HughMcB wrote:
I'm not exactly sure why Lessig is running. One of Sanders main agendas is to repeal Citizens United, Lessig only serves to split the Sanders vote.

Have you invested any time in watching the various video's there are where he explains why he is running? It answers why the idea of "one of" Sanders' (or Clinton's) ticket promises aren't worth the platitudes.

Lessig is of course aiming to gain enough support in his campaign for either Clinton or Sanders to become Lessig's running mate. When Lessig withdraws as president, right after his proposed fix for campaign and Congress corruption, the vice president then steps up to the plate. This shouldn't split anything.

HughMcB wrote:His agenda is also to repeal Citizens United, and then retire to let the VP take over. Seems like a ego thing on his part.

I have a little more respect for the man than to attribute his aim to stroking his ego. But even if he was on an ego trip, what argument are you making? Sanders is honourable and no-one else is?

Teague wrote:Which Sanders is going to make that the first thing he does when he gets into office. Lessig wants a custodian president doesn't he? One that just goes in to do one thing?

It is arguable, given the other election promises that all other candidates are making, that Sanders will not be able to carry off what he wishes to do.

If, by custodian president you mean referendum president, then yes, Lessig campaigns on one promise, namely, to pass the Citizens Equality Act 2017. This means to garner enough support, bi-partizan support, prior to the election, such that when the senate is formed, enough senators are present to provide the bill with a good chance of being passed. Sanders won't have that.

Teague wrote:Not really a leader then, is it.

Would it help you if he toted a gun from the hip?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:To my, admittedly poorly informed opinion, Bernie is quite distinct from the other candidates both Republican and Democrats.
I would like to see him win, assuming that he'll try his best to keep his promises and general position on the major issues.

As he's been fighting for the same things for 30 years, I don't see why he wouldn't. If he wins though, it will be fascinating to see if he can get the American people behind him to make the changes he's asking them to help him with.

Teague wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:To my, admittedly poorly informed opinion, Bernie is quite distinct from the other candidates both Republican and Democrats.
I would like to see him win, assuming that he'll try his best to keep his promises and general position on the major issues.

As he's been fighting for the same things for 30 years, I don't see why he wouldn't.

Not saying he won't. Just that you can never be sure and that he might be prevented from doing a lot of things by congress.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Teague wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:To my, admittedly poorly informed opinion, Bernie is quite distinct from the other candidates both Republican and Democrats.
I would like to see him win, assuming that he'll try his best to keep his promises and general position on the major issues.

As he's been fighting for the same things for 30 years, I don't see why he wouldn't.

Not saying he won't. Just that you can never be sure and that he might be prevented from doing a lot of things by congress.

Might? He will be hamstringed from the first day of office.

Another gun death today. That young girl that was killed - if only she had a gun to protect herself. You wonder why Obama lets these things happen. Has he no compassion? Is het not a man of intellect and competence? He's had eight years to fix gun law issues.

I can't see why Sanders thinks he has a cat in hell's chance of changing anything at all.

Teague wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:To my, admittedly poorly informed opinion, Bernie is quite distinct from the other candidates both Republican and Democrats.
I would like to see him win, assuming that he'll try his best to keep his promises and general position on the major issues.

As he's been fighting for the same things for 30 years, I don't see why he wouldn't. If he wins though, it will be fascinating to see if he can get the American people behind him to make the changes he's asking them to help him with.

The American people were behind Obama. The world thought that change would happen. He was toothless even with the American people behind him.

As will Sanders be.

And Clinton.

I agree that it will be fascinating, as usual, to observe how Congress is governed by a tiny minority of rich families and how powerless the president is (until his actions, such as going to war, are favoured by the vested interests of these minorities; then he can achieve what he wants).

The 1% will determine who will be president. Sanders has not got a hope.

You're halfway there. The 1% decides who's nominated. The people decide who gets elected.

It's not 1% who choose the candidates. It's 0.05% in reality who get to pick who (seriously) runs. And those that are picked are in the hands of those 0.05% either directly having funded them or the senators whom they face in the senate.

The vote is a sham.

Even the shambolic vote, given the electoral college system, is bent and twisted. All votes are equal except some votes are more equal than others.

I had to laugh when John Kerry was in Cuba opening the American Embassy & telling the Cubans to sort out their system of government and democratise it. If I was Castro, I would have merely pointed out how there is not one shred of democracy in America.

Thankfully, there is a reasonable legal system and a modicum of real freedom but even this seems to be malleable.

Galactor wrote:It's not 1% who choose the candidates. It's 0.05% in reality who get to pick who (seriously) runs. And those that are picked are in the hands of those 0.05% either directly having funded them or the senators whom they face in the senate.

The vote is a sham.

Even the shambolic vote, given the electoral college system, is bent and twisted. All votes are equal except some votes are more equal than others.

It is a 18th century system that has no place in the 21st century.

Some facts about how Americans vote for the president:

In 2010, 0.26% gave $200 or more to any federal candidate
0.05% gave the maximum amount
0.01% gave $10,000 or more

And then in 2012, 0.000042% (132 Americans) gave 60% of the SuperPAC dollars.


(Source)

We all know what the problem is but who is doing anything about or could do anything about or is willing to do anything about it?

Scot Dutchy wrote:We all know what the problem is but who is doing anything about or could do anything about or is willing to do anything about it?

I think Lessig & Sanders are genuinely trying to reform election funding. There are many senators such as Elizabeth Warren who openly state that the system is broken. There will likely be a number of senators who feel the same but don't voice their opinions. 82% of Americans are of the opinion that the system is broken. Whether big money will ever be defeated is hard to know.

Senators spend two thirds of their time arranging funding. Unless this stops, America's governmental system is static and stagnant.

Galactor wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:We all know what the problem is but who is doing anything about or could do anything about or is willing to do anything about it?

I think Lessig & Sanders are genuinely trying to reform election funding. There are many senators such as Elizabeth Warren who openly state that the system is broken. There will likely be a number of senators who feel the same but don't voice their opinions. 82% of Americans are of the opinion that the system is broken. Whether big money will ever be defeated is hard to know.

Senators spend two thirds of their time arranging funding. Unless this stops, America's governmental system is static and stagnant.

I agree totally but what I worry about is the 1%. How can their power be taken away from them? Who is willing to try?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

It is a 18th century system that has no place in the 21st century.

Bizarrely, the American's fought a war in the 18th century to rid themselves of the voting aristocracy (the English). They are now under the heel of a different aristocracy. America's "democracy" is modern feudalism. Granted, the majority of serfs have better health and income than those back in the 15th century.

Galactor wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

It is a 18th century system that has no place in the 21st century.

Bizarrely, the American's fought a war in the 18th century to rid themselves of the voting aristocracy (the English). They are now under the heel of a different aristocracy. America's "democracy" is modern feudalism. Granted, the majority of serfs have better health and income than those back in the 15th century.

Just why has America never considered upgrading its system or is it like the British one it suits the people in power so why change it?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

I agree totally but what I worry about is the 1%. How can their power be taken away from them? Who is willing to try?

Lessig and Sanders are trying.

Everyday citizens have funded Lessig to more than $1M to run for president although the democratic party are denying him a voice in the debates. That's right, the democratic party don't want people to hear Lessig's ideas and would rather support the status quo.

You have every right to be worried. Sanders is old and will likely not garner the votes to be picked. Lessig will likely not even get the chance to state his case. Clinton's rhetoric will never achieve anything. Why should it? Obama's didn't.

One can but hope.

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Just why has America never considered upgrading its system or is it like the British one it suits the people in power so why change it?

The American system works just fine for people like the Koch brothers. They control the system. Why would they allow change? They want the oil that they steal to be sold don't they? Why do you think they fund climate change denial? Why do you think they fund political groups that take law cases to the Supreme Court to have the court decide that it is a constitional right to lie in political campaigns? So they can smear their opponents of course!

Galactor wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Teague wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:To my, admittedly poorly informed opinion, Bernie is quite distinct from the other candidates both Republican and Democrats.
I would like to see him win, assuming that he'll try his best to keep his promises and general position on the major issues.

As he's been fighting for the same things for 30 years, I don't see why he wouldn't.

Not saying he won't. Just that you can never be sure and that he might be prevented from doing a lot of things by congress.

Might? He will be hamstringed from the first day of office.

Another gun death today. That young girl that was killed - if only she had a gun to protect herself. You wonder why Obama lets these things happen. Has he no compassion? Is het not a man of intellect and competence? He's had eight years to fix gun law issues.

I can't see why Sanders thinks he has a cat in hell's chance of changing anything at all.

Then you haven't been listening to him

He's said right from the start, any president will not be able to make a change because the opposition will just block them.

This is why the day after he gets in, he wants the people behind him. You want to change your country, you need to stand up and be active. If he can't push through the changes the American people want, he'll get them to march on Washington and when there's 3 million people outside the white house, who's going to say no and risk losing their place on the political ladder.

This will be politics like you've never seen before. If if gets in and this doesn't work then what do you think will happen to the future of politics in the US?

If he gets in and it does work, how do you think that will shape politics in the US and around the world?