Sanders is Now the Frontrunner?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Not to say whether I agree fully with his approach, or whether this should change your perspective of him (which I’m sure it won’t at all), here’s at least a little tidbit on Bernie as a “self-avowed socialist”:

“What am I trying to do in this campaign is to tell Americans what many of them don’t know: that the benefits for working people are a lot, lot stronger in many other countries around the world…This is not communism; this is not five-year plans, collectivized agriculture and nationalized industry…It’s a relatively mild, I would say a vanilla socialism,” Nelson said Sanders told them. “It’s basically focused on big businesses, and capitalist inequalities.”[/quote]

“Sanders told the New York Times recently that he thought the numbers were surprisingly good since they showed 47 percent of the electorate would vote for a socialist”

47 percent huh? Sound familiar?

42

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Not to say whether I agree fully with his approach, or whether this should change your perspective of him (which I’m sure it won’t at all), here’s at least a little tidbit on Bernie as a “self-avowed socialist”:

“What am I trying to do in this campaign is to tell Americans what many of them don’t know: that the benefits for working people are a lot, lot stronger in many other countries around the world…This is not communism; this is not five-year plans, collectivized agriculture and nationalized industry…It’s a relatively mild, I would say a vanilla socialism,” Nelson said Sanders told them. “It’s basically focused on big businesses, and capitalist inequalities.”[/quote]

My problem with this (him) is that fact he IS a socialist. His M.O. is to restrict economic freedom. That’s what socialists do. They do not make it better for any one group, they provide an illusion of prosperity by restricting economic freedom. They view it as a means to an end (equity?).

He says, “benefits for working people are a lot lot stronger in many other countries…” but he conveniently leaves out those “other countries” have an unemployment rate above 10%, with some approaching 20% … some are in economic ruins - but he won’t mention that because it doesn’t fit his narrative. Socialists want to punish economic success to the detriment of society at large - very very few actually benefit from this type of system … those few are the ones calling the shots.

43

[quote]polo77j wrote:
My problem with this (him) is that fact he IS a socialist. His M.O. is to restrict economic freedom. That’s what socialists do. They do not make it better for any one group, they provide an illusion of prosperity by restricting economic freedom. They view it as a means to an end (equity?).

He says, “benefits for working people are a lot lot stronger in many other countries…” but he conveniently leaves out those “other countries” have an unemployment rate above 10%, with some approaching 20% … some are in economic ruins - but he won’t mention that because it doesn’t fit his narrative. Socialists want to punish economic success to the detriment of society at large - very very few actually benefit from this type of system … those few are the ones calling the shots.[/quote]

And that’s also where he falls apart for me (while I like his steadfast no-nonsense approach), is in the fact that’s it’s still all purely political. There are no logistical plans in place to achieve the desired outcome, and even if there were, the costs at which it would take to achieve it are not even touched upon. It’s just the same political rhetoric to increase his support base…but hey, that’s what all these politicians are doing, so you can’t blame him for that.

I just expect more substance from our elected officials, and each passing year we get less and less (on both sides).

44

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:
My problem with this (him) is that fact he IS a socialist. His M.O. is to restrict economic freedom. That’s what socialists do. They do not make it better for any one group, they provide an illusion of prosperity by restricting economic freedom. They view it as a means to an end (equity?).

He says, “benefits for working people are a lot lot stronger in many other countries…” but he conveniently leaves out those “other countries” have an unemployment rate above 10%, with some approaching 20% … some are in economic ruins - but he won’t mention that because it doesn’t fit his narrative. Socialists want to punish economic success to the detriment of society at large - very very few actually benefit from this type of system … those few are the ones calling the shots.[/quote]

And that’s also where he falls apart for me (while I like his steadfast no-nonsense approach), is in the fact that’s it’s still all purely political. There are no logistical plans in place to achieve the desired outcome, and even if there were, the costs at which it would take to achieve it are not even touched upon. It’s just the same political rhetoric to increase his support base…but hey, that’s what all these politicians are doing, so you can’t blame him for that.

I just expect more substance from our elected officials, and each passing year we get less and less (on both sides).
[/quote]

The older I get, the less substance I expect from politicians (little bit cynical and I’m only in my early 30s).

I’m not trying to argue with you but yes, indeed, I can blame him for pandering … especially since he believes in what he’s doing (actually this is irrelevant but I’m leaving it in ). He believes the end justifies the means. His means being touting economic fantasy and half truths to serve the narrative of some socialist utopia. His ends happen to be limiting and distributing economic freedom and success to those he deems “deserve it more”.

45

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

now it is at present in my estimation Trump vs Sanders [/quote]

That’s why you should limit your comments on this site to maybe bench pressing or curls. Your political prognostication powers are exceptionally poor. Sanders won’t get the nomination much less capture the Presidency.

We really should bet on this.

[/quote]

My boss offered me 5 to 1 odds $1000 limit on Sanders winning. As far left as this country has gone… I might take that bet.

If it’s Trump v Sanders, I might put $5000 on it. [/quote]

What makes you think the democrats are stupid enough to put Sanders up as their nominee? Not that he could beat Hillary anyway. But seriously, they’ll dust off the old gaffe machine Joe Biden before they let that happen.

46

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Not to say whether I agree fully with his approach, or whether this should change your perspective of him (which I’m sure it won’t at all), here’s at least a little tidbit on Bernie as a “self-avowed socialist”:

“What am I trying to do in this campaign is to tell Americans what many of them don’t know: that the benefits for working people are a lot, lot stronger in many other countries around the world…This is not communism; this is not five-year plans, collectivized agriculture and nationalized industry…It’s a relatively mild, I would say a vanilla socialism,” Nelson said Sanders told them. “It’s basically focused on big businesses, and capitalist inequalities.”[/quote]

“Sanders told the New York Times recently that he thought the numbers were surprisingly good since they showed 47 percent of the electorate would vote for a socialist”

47 percent huh? Sound familiar?
[/quote]

That’s what Sanders says. In reality when people start paying attention, and it won’t be for a while, they will take one look at Old Bernie and vote for whomever his competition is.

47

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Not to say whether I agree fully with his approach, or whether this should change your perspective of him (which I’m sure it won’t at all), here’s at least a little tidbit on Bernie as a “self-avowed socialist”:

“What am I trying to do in this campaign is to tell Americans what many of them don’t know: that the benefits for working people are a lot, lot stronger in many other countries around the world…This is not communism; this is not five-year plans, collectivized agriculture and nationalized industry…It’s a relatively mild, I would say a vanilla socialism,” Nelson said Sanders told them. “It’s basically focused on big businesses, and capitalist inequalities.”[/quote]

“Sanders told the New York Times recently that he thought the numbers were surprisingly good since they showed 47 percent of the electorate would vote for a socialist”

47 percent huh? Sound familiar?
[/quote]

That’s what Sanders says. In reality when people start paying attention, and it won’t be for a while, they will take one look at Old Bernie and vote for whomever his competition is.
[/quote]

I haven’t done any searching but I’d imagine a lot of these polls are heavily skewed to support their narrative … I tend to think they’re not running random unbiased surveys

48

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Not to say whether I agree fully with his approach, or whether this should change your perspective of him (which I’m sure it won’t at all), here’s at least a little tidbit on Bernie as a “self-avowed socialist”:

“What am I trying to do in this campaign is to tell Americans what many of them don’t know: that the benefits for working people are a lot, lot stronger in many other countries around the world…This is not communism; this is not five-year plans, collectivized agriculture and nationalized industry…It’s a relatively mild, I would say a vanilla socialism,” Nelson said Sanders told them. “It’s basically focused on big businesses, and capitalist inequalities.”[/quote]

“Sanders told the New York Times recently that he thought the numbers were surprisingly good since they showed 47 percent of the electorate would vote for a socialist”

47 percent huh? Sound familiar?
[/quote]

That’s what Sanders says. In reality when people start paying attention, and it won’t be for a while, they will take one look at Old Bernie and vote for whomever his competition is.
[/quote]

49

Good for Obama for rallying the lowest of the low. But if you think Hillary, Biden or even old Bernie could do that you are quite mistaken. The black turnout, for example, will be just about cut in half if any of the three get the nomination. Many of the Obama voters, both black and white, will have something better to do on election day. Like buy a bottle of wine, or hang out on the street corner. Yeah…it’s unkind but oh so true.

Do you honestly believe that dried up old Hillary is going to motivate people to get out and vote? LOL you have been listening to the mainstream liberal media too long if you really think that. The only ones who really give a crap about her are the 23% of the female population that call themselves “feminists”. Sure she’ll get more than that but she will be a long way from winning.

Some of you guys are just a bit too gun shy when it comes to Presidential elections. So the democrats won two in row big deal, it’s happened before. As a matter of fact back in 92’ after George H.W. Bush won the Presidential election making it three in a row for the republicans there was actual talk of the death of the democratic party. I said then that this was premature talk.

Why? Because Reagan beat Carter and then demolished Mondale. Both weak candidates. Carter because of his record and Mondale was a very poor communicator. Then the worst democrat nominee in the history of the party Michael Dukakis ran against George H. W. Bush and lost by something like 6 or 8 points. The democrats had a bad run. Then in walks Bill Clinton, mister charisma…see how it goes? It’s not as much about the party and political philosophy as it is about the specific candidate. I have been pounding the table about this for years but many of you think that the average person votes on merit instead of looks. That is hilarious!

Here’s what happens. One of the two parties comes up with a better candidate, more charisma, better looking, reads a teleprompter better etc. They then run a better campaign and they win. It’s not rocket science, nor is it a shift in demographics like the left would love you to believe. The only shift has been Obama putting more people on the public dole. Big deal. Believe it or not many of them are not happy that they don’t have a job. Sure there are lifers on welfare I’m not denying that. But, the much talked about 47% DO NOT all vote democratic! Some as I said stay home and this time around a reasonable percentage will vote for the republican. As I said not all want to be unemployed bums. They too will vote for the person with the most charisma.

Should Hillary be the nominee, as I suspect she will, she goes down to defeat against almost any of the current republican candidates. In fact, if we pick the right ticket, say someone from Florida and Ohio we will win in a landslide.

Unless the democrats come up with someone better than one of the three stooges (Hillary, Bernie or Biden) they are not winning this time around nuyk nuyk nuyk…(and two fingers in the eyes).

BET ON IT!!

50

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It’s not as much about the party and political philosophy as it is about the specific candidate.
[/quote]
Yep.
“Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas.”-Henry Thomas Buckle

And goodness knows that America is great because of the political power wielded by the lowest class.

51

That is why he is shown to beat your frontrunner Trump by a wider margin than Clinton?

53

I’m not particularly fond of Bernie. Not so much because of his policy, but because I don’t think he could get anything done. Well… there is one issue I have with his policy and its because he doesn’t want a no fly zone over Syria.

But anyway, I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There aren’t really many swing votes or moderates these days and its more about firing up the base for both parties.

I think you were saying in 2012 that the reason Mitt Romney lost was because he was too moderate/liberal and I think you’re right now. I disagreed then, but after recent developments I have to agree on that point. He didn’t motivate the base very well.

Obama has been the most liberal president since LBJ. He was also anti-establishment. This fired up the base and allowed him to be voted in.

If things keeping going the way they are, I think we’re going to have more candidates far from center on both sides of the aisle.

54

Bernie Sander’s is fucking garbage.

55

He motivated the base very well. Here’s an article if you care to dig deeper, but he got 35% conservative turnout and 82% voted for Romney. Where he did not do well was self-identified moderates, white catholics, and women. There is not enough of the “base” to win an election for the GOP.

Actually its fairly consistent with historical trends based on a recent gallop poll
there are more slightly more conservatives, but it doesn’t hover above 40%.To win you have to have a large chunk of self-declared moderates, which Sanders struggles with similar to Trump and Cruz

56

Damn, looks like Beans has your feelers all bent up.

57

Sander’s literally identifies as a socialist…

58

clinton will be the nominee, Sanders only purpose in this process is to make clinton appear “moderate”

1 Like
59

Agreed. Even in today’s America Sander’s doesn’t win a general election. He’s doing well in the north eastern United States, which is not really that surprising.

60

The only way Clinton does not become the nominee is if she is indicted, or even if her case is referred to the Justice Department for indictment. But, if that does happen Bernie will still not be the nominee as the DNC will move quickly to change a few rules and bring in old Joe Biden.

The DNC is far too smart to allow an old washed up Socialist to get the nomination. That’s a shame because as I said on this thread the republicans would win in a landslide if Bernie were the nominee.

By the way, anyone who would support a Socialist absolutely does not understand Socialism and how bad it is, ultimately, for the people.

61

Seems to be the case, yes.

As to the troll above… His magical use of infantile name calling pretty much pegs him as the oft banned troll, who apparently no longer has an IP ban (?) after the new formatting changes… Whatever.

1 Like