Willie71

Yes, Sanders and Clinton are left of the republicans on economic policies, such as regulating products for safety. The Republicans are authoritarians for expecting everyone to follow their ridiculous religious moral standards. Gays can't marry, restricting LGBT rights, wanting Christian prayer in school, expecting private businesses to honour Christian traditions around holidays, and much more. They spin it as the freedom to be a religious bigot, while restricting everyone else's rights. Anti immigration, anti Muslim rhetoric restricts freedom as well.

Uninformed is much easier to deal with than misinformed.

Yes, Sanders is center left, not even fully left. Much of Europe is farther left. Even in Canada, we have Ontario experimenting with guaranteed minimum income. He only sounds radical to Americans who have been lied to by the corporaticracy marketing department they call the media. Warren This shows where the 2016 election candidates are in the generally accepted definitions of left and right, http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

Unless a rash of cops suddenly get the death penalty in questionable cases, we are no where near swinging to the other extreme. Putting cops in jail for breaking the law isn't a knee jerk reaction. It happens too infrequently, and too many get away with outright murder.

The media is remaining a major hurdle for Sanders to overcome. Even after winning two out of three states yesterday, and doing 45 points better than the polling from two weeks ago in Kansas, the media is minimizing Sanders performance.

Lee Atwater explained how to use dog whistle racism, rather than outright in your face racism. Those code phrases are still used every day today in politics. It's amazing to see the apologetics when you hear the republicans say it directly. Same with the "southern strategy." These aren't accusations, but clearly outlined plans.

This book gives a pretty good history of the Middle East, country by country specifically focusing on the Arab Spring. It goes into the history of the actors throughout the region. The explanation of America's role is a bit simplistic, but I found it invaluable in learning about that region of the world. http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Middle-East-Spring/dp/1408870177

The information is out there, but it's mixed in with some conspiracy bullshit and patriotism. Many of the western governments swung to the right ideologically through the 90's and into the 2000's. When Bush decided he needed to follow god's plan, it opened up a huge can of worms.

This is an interesting site on the more hidden aspects of dominion theology, which Bush was a part of. http://www.theocracywatch.org Most wars are simply based in gaining access to land and cheaper resources. Profit for arms manufacturers also weigh in.

Wealth is relative. In some areas 100k is the upper end of earners. In other areas, millions can be made. Cost of housing and basic resources varies greatly. People talk about the $40.00/week wage is Cuba. No housing, clothing, or medical costs. It's basically an allowance. Wealth is when income no longer comes from services or goods, and comes from abstractions. A very small percentage of people earn enough to invest and earn money in abstractions. When people make money selling bad mortgages knowing people can't pay for them, and they don't lose their investment on a bad lab, that is the predatory wealth people are upset about. GM executives paying multi million dollar bonuses with the bailouts is another example. The bankers who tanked the economy, and got bailed out by the tax payers. Predatory extreme wealth taken on the oppression of others is the bad wealth. Building up a business to several million dollars in value is achieved through hard work, planning, and a bit of luck. No one is concerned with this. The guys making a couple million per year running a business are hard workers. They benefitted from the infrastructure that supports their business, and much of the I come goes back into the economy. When you start hiding assets, cheating taxes, or squeezing your employees then you start moving into the predatory category.

Well, you claim it is a fair share, but that is the debatable point. Most people feel that investing so many trillions of dollars in killing people around the world is a waste of money, yet conservatives never complain about "how will you pay for that?" When it's health care, education, or early childhood programs for children not born into wealthy families, they deserve what they get, and don't take your riches from you. Take half of the military budget, and the USA will have the best medical and education systems in the world. Oh, I forgot, Isis killed no one in the USA so far, but they are coming, without an Air Force or navy. Shaking in boots frightening.

One of Sanders' biggest hurdles is overcoming the defeatism that is being sold to them by Clinton and the media, it's truly bizarre to run on a campaign of "don't ask for much because you won't get it, and that's what I bring to the table!"

Here we go again. What do you believe Bernie's "socialism" is? We have it in Canada. It's used all across Europe. We have capitalism and elections.

I don't think it's a reasonable position to take the defeatist stance. Nonviolent revolution is effective when 11% of the populace rally behind the cause. This has been the threshold over the past century. It's a lot of people in the US, but 35% of republicans support the non establishment candidate, and 45-55% of democrats support the non-establishment candidate. If they aren't ready now, another bank collapse, and war in the Middle East will really motivate the revolution. The writing is on the wall. Either the establishment salvages something, or they will end up with nothing over the next decade. This shift is trending worldwide, at least in the western world right now.

The republicans hate Clinton more than they hate Obama, if that's possible. She doesn't have a hope in hell of getting anything progressive done. She will likely get pro corporate and pro bank protections through though. The republicans will be looking at impeachment from day one.

Which is why a constitutional Ammendment is needed. Get rid of citizens United, and support Wolf Pac to get it done. Bernie completely understands this. Clinton even tried to paint him as a one issue candidate because of his focus on this exact issue. This is paramount to changing anything else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTO0T3ytyQ

I don't know how to upload this clip, but Bernie explains himself appropriately in the clip in this article. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/26/1491805/-Bernie-Sanders-cleaned-Chris-Matthews-clock-in-one-on-one-interview

Sanders openly admits he can't change anything without a political revolution. If there is obstruction, sanders wants to make that public, and have the people let the government know they aren't going to tolerate that, and will only re-elect people who are doing their job. The mid terms will be very important. Unless there is wholesale change at the federal, local, and state levels, the corruption will not change. Citizens United needs to be revoked. Additionally, the media needs to be uncorrupted as well. From what I am reading, they are saying it's over for sanders. He's behind by a bit over 100 delegates out of almost 2400. The cycle is moving into more liberal states, not to mention California with 500 delegates as the second last state, where Bernie is loved. Online media reports more objectively regarding strengths and weaknesses of each candidate in different states with different demographics. It's not over by a long shot.

Socialism, or democratic socialism still gas private property, and Bernie's tax plan is more conservative than the 1950s and 60s USA. So, he isn't something to fear then? Now that you are informed, you will change your mind?

It seems you are scared of the term "socialist" and don't know what it really means. What is scary about Bernie's proposals?

The problem with the PC rhetoric is that the right see it to dismiss zenophobic and racist concerns, all the while being sensitive flowers bitching about the mean, unfair media. Somehow, the irony is lost on the low information voters. Jimmy Dore said it well, The Trump supporters think the things Trump says, believing everyone thinks like them, but are being blocked by society from speaking the truth. They don't realize that they are racists and xenophobes, just that it isn't polite to talk about how inferior other people are.

I would need to see the numbers. Do they have relatives in the states? What are the disclosed motivations? Secondly, the US has a reputation that doesn't match reality. Watch Reagan's "morning in America" ad, then listen to the news about immigrants. Stark difference.

The corruption in the caucus is a bit if a side issue, other than corrupt governments are part of the third world problem. Bribery in the Congo is something commonly mentioned for example. Some countries have "elections" but they are rigged. The information isn't all in, showing a top down connection between Clinton, the DNC, and the individual locations, but the fact that similar problems occurred at multiple locations is suspicious. http://trofire.com/2016/02/22/something-stinks-in-nevada-multiple-videos-of-suspicious-activity-at-caucus/ The DNC recently regressed on Obama's minor finance reform, opening Clinton to more money than she had before. That doesn't benefit Sanders at all. (except that it confirms his policy positions) If the elections are rigged, it's not really democracy anymore is it? Is is as bad as the Congo? No way, but extra ballots being counted, miss counting in Clinton's favour, or letting her supporters participate without being registered are all suggesting a rigged system. Agreed. I thought it would be interesting to look at the similarities and differences, a nuanced discussion. I think there are more similarities to a third world country than most people are aware of, but it's a long way to go to that overall level of corruption and poverty. The current US system is probably a lot closer to fascism in Europe in the early part of the 20th century, risking Godwinning this thread. In my field, the potential for human rights violations under a charismatic leader is a pretty interesting and hot topic. I've been watching the creep towards fascism in the past decade in Canada and the USA, and it's an interesting topic. Canada is closer to where the US was in 1980 than where the US us now, but it as moving to the right. The water video pulled at a memory from my childhood. Remember those commercials where they looked for donations to help kids in Africa get access to clean drinking water? I never thought clean drinking water would be an issue in North America. I was thinking about the number of different ways people have been let down by our governments, losing rights and privileges that separated us from third world countries. It's also interesting to look at the state of the DNC too. We criticize the GOP a lot, but there are some shady things going on with the DNC. I'll list more links and videos as I have time. I had a minor family crisis late this morning, and a fluent was in crisis. Both are settling, so I'll be more thorough now. Why have super delegates to change the outcome from the will of the people? Look who some of these influential people are: Wasserman Schultz on preventing grassroots candidates:

There are a number of videos of the caucuses recorded by people who were there, with creative counting, letting unregistered Clinton supporters caucus, and letting ballots be counted without the person being present. The claim was that the people had to leave early so they left their ballots. Not how a caucus works. I wouldn't have believed it and thought it was hyperbole if I didn't see it myself. I'm a bit tied up in something today, or I would have linked them already. It's also verifiable that Sanders only received 10 minutes of coverage in 2015 on the major networks, far less than any other viable candidate. The propaganda dismissing Sanders' platform, with outright lies about his proposals can all be dragged up. How about the media proclaiming Sanders' campaign is dead, even though Sanders and Clinton are tied in delegates (super delegates shift the lead to Clinton?) how about Wasserman Schultz saying super delegates are a way to prevent grassroots campaigns from succeeding? Edit: I hit the neg rep on the above post by mistake. I was trying to quote it. Can it be reversed by a mod? I left Swansort a pm too.