170 replies to this topic

[Niels]

Well that was one big win for Bernie Sanders could this lead to a big motivation for him nationally? Will we see the first Democratic Socialist president, well since FDR?

 

I would suggest LBJ as a more recent example of a social democratic president.

For a primer on what his initiatives were, here's the link to the Great Society page on Wikipedia.  As mentioned there, parts of the portfolio of programs LBJ initiated have been repealed, whereas others (e.g., Medicare) have become untouchable parts of the American welfare system.

 

These sorts of attempts are reforming the current economic system in a way that is more humane for society as a whole come up from time to time in US history: Theodore Roosevelt's "Square Deal", FDR's "New Deal", Truman's "Fair Deal", and the aforementioned Great Society.

 

---

 

As for momentum for Bernie Sanders nationally after this win in NH - maybe, but the next several states are not demographically favorable to Sanders based on the groups currently most likely to support him.  See this FiveThirtyEight piece for more on that.

[Shahenshah]

"There is consensus among scholars and pundits that the New Hampshire primary, because of the timing and the vast media attention, can have a great impact and may even make or break or revive a candidate.^[7] Controlling for other factors statistically, a win in New Hampshire increases a candidate's share of the final primary count in all states by 27 percentage points.^[8]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary

[Imran Ehsan]

I got to see the "town hall" debate that happened right before the Iowa caucus and Sanders was very impressive. A lot of things he said made sense although he was like "Yes I will raise taxes..Yes I will!" I would have thought thats something you really dont want to emphasize when you looking for votes. But he pulled it off well. Also he made some really good points on how he has good judgement as opposed to Hillary. He also was able to highlight his american story about how his parents came to the USA with no money and would have never believed that their son could one day be running for the president. I thought he connected really well in the emotional level compared to Hillary, although she has a longer track record of able to handle FA efficiently.

 

I doubt he will get the nomination at the end of the day though. Its doubtful he will win many states outside the northeast and Hillary already has a record number of super delegates in her bag which means he is facing a real upfield battle anyway.

[Lysistrata]

New Hampshire is in...

 

Bernie Sanders - 60%

Hillary Clinton - 38%

 

Bernie, as everyone knew, absolutely crushed Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. What you get from this defeat is every reason possible why Hillary Clinton should not be nominated, let alone become President. Hillary did this herself. After her '08 defeat to a first term Senator, she bullied and twisted every arm possible within the Democrat Party, to ensure that she received an unopposed path to President in '16. She has broken laws in an effort to eliminate any way to stop her.

 

So drink up Bernie fans. Stay up and party all night... nurse your hangover, and then wake up and pay attention, because your loving Democrat Party will not allow one more single deviation from the plan. It's over for Bernie Sanders, and he will experience nothing but defeat from this day forward. Embrace your Queen Clinton, because that's what you're gonna get... at least until the FBI does what they have to do and hopefully ends this nightmare... but they will drag Biden out and dust him off, because they know Sanders doesn't stand a chance against our entire Capitalist country.

[Shahenshah]

I read yesterday that FBI as a matter of fact is investigating her emails.

[onbekende]

 

Wait, so you just don't like them cause they want something? Something that with proper management is for the good of the US at large (better education).

 

Everyone wants a free-ride, it isn't just the snot-nosed children of this generation that got everything on a silverplatter frm there parents >_>

 

the government only has so much money, why should the rich get to send their kids to colleges for free? It's basically a flat tax then.

 

well, because you want to be "social", you make it a certain amount for everyone and just throw some corrections downwards for groups in need. The group you deem "filfthy rich" will get correction upwards on their taxes. Which doesn't stop them from being "filfthy rich" anyway, it just accumulates slower then in certain countries *cough*tax heavens*cough*

 

For instance, higher education in Belgium is like 900€ (1k $) per year (barring some studies that are excempt for obvious budget reasons). If you are from a group in need, or rather your parents usually, you can get about 750€ back (last I checked, unsure now), making it about 150€ or 170$ a year.

 

Offcourse you can't just sail thruw higher education with that, you get a certain amount of "credits", which you use each year and get back for furfilling courses in your year. Basically you can snooze 2 years, after that its all holds barred and the price can go up rather steeply if you aren't carefull.

[Lysistrata]

Well I may have underestimated Bernie's ground game in Nevada... I just saw 4 of his robots combing my neighborhood, nagging registered Democrats to come caucus for Bernie. We may have a race here after all. Nate Silver now ranks Nevada as 50/50. I believe that guy... especially with Democrat elections.

[Rafay]

I seem to have missed something? Hillary has 392 and Bernie has 44 delegates when the 2 primaries together had less than 100 for grabs. Can the delegates pledge w/o / b4 voting. Isn't that an anti-thesis of primaries.....

[Icewolf]

There are super-delegates who can cast votes in their own right and make up about 10% of the votes at the final conference. Hillary has the majority of these delegates. 

[Lysistrata]

Democrats once nominated a far left, 'no where near as Sanders' Socialist, by the name of George McGovern... and Richard Nixon destroyed him.

 

The Democrats decided they would never nominate another lunatic Socialist to embarrass them in any future election... so they came up with this brilliant idea of "super delegates". These are delegates... the people charged with the responsibility to cast the votes for nomination... that are not tied to the results of the Primary or Caucus. So if the people vote to nominate another McGovern, a Grayson, a Castro, a Hitler, or a Sanders... they can void the people's vote with a party veto. They can support whoever they want... and most declare support long before primary voting even begins.

 

Hillary Clinton has long since bribed, blackmailed, or killed every super delegate to ensure she had them in her back pocket before she was even appointed Secretary of State. I have told you before... it's already rigged.

[Rafay]

that are not tied to the results of the Primary or Caucus. So if the people vote to nominate another McGovern, a Grayson, a Castro, a Hitler, or a Sanders... they can void the people's vote with a party veto.

 

Well that's just mean. I mean then are they trying to fool the party workers and volunteers w/ fake party politics?

 

I'm not a fan of Republicans but at least they don't do stuff like this. 

[onbekende]

To be fair, I don't mind a certain percentage being off-popular vote, basically when people who get a say this way are the ones who have to work with the nominee in the future. Now its like 700-ish for the Democrats (150-ish for the Republicans), thats just too high

[Lysistrata]

With Trump in the race, many in the Republican Party wish they had super delegates in their pocket right now to kill his chance for nomination... and if Trump does not seal up enough delegates to clinch the nomination before the convention, they will try to take it from him and give it to someone else. If Trump does get the nomination, and he loses like many believe he will... I would not put it past the party elite to create a similar system to prevent it from happening again... but then you can just fold up the party because people like me would never go for that. I strongly believe in the people's choice... we just have to cope as best we can with our choices. We have 3 equal branches of government to do that... but some Presidents like to do everything in their power to make them not equal.

[onbekende]

Wait, you strongly belief in the people's choice, just up until it infringes on YOUR choice right?

 

I don't want to put Trump as US President to screw us all over, but he can be Nevada Governor for all I care, should get us a few laughs

[Lysistrata]

Wait, you strongly belief in the people's choice, just up until it infringes on YOUR choice right?

 

I don't want to put Trump as US President to screw us all over, but he can be Nevada Governor for all I care, should get us a few laughs

I really don't know what you mean by that... is there a point I'm missing? or are you just insulting me again?

[davidrbr]

It's funny Lys you have both parties switched in your head or your in another world, Republicans don't believe in women rights Democrats do, Republicans want to make it harder for voters but Democrats want to protect voters rights. Oh and the reason democrats don't go on FOX news isn't because they have secrets it's because FOX "news" is a far right nutty show that mostly reports false information. I'm surprised you created this thread since you are a republican and I find your reason for creating the thread "I want people to know what is going on" really funny and kind of insulting. 

[Lysistrata]

Hello David! So nice to see you again.

 

I'm a Republican David... we believe in Constitutional rights for all Americans... not special rights carved out, or created, for specific people. We Republicans abolished slavery, David... because all Americans have the same rights. There are no special rights because you're a woman, a Greek, an Asian, a blonde, a Jew, or a man... just plain Constitutional rights... for all.

 

Rights are not something that has to be provided... you are confusing rights with entitlements and privileges. You didn't specify what "rights" for women you say we are against. Are you talking about abortion? The Supreme Court has ruled that it is within the law for a woman to seek, and have an abortion performed. It is not a "right".... in the eyes of the law... it's not murder. There are many that believe that abortion is murder... many of these people follow a religion... they have the "right" to believe that.

 

No one has a "right" to vote... it's a privilege. Like a driver license, it can be regulated and revoked. Your ability to vote requires you to register, qualify, and be "provided" with the proper license to exercise the legal action.

 

Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps, Obamacare... and all the rest are "entitlements"... not "rights".

 

Democrats don't go on Fox News because they are scared to death of answering the hard questions. Bernie Sanders was on Chris Wallace's show this morning, and Chris confronted him on the fact that Fox News was boycotted from hosting a debate for them... he responded that he would be willing to do a Fox hosted debate if they had an agreement on the questions that would be asked, and if the DNC agreed to it. Your description of Fox News was not in his response whatsoever... they are frightened of any questions that Conservatives want to ask them.

 

I create these threads because politics is my hobby... like computer games, bowling, and Tacate fueled jacuzzi's with my wife. I have a passion for it... I also happen to be a Conservative. I really don't care if it bothers you, but if you learn something from it... even if you learn that you just hate me more... then I have succeeded in my objective.

[Sir Robert de Dudley]

Omg wow really another Republican taking created for ending slavery..Sorry but go to school and read up on American history of politics, the Republican party during Abe Lincoln was the LIBERAL party of the time. The names of the parties don't mean much throughout history. For example the republicans also call themselves the GOP the grand old party but actually the Democrats are the older party trancing themselves back to the original Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson. There are different periods of American politics and when at times some parties are created and others cease to exist or they are restructured to what the current culture of America is. Abe Lincoln would never be a Republican into days standers maybe the only thing the Republican party of that time has in similar to today's time would be the support for big business. Politics changes with the culture of the people who exhibit the practice of the politics. This is way I believe that a progressive stance is truly the only sensible outlook, things change so must the politics of the world. You can't be conservative for ever on every issue it just don't work. And also why our constitution and bill of rights can change, and why I believe that our founding fathers allowed these things to be put into the formation of our government. 

[Lysistrata]

Sorry Sir Robert, the Democrats were a racist party when they were created, and stayed a racist party until Lyndon Johnson. It was then the Progressives decided to start buying the black vote with favors and entitlements. The first significant Democrat elected to President after the Civil War was the Progressive, Woodrow Wilson, and he was a complete, total, unabashed... racist.

 

The Republican Party was created for the purpose of the abolition of slavery. We created the Constitutional amendment, that Democrats refused to include, until they got the crap beat out of them. Freeing the slaves was not a liberal position... it was a moral position. Only a Democrat would claim that if they lived back in 1859... they would for sure be a Republican. You crack me up. Democrats have enslaved the blacks once again... with cheap table scraps. It's immoral.

[onbekende]

 

Wait, you strongly belief in the people's choice, just up until it infringes on YOUR choice right?

 

I don't want to put Trump as US President to screw us all over, but he can be Nevada Governor for all I care, should get us a few laughs

I really don't know what you mean by that... is there a point I'm missing? or are you just insulting me again?

 

You were speaking about believing in "peoples choice", all the while you keep railing against Obama. Last I checked he was a "people's choice" aswell.

 

Heck I approve of people doing opposition to a vested power, its what keeps the process fresh. But railing against the powers that be just cause they are the powers you aren't for is stupid. Any opposition has a tendency to fall into "Lets badmouth all that the ruling side does" and its a fallacy that leads to just more bickering.

 

The US has long ago fallen into a "me vs him" story with the Reps vs Dems 2-party system. Heck even our dozen parties don't properly reflect our nations citizens but its atleast a better "spectrum of choices" then just being black or white. (Which is a double lunacy cause you guys usually are either all black or all white, just a different "flavor" in wording)