At 8/14/15 07:22 PM, FinaLee wrote:

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.

If Biden runs, Bernie's chances go up. I don't know by how much. But more people are waiting for an alternative to Hillary that is not Bernie than are waiting for an alt to Bernie that is not Hillary.
Stealing the primary? Do you mean the nomination? Bernie has a good chancing of winning the New Hampshire primary without Biden's help. But in any case, Biden's entrance hurts Hillary.

Bernie Sanders has suggested that college should be made available to everyone. I won't try to convince everyone that our colleges (like our primary schools) are broken and a waste of time / money. For that argument, there are several books available on the subject.

College is basically supposed to put you in a position where you can demand a higher wage. After 9/11, the US military started recruiting by offering something called the Post 9/11 GI Bill. The idea was that young men and women who couldn't afford college should be given the chance to go overseas and fight for their country. In return, these people were offered a path to a middle class income when they got back...if they got back. If college is made free for everyone, the people who made sacrifices to earn their education are being shit on.

If you think that tricking thousands of young people into risking their lives is OK, vote for Sanders. I do not know of any alternative plan from Sanders to compensate service members and veterans for their sacrifice.

At 8/14/15 07:22 PM, FinaLee wrote: I agree with all of that, but I was asking in respect to Sanders' chances of stealing the primary.

Sanders, barring a catastrophic shakeup of the current Democratic field, has no real chance of securing the nomination with or without Biden. I still maintain he can't win more than 2 states.

At 8/15/15 11:42 AM, E-U-R-I-C wrote:
If you think that tricking thousands of young people into risking their lives is OK, vote for Sanders. I do not know of any alternative plan from Sanders to compensate service members and veterans for their sacrifice.

Okay, so what your saying is if the military benefit from it, no one else should, ever?

Yeah, okay. That is fucking stupid.

As for other benefits, they have huge advantages in the job market (military experience is a great boon to a resume), they get pretty good health benefits, they get help with housing, they tend to get retirement benefits others do not have access to... And they can chose any PRIVATE college they choose and get an education for free (which Bernie would not be affecting - public school would be the only free option). Military would still have its benefits.

At 8/15/15 11:42 AM, E-U-R-I-C wrote: Bernie Sanders has suggested that college should be made available to everyone. I won't try to convince everyone that our colleges (like our primary schools) are broken and a waste of time / money. For that argument, there are several books available on the subject.

College is basically supposed to put you in a position where you can demand a higher wage. After 9/11, the US military started recruiting by offering something called the Post 9/11 GI Bill. The idea was that young men and women who couldn't afford college should be given the chance to go overseas and fight for their country. In return, these people were offered a path to a middle class income when they got back...if they got back. If college is made free for everyone, the people who made sacrifices to earn their education are being shit on.

If you think that tricking thousands of young people into risking their lives is OK, vote for Sanders. I do not know of any alternative plan from Sanders to compensate service members and veterans for their sacrifice.

I'm assuming you have no idea that it was Sanders who negotiated with McCain on the trifecta of VA bills last year, and that he's on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

At 8/15/15 11:42 AM, E-U-R-I-C wrote: If you think that tricking thousands of young people into risking their lives is OK, vote for Sanders. I do not know of any alternative plan from Sanders to compensate service members and veterans for their sacrifice.

Um, yikes. So you're operating under the assumption that the vast majority of troops enlisted specifically for the affordable ability to attend college afterwards? I'd think you'd be more pissed at the politicians who started a war on a false premise and tricked thousands of young people into risking their lives...

At 8/15/15 11:42 AM, E-U-R-I-C wrote:
College is basically supposed to put you in a position where you can demand a higher wage.

So college should only be made available to those who can afford it? College itself has credit in the job market because people want smart, well-educated employees. Having more people in college doesn't result in less educated, but more. All it does is create more competition in the job. America is way behind in terms of a smart workforce. We need more kids in college, not less.
Personally, I never thought about jobs being connected in any way to my education. I went to college to better myself. And because I did better myself, finding jobs is not as hard as it is for some others.

At 8/15/15 06:47 PM, thebitterroost wrote:

At 8/15/15 11:42 AM, E-U-R-I-C wrote: If you think that tricking thousands of young people into risking their lives is OK, vote for Sanders. I do not know of any alternative plan from Sanders to compensate service members and veterans for their sacrifice.

Um, yikes. So you're operating under the assumption that the vast majority of troops enlisted specifically for the affordable ability to attend college afterwards? I'd think you'd be more pissed at the politicians who started a war on a false premise and tricked thousands of young people into risking their lives...

Yea I don't really like the wars. I don't need to make any assumptions because I happen to know that many people enlist specifically for that reason. I'm a vet myself doncha know.

I'm assuming you have no idea that it was Sanders who negotiated with McCain on the trifecta of VA bills last year, and that he's on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Bad assumption.

At 8/16/15 02:05 PM, E-U-R-I-C wrote: Yea I don't really like the wars. I don't need to make any assumptions because I happen to know that many people enlist specifically for that reason. I'm a vet myself doncha know.

OK, I get that. But is your stance really that free public college would be a bad thing, or would you just take it as a personal slight? If it is, I can understand for sure, but it seems unproductive to cling onto an old way of doing things because "I had to go through X amount of shit to get the same thing, so everyone else should, too."
Should CO and WA have not legalized pot simply on the basis that there were people currently serving prison sentences for the same thing? It's kind of a shitty slap in the face to them, too, but I would hope that they could at least be happy for folks that now don't have to go through what they have. I'm sure some of them are bitter as all hell (and justifiably so), but I'd like to think they wouldn't be the proverbial "crabs in a barrel."

And I just saw the Seattle video thing. My god that was cringeworthy. Glad he essentially removed himself, smartest thing to do in a no-win situation like that.

At 8/16/15 02:06 PM, E-U-R-I-C wrote: Bad assumption.

Bad argument.

I love Bernie Sanders, but I just think he's too progressive to win a general election. GOP frontrunners like Jeb Bush (especially since he's trying hard to appeal to moderates) would beat Bernie 9 times out of 10. Hillary's probably got the nomination. Personally, in 2016 I'm looking for a candidate who's willing to work with the opposing party to get productive, generally nonpartisan things done (like minimalizing income inequality), and so far that's probably Jeb or Kasich, and maybe Hillary (time and debates will tell, my friends). ;)

At 8/18/15 12:36 AM, TaintedLogic wrote: Personally, in 2016 I'm looking for a candidate who's willing to work with the opposing party to get productive, generally nonpartisan things done (like minimalizing income inequality), and so far that's probably Jeb or Kasich, and maybe Hillary (time and debates will tell, my friends). ;)

That's not a nonpartisan issue, though. Notice how the subject of income inequality did not come up even once during the GOP debate.

At 8/18/15 12:36 AM, TaintedLogic wrote: I love Bernie Sanders, but I just think he's too progressive to win a general election. GOP frontrunners like Jeb Bush (especially since he's trying hard to appeal to moderates) would beat Bernie 9 times out of 10. Hillary's probably got the nomination. Personally, in 2016 I'm looking for a candidate who's willing to work with the opposing party to get productive, generally nonpartisan things done (like minimalizing income inequality), and so far that's probably Jeb or Kasich, and maybe Hillary (time and debates will tell, my friends). ;)

We had a president that made an effort to work with the other party on bipartisan issues recently - Barack Obama. Nowadays he's more likely to let the other party stew while he does what he thinks needs to be done, though, because what ended up happening was virtually nothing, since the other party wasn't looking to compromise at all. Every time he reached out to them, they would ask for all or nothing, and that mindset in the congress has manicure ever since the 2010 midterms (when the Tea party came into existence).

I would love to see the parties work together, but unfortunately I do not see that happening right now, as the politics stand. I just don't see the Republicans and Democrats working toward the same goals anymore, so I'd rather see the Democrats move forward with their goals than an attempt at bipartisanship.

At 8/18/15 04:41 AM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 8/18/15 12:36 AM, TaintedLogic wrote: Personally, in 2016 I'm looking for a candidate who's willing to work with the opposing party to get productive, generally nonpartisan things done (like minimalizing income inequality), and so far that's probably Jeb or Kasich, and maybe Hillary (time and debates will tell, my friends). ;)

That's not a nonpartisan issue, though. Notice how the subject of income inequality did not come up even once during the GOP debate.

Yeah, I know that income inequality is more traditionally a left-wing issue, but I still think the GOP wants to minimalize it, just for different reasons and in different ways.

@Gario Yeah, I agree with all that. Maybe I was a bit too optimistic in my search for a candidate who was willing to work with both parties. Still, it's wicked early in this presidential campaign...

At 8/13/15 04:05 PM, Fubaka wrote: 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.

It seems silly to excuse a lack of participation in democratic elections on the basis of legal/societal change being slow. Not voting only makes things change faster for individuals who hold ideologies you otherwise wouldn't support.

bernie is cool

At 8/18/15 09:48 PM, Feoric wrote: It seems silly to excuse a lack of participation in democratic elections on the basis of legal/societal change being slow. Not voting only makes things change faster for individuals who hold ideologies you otherwise wouldn't support.

Who am I to make them try to change any faster than they are going to?

At 8/19/15 12:17 AM, Fubaka wrote:
Who am I to make them try to change any faster than they are going to?

An American citizen. Supposedly, it's one of your civic duties to voice your opinion in the election cycle.

At 8/19/15 11:33 AM, Gario wrote:

At 8/19/15 12:17 AM, Fubaka wrote:
Who am I to make them try to change any faster than they are going to?

An American citizen. Supposedly, it's one of your civic duties to voice your opinion in the election cycle.

If I find I don't like any of the chosen candidates, then I am voicing my opinion by choosing none of them.

At 8/19/15 02:07 PM, Fubaka wrote:

At 8/19/15 11:33 AM, Gario wrote:

At 8/19/15 12:17 AM, Fubaka wrote:
Who am I to make them try to change any faster than they are going to?

An American citizen. Supposedly, it's one of your civic duties to voice your opinion in the election cycle.

If I find I don't like any of the chosen candidates, then I am voicing my opinion by choosing none of them.

Feel free not to vote, but that counts as a vote for whomever eventually wins. There is literally no mechanism in this voting system for a 'none-of-the-above' option to count as such - you are voting for the eventual winner if you do that. There is no benefit to not voting, ever, except for those candidates you hate so much.

I thought there was a topic on this point recently that went into detail on this.

At 8/19/15 03:44 PM, Gario wrote: I thought there was a topic on this point recently that went into detail on this.

There was, but the poster was a bit more overly general than me.

OK, I get that. But is your stance really that free public college would be a bad thing, or would you just take it as a personal slight? If it is, I can understand for sure, but it seems unproductive to cling onto an old way of doing things because "I had to go through X amount of shit to get the same thing, so everyone else should, too."
Should CO and WA have not legalized pot simply on the basis that there were people currently serving prison sentences for the same thing? It's kind of a shitty slap in the face to them, too, but I would hope that they could at least be happy for folks that now don't have to go through what they have. I'm sure some of them are bitter as all hell (and justifiably so), but I'd like to think they wouldn't be the proverbial "crabs in a barrel."

I actually think that free public college would be a huge mistake but that's not really what I'm arguing. I'm just pointing out that people put themselves through hell to have access to education and making it free after they have done what they agreed to do is a slap in the face. People who go into the military is largely lower class and looking for a way to change that. Recruiters advertise the GI Bill as a benefit worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the rules are going to be changed and a 18 year high school graduate is going to have the same access to college as a 24 year old war veteran then I think those guys who went to secure America's interests should at least be compensated with cash equivalent to what an education would have cost.

At 8/15/15 11:42 AM, E-U-R-I-C wrote: Bernie Sanders has suggested that college should be made available to everyone. I won't try to convince everyone that our colleges (like our primary schools) are broken and a waste of time / money. For that argument, there are several books available on the subject.

College is basically supposed to put you in a position where you can demand a higher wage. After 9/11, the US military started recruiting by offering something called the Post 9/11 GI Bill. The idea was that young men and women who couldn't afford college should be given the chance to go overseas and fight for their country. In return, these people were offered a path to a middle class income when they got back...if they got back. If college is made free for everyone, the people who made sacrifices to earn their education are being shit on.

If you think that tricking thousands of young people into risking their lives is OK, vote for Sanders. I do not know of any alternative plan from Sanders to compensate service members and veterans for their sacrifice.

Completely irrelevant to free college education. He supports support for veterans.

I'm down for Bernie, I think his toughest challenge is Hillary and the primaries. The GOP crazies are terrifying, you don't even need to do research.

Donald Trump, a reality star, is one of the front runners. Wow.

If Bernie can get past the primary the actual election should be easy.

Being a Socialist myself, I like him.

His platform, in spite of what people who don't know the definition of the word Socialism may think, is not Socialist, and won't make America Socialist either, but it is very progressive, and makes what I consider to be important steps in campaign finance reform, tax reform, health care reform, prison reform, banking reform, and though foreign policy isn't a particularly huge part of his platform, he seems to have a fairly decent record on it, especially since he's one of only a handful of people running who voted against the Iraq war.

I'm basically supporting him for the same reason he's toned down his leftist-views since the 70s and 80s; pragmatism. If he ran on a Socialist platform, he wouldn't win, and if I voted for a Socialist candidate, they wouldn't win, so for now, compromise is the name of the game, but what's important is that I think his being in office will greatly improve the country and the lives of the people in it.

At 8/24/15 12:03 AM, Scarface wrote: His platform, in spite of what people who don't know the definition of the word Socialism may think, is not Socialist, and won't make America Socialist either, but it is very progressive,

Who cares about the labels? I personally do not like using the word 'progressive' because the progressive era had a huge number of ideologies that splintered into modern right and left wing ideas. Essentially it's worthless in describing someone's political ideals. The only way it's distinguishable from the modern era is that Capitalism was much more vulnerable; it was more acceptable to be critical of it. Socialist party candidates actually won some local elections. The Populist party ran on a platform that included nationalization of the railway system.

Other than that Eugenics, immigration restriction, prohibition of alcohol and drugs, immigrant assimilation etc. were all progressive movements but are all considering very right wing stances in the modern day. And it's not like progressives were divided into camps that ended up being right or left wing, progressives who supported labor rights would also support prohibition, progressives who supported racial equality also supported Eugenics (W.E.B. DuBois is a good example, if not one of the few since racial equality progressives were few in number and were nearly all black) etc. etc.. But worst of all the Progressive Era is where the modern day type of racism really came into fruition especially with the popularity of Social Darwinism with the likes of Herbert Spencer or Madison Grant. That's really why I do not like the term "Progressive".

At 8/24/15 01:27 AM, Warforger wrote: That's really why I do not like the term "Progressive".

Would "moderately futurist" work better? You're right that the so-named Progressive Era had a lot of batshit crazy ideas. I guess in that context it was because they were ideas pushed with the subjective notion of progress in mind.
I suppose a better term would be something that emphasized the willingness to embrace new stances and be proven measurably.

The same argument can be applied to the conservative label, I guess, since that's "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion." Only the US is kinda funny about tradition compared with a lot of other cultures. "Traditional" in more established countries refers to beliefs and practices that date back centuries, but here it basically means "what my grandpappy done did."

At 8/24/15 01:27 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 8/24/15 12:03 AM, Scarface wrote: His platform, in spite of what people who don't know the definition of the word Socialism may think, is not Socialist, and won't make America Socialist either, but it is very progressive,

Who cares about the labels? I personally do not like using the word 'progressive' because the progressive era had a huge number of ideologies that splintered into modern right and left wing ideas.

Very true, I'm just using it in the sense that it's commonly use in today. A better word might be that it would be considered further than center left regarding economics, which I like.

Have you all heard about the 100,000 person march on Washington? 90,000 have RSVP'd so far. (including myself. Not to brag but I joined when it was at like 5,000). If not, then invite yo' friends.

I'd be down for an NG meetup in Washington D.C. while we rally for Bernie and ya'know, try to influence the course of our country's future.