Jump to content

Don't Waste your Vote on Bernie Sanders


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, laripu said:

But CDs don't have a problem with dust, and they have better dynamic range.

It's the DAC's that haven't (until very recently) been exactly equivalent to analog, not the medium. Successive approximation will always be an approximation even at 24 bits. I do have another setup with a DAC player loaded with FLAC files ripped from vinyl, tediously edited to remove every single 'pop'. It is very convenient, but I still return to my analog setup for serious listening.

 

2 hours ago, laripu said:

Have you ever heard of these laser LP readers?  http://www.elpj.com/ 

If you were intending on triggering a Pavlovian response, you have succeeded. I have two Pickering XSV-3000 / D3000 stereohedron stylii that may wear out soon. A good topic for the Water Cooler.

 

I apologize for the tangent.

Back to wasting our votes, Bernie, what's bad, what's good, what's worse, what's better, what is flawlessly perfect, and what is perfectly flawed......

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't always agree with Comedienne Sam Bee, but: “Jesus Christ! The only way they could be trying harder to get them to fight is if they personally oiled up these senior citizens and threw them

I am neither a fisherman, nor a fish.   It's well known that super delegates have higher intelligence, and morals than us mere mortals.   Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile: "The rig

I take it you disagree with that particular super delegate. Maybe they are not so smart after all.   Yes, that private organization has decided new rules were needed regarding super delega

17 hours ago, zkyllonen8 said:

Elect-ability- This is a myth spun by the corporate media that they want you to believe. 

 

These days, Trump seems to have made it acceptable to declare any data we don't like as 'fake news' or 'a myth'.  Bernie's 40 years have certainly earned him many supporters.  Polls say more Americans would rather have Bernie as President than Trump.  Or, is that a corporate myth too?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Renegade said:

Polls say more Americans would rather have Bernie as President than Trump.  Or, is that a corporate myth too?

 

Heh heh.  Not likely, since Bernie is one of the few in Congress who was never in corporate pockets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bludog said:

Heh heh.  Not likely, since Bernie is one of the few in Congress who was never in corporate pockets.

 

I agree.  I believe the polls are honest.

 

My issue is with people who only like polls when they support their point of view.  The same people who will quote polls saying Bernie is doing well will denounce the same polling organizations as lying corporate media when a poll says Bernie is doing poorly.   I really hate this trend of declaring everything disagreeable as 'fake news'.  When I first started coming to this site, you could get people to accept facts (or at least get them to present their own facts) even in NHB.  

 

Those same polls that show Bernie has a lead over Trump in the national popular vote show that he is behind Trump in battleground states and performing significantly worse than Biden.  When I point this out, all I get from Bernie supporters is disbelief or a conspiracy theory.

 

I suppose none of it matters since no one ever changes their mind.  I think I'm getting burned out on politics.  It's all a waste of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Renegade said:

I suppose none of it matters since no one ever changes their mind.  I think I'm getting burned out on politics.  It's all a waste of time.

 

After 10,000 years or so, of mostly absolute rulers, the history of the last 250 years shows that political change has not only become possible, but inevitable.  In the short term, however, the status quo can be very frustrating to those of us looking for change.  Recently, there's been a worldwide trend toward right wing populism and the US is no exception.  With that swing to the right has come a disrespect for science and a disregard for facts found to be inconvenient.

 

46 minutes ago, Renegade said:

Those same polls that show Bernie has a lead over Trump in the national popular vote show that he is behind Trump in battleground states and performing significantly worse than Biden.  When I point this out, all I get from Bernie supporters is disbelief or a conspiracy theory.

 

Both the left and the right are now using the same tactic of choosing their facts, or making them up.  I believe many on the left have abandoned their value for factual reality in reaction to seeing how effective willful ignorance has been on the right.

 

I'm hoping Biden's present popularity over Sanders, in battleground states is still residual from his time as VP.  And Warren is not out of it yet.  We will see.  I for one, will support whichever Democrat takes a commanding lead;  Which hasn't happened yet.   Differences aside, any one of the Democrats is an excellent choice compared to Trump.  Four more years is unthinkable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

These days, Trump seems to have made it acceptable to declare any data we don't like as 'fake news' or 'a myth'.  Bernie's 40 years have certainly earned him many supporters.  Polls say more Americans would rather have Bernie as President than Trump.  Or, is that a corporate myth too?  

 

I do not trust any polls if you want me to honest. 2016 polls showed Bernie down by 50 points to Hillary we all see how that worked. Or Hillary winning in 96% of polls versus Trump. We just need to wait for the people to get out and vote in the early primaries and caucuses to show us how the american people actually feel about the candidates. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 1:07 PM, bludog said:

Both the left and the right are now using the same tactic of choosing their facts, or making them up.  I believe many on the left have abandoned their value for factual reality in reaction to seeing how effective willful ignorance has been on the right.

 

But in the end, ignoring facts earns punishment from reality.

 

Ignoring facts about vaccination results in deaths from diseases we defeated long ago.

 

Ignoring facts about medicine in favor of faith healing results in unnecessary deaths.

 

Ignoring facts about pollution and climate yields a damaged planet that will impoverish everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On 1/14/2020 at 11:07 AM, bludog said:

Both the left and the right are now using the same tactic of choosing their facts, or making them up.  I believe many on the left have abandoned their value for factual reality in reaction to seeing how effective willful ignorance has been on the right.

 

The tendency to ignore inconvenient facts and engage in confirmation bias is not new. I’m sure they taught it to us in an introductory undergraduate psychology class more years ago than I care to disclose.

 

I think we see it more now because the Internet allows us to shoot off our mouths anonymously. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

I think we see it more now because the Internet allows us to shoot off our mouths anonymously.

 

Exactly.  NHB is a perfect example. 

 

Most on the left, unlike on a political website like this one, do not often engage in verbal struggles for dominance.  A far larger portion of the political left, not usually locked in left/right debate, still fully support facts, rational thinking and the scientific method, no matter where it might lead.  Which is why they are usually on the side of fairness, equality, and  social/economic justice.  These values, trending to the greatest overall good.

 

The vast majority of  those on the left, living in the real world are not subject to the pressures of first-hand, right-wing attack, common on forums like NHB.  So they don't feel pressured to adopt the opportunistic tactics of the conservative opposition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Sanders has the knives out. His people are trashing Elizabeth Warren, and he called her a liar on TV according to her.

 

CNN video on this page:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-debate-audio/index.html

 

I think the Sanders campaign will get uglier, because he understands that as long as Warren is in the race, the progressive vote is split, and they'll both lose. With both running, we end up with Biden, who is too old.

 

Of course the solution isn't to use ugly electoral tricks. There solution is for Sanders to pull out. Like Biden, he's too old. Here's also overly dogmatic, and he's never been a real Democrat anyway.

 

Let's have a Warren/Buttigieg ticket, that will satisfy both the progressives and the center. While Warren plays nice, Buttigieg can attack Trump's bone spur excuse for not serving. Moreover, since Buttigieg was an intel officer, he can credibly talk about Russian involvement in ways that implicate Trump.

 

As the thread says "Don't waste your vote on Bernie Sanders."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Campaign is going to get Dirtier, Liz started this and Bernie is going to finish it. Plain and Simple 

 

People are going to criticize Bernie for this but there is a Primary for a reason and that is to find the best candidate possible for the Party and Nation. 

 

Bernie is that Candidate fair and square. He is going to revolutionize the Nation with his policies and people are just not ready for the kind of change that he is going to bring forth. People want the Status Quo and people are going to soon realize that Nation wants good plausible change and the only candidate for that is Bernie Sanders. 

 

So yes I am going to Waste my vote on Bernie Sanders, thank you very much!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, zkyllonen8 said:

people are just not ready for the kind of change that he is going to bring forth

 

Got it. People aren't ready.

 

6 hours ago, zkyllonen8 said:

People want the Status Quo

 

Right, not ready. They want the status quo.

 

6 hours ago, zkyllonen8 said:

people are going to soon realize that Nation wants good plausible change and the only candidate for that is Bernie Sanders.

 

Whoa, whoa, wait up a minute there. Which is it? Not ready for change, want status quo ... but also want change and Sanders?

 

Here's what 50% of the country wants: not much change, except to punish everybody they don't like, among these: Mexicans, Muslims, university graduates, Black people and foreigners.

 

Here's what the other 50% wants: Medicare for all, racial equality, social justice, money out of politics, no gerrymandering.

 

Do you see deep change happening quickly in a country designed with a Court, House, Senate, and presidency all designed to oppose each other?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 7:49 AM, laripu said:

I think Sanders has the knives out. His people are trashing Elizabeth Warren, and he called her a liar on TV according to her.

 

CNN video on this page:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-debate-audio/index.html

I don't always agree with Comedienne Sam Bee, but:

“Jesus Christ! The only way they could be trying harder to get them to fight is if they personally oiled up these senior citizens and threw them into the Octagon,” She was equally unimpressed by the media hype around Warren apparently rejecting a handshake from Sanders after the debate. 

 

That’s it? That’s what’s dominated our national discourse for 36 hours?” she asked. “Two great candidates who are a little sad and disappointed in each other over a misunderstanding?”

Bee didn’t even fault Sanders for possibly suggesting that a female candidate couldn’t beat Trump. “I myself might have shouted it into a bottle of wine or 10,” she joked.

 

On 1/16/2020 at 7:49 AM, laripu said:

Of course the solution isn't to use ugly electoral tricks. There solution is for Sanders to pull out.

I've got another solution.....

It's called a primary election.

 

On 1/16/2020 at 7:49 AM, laripu said:

Here's also overly dogmatic, and he's never been a real Democrat anyway.

 

 

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich: “If progressive Democrats don’t hang together, corporate Democrats will hang them separately.”

 

Leaders from MoveOn, the Working Families Party, Justice Democrats, Democracy for America, the Center for Popular Democracy Action, Sunrise Movement, and Indivisible all called on supporters to cease attacking each other and focus on the issues.

 

WFP: “Friends don’t always agree, but we believe that Warren and Sanders have much more that unites them. And their supporters should turn their fire on the corporate wing of the Democratic Party and not on each other. A battle between Bernie and Warren supporters only helps Biden and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.”

 

Justice Democrats: “I think the campaigns are falling for the media’s longheld desire for a brawl between the two progressive candidates, when they should be focused on taking on the two corporate-friendly candidates in the race and earning the trust of voters.”

 

Association of Flight Attendants-CWA :“These new hostilities have been needled and fostered by people who want to maintain control in this current system. It’s the age-old ruling-class strategy of divide and conquer. The only way the people win is through solidarity. So stop beating up on each other, figure out how to find common ground, and get back to talking about the issues that matter, like health care, the dignity of all work, and the existential threat of climate crisis. I think it’s great that this [conflict] can be someone’s whole world right now, because there are two reasons that’s possible. Either, you’re not in the fight of your life in this election, and so, good for you that you’re living comfy, or else you’re burying your head in the sand about what we have to take on and getting distracted. Both of those things are human nature. But wake up!

Both Warren and Sanders are firmly on record identifying sexism as a major problem and block in our democracy,”

 

MoveOn.org:  “There are multiple progressive champions in the presidential race who MoveOn members are excited about and support. The way we advance a progressive future starts by defeating Donald Trump. Trump benefits most when we are divided.”

 

Sunrise Movement: “Infighting between Sanders and Warren only benefits big oil, fossil fuel billionaires, the GOP, and the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. In our shared commitment to a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and a government and society that works for the many, not the few, supporters of Sanders and Warren have much more in common than we have apart"

 

 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ExPDXer said:

I've got another solution.....

It's called a primary election.

 

Sure, of course. We'll have that. I'll support the winner, whoever that is. I hope that this time, so do the Bernie Bros.

 

I remember what happened in the last Democratic primary. Long after it became clear that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee, Sanders still refused to bow out and endorse her. It was even clear that she won the popular vote, not just super delegates, and he still didn't stop and endorse. After she had the majority of both popular vote and super delegates, it still took Sanders over a month to endorse her. That sends a message to Bernie Bros.

 

I wonder how many votes that cost Clinton in the general. I wonder whether it cost her any states. I wonder whether it cost her the election. There's no way of knowing how much damage was done by the Bernie Bros.

 

That's how much of a Democrat Sanders is. Not a team player. Not on the team at all.

 

And the party massively wanted her, based on super delegates. I think super delegates are an important feature because they have the experience and seriousness to guide the party away from travesties like the Republicans got with Trump. (Republican super delegates are required to vote for their state's primary winner; they don't have the free vote the Democratic super delegates have.) Super delegates in the Democratic Party are the "responsibility brake" on whatever nonsense happens to be the Democratic moral equivalent to the Tea Partiers. Maybe Marianne Williamson supporters, next time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, laripu said:

I hope that this time, so do the Bernie Bros.

I am neither a fisherman, nor a fish.

 

1 hour ago, laripu said:

Super delegates in the Democratic Party are the "responsibility brake" on whatever nonsense happens to be the Democratic moral equivalent to the Tea Partiers.

It's well known that super delegates have higher intelligence, and morals than us mere mortals.

 

Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile: "The right to vote is sacred, it's an insult to democracy."

 

Things have changed since 2016…

 

Aug, 2018:  Democrats created a Unity Reform Commission to recommend changes to the delegate process. In a surprisingly united vote, almost all members of the Democratic National Convention curtailed the ability of the superdelegates to vote on the first ballot for the party's presidential nominee.Candidates will no longer be able to count superdelegates if they want to win the party's nomination on the first ballot of voting at the convention. This makes it impossible for superdelegates to change the outcome of the pledged delegates' will.

 

Here’s how the new rules will play out:

Scenario 1: A candidate earns a majority of pledged delegates only (501 to 600 pledged delegates).

Outcome: Only pledged delegates vote on the first ballot for president. The candidate with a majority of pledged delegates would then become the party's nominee.

 

Scenario 2: A candidate earns a majority of the convention in pledged delegates (601 to 1,000 pledged delegates).

Outcome:Pledged and superdelegates can vote on the first ballot for president. The candidate with the majority wins the Party's nomination.

 

Scenario 3: No candidate earns a majority of either pledged or all delegates in the primary contests, most likely due to multiple candidates having run during the 2020 process (1 to 500 pledged delegates).

Outcome: Only pledged delegates would vote on the first ballot, but with no majority winner, the party would then vote on a second ballot (and more if needed). Superdelegates would vote beginning with the second ballot.

Pledged delegates could still change their votes to avoid a second ballot if their candidate drops out and "releases" them, in which case they could vote for their personal preference. All delegates become unpledged after the first vote.

 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile: "The right to vote is sacred, it's an insult to democracy."

 

Come on, the entire fûçkiñg setup of the country is an insult to democracy. I'm defining that as 1 adult, 1 vote, and this country is set up against that, over and over.

 

1. Gerrymandering. I don't need to explain why that's wrong. I'm sure everyone agrees with me.

2. The Senate. How is it democratic that California, with nearly 40 million people, gets two senators, while Wyoming and Vermont, each with under 1 million, also each get two senators?

3. The electoral college. How is it democratic that California, with nearly 40 million people, gets 55 electoral college votes while Wyoming and Vermont, each with under 1 million, each get two? The number of people per electoral vote is heavily in favor of the small states. In fact, those two states have twice the representation of California, by population.

 

A political party is a private organization run by itself and not an organ of the government. It has the right to do whatever it wants, and we have the right to join it, not join it, vote for or against it, or not at all.

 

So Bernie Sanders can get in, and then get out, support the winner or not. His right, his decision. But the Democratic party can see any of that as a betrayal of the party by someone who doesn't give a crap about it, and make any rules it wants against him. That's not an insult to democracy, that's a party, a private entity, making it's own rules for itself.

 

Anyone is free to organize their own party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, laripu said:

 

Come on, the entire fûçkiñg setup of the country is an insult to democracy. I'm defining that as 1 adult, 1 vote, and this country is set up against that, over and over.

 

1. Gerrymandering. I don't need to explain why that's wrong. I'm sure everyone agrees with me.

2. The Senate. How is it democratic that California, with nearly 40 million people, gets two senators, while Wyoming and Vermont, each with under 1 million, also each get two senators?

3. The electoral college. How is it democratic that California, with nearly 40 million people, gets 55 electoral college votes while Wyoming and Vermont, each with under 1 million, each get two? The number of people per electoral vote is heavily in favor of the small states. In fact, those two states have twice the representation of California, by population.

 

A political party is a private organization run by itself and not an organ of the government. It has the right to do whatever it wants, and we have the right to join it, not join it, vote for or against it, or not at all.

 

So Bernie Sanders can get in, and then get out, support the winner or not. His right, his decision. But the Democratic party can see any of that as a betrayal of the party by someone who doesn't give a crap about it, and make any rules it wants against him. That's not an insult to democracy, that's a party, a private entity, making it's own rules for itself.

 

Anyone is free to organize their own party.

 

He is the best shot that the Democrats have to win, He will dismantle Trump on the debate stage. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile: "The right to vote is sacred, it's an insult to democracy."

2 hours ago, laripu said:

 

Come on, the entire fûçkiñg setup of the country is an insult to democracy.

I take it you disagree with that particular super delegate. Maybe they are not so smart after all.

 

2 hours ago, laripu said:

A political party is a private organization run by itself and not an organ of the government. It has the right to do whatever it wants, .....

 

........ But the Democratic party can see any of that as a betrayal of the party by someone who doesn't give a crap about it, and make any rules it wants against him. That's not an insult to democracy, that's a party, a private entity, making it's own rules for itself.

Yes, that private organization has decided new rules were needed regarding super delegates....

 

That is why almost all members of the Democratic National Convention curtailed the ability of the super delegates to vote on the first ballot for the party's presidential nominee.

 

And who were these people that approved this decision? The people you acknowledge have 'experience and seriousness'.

Super delegates.

 

The rule change was necessary, IMHO, and agreed to by almost all of the Democratic apparatus. (super delegates, caucus members, DNC leadership). Of course, you have the right to join it, not join it, vote for or against it, or not at all.

 

So the new rules are the new rules, like it or not. I am just attempting to highlight what is most likely to happen:........

This scenario is almost a sure bet, at this point...

 

5 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

Scenario 3: No candidate earns a majority of either pledged or all delegates in the primary contests, most likely due to multiple candidates having run during the 2020 process (1 to 500 pledged delegates).

Outcome: Only pledged delegates would vote on the first ballot, but with no majority winner, the party would then vote on a second ballot (and more if needed). Superdelegates would vote beginning with the second ballot.

Pledged delegates could still change their votes to avoid a second ballot if their candidate drops out and "releases" them, in which case they could vote for their personal preference. All delegates become unpledged after the first vote.

I underlined this likely event. My prediction is that before the 1st ballot, second tier moderate candidates (Buttigieg, Bloomberg) may release their pledged delegates vote their preference. Maybe. If so, Biden would receive the bulk of these pledged delegates.

 

At the same time, (in order to avoid a 2nd ballot), one of the leading progressive candidates (Warren, or Sanders) would also release their pledged delegates. Warren would receive Sander's pledged delegates, or vice versa. It would not surprise me if Sen. Warren, and Sen Sanders have gamed this out long ago, and have some type of standing agreement in place. Most progressive voters, and organizations see them as fungible candidates.

 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

Yes, that private organization has decided new rules were needed regarding super delegates....

 

That is why almost all members of the Democratic National Convention curtailed the ability of the super delegates to vote on the first ballot for the party's presidential nominee.

 

And who were these people that approved this decision? The people you acknowledge have 'experience and seriousness'.

Super delegates.

 

The rule change was necessary, IMHO, and agreed to by almost all of the Democratic apparatus. (super delegates, caucus members, DNC leadership). Of course, you have the right to join it, not join it, vote for or against it, or not at all.

 

So the new rules are the new rules, like it or not.

 

Yes. Good. I'm fine with that.

 

They're a private organization and can make their own rules, if they think it's necessary.

 

My belief is that they thought it was necessary for PR reasons. OK, that's alright too.

 

My bet is that they find another sneakier way to put their thumbs on the scale for whoever they think is best. (Like when Blacks got the vote, and then poll taxes and other sneaky laws took it away.)

 

Because:

3 hours ago, laripu said:

Come on, the entire fûçkiñg setup of the country is an insult to democracy.

 

It's going to take very much political work, for many decades, to make this country one that serves the majority, instead of the wealthy. It won't happen in my lifetime. The best we can do is put our own thumbs on the scale with whatever measly rights we have.

 

Note that it was designed that way from the beginning. At first, only white male landowners had the vote. In 1828, white men who didn't own land were allowed to vote. Why? It was the rise of non-land related wealth. Banks and businesses were donating money to campaigns. So the property requirement was dropped.

 

There was a tiny bit of altruism in deference to northern religious liberals that gave Blacks the vote, but only the suffrage movement got women the vote. And only because they just wouldn't shut up. (That's a great strategy, by the way.)

 

It really looked like democracy for a while under the Kennedys, until they killed two of them and MLK to boot. "That'll learn us."

 

So here's a quote from a song:

"They put Jesus on a cross, they put a hole in JFK.

They put Hitler in the driver's seat and looked the other way.

Now we've got poison in the water and the whole world is in a trance,

but just because we're hypnotized that don't mean we can't dance!" - Tonio K.

 

Big change isn't allowed by the wealthiest. If Sanders somehow happens to win, he won't be allowed to do much. Change must be snuck in incrementally.

 

We have one hope: big wealth has changed due to the change in wealth generating systems. Maybe high tech wealth will work for some beneficial change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, laripu said:

 

Yes. Good. I'm fine with that.

 

They're a private organization and can make their own rules, if they think it's necessary.

 

My belief is that they thought it was necessary for PR reasons. OK, that's alright too.

 

My bet is that they find another sneakier way to put their thumbs on the scale for whoever they think is best. (Like when Blacks got the vote, and then poll taxes and other sneaky laws took it away.)

 

Because:

 

It's going to take very much political work, for many decades, to make this country one that serves the majority, instead of the wealthy. It won't happen in my lifetime. The best we can do is put our own thumbs on the scale with whatever measly rights we have.

 

Note that it was designed that way from the beginning. At first, only white male landowners had the vote. In 1828, white men who didn't own land were allowed to vote. Why? It was the rise of non-land related wealth. Banks and businesses were donating money to campaigns. So the property requirement was dropped.

 

There was a tiny bit of altruism in deference to northern religious liberals that gave Blacks the vote, but only the suffrage movement got women the vote. And only because they just wouldn't shut up. (That's a great strategy, by the way.)

 

It really looked like democracy for a while under the Kennedys, until they killed two of them and MLK to boot. "That'll learn us."

 

So here's a quote from a song:

"They put Jesus on a cross, they put a hole in JFK.

They put Hitler in the driver's seat and looked the other way.

Now we've got poison in the water and the whole world is in a trance,

but just because we're hypnotized that don't mean we can't dance!" - Tonio K.

 

Big change isn't allowed by the wealthiest. If Sanders somehow happens to win, he won't be allowed to do much. Change must be snuck in incrementally.

 

We have one hope: big wealth has changed due to the change in wealth generating systems. Maybe high tech wealth will work for some beneficial change.

 I have to agree that the political system today is rigged in an undemocratic way. There are those in both political parties who feel that too many of the voters are just too ill informed to 

be allowed the right to have a vote that counts. And in today's world, Free Speech means that you can have a FOX news which apparently has a large affect on some peoples beliefs.

 

And certainly anyone would say that if someone like Sanders or Warren were to win there will not be the required change that is needed overnight or even in one or two terms of office.

I kind of prefer the idea of an old guy like Bernie constantly bickering about how the system is rigged towards the rich for four years. I wonder though if it would be a turn key for an even more stringent neo-liberalism down the line. You know the scenario, one step forward and two steps back that has caused such chaos in the last thirty years. The so-called war against the rich even though the rich already won long ago. 

The biggest caveat is climate change. It's real, and it's happening now, and it is a catastrophe like never before seen. So this is where we really need activists and the type of grass root campaigns that Bernie has created. It has to be incremental and constantly build a path forward. I have to even salute billionaire Tom Styer, and yes, even Mike Bloomberg for their honest concerns about the problems we face.

 

We need grass roots campaigns to continue, and we need to also fix public schools and our educational system in a big way. The model in Finland is out there. Regarding healthcare, there are many models that are better than ours. Here's a good article regarding healthcare I read the other day. Single payer insurance is not the only option. Germany has private healthcare insurance that is heavily regulated - ha ha, we know how the right hates regulation. 

 

http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/reducing-the-health-care-tax

 

Peace!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, laripu said:

So here's a quote from a song:

"They put Jesus on a cross, they put a hole in JFK.

They put Hitler in the driver's seat and looked the other way.

Now we've got poison in the water and the whole world is in a trance,

but just because we're hypnotized that don't mean we can't dance!" - Tonio K.

 

2 hours ago, laripu said:

It's going to take very much political work, for many decades, to make this country one that serves the majority, instead of the wealthy. It won't happen in my lifetime. The best we can do is put our own thumbs on the scale with whatever measly rights we have.

I'll see that quote, and raise you this one:

 

"Maybe somewhere down the road aways" (end of the line)
"You'll think of me, wonder where I am these days" (end of the line)
"Maybe somewhere down the road when somebody plays" (end of the line)
"Purple haze"

 

Well it's all right, even if you're old and grey
Well it's all right, you still got something to say
Well it's all right, remember to live and let live
Well it's all right, the best you can do is forgive

Well it's all right, riding around in the breeze
Well it's all right, if you live the life you please
Well it's all right, even if the sun don't shine
Well it's all right, we're going to the end of the line

- T. Wilbury's

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

 

I'll see that quote, and raise you this one:

 

"Maybe somewhere down the road aways" (end of the line)
"You'll think of me, wonder where I am these days" (end of the line)
"Maybe somewhere down the road when somebody plays" (end of the line)
"Purple haze"

 

Well it's all right, even if you're old and grey
Well it's all right, you still got something to say
Well it's all right, remember to live and let live
Well it's all right, the best you can do is forgive

Well it's all right, riding around in the breeze
Well it's all right, if you live the life you please
Well it's all right, even if the sun don't shine
Well it's all right, we're going to the end of the line

- T. Wilbury's

 

great song. I love the traveling wilbury's. Can you imagine having those great song writers all in the same recording studio. 

 

I think it is evident, ExPDXer - you know, grass roots is the way forward. Also, education is where it is at. The truth in history needs to be taught. The sacrifice that has been made. 

I was just thinking how the turn of the nineteenth century was so profound. All around the world and not just in the US. We are at that point again today. I really do believe it with all my heart!

Peace!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

great song. I love the traveling wilbury's. Can you imagine having those great song writers all in the same recording studio.

Dylan’s reference to purple haze is one of the more humorous lines in rock history.

 

I saw a werewolf drinking a piña colada at Trader Vic's
And his hair was perfect

 

He was big and bent and gray and old
And I looked at him and my blood ran cold

And I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!?
 

All apologies (again) for the wild tangent.

 

Stop doing this to me. You may realize by now, I suffer from hyperfocus

My family says it’s OCD, but after intensive, extensive, and exhaustive research into the matter

I have concluded it’s maldistribution of attention.

I blame C++.... oh well, time to mow the lawn

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders decision to release a deceptively edited video attacking Joe Biden may backfire. Those of us who were not born yesterday know that Biden has fought for Social Security throughout his career. Bernie’s claim that he would cut Social Security and disability programs Is fundamentally dishonest. It says more about Bernie’s integrity than it says about Biden.


This after the dispute with Warren about Bernie’s comment about a woman in the general. 

 

Sorry Bernie Bros, I would choose any one of the remaining candidates over Bernie At this point. If we nominate a candidate who seems dishonest, it will normalize Trump’s dishonesty. We need a an honest candidate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...