Sanders surges in California

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

I do think he can sway America in a positive direction so I agree with u

 

But I also like to be realistic and I think some ppl are hyping up their expectations WAY too high... 

 

Campaigns are the vision and the dream... When it comes time for the real world and real politics, the general rule is always less is accomplished than ppl hoped for and ppl once again get disapointed

 

It's not just about what he can and can pass. Left and right wing policies have positive and negative impacts that to some degree offset eachother

 

The big minimum wage hike here in Ontario is a great example... It did not cause a collapse in employment or investment or recession like the Right Wingers fear mongered...

 

but it did not cause a surge in consumption and purchasing power or a tricklyle up effect in wages leftists were convinced was gonna happen either and some of the negatives the right wing pointed DID occur to offset some of the positives (just not to the degree they thought)

 

In the end neither opposers or supporters were correct... The impact ended up being somewhere in the middle

 

I think Bernie's ideas will bring a lot of good but serious left wing Bernie supporters I think are frankly underestimating some of the downsides too

 

I think on a net basis a lot of his ideas will still be more positive than negative for the average person but probably not the degree of prosperity many are envisioning

 

At least in my opinion

 

Economics is a very fluid thing with many factors, variables and forces that largely offset eachother. So the economy is very hard to look at in a black and white way

 

Also @Woolfsmck I think I worded this better this time then our discussion last time

 

that fine… its all just a blab session anyway … any thoughts you put together will change over time anyway … 

its good to get ideas from others too , so you can formulate what your own ideas will be.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

@Economyjust a few comments...

1. While your realistic and pragmatic view of what is possible may be more accurate to the truth, galvanizing people to vote requires something ambitious and visionary. I do agree that high expectations lead to huge disappointments (see Obama's entire presidency); so, you're definitely right to put caution to the winds. But at the same time, we put a man on the moon when it was said it couldn't be done. There's got a be a balance between saying "yes we can" and "No we cant" and politics tends to go into wild swings between the two. 

 

2. The reality about economics is the business cycle. Everything can't be amazing all the time but the problem we often find ourselves in politically is that we argue for far too long on what the solutions are until the solutions we come up with are trying to address a problem that has exacerbated and evolved into new problems. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

18 minutes ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

This is definitely the pot calling the kettle black. 

Imagine a Bernie supporter thinking they are above being negative about a political opponent in any thread what so ever.

Go ahead use the meme all you want. It's a clear sign of intelligence to speak with memes.

 

This line...  

It is possible to critique a major facet of society, or society itself, and still have to partake in that institution  The difference is that being critical of it is not the same as being accepting of its flaws, or in favor of them. (As in, not every person who uses facebook for political ads is aware that it needs to be stripped of power, nor do they plan to do so even if they say they believe it. Only Bernie/Warren are)

Companies like Facebook have a monopoly on some kinds of information, and potentially democracy itself if we really wanna go there. They should not have so much power over elections, lives, etc. and be so vastly unregulated, and if he's president he will likely make some kind of motion to decrease their power. So would Elizabeth Warren.  The same thing applies to things like Amazon. Part of the problem with monopoly is that it monopolizes, as in snuffs out competition and holds majority control, or even sole control over something. There are not really alternatives he could choose and receive similar results because of that monopoly, (which is again, the problem), along with the fact that basically everyone is on Facebook.

The meme is pointing out that this kind of attack "you criticize something, yet partake in it!!?!!" is silly.

I don't love everything about American politics, and I'm sure you don't either. BUT, it is our only political system, and we are engaged with it regardless, not even necessarily by choice really.

Going off of your logic, I could similarly say "Hmm, you don't think America is perfect, yet you live in America? What a hypocrite. Please quit your job, move to Canada, and never speak of this again!"

 

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

Whew look at Bernie and his Latino support, absolutely crushing it 

Please ignore the anti-Bernie troll, they pop up in every thread about him, making the worst and most banal arguments. Completely obsessed 

[Morphine Prince 109,729]

Look at hoe they hijacked a thread about a poll and turned it into a FB discussion.

Don't ignore the poll 

[Morphine Prince 109,729]

2 minutes ago, Marilyn MonHoe said:

Whew look at Bernie and his Latino support, absolutely crushing it 

I was told Bernie only appealed to white men, looks like they're wrong?!?

 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

4 minutes ago, Marilyn MonHoe said:

Whew look at Bernie and his Latino support, absolutely crushing it 

Please ignore the anti-Bernie troll, they pop up in every thread about him, making the worst and most banal arguments. Completely obsessed 

Love. Good day. 

Awe. Bernie supporters showing their glowing love and empathy. They are truly the best and most kind people on the internet.

 

[Economy 52,933]

7 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

that fine… its all just a blab session anyway … any thoughts you put together will change over time anyway … 

its good to get ideas from others too , so you can formulate what your own ideas will be.

They do. I've altered some opinions slightly overtime... U have to otherwise it means ur not growing and learning anything since no one actually knows everything and is right on everything so if u never change any positions whatsoever on anything ur probably a stubborn person 

 

U also gotta admit anyone can have flaws with thinking and reasoning I remind myself of that constantly and do my very best not to be biased

 

I follow Right wing, centre wing and left wing channels, podcasts and YouTube channels alike... All across the spectrum.

 

That's how much I want to take into account all views to form an opinion... And all of them have things I agree with and things I don't agree with. But I listen first before deciding

 

As the old saying goes. U got 2 years and only 1 mouth. Listen and think before u blab 

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

25 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Strongly disagree. By taking the money in the general, you have become compromised. It's just delusional to think that corporate interests are going to fund politicians out of the goodness of their hearts. Yes, citizens united is a problem but is not the cause of the issue. It's actually another case, Buckley vs. Valeo, which argued that independent contributions from corporations did not result in corruption. Public policy over the last 40 or so years since that court case has proven that to be incorrect. Bernie has specifically argued for getting this overturned and is the real campaign finance reform we need along with publicly funded elections. 

 Bernie has proven that he can be competitive in spending for a general election and it's also easy to point out that Trump spend less money than Clinton in 2016 and she still lost.  

Note: I understand you're saying that we gotta play the rules of the game but the reality is that if we always play by the rules, we're always going to play the same game. 

Relevant is that Bernie just spent his first ad buy of Super Tuesday States: 2.5M in Texas and California. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/480239-sanders-launches-25-million-television-ad-buy-in-california-texas

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/126/buckley-v-valeo

Thank you.

The notion that we must play the game in order to win is immediately disproven by the success of people who did not play the game.

I think that is one of the most dangerous parts of Bernie Sanders candidacy to establishment democrats.

If he shows that you can win a general election without taking donations (read: Bribes) from corrupting forces like lobbyists, billionaire donors, etc. in exchange for campaign promises, it breaks the illusion that the way our system works MUST be this way.

It's actually, IMO, one of the reasons why AOC's popularity is what it is. A bartender, who had small dollar donations, used her own money at times, and went door knocking for months won a seat in Congress against an Incumbent establishment figure who outspent her 10-1.

Pete Buttigieg's talking point about "pocket change" and the idea that we are shooting ourselves in the foot is just entirely debunked by the fact that Bernie Sanders has not only raised more money than any candidate while not taking corporate donations, but he also has more individual donations than Donald Trump. To ignore this and scream "but we need the money!?!?!" is silly to me, like its right in front of your faces

Also, again, Hillary outspent Trump and lost. While there would seem to be a correlation between money spent and political success, the correlation is clearly more related to the ability to spread a message and to spread it effectively than the spending of the money itself or the amount. A political ad made for free by a fan on the internet and virally shared 10 million times on facebook could have a similar effect to millions of dollars of ads in theory. And the efficacy of political ads is usually less about their content, but their spread and repetition which appeals to human cognitive biases. An effective ad that cost less could spread more than a shitty annoying ad that no one cares about but that cost more for example.

[Economy 52,933]

20 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

@Economyjust a few comments...

1. While your realistic and pragmatic view of what is possible may be more accurate to the truth, galvanizing people to vote requires something ambitious and visionary. I do agree that high expectations lead to huge disappointments (see Obama's entire presidency); so, you're definitely right to put caution to the winds. But at the same time, we put a man on the moon when it was said it couldn't be done. There's got a be a balance between saying "yes we can" and "No we cant" and politics tends to go into wild swings between the two. 

 

2. The reality about economics is the business cycle. Everything can't be amazing all the time but the problem we often find ourselves in politically is that we argue for far too long on what the solutions are until the solutions we come up with are trying to address a problem that has exacerbated and evolved into new problems.

Unfortunately that's the price and cost that democracy comes with

 

While I'm not advocating for any kind of dictatorship or return to monarchy that led to all kinds of abuse and unaccountability of those in power...

 

Democracy does have 1 major flaw that authoritarian government systems did not have... And that is that things often take forever to get done

 

In democracy more opinions matter. More sides fight for their voice... Parties and politicians have to argue and scrutinize every idea in detail and pros and cons etc

 

The very system we have by nature does not allow for things to usually be speedy. This thing about taking too long to address things is the cost of democracy I'm talking about. Everything is slower because no one calls the shot and then that's the end of it

 

Everything in life has the pros and cons. Nothing can ever be perfect

[StuckInMyMind 5,930]

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

20 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

I was told Bernie only appealed to white men, looks like they're wrong?!?

 

They can’t refute the information in the OP so they have to deflect into something else to try and smear Bernie 

Trying to paint Bernie as a hypocrite over allegations of dark money while Biden has an actual Super PAC supporting him when he initially said that he didn’t need one. His tune changed once his campaign started running out of money 

Once upon a time this user also claimed that “We shouldn’t be attacking someone who could win the nomination”, yet they pop up in every Bernie thread and attack him 

Imagine having no sense of self awareness and bathing in your hypocrisy 

 

[LibraLove 1,281]

1 hour ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Of course he's paying Facebook millions of dollars in advertising. For someone who hates Facebook he gives them alot of ad money. Every time I scroll there is literally like three sponsored by Bernie ads. Such a hypocrite. 

As someone said the other day in a completely different thread, you really give off "Yet you participate in society. Curious." meme vibes really hard.