimes having as many as three rallies a day...jumping from one city to the other. From Kentucky to Puerto Rico to California in two days. The guy is 74 years old and is going like the energy bunny, perhaps trying to appeal to the younger generation that he can keep up with them. It does take it's toll on him emotionally though. I know because I was there once when I was asked to work incredible hours at a long stretch to meet some deadlines. My character changed (as my staff told me) and I became more irritable and difficult to work with...some called me angry at times. I lost my patience. So I think that may be part of it. For all the hard work, he has not had a moment to relax...and think critically about what path he is going down. His wife Jane should be giving him sage advice, but at times listening to her on TV I think she is part of the problem...the enabler. Okay that's just an observation from a 69 year old that I thought I would share. I will say this: I liked the old Bernie Sanders better. He needs to take a break from campaigning and relax.
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
: Bernie is kind of mad at the Dems.
I repeat my earlier post herewith; let it sink in!!! You guys refuse to look at the total disasterous picture of the US. as viewed by outsiders.,
May be I'm a simple minded European thinking asshole, but if I follow the discussion, then no one seems to know why it works in Europe and not here, about what Bernie proposes. First of all in Europe there are also plenty of millionaires, who even got houses in Malibu. So don't worry about them. The main issue is on how the tax money is spent. Here it is total lobsided and most of it disappears in a non-return system to the society. So lets first start with "healthcare" . The healthcare system here is a disaster, because it was never built up from the ground. So it is all kind of "pieces" put together to please certain parties like the "doctors" the "pill makers" as well lobbyists (which are not allowed in Europe) in the industry. In Europe they have a much better oversight on the whole "picture" about "cost" as well "fines" for whom which are trying to screw the system. A typical problem here is ; they make plenty of "laws" and "rules" but then forget to built a "controlling agency", because no one thought of that or the money was not allocated for such etc. Thus a Bernie thing could work here if we would be able to start with a clean well controlled slate; having full control over doctors (who totally overcharge the insurance), hospital, pill makers cost etc. ( Our Mr, Scott FL became a multi millionair by "milking" hospitals and did not get convicted for it, but bought his position as Governor from it) In general the whole government system here, is built up from a as you go, piece by piece system, so nothing is coherent and efficient but mostly corrupt. Especially our military and plenty of agencies have "wild growth" As I said many times the "real" oversight is missing on "spending" because it is all "politicized " What is in it for me". (money talks) As an example military "hobby" projects, like super ships and aircraft, costing billions as well exceeding an already "ballooned "contract "price" by sometimes double the cost as contracted . Don't forget the maintenance and upkeep of those complicated toys, which cost also billions over the years. Handing out billions to dictators, who accounts for that?; I doubt if a Maliki or Karzai now lives in a burned out shack, as well "loosing" unaccounted billions "somewhere".. There is so much "waste" in this government it is absolute unbelievable, let alone the cost of our war efforts, all over the world. Don't forget either the billions spent and wasted on "elections"; that money could have been invested for better things than making the few billionaires, who run the media, here even richer etc. etc. With all that wasted money, you could indeed run a proper healthcare system and social services as well do something to fix the infrastructure. Talking about infrastructure, that pays for itself. How about high speed trains or metro systems; it gives plenty of people work and returns public transport to poor people who can't afford plane tickets as well relieves our ever growing traffic on our roads etc. THINK AMERICA forget the "island" mentality. "We know everything better; "god bless us", replace such with "someone" gave us "brains" (not money) thus use them. T.J. THAT IS HOW IT CAN BE PAID FOR!!! Schmidt, Jared, Tony; sorry you guys are set in your ways, accepting continuous corruption in our government and "buying" of candidates, which Bernie wants to change. thus let this country continue this way, that seems fine with you guys. Sorry Hillary is part of the corrupt gang and loves to have Super PAC's buy her way in. Shame on you all!!! There is nothing DEMOCRATIC in this process. Do like they do in the rest of the world, count only "honestly" obtained votes. ( Which is impossible here!) Nothing else to muddy the waters, like delegates or conventions..
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Dutch -- There is an enormous gap between "wants" and "how to achieve". To go to a single payer, "Medicare for all" system will encounter numerous obstacles, not only in Congress, but also the American people themselves once they come to realize what it all means. Wait until the ads start flowing on TV. Does Bernie expect an easier sell than HillaryCare in the 90s or ObamaCare in 2009? This is one of the fundamental issues dividing Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary also wants universal health care coverage, but rather building on and improving the existing systems. First, Bernie's plan has a lot of problems that need to be clarified. Since Ezra Kleing wrote his article, I can't see that very much has changed. Secondly, assuming it can be modified (do the math) then you have to overcome the ideological thinking of maybe half our population who doesn't think like you do. In other words, you have to change their brains. I just don't see that happening. I think I posted Ezra Klein's article somewhere in this website before, but here it is again. Ezra Klein, Vox, January 17, 2016: Bernie Sanders’s single-payer plan isn’t a plan at all
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Thanks for the link Schmidt. It was very good. All free - All of the time. Imagine the waiting line for the 75 million face lifts for the aged baby boomers. Plus, the R's don't want to pay for anything that helps those that they hate: Poor, women, non-whites, lgbt, democrats..... Last I heard we don't have majorities in congress / senate. People have to work with people. Unrelated........recent interview with Homer Simpson...... Said he was considering Sanders...... I love his chicken.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
sbfriedman Wrote: Well its also a vastly different kind of election. Obama had unprecedented support, making it easy (easier anyways) for Hilary to (more) gracefully step aside. Although I still think she did that more easily than Sanders is now simply because she had the Sec of State gig to most likely fall back on. It's not POTUS power, but its one of the closest to it. So she settled, which is markedly different than quitting, or conceding defeat.
Also, for Dems it's kind of the opposite of 08. Where the party choice in Hilary for 2008 got clearly beaten by newcomer Obama, and she stepped aside before the wave forced her to do so.. with '16, it's similar in the fact that it's once again party choice Hilary Clinton trying to shake off the up-and-comer 'more of the people' voice in Sanders. Big difference here though is she is just struggling to maintain a convincing enough lead to sure up the win, meaning the party favorite is just barely winning, as opposed to clearly losing in the end by landslides.
3 million for now. But what happens when population dense California turns in their ballot? And all the other remaining states as well? Not to say that will change. But it certainly could change.
Just seemed waayyy more clear in my mind that Obama should be the nominee back in 2008. But for now, maybe my opinion is skewed simply because I much rather prefer Bernie or Hilary any day of the week... but it really doesn't feel like Hilary is the clear and definitive choice for the Dem Party. Best calculated choice? perhaps. Best candidate to represent the party? Arguable. Winner of the popular vote for the ticket? We shall see. It's amazing how time changes the way we remember things. The 2008 race was much closer than this years primary. Barack Obama won 1,828 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,726. Obama got twice as many super delegates to support him, which made it seem like the race wasn't as close as it really was. Clinton currently has 1,768 pledged delegates to Sanders 1,494. The main difference this year is that Clinton has the backing of the vast majority of super delegates at 525 to 39.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
jaredsxtn Wrote:Dutch-- I would hardly say everything is peaches and cream in many European countries. Many are facing a massive debt to equity ratio that will only get worse because there isn't enough workers to take care of its aging population. And don't even get me started on the rising clout of the xenophobic and racist parties popping up in many European countries. Government is also run differently in Europe. A parliamentary system is far more different than a shared system between the executive and congress. A President can't just waive a wand and get everything they want in this country. That's not how things work. Jared, wake up. I'm talking about adapting the "good" things of other countries, not the bad things. But sure the US has the habit of adapting the bad things from Britain, because we still act as a colony of Britain, ( Inches, Yards, Withworth threads, Miles etc.) Thus my message is to adapt the "good" things, not the bad things. I hope you finally understand this. Sorry you can make excuses for not having a parliamentary system, however the Constitution is an anomaly in the rest of the world and does not fit 2016; just look at the "second amendment" etc. So as Bernie says we need a revolution in order to get up to date and get elections without billions of money and "delegates" etc., involved. Of course our millions of "lawyers" as well the "1%" will not agree, because they make fortunes to keep it this way. As well a non functioning "supreme court" which is either tilted to the left or right. To keep things going in our present direction it will remain "polarized" for ever and nothing gets done properly; everything is either corrupted by our fantastic lawyers, bribes, lobbyists, religious fanatics or is done half ass. Let's start some more wars that will keep the attention elsewhere. Bless the USA, for sure.
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Dutch -- For revolutions to happen, it needs the support of a very large majority of people, I would guess maybe 70 percent. Right now Bernie's political revolution has perhaps the support of maybe 30 percent of the people, and that number may be generous. Certainly there are individual issues that divide us, but taken in the aggregate and with an informed electorate, I just don't see the massive changes across the board. There seems to be lots of support, for example, to undo Citizens United, but without another Supreme Court challenge, the Constitutional Amendment route through the legislative process is long...years if not decades. The other issues like a single payer health care system with guaranteed health care for everyone sounds nice until people really understand what it means to them personally. You could go issue by issue and find maybe 70 percent support for some, but less than 30 percent for many others. I just don't think the American people have the patience to learn every nuanced detail. However, you can count on politicians and special interest to provide the necessary sound bites to fill those gaps in knowledge. Sure, much of the European system sounds good. However, changing American government to look like European Parliamentary systems is not only impractical, it is impossible. In the meantime, many of us will work to make incremental change one issue at a time in accordance with the will of the majority of the people. That's the way democracy works.
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:Dutch -- For revolutions to happen, it needs the support of a very large majority of people, I would guess maybe 70 percent. Right now Bernie's political revolution has perhaps the support of maybe 30 percent of the people, and that number may be generous. Certainly there are individual issues that divide us, but taken in the aggregate and with an informed electorate, I just don't see the massive changes across the board. There seems to be lots of support, for example, to undo Citizens United, but without another Supreme Court challenge, the Constitutional Amendment route through the legislative process is long...years if not decades. The other issues like a single payer health care system with guaranteed health care for everyone sounds nice until people really understand what it means to them personally. You could go issue by issue and find maybe 70 percent support for some, but less than 30 percent for many others. I just don't think the American people have the patience to learn every nuanced detail. However, you can count on politicians and special interest to provide the necessary sound bites to fill those gaps in knowledge. Sure, much of the European system sounds good. However, changing American government to look like European Parliamentary systems is not only impractical, it is impossible. In the meantime, many of us will work to make incremental change one issue at a time in accordance with the will of the majority of the people. That's the way democracy works. Schmidt; I can follow your thinking; however as I said many times that is how the Roman empire ended. Sticking to something which can not be changed like you say will be our noose around our necks; the rest of the world will progress; we will go backwards in time. The BMW's built here are done via the metric system, so that is at least something. But they did not adapt yet to have an gun compartment in it, if Trump and the NRA think this is needed because the Constitution says so. Ha ha. Yes you and Jared like to stick to the 1700's and have everything just "fixed" to reflect 2016, by our "champion" well paid lawyers; using thousands of pages and "twist and turn" adaptions to this antique document; and of course love to be bribed by our fantastic capitalistic greed culture. Do you really think continuing this way will have a "good" ending? Ask Ceasar !!!
|