Scot Dutchy wrote:The naivety is outstanding. Just how does a president challenge a lock down Congress. Do you really think public opinion will be active day in and day out? Do you think the 1% give a fuck what the rest of the country says? Their media will crucify Sanders.
The State governments will be against him.

Confrontation never works in peace time. You must negotiate and compromise. Slowly turning things to your advantage by showing there is another way. Stone walling is just that.

Teague wrote:The other side is, what's the worse that can happen? Nothing! He'll do better than Obama since Obama, if you remember, was touted a muslim black man who hated america and wanted to kill christians. Nobody can say a bad word about Sanders.

Just more Obama just what America needs.

Jesus in a fucking balloon, Scot!

If anything, it's worth having him in just to see what would happen. Clinton isn't going to get anything more done than Sanders and is hated by the GOP.

Here's the options

Try and change the system and maybe fail

Fail

Which one is a rational, logical skeptic like you going to choose?


I can't believe it's this hard to explain....

Scot Dutchy wrote:There are other Dem candidates. Sanders would not be my choice for the reason I have given.

Which is fair enough Scot. But,

a) are any of the other Dem candidates more likely to be able to unlock congress?
b) are they going to achieve more than maintain the status quo - which is ultimately regressive?

Because the reality is, any Democrat who pushes for change in the US is going to run afoul of a GOP dominated congress. There isn't a "magic solution" to "unlocking congress" and any Democratic candidate who says that there is, is most probably lying.

Sendraks wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Of course it is relevant and has nothing to do with Clinton. He is promising an awful lot but does not say how he is going to achieve it

No, it isn't relevant because no one else has that answer either. If Clinton can't unlock congress, and there is nothing to suggest that she can, why is suddenly necessary that Bernie be required to provide an answer.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Well if the GOP are only going to unlock congress to that it makes Sanders chances of achievement even less would you think not?

No - for the reasons already stated.

Why would you vote for a party just because they can "unlock congress" if they're going to push through regressive policies that you don't agree with. At which point the sensible thing to do is NOT to vote for that party.

You don't vote for a party just because they can "get things done" when those "things" are not things you agree with.

If Sanders gets in, I think he's going to be pointing out who is working for the corporations and that's going to affect who stays in congress. Expect a reversal of the house and also another thing might happen - we'll get honest politicians rising to the top as the new meme will be, honesty and for the people get you somewhere.

If that happens, maybe it'll be the start of a new era where you can't be a politician unless you're looking to be progressive and honest and a decent human being.

Sure as fuck won't get anything like that with Clinton.

Edit: And Sanders can veto everything the GOP try for, can't he?

Sendraks wrote:

BWE wrote:The republicans won't negotiate with Clinton. They are delighting in just straight up obstructing.

Yup, is anything they dislike Clinton more than Sanders.

The advantage Sanders has is that he's seen as an advocate for change and if Congress block him, it simply makes Congress look bad and cost them the confidence of the American public.

Which is around 7% right now afaik. It's pretty much as bad is it can possibly get. Sanders in however would shake that all up as I pointed out above, maybe ... lol

Teague wrote:Edit: And Sanders can veto everything the GOP try for, can't he?

Yes, another big plus for Sanders.

At the very least, Sanders winning stops the GOP making the US worse.

Yes maybe

Scot Dutchy wrote:Yes maybe

I'll take that over never

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-unpaid-interns/

Pay Fail
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders pays his campaign interns, but most (if not all) of the other major presidential candidates do not.

Claim: Bernie Sanders is one of the few 2016 presidential candidates (if not the only one) to pay his campaign interns.
TRUE

proudfootz wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Now you have also the 1% in the equation. That public pressure would have to be at all levels of government or not? Federal Government has only certain powers? A state government can cause considerable delays or even cancellations as I understand it which why I wonder how Sanders is going to do it if he is elected.

At all levels, I should think.

The problem is that unless there is some real grassroots organization, the 1% and their minions will be able to stonewall any changes until the next exciting 'reality TV' show premiers or the next generation video game comes out.

You guys give a lot of credit to the 1% as if they are some incredibly powerful entity. There was a 1% back in the late 1800's as well and we managed to break trust funds and crack down on monopolies.

The 1% certainly do have the power to control the political narrative popular media.

But in the age of social media, hopefully we will see this power diminished quite a bit. Bernie's grass roots campaign I think is a good example of this.

willhud9 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Now you have also the 1% in the equation. That public pressure would have to be at all levels of government or not? Federal Government has only certain powers? A state government can cause considerable delays or even cancellations as I understand it which why I wonder how Sanders is going to do it if he is elected.

At all levels, I should think.

The problem is that unless there is some real grassroots organization, the 1% and their minions will be able to stonewall any changes until the next exciting 'reality TV' show premiers or the next generation video game comes out.

You guys give a lot of credit to the 1% as if they are some incredibly powerful entity. There was a 1% back in the late 1800's as well and we managed to break trust funds and crack down on monopolies.

I just wish one of these astute political commenters could've told Barack Obama that all he needed to do to usher in the liberal revolution was give more speeches. Think of how much sooner we could've got health care reformed if only Barack would've stopped slowing it down and started holding more press conferences....



I'm also going to make the drive by comment that Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton had more outside money spending in Iowa....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/po ... .html?_r=0

GT2211 wrote:I'm also going to make the drive by comment that Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton had more outside money spending in Iowa....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/po ... .html?_r=0

There is very little anyone can do to stop super PACs from doing what they do. The big difference is Bernie sanders isn't giving speeches for handouts from corporate institutions.

Besides, I think i would prefer the interests of the National Nurses Union over that of Goldman Sachs. One is looking to avoid fiscal responsibility and shift the burden to the middle lower class, the other is just trying to justify their union dues by improving the living standard of their members.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

GT2211 wrote:I'm also going to make the drive by comment that Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton had more outside money spending in Iowa....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/po ... .html?_r=0

There is very little anyone can do to stop super PACs from doing what they do. The big difference is Bernie sanders isn't giving speeches for handouts from corporate institutions.

Besides, I think i would prefer the interests of the National Nurses Union over that of Goldman Sachs. One is looking to avoid fiscal responsibility and shift the burden to the middle lower class, the other is just trying to justify their union dues by improving the living standard of their members.

The nurses union is trying to accomplish what? Screw over CNAs. There are over a million CNA's and its a pretty rapidly growing industry. CNA jobs aren't high paying, but they are a modest improvement over the min wage jobs and don't require much education. Nobody is going to hire some CNA fresh of the street for $15/hr when they can hire a nurse for $20-25.

But Hillary also received hundreds of thousands from the Institute of Scrap Heap Recycling, I wonder what kind of secret plan she has for the pockets of Big Scrap Heap

The difference is, Sanders didn't receive a dime from them and isn't asking for their support, but it's a no brainer to understand why a union would support a democratic socialist, vigorously.

Being offered money and accepting on the other hand is an invitation for reciprocation. It could be that they feel her politics are in line with their business model, but there are certainly strings attached.

Until super PACs or corporate campaign contributions are highly regulated/restrictive or banned altogether - I'm more comfortable with the former rather than the latter.

Sendraks wrote:

BWE wrote:The republicans won't negotiate with Clinton. They are delighting in just straight up obstructing.

Yup, is anything they dislike Clinton more than Sanders.

The advantage Sanders has is that he's seen as an advocate for change and if Congress block him, it simply makes Congress look bad and cost them the confidence of the American public.

This has me the most intrigued of all the things about Bernie. I'm pretty much a single issue voter this time around, (although I would vote hillary in the general just because, well, republicans) the only thing I care about is a firm commitment to legislation overturning citizen's united and no one else would even bring it up whether or not it can be passed. But I wonder how congress would justify flatly refusing to bring it to the floor with the president making it the center of attention. I think it is a kind oi leverage that hasn't been used before. I don't really care what other legislation he can get passed. He will be vilified by the right but so will Hillary. She even worse. They hate her for some reason. Probably because she's a strong woman actually. But without overturning citizen's united, we are stuck in an orwellian daydream of a police state that is mostly unobtrusive domestically if you are white and not extremely poor but it's there, reading our emails, taping our dick pics and sideboobs swiped from cell phone messages up on their office walls (did you see the john oliver interview of snowden? if not, youtube it, it's amazing). If we were to actually pose some real threat to their* ability to funnel truckloads of cash out of the national revenue stream, you'd get a good talking to.

*I use the word they to sound all conspiracy. But it's not particularly misleading.

BWE wrote:
This has me the most intrigued of all the things about Bernie. I'm pretty much a single issue voter this time around, (although I would vote hillary in the general just because, well, republicans) the only thing I care about is a firm commitment to legislation overturning citizen's united and no one else would even bring it up whether or not it can be passed.

Bernie Sanders has been pretty clear on his intentions to overturn Citizens United. More so than Hillary in my opinion.

it simply makes Congress look bad and cost them the confidence of the American public.

ummm weren't they already at like a 3% approval rating ...why would they give a rats ass for public opinion??

What's the basis for the claim that Clinton's better able to "unlock Congress"?

She's served one full term in the Senate, before leaving at the beginning of her second to become Secretary of State. Before that, setting aside the stain on her hubbie's presidency, her biggest involvement with Congress was her 1993 healthcare reform plan, by consensus an unmitigated disaster. During her time in the Senate, she voted for the Iraq War.

Sanders, by contrast, has been at the Hill since 1990, 16 years as a Rep., Senator since '06. To say nothing of the difficulties of getting elected as an openly socialist independent (even in Vermont), he's proved an exceptionally capable congressional negotiator, an "amendment king" who can horsetrade with the best of 'em.

So, where's the evidence of Clinton's legislative chops? What makes her a better negotiator than Sanders?

Byron wrote:What's the basis for the claim that Clinton's better able to "unlock Congress"?

Well so far, all I've seen is people being pretty clear that they don't think Clinton can unlock congress.

However, for some reason, Scott thinks its really important that Bernie should demonstrate how he can unlock congress whilst conveniently turning a blind eye to the inability of the other Dem front-runners ability to do so.

All Scot does in this thread is express negativity regarding Sanders. He doesn't actually make the point that it's better to vote for anyone else, just that it's bad to vote for Sanders.