He's been getting a lot of attention lately. I'm not going to post links or articles because if you keep up with American politics, you should already know what I'm talking about. I don't agree with everything he stands for, but he's my favorite candidate by far.
What do you guys think? Is he going to get the democratic nomination? Why or why not?
Even if he does, do you think he has a chance to become president?
Commence discussion, please and thanks.
Not the best candidate in the world, but I like a lot of his stances, which is more than can be said with ANY of the other candidates, Democrat or GOP.
Personally speaking, I probably won't be voting if he doesn't get the nomination.
Great music doesn't force you to think. It allows you to.
Trump is also getting some large crowds. I think that's a pretty good indicator of Bernie's chances. He can get the politically inclined really excited, but Hillary has a far better chance with the less inclined voters; the keys to winning.
At 8/11/15 10:16 PM, Fubaka wrote: Personally speaking, I probably won't be voting if he doesn't get the nomination.
I wasn't even registered to vote until he started gaining recognition, so I'm with you on that.
Even if he doesn't win the democratic nomination, I'm hoping some of his ideas spill over.
For the most part I like his ideas, but for me the President's ideology doesn't really determine what'll pass in Congress. Even ideologues like Reagan, who won nearly every state in his election, did not realize their ultimate dreams, you know like ending Medicare/Medicaid (Reagan had made an impact by being an early opponent of Medicare/Medicaid). Nixon for example was supposed to be a right wing poster boy, but the legislation he actually signed was to the far left of Obama and maybe even Bernie Sanders. Unless Bernie wins really well, I mean something like 1980 and sweeps the nation, I don't see him, if elected, doing well. He's going to renege on his campaign promises and disappoint alot of people as the realities of the job set in. He was an independent from Vermont and he has experience in Senate, but only as a far left individual. I don't see him working well with a GOP Congress, I mean c'mon Obama couldn't work well with them and he was also a prominent left winger.
But what really killed any excitement I could've had was his position on oil speculation. This was a opinion piece he wrote on the topic years ago. Oil speculation is when investors basically bet on the price of oil. They buy oil futures and if their price was right they make bank. This is a common practice, I believe this was done with the housing market and some people made alot of money from predicting it would crumble. This was something that the government looked into following the Great recession. They wound up with nothing. In fact the whole "oil speculators caused the rise in gas prices" is a periodic myth that comes up everytime gas prices rise. It seems Bernie just wants to blame Wall Street for a problem it had no real part in doing. To me that's the kind of bullshit fear pandering that's ran rampant in the GOP and why it's both hard to take them seriously as people who are both being honest and are intelligent, and why they're so terrifying. I mean I knew about this long before he announced his candidacy so it's not like I was that impressed when he ran.
Although that's more of a pet peeve. Obviously the shit the GOP touts around as policy is a much bigger offense to logic and truth, you know climate change denial, linking Obama to Socialism and Alinsky or claiming that there's alot of Muslim Brotherhood in the the Obama administration, one tiny flaw really shouldn't ruin my view of him. To me though Hillary has more experience with actual presidential work. Secretary of State as well as Senator as well as weathering all the scandals Fox news tried throwing at her.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
I'll vote for him. Literally the worst that'll happen is the status quo, so I've got nothing to lose, and there's an off chance that a candidate that I actually like could be elected.
It's far too early to speculate his chances in the primary - once the first rounds of debates happen we should have a much better idea of his chances. Regardless, I say if you like his message, why not vote for him in the primaries? If he loses, you can just vote Hillary in the general.
Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.
I've never really been big on him, he seems to basically try to be a populist by telling people what they want to hear but have no real idea on how to pull it off. Granted, all politicians are like that during campaign season, but Sanders is basically running laps ahead of most of the other candidates, and the media is eating it up.
Much of his stances on the issues sound good in theory, but at best it's going to be an uphill climb with a GOP dominated Congress blocking everything that he'll try to implement, {and considering that he's a self-described socialist, they will go for the metaphorical throat more so than they did with Obama} and at worst, create a more unwieldy government with programs that few people really want based on the Nordic countries, and even they have a load of problems with debt and high taxes, something that people aren't going to be enthusiastic about.
Considering that presidential campaigning season is in its infantile stage as of now, the GOP and the rest of the Dem nominees will let Sanders have his moment in the sun before they get serious and eventually push him out.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
At 8/11/15 10:16 PM, Fubaka wrote: Personally speaking, I probably won't be voting if he doesn't get the nomination.
People like you are the reason the GOP controls the senate right now.
Was a super hippy at one point from what I've heard. Seems like a nice guy!
At 8/12/15 12:51 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 8/11/15 10:16 PM, Fubaka wrote: Personally speaking, I probably won't be voting if he doesn't get the nomination.People like you are the reason the GOP controls the senate right now.
Sorry, bud. I don't do party loyalty.
Great music doesn't force you to think. It allows you to.
At 8/12/15 08:48 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: There's a lot of similarities between Sen. Sanders and then Sen. Obama
Did you really just describe Sanders as suave?
My boy is pulling in people north of 20,000 in cities and now has Clinton in the rear-view mirror in New Hampshire. If he can keep his momentum going and convince the party to host more debates, I think he would have a good shot at the nomination.
At 8/12/15 12:17 PM, FinaLee wrote: My boy is pulling in people north of 20,000 in cities and now has Clinton in the rear-view mirror in New Hampshire.
44-37, to be exact.
If he can keep his momentum going and convince the party to host more debates, I think he would have a good shot at the nomination.
Sanders can, at the very most, carry no more than two states during the primaries.
At 8/12/15 06:20 AM, Fubaka wrote: Sorry, bud. I don't do party loyalty.
But you would take a horrible person in office over a somewhat good one in your zeal to get a better candidate in.
At 8/12/15 07:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 8/12/15 06:20 AM, Fubaka wrote: Sorry, bud. I don't do party loyalty.But you would take a horrible person in office over a somewhat good one in your zeal to get a better candidate in.
That's a false dichotomy. It assumes one of the candidates is appreciably better than the other.
Great music doesn't force you to think. It allows you to.
At 8/12/15 08:01 PM, Fubaka wrote: That's a false dichotomy. It assumes one of the candidates is appreciably better than the other.
Are you really saying there's no difference between a Hillary style candidate and a Santorum style one?
At 8/12/15 11:59 PM, saqwert wrote: He got cucked super hard the other day by BLM for some bullshit.
Old news, should have checked /pol/ about a week ago.
At 8/12/15 10:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 8/12/15 08:01 PM, Fubaka wrote: That's a false dichotomy. It assumes one of the candidates is appreciably better than the other.Are you really saying there's no difference between a Hillary style candidate and a Santorum style one?
No.
Great music doesn't force you to think. It allows you to.
At 8/12/15 08:01 PM, Fubaka wrote: That's a false dichotomy. It assumes one of the candidates is appreciably better than the other.
In a field of 17 different GOP candidates you can't really say they're all the same.
I do not consider myself unreasonably liberal or anything. I have a hard time with abortion, I'm fairly pro-guns outside of cities, and am for the Keystone XL pipeline. But as the GOP sucks on the KOCH brothers briberous moneyhorn for a fat wad (of cash, of course) and Hillary continues down a trajectory that most resembles a House of Cards season, I understand that I have bet on a candidate who wants to be elected BY LIVING HUMAN BEINGS and who would never find himself clutching a private, unsecure email server to his chest until the FBI pried it from his grip.
All those candidate have lost my vote and there's no reclaiming it.
So.... I've basically been a fan of Bernie since I was a Senate page. Back then, he was only in his 1st or 2nd year as a U.S. Senator. I listened to him speak, but listened in only a really vague way because, to be honest, being a Senate page means listening to old white men stand up and talk about issues all day. Sanders didn't really stand out as anything but extremely liberal and very eccentric. Let me put it this way: When we talk about change we can believe in, he was the only person where I could literally hear the change he was jangling in his pocket as he spoke.
As it turns out, those coins say a lot about Sanders. Amongst his fellow senators, he's a poor man financially. He practices what he preaches to an extent most people are not used to. He's just consistent and about the issues. Not a plank of wood like John Kerry, and not opaque like Obama.
The fact, I don't just want Bernie to pull the party left, I want him to WIN. I want a president who decided not to take the big money because he/she realized, to be frank, IT'S A DISGUSTINGLY UNAMERICAN THING TO TAKE THE POWER COMPLETELY OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.
At 8/13/15 01:03 PM, Feoric wrote:At 8/12/15 08:01 PM, Fubaka wrote: That's a false dichotomy. It assumes one of the candidates is appreciably better than the other.In a field of 17 different GOP candidates you can't really say they're all the same.
Ultimately that's not what I'm saying. I just don't really think the ones who will get the nomination will differ from each-other significantly enough. I could end up being wrong, though.
Great music doesn't force you to think. It allows you to.
At 8/13/15 03:33 PM, Fubaka wrote: Ultimately that's not what I'm saying. I just don't really think the ones who will get the nomination will differ from each-other significantly enough. I could end up being wrong, though.
A Clinton administration and a Bush administration will be very, very different.
He's got a level head on his shoulders and is far more ideologically consistent than any of his opponents, Dem or otherwise.
I know his chance of getting the nod is slim in the long haul, but I wish him all the luck in getting it. The best candidate (for either party) rarely gets the nomination, it seems, so I won't be surprised.
I thought the same thing about Kucinich in the last few elections. Unfortunately, consistency/intellect/etc. ≠ electability.
The trump card (pun maybe intended?) that Hillary has over him is essentially brand recognition. Yay, 'Merican electorate.
Derp.
At 8/13/15 03:46 PM, Feoric wrote:At 8/13/15 03:33 PM, Fubaka wrote: Ultimately that's not what I'm saying. I just don't really think the ones who will get the nomination will differ from each-other significantly enough. I could end up being wrong, though.A Clinton administration and a Bush administration will be very, very different.
Bleh, my words are not working for me right now. Of course those administrations would be different, but ultimately, I don't think they'd change things as much as people fear they might. Whenever a particular ideology is at the helm, the inverses will always push back in natural ways. The society as a whole will invariably change, but it's a slow process, and no particular administration will push that along any faster than another.
Let it be said, I don't blame you for misunderstanding me. I blame myself for not speaking clearly enough.
Great music doesn't force you to think. It allows you to.
I have two issues with Bernie.
Will he lead to more "you haven't been liberal enough!" chants from dubasses on the left who forget that 70% of the country is to their right?
I don't believe he is generally electable. This election will be close enough as is, I don't want a terrible President just because the Democrats put up a loser.
At 8/12/15 12:18 PM, Feoric wrote: Sanders can, at the very most, carry no more than two states during the primaries.
What do you think would happen if Biden ran, though?
At 8/11/15 10:16 PM, Fubaka wrote: Not the best candidate in the world, but I like a lot of his stances
What's your favorite, soaking businesses or disarming the police?
The simple fact is that some people will never be happy, no matter how good their lives are.
At 8/14/15 12:40 PM, FinaLee wrote: What do you think would happen if Biden ran, though?
Out of the entire Democratic field I think Biden is the one that could do the most damage to Hillary, since they both served high level positions under the same administration. I don't imagine him being in the race would affect Sanders that much, if at all. If anything it might bolster his rhetoric against the centrist establishment.
At 8/14/15 06:56 PM, Feoric wrote:At 8/14/15 12:40 PM, FinaLee wrote: What do you think would happen if Biden ran, though?Out of the entire Democratic field I think Biden is the one that could do the most damage to Hillary
I agree with all of that, but I was asking in respect to Sanders' chances of stealing the primary.
