The Sanders Movement

[Willie71]

There's actually a word to describe what you're doing here on this topic, waitforufo. It's called "lying."http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/05/08/new-data-show-social-safety-net-significantly-reduces-poverty

35 million people not in poverty is a huge deal. I don't understand this thinking that unless you eliminate the problem, a reduction isn't worth much. 35 million people. Let that sink in.

[Bill Angel]

 

This really puzzles me, the American populace. They say they would rather have a rebranded Reagan in the White House because it's more likely to get those policies passed, than elect someone who actually shares their ideals.

Some observers think that Donald Trump bears little resemblance to Ronald Reagan

See

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/trump-is-no-ronald-reagan/

[Willie71]

Some observers think that Donald Trump bears little resemblance to Ronald Reagan

See https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/trump-is-no-ronald-reagan/

I was referring to Clinton.

[overtone]

Some observers think that Donald Trump bears little resemblance to Ronald Reagan

See

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/trump-is-no-ronald-reagan/

 

 

These observers are wrong. They live in a revised historical world where Reagan was a beacon of civility and reason and high class behavior, a pretend world of amnesia and delusion and denial.

 

In their bizarre alternative world Reagan did not pander to racial bigotry and invite the support of the violent segregationists, burden the best of the poor and abet the worst of the rich with bad financial policy and worse regulatory enforcement, threaten the world and ruin the country building up a belligerent and otherwise useless military of boondoggles he did not understand and corrupt contracting he saw nothing wrong with, use his power as US President to set up organized criminals and puppet thug governments in gunpoint control over vulnerable people everywhere on the planet (with horrific consequences, including the among the milder ones the current immigrant problem in the US - which might better be called a refugee problem)

 

deal arms and significant technological capability to America's sworn enemies in return for domestic political advantage, overthrow democracies by violence for the economic advantage of his wealthy backers, and invite organized crime to bring cocaine and violence into America's cities to support these operations,

 

while justifying the mess he was making by a combination of bullshit economics and political braggadocio delivered with manly assertion, alternating with condescending public slander of people better than himself in every way but one: they had no rich friends.

 

The people who voted for Reagan then are voting for Trump now. That is not an accident. They are even offering the same reason - exactly the same reason: he communicates with them; he says what they are thinking; they finally have someone who says in public, with confidence and assertion, what they have been missing in their screw-around mealy-mouthed politicians. He gives public voice to their id and their ego.

 

Trump is their Great Communicator - just like Reagan.

Edited March 23, 2016 by overtone

[MigL]

Oh give it a rest Overtone.

Trump is a buffoon, EVERYONE took Reagan seriously ( Russians, Lybians, Iranians, etc. )

 

( yes, I'm back from vacation )

[overtone]

Trump is a buffoon, EVERYONE took Reagan seriously ( Russians, Lybians, Iranians, etc. )

 

 

After Trump is nominated and if he starts looking like a possible winner, everyone will take him seriously as well. They may even cut deals with him to embarrass or harass Clinton in return for favors upon his election, as the Iranians did with Reagan to wreck Carter's chances - does anyone think he would not be open to such arrangements?

 

Meanwhile, until he was elected President Reagan was commonly dismissed as a kind of running joke anywhere outside of California (where he was viewed by the Left as a menace). His appeal to the Confederacy crowd was commonly seen to be the measure of his abilities, the inherent and fairly vicious racial bigotry, the anti-intellectual stance, a characterization of his entire campaign. This is not part of the revised history of the Reagan Presidency, true, but it's easily uncovered.

 

Toward the middle of Reagan's tenure, when his habit of falling asleep at meetings had become known, when he had greeted as a complete stranger one of his own cabinet members at a gathering, when his incomprehension of technical matters (such as economics, and nuclear explosions) had become subterraneously famous, when his style of management was being spun by his PR guys as "hands off" and "encouraging independence", his associates started to use the word "disengaged". Whereupon all over the country one heard terms such as "disengaged blonde" and "disengaged as a box of rocks".

 

The revision of all this has been interesting to watch. I used to own a slim paperback compilation of Reagan quotes - just straight quotes, one after the other - that was sold in the humor section of bookstores, because they were entertainingly dumb etc. That was the first such work I had ever seen compiled from anyone not a professional humorist - since then of course we have seen three or four Republican candidates for high office (especially VP) generate enough material in public for such compilations, although even Reagan himself is now overshadowed by the giant of that field and culmination of all else Reagan as well, George W Bush.

 

It was one of those books you never get back. I lost a couple of copies, ended up without. So recently I tried to replace the book - and it's not easy to find: all the quote books of Reagan you see now are hagiographies, carefully edited selections from his composed speeches and biographies and avuncular social chat. The entire quote book industry of Reagan seems to have expunged a major feature of his actual public life: the man kept saying startlingly stupid things.

 

But he also said pithy things with an aura of realism or non-PC straight talk to them - like Trump. And he attacked dissidents and protestors and lefties and so forth personally - he had the bully's touch for the personal jab, and he always singled somebody out or set up a fictional character to mock. Sound familiar?

Edited March 26, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

Oh give it a rest Overtone.

Trump is a buffoon, EVERYONE took Reagan seriously ( Russians, Lybians, Iranians, etc. )

 

( yes, I'm back from vacation )

Reagan ran for President 3 times before winning the nomination. It took a lot of time for Reagan to be taken serious.

[overtone]

The point is: all this can easily be rewritten and revised whenever Trump is actually about to take power, and especially after he has done so.

 

What was obvious when Reagan was a fringe whacko whose Governorship of California was evidence of something wrong with the water in California, what was obvious when W was a clown prince from a diminished aristocracy whose Governorship of Texas was evidence of something wrong with Texas, became invisible to most Americans and banished from all of their news media when they gained the Presidency.

 

It's still too soon to rewrite W's Presidency, to engage in the kinds of hilariously sober discussions of his "doctrines" and "policies" and vision of America we see in Reagan's case. The disaster was too great, too manifold, is too much with us. But we seem to have achieved the amnesia stage, right? And as with Reagan and W, the likelihood of Trump becoming respectable in the rearview mirror is quite good.

 

And the possibility of his becoming respectable in the upcoming campaign is not small. The notion that whoever runs as a Democrat will have an easily mocked buffoon of no serious capabilities for an opponent is dangerous complacency.

Edited March 27, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

@ Overtone, I am still not convinced Trump wins the nomination. I don't think he makes it to 1,237 and the way top GOP members like Linsey Graham and Paul Ryan are talking I don't think Trump wins a brokered convention. That is no compliment to the GOP. Whomever they nominated will be terrible.

[MigL]

Well, your last post managed to offend the people of California and of Texas, Overtone.

Who's next ?

But at least the truth came out. You like R Reagan's quotes so much, you're trying to replace that book.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the air traffic controllers. They also took Ronnie seriously.

[Ten oz]

Well, your last post managed to offend the people of California and of Texas, Overtone.

Who's next ?

But at least the truth came out. You like R Reagan's quotes so much, you're trying to replace that book.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the air traffic controllers. They also took Ronnie seriously.

A 7/11 clerk takes a robber holding a gun serious too.

[overtone]

Well, your last post managed to offend the people of California and of Texas, Overtone.

Who's next ?

But at least the truth came out. You like R Reagan's quotes so much, you're trying to replace that book.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the air traffic controllers. They also took Ronnie seriously.

 

 

The people who gave us Reagan and W are welcome to take offense, as long as they recognize the truth when they hear it. I wish I could send them a bill. Six trillion for Reagan and what, ten or so and counting for W? The US government should own Texas by now, repoed as collateral.

 

All the union folks took Reagan seriously, after he got the Republican nomination. And if you recall what they said would be the consequences of his union-busting, and look around, you can see why.

 

Trump, like W, like Reagan, will only be a joke until he isn't. And then it's too late.

[Phi for All]

I thought this was an interesting commentary from H. A. Goodman, showing how Clinton's possible indictment by the FBI means Sanders is going to be the obvious choice for the DNC. And for those wanting to do whatever it takes to keep the Republican frontrunner out of the Oval Office, the models show Sanders beating him much worse than Clinton could.

Does anyone on the planet know why Clinton never used a State.gov email address?

If you can’t answer the question, then logically, Sanders is the true Democratic front-runner in 2016.

Go ahead, speculate, but any speculation as to why Clinton needed a private server leads to Sanders becoming Democratic nominee.

[Ten oz]

I thought this was an interesting commentary from H. A. Goodman, showing how Clinton's possible indictment by the FBI means Sanders is going to be the obvious choice for the DNC. And for those wanting to do whatever it takes to keep the Republican frontrunner out of the Oval Office, the models show Sanders beating him much worse than Clinton could.

 

I believe Sanders could beat any GOP ticket. Honestly I believe any Democratic ticket would win this year. The domographics are against the GOP. A majority of Women, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians presently identify as Democrat and the GOP has done nothing to make any gains with those groups. Actually they have done the opposite. So Sanders would win if nominated hands down in my opinion.

 

That said I think the email stuff is a lot to do about nothing. Even if Clinton voilated some obscure law, which I haven't seen anywhere that she clearly did, wouldn't it be the IT's departements fault? The State Dept was aware and it isn't like Clinton took a weekend off and installed the servers herself. Working from home is a very common thing. I believe the whole email "scandal" is just the GOP wanting to read Clintions emails in hopes of finding something to attack her with.

[Delta1212]

I thought this was an interesting commentary from H. A. Goodman, showing how Clinton's possible indictment by the FBI means Sanders is going to be the obvious choice for the DNC. And for those wanting to do whatever it takes to keep the Republican frontrunner out of the Oval Office, the models show Sanders beating him much worse than Clinton could.

 

Just because of the site that this is posted on, I feel the urge to point out that that is not actually a logical conclusion that follows from that premise.

[Moreno]

Do you think Sanders would be able to win both Democratic nomination and US presidency if direct election would be held instead of indirect tricks?

[Delta1212]

He isn't losing because of the way the delegates are apportioned, though. Hillary is also beating him soundly in the popular vote. So no, it wouldn't make a difference.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Delta1212

[ydoaPs]

He isn't losing because of the way the delegates are apportioned, though. Hillary is also beating him soundly in the popular vote. So no, it wouldn't make a difference.

It's a bit more complicated than that. You can't really count caucuses, so the numbers are really bogus to begin with. On top of that, the largest voting block in the country (which happens to favor Sanders) isn't allowed to vote in most primaries.

 

As far as the General Election goes, take a look at the map of states Hillary won and subtract the states that always go red.

 

Unfortunately, it's looking like no matter the delegate counts, the DNC won't let Sanders get the nomination at the convention. The Nevada convention was held last night and the DNC literally cheated for Hillary. The national convention is being planned and is already being geared to favor Hillary (of 75 committee appointees, only 3 of Sanders's picks were chosen).

[Endy0816]

Dem popular vote

 

Should someone who opted out have a say on what they opted out of?

 

My own opinion is no, although this does limit my own options.

 

 

I have not seen evidence of actual cheating in Nevada vs adherence to existing rules. If you have any though please post.

[ydoaPs]

Should someone who opted out have a say on what they opted out of?

If the party wants any hope of winning, then yes. Both R and D each make up ~25% of the electorate. I makes up ~40%. It's just good sense to listen to them when they tell you which of your potential candidates they'd vote for and which they wouldn't.

I have not seen evidence of actual cheating in Nevada vs adherence to existing rules. If you have any though please post.

Enacting your own rules without quorum vote is not adherence to existing rules. Motioning to adjourn while there is an existing unresolved motion is not adherence to existing rules. Seconding your own motion to adjourn is not adherence to the existing rules. Adjourning when there are far more nays that yays is not adherence to the existing rules.

[Ten oz]

It's a bit more complicated than that. You can't really count caucuses, so the numbers are really bogus to begin with. On top of that, the largest voting block in the country (which happens to favor Sanders) isn't allowed to vote in most primaries.

 

As far as the General Election goes, take a look at the map of states Hillary won and subtract the states that always go red.

 

Unfortunately, it's looking like no matter the delegate counts, the DNC won't let Sanders get the nomination at the convention. The Nevada convention was held last night and the DNC literally cheated for Hillary. The national convention is being planned and is already being geared to favor Hillary (of 75 committee appointees, only 3 of Sanders's picks were chosen).

I like Sanders. I would prefer Sanders to Clinton but I find this type of argument to be flawed. The process has been known since long before the candidates declared. If the way party primaries work is a problem than that should have been address long ago and not at the tail end of the primary season. Sanders have 3 million less votes, less earned delegates, and less super delegates. All of that can't just be ignored because polled independents prefer Sanders. Mover over it is a party nomination.

 

Independents may poll as a large group but, unfortunately, have very little influence. Despite the complaints claimed independents end up voting major party. Lots of other parties on the ballot. The Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties have been on the ballot in most states during that last few general elections. No one votes for them. So while independents are a large group they have no muscle like Mormons in Utah & Idaho, Evangelicals in the bible belt, Latinos in the west, and etc; groups that influence the outcome of elections it their localities.

 

To win an election candidates need people on the ground working for them. Fighting to ensure areas that favor them have convenient access to cast a ballot, that local officials don't make it harder on their supporters to get registered, and to communicate their message. Politics is a team sport. Agree with it 100% or not but super delegates are the ones that will have to work full time from now till election day for the nominee. Not you and I. So who they want to work for and will work hardest for does matter and is a consideration that should carry weight.

 

The way to influence 2 party rule is to actually vote for another option locally and nationally. They way to change primary rules is to speak up in advance and not in the middle of the process. What is an "independent" truly if they have only ever voted for one party as is the case for most claimed independents?

[Moreno]

If Sanders will lose Dem. nomination could he quit Dem. party and go for presidency as an independant?

[Ten oz]

If Sanders will lose Dem. nomination could he quit Dem. party and go for presidency as an independant?

Sanders is an independent. He is not a democrat. He can run as an independent however the deadline for him to get on the Nov. ballot in various states has already past. Jill Stein in the Green Party candidate and will be on the ballot. Her platform is the most like Sanders on the many candidate who will be on the ballot. Many of the policies he advocates are ones the Green Party has advocated for some time. So Sanders supporters looking to support those policies could support the Green Party if they so choose.

http://www.jill2016.com/

[Moreno]

Sanders is an independent. He is not a democrat. He can run as an independent however the deadline for him to get on the Nov. ballot in various states has already past. Jill Stein in the Green Party candidate and will be on the ballot. Her platform is the most like Sanders on the many candidate who will be on the ballot. Many of the policies he advocates are ones the Green Party has advocated for some time. So Sanders supporters looking to support those policies could support the Green Party if they so choose.

http://www.jill2016.com/

 

How can he run for Dem. party nomination then, if he is not a member of this party? And what was a reason for him to get involved in inter-party race with Klinton if it was obvious he had no chances?

[Ten oz]

 

How can he run for Dem. party nomination then, if he is not a member of this party? And what was a reason for him to get involved in inter-party race with Klinton if it was obvious he had no chances?

". A member of the Democratic Party since 2015,^[2] Sanders had been the longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history, though his caucusing with the Democrats entitled him to committee assignments and at times gave Democrats a majority."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders