Sanders with an S | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Sanders with an S

Stu said:
What was idiotic was treating the fairly and duly and overwhelmingly twice elected President of the United States of America like a pariah.
Click to expand...

You mean…he didn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for all the peace he has brought around the world? Hahaha
Seriously though…I agree.
 
Stu said:
What was idiotic was treating the fairly and duly and overwhelmingly twice elected President of the United States of America like a pariah.
Click to expand...


How many times has the GOP voted to repeal affordable care act now?
Especially when the public overwhelmingly likes it and wants to keep it.
 
I think I would vote sanders. He's the only candidate who's consistent in what he says and knows what he is talking about.

[video=youtube;JXo5fe7dYWk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXo5fe7dYWk[/video]


Just saw this video of his, honestly its quite inspiring considering hes been saying the same stuff more than 20 years now.
[video=youtube;rtBVuye4fZQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtBVuye4fZQ[/video]

Hmmm and he gets things done, and done right :O
[video=youtube;LOnN3GSRUPQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOnN3GSRUPQ[/video]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rawr
12802711_10154585502767908_4546338977521159684_n.jpg
 
Eventhorizon said:
I think its relevant that he did nit receive a steady paycheck until 40. Why would someone believe its ok to collect unemployment insurance when its possible to have a full time job? Thats mooching off the system at working Americans expense. The average American cant live that way and I believe it shows hes completely out of touch with what it means to be a working class American.
Click to expand...

But he didn't. The article states that it mostly had to do with how much time and struggle he had to face to work with remuneration in public service. Your last phrase strikes me as funny with the article you've posted, it's contradictory. Maybe you're just too convinced of him being a lazy ass red socialist (which he isn't). But oh, well.
Not that i have any investment in Sanders being this or that. Not really my bussiness. I don't even think he's going to win.
 
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • march_2_16.jpg
    march_2_16.jpg
    98.8 KB · Views: 47
I hate posters like this, mixing facts with an obvious bias. Let's just stick to the facts:

  • For the democratic party,
    2,383 delegates are needed to win the nomination​
  • As of March 3, 2016:
    • 1,052 delegates have pledged to Hillary [457 superdelegates]
    • 427 have pledged to Sanders [22 superdelegates]
    • The numbers in this poster have subtracted superdelegates [presumably since they can change their vote]

So the crux here is the probability that the superdelegates will switch their stance. Yes, it happened in 2008. How likely is it it will happen again?
I don't see a problem in reporting the number of pledged, because i think this is an important number to record. Your NYTimes source does not hide the fact [though it's not exceptionally clear either] of these superdelegates. It's not always a conspiracy - it's a valid metric. Superdelegates are 'real' delegates by any stance.

I'll see if i can dig anything up hinting at the probability of the superdelegates' votes changing.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#Comparison_to_pledged_delegates


Stu said:
attachment.php
Click to expand...
 
For what its worth between the two, Sanders is less evil than Hillary.
 
The problem with posters and ideas like this is these ideas are somewhat nebulous and have differing opinions:

E.g. what is a "fair share," why should some have to pay more than others, etc.

But yes, I agree, his ideas for the most part are not, by definition radical, at least to younger generations.

Skarekrow said:
12802711_10154585502767908_4546338977521159684_n.jpg
Click to expand...
 
In addendum to my last post:

  • I think it will be fascinating to see what will happen in the next few election cycles as the generations start shifting. Although my age range typically has poor voter turnout. I imagine when younger folks go the the polls as much as the older age bracket we will probably see a more "liberal" tilt
  • While free college sounds nice, I think Sanders could get a lot more support with "heavily discounted" tuition as well. anyone know (@skarekrow) if his plan applies to like state schools? Or could you pick any college or what?
  • It'd be really interested to see how the market and GDP and such would change if college was either free or heavily discounted. A lot more people qualified for more jobs, for sure. Would it saturate the market? Make companies even more picky in hiring? Increase our productivity and GDP? It would be interesting to see.
  • Anyone know Sanders' stance on H1Bs? i imagine he's for cutting that number down and hiring more domestically? I'll have to look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skarekrow
rawr said:
The problem with posters and ideas like this is these ideas are somewhat nebulous and have differing opinions:

E.g. what is a "fair share," why should some have to pay more than others, etc.

But yes, I agree, his ideas for the most part are not, by definition radical, at least to younger generations.
Click to expand...

Well…what’s really irritating are the generations that benefitted from these things in the 50’s, 60’s, and most of the 70’s like affordable college…affordable healthcare…corporations paying their fair share….are the one’s crying about giving to subsequent generations.
If they could see the monopolies we have in the country today Johnson and Ike would roll over in their graves.
It was never supposed to go too far below a certain percentage…that was one of those pesky regulations that the GOP and the Tea Baggers have always wanted to do away with and keep away. That was to insure true actual competition that is essential to a Capitalist system…we smashed the rule and look at what we have…the illusion of differences of opinion…Fox, CNN, MSNBC…they are all laughing to the banks. “Hey did you hear what so and so said over at Fox?” “I know and then so and so said that other thing at MSNBC back at them…hahahaha…look at the sheep scatter.”
And sorry people but the "Reagan tax cut experiment” where it’s supposed to trickle down and shit…doesn’t work.
You build your foundation first always…that means treating the working/middle class like they deserve to be treated…man and woman aren’t even paid fairly in this day and age…are you fucking kidding me? What year is this? Woman have been wearing their big girl pants for a long time and most can run circles around us men - they shouldn’t be paid a percentage of what I make because I have a dick.
Some people used to pay taxes in the 91% range…and no one is proposing going back to those numbers…not even close.
Most of Sander’s plans introduce single digit percentage changes and taxes on things like market speculation.
I’m sure all those investment bankers can wait the extra two weeks to finish their fucking wine cellar made from imported, endangered wood.
And we have an estimated $21 Trillion parked in offshore island tax havens…so who is paying for the social programs the middle class and poor need….the middle class and poor….then Fox demonizes them and blames them for the financial ruin of this country.
Ugh.
 
Last edited:
rawr said:
In addendum to my last post:

  • I think it will be fascinating to see what will happen in the next few election cycles as the generations start shifting. Although my age range typically has poor voter turnout. I imagine when younger folks go the the polls as much as the older age bracket we will probably see a more "liberal" tilt
  • While free college sounds nice, I think Sanders could get a lot more support with "heavily discounted" tuition as well. anyone know (@skarekrow) if his plan applies to like state schools? Or could you pick any college or what?
  • It'd be really interested to see how the market and GDP and such would change if college was either free or heavily discounted. A lot more people qualified for more jobs, for sure. Would it saturate the market? Make companies even more picky in hiring? Increase our productivity and GDP? It would be interesting to see.
  • Anyone know Sanders' stance on H1Bs? i imagine he's for cutting that number down and hiring more domestically? I'll have to look.
Click to expand...

It takes time for the liberal mindset instilled in students to erode. A few years in the real world and most of them will turn conservative.
 
rawr said:
I hate posters like this, mixing facts with an obvious bias. Let's just stick to the facts:

  • For the democratic party,
    2,383 delegates are needed to win the nomination​
  • As of March 3, 2016:
    • 1,052 delegates have pledged to Hillary [457 superdelegates]
    • 427 have pledged to Sanders [22 superdelegates]
    • The numbers in this poster have subtracted superdelegates [presumably since they can change their vote]

So the crux here is the probability that the superdelegates will switch their stance. Yes, it happened in 2008. How likely is it it will happen again?
I don't see a problem in reporting the number of pledged, because i think this is an important number to record. Your NYTimes source does not hide the fact [though it's not exceptionally clear either] of these superdelegates. It's not always a conspiracy - it's a valid metric. Superdelegates are 'real' delegates by any stance.

I'll see if i can dig anything up hinting at the probability of the superdelegates' votes changing.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#Comparison_to_pledged_delegates
Click to expand...

The super delegates were pledged to H Clinton in O8 then switched as she lost primaries. (Haters gotta hate)
 
People keep talking about how many breaks etc... corporations get. The average citizen has no clue how much a corporation pays in taxes etc.
 
Skarekrow said:
Well…what’s really irritating are the generations that benefitted from these things in the 50’s, 60’s, and most of the 70’s like affordable college…affordable healthcare…corporations paying their fair share….are the one’s crying about giving to subsequent generations.
If they could see the monopolies we have in the country today Johnson and Ike would roll over in their graves.
It was never supposed to far below a certain percentage…that was one of those pesky regulations that the GOP and the Tea Baggers have always wanted to do away with and keep away. That was to insure true actual competition that is essential to a Capitalist system…we smashed the rule and look at what we have…the illusion of differences of opinion…Fox, CNN, MSNBC…they are all laughing to the banks. “Hey did you hear what so and so said over at Fox?” “I know and then so and so said that other thing at MSNBC back at them…hahahaha…look at the sheep scatter.”
And sorry people but the "Reagan tax cut experiment” where it’s supposed to trickle down and shit…doesn’t work.
You build your foundation first always…that means treating the working/middle class like the deserve to be treated…man and woman aren’t even paid fairly in this day and age…are you fucking kidding me? What year is this? Woman have been wearing their big girl pants for a long time and most can run circles around us men - they shouldn’t be paid a percentage of what I make because I have a dick.
Some people used to pay taxes in the 91% range…and no one is proposing going back to those numbers…not even close.
Most of Sander’s plans introduce single digit percentage changes and taxes on things like market speculation.
I’m sure all those investment bankers can wait the extra two weeks to finish their fucking wine cellar made from imported, endangered wood.
And we have an estimated $21 Trillion parked in offshore island tax havens…so who is paying for the social programs the middle class and poor need….the middle class and poor….then Fox demonizes them and blames them for the financial ruin of this country.
Ugh.
Click to expand...

I'm agree with some of this stuff, and the previous generations definitely did have it differently than us. I'm kind of curious though if you or I could find a non-political (lol) or just factual site about Bernie's proposals (I've seen his stances on his site) and possible effects.

I'm in a bit of an odd position, where i'm sort of in-between, undecided on some issues, and mixed with parties on others. I'd be curious to see though like a factual analysis/prediction of Bernie's economical ideas (im well aware of his social ideas). I've read mixed things from economists.

I do think though, it'd be a very interesting 'experiment' to see what would happen were he to win. I definitely think it would take longer than 4 years to achieve much of what he wants to do, and, if he were elected, he could expect resistance from both parties in Congress and the public. I think just about every president in history (i need a source for this lol) has been less productive/impactful than they had hoped. i'm pretty sure that's to do with a mix of the existing system and some intentional resistance, as well as some over-promised campaign ideas they could never deliver in the first place. Executive branch can pass orders and veto or make suggestions, but ultimately the creation and passing of the laws comes down to Congress, and the turnover/change with Congress as a whole is a lot lower than the presidency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back