Bernie Sanders Plan

[azgreg]

I just really hate Hillary Clinton. I've already got a $500 dollar bet going with my girlfriend for who will win the 2016 election, and I'm betting on Trump. [emoji48]

While I don't particularly like Trump, hopefully he can expose her in the presidential debates. That's what I'd hoped Bernie would've done more often in the Democratic debates.

What's your girlfriend going to do with her $500? :mrgreen:

 

[TheGoverness]

What's your girlfriend going to do with her $500? :mrgreen:

I have no ****ing clue. She won't tell me what she plans to do with the $$$ if she wins.

 

[Casper]

That is, what the long and grueling process we have been watching unfold is all about: Deciding which candidate in most desirable, who fits the party's ideas best, with whom the party members identify most. Who they think will represent their will.

That is, what is so devastating. Think of what that says about the American people.

It does not say anything good. Especially when one understands that trump did not actually have 50% of Republicans supporting him and he won the nomination anyway.

 

[joG]

It does not say anything good. Especially when one understands that trump did not actually have 50% of Republicans supporting him and he won the nomination anyway.

That is nor surprising, though, as 50 percent is no requirement and there were a large number of contenders to weed out.

 

[Surrealistik]

That's one of the most troubling things I have with Bernie. He's been making BANK for 30+ years and his net worth after all that is roughly $350,000.

I don't know that I trust a man with a track record like to that to manage our economy.

An upper middle class (at best) income != making bank.

Further, since when has managing a household ever been remotely comparable to managing a national economy (which the president doesn't actually do)? That said, I'd far sooner trust Sanders with the economy than the Clinton alternative who is drowning in outstanding ties and implicit obligations to major industry groups that are notorious for repeatedly and egregiously attempting to shape regulatory and tax legislation through politician proxies to their benefit at the expense of virtually everyone else, including instances that were responsible for the 2007-8 catastrophe.

Can you imagine the argument he'll use.

Superdelegates:

Please vote against the most experienced and one of the longest serving and most liberal members of YOUR party.
Please vote against the first woman presidential candidate of a major party in the USA.
Please vote against a woman who has raised more money for your candidates through the years than almost any other member.
Please vote for an untested old white guy who wasn't even a member of your party until December because some poll 6 months too early show that he might have a better chance of beating Trump that Hillary (who is also beating Trump).

Yeah, I don't see a significant number of super delegates changing their minds.

Personally I feel the superdelegates should vote for whereever the popular vote lies barring further developments in the e-mail scandal. That said, to present this as the sum of the argument against Clinton as nominee is utterly disingenuous.

I disagree, making sure that a candidate running as representative of a Party and their ideals should be a requirement. It would be real simple just make it a requirement that a person must have been a Party member for at least four years and have some sort on public stand on the issues prior to even announcing that they are something that they cannot prove. It would eliminate pretenders such as trump from running for a position as a Republican even though they are and have been a supporter of Liberal ideals. Any Party should be allowed to vet their candidates and in fact it looks like it should be implemented as soon as the election is over.

So basically, we should dispense with the pretense of democracy and go full plutocracy/oligarchy? I ask because giving the two major parties which act as gatekeepers to any political office of importance that kind of filtration power would essentially achieve such an outcome.

 

[Casper]

So basically, we should dispense with the pretense of democracy and go full plutocracy/oligarchy? Because giving the two major parties which act as gatekeepers to any political office of importance that kind of filtration power would essentially achieve such an outcome.

Wrong it is a simple requirement, be a Party Member before assuming you can represent the Party. It is Their Party to run as they see fit, they do not have to pander to any outsides if they do not wish to. Don't like the rules then go start your own Party or join another Party. As an Inde I am stuck with who is presented by all the Parties, but I do prefer that when a Party does present a candidate that they present one that represents the ideals of that Party so that we already have some idea where they stand on the issues, I find that more voter friendly than just a big free for all as you suggest.

 

[Surrealistik]

Wrong it is a simple requirement, be a Party Member before assuming you can represent the Party. It is Their Party to run as they see fit, they do not have to pander to any outsides if they do not wish to. Don't like the rules then go start your own Party or join another Party. As an Inde I am stuck with who is presented by all the Parties, but I do prefer that when a Party does present a candidate that they present one that represents the ideals of that Party so that we already have some idea where they stand on the issues, I find that more voter friendly than just a big free for all as you suggest.

The problem with this approach is that it utterly ignores the fundamental realities of American politics: in particular that political power is utterly monopolized by the two major political parties, and that the system is such that competing parties will probably never be able to challenge them. The present in fact serves as living, ongoing evidence and testimony of this, a perfect case study of the resilience of the status quo, and the relative impossibility of any real third party upheaval. Despite record discontentment with the Republicans and Democrats and establishment politics, no third party has managed to ascend to anything close to representing a threat to the current political order, and there's no sign that this will change.

In the event that the Republicans and Democrats didn't utterly domineer the political process, including the avenues for reform which would permit for real change in the status quo (such as the elimination of First Past the Post, control over money in politics, etc), I'd be in full agreement with you. The simple, irrefutable fact is that democracy simply cannot survive in any meaningful form if these parties have strong or worse, absolute powers of filtration, therefore the choice is either keep those powers as marginal as possible, or embrace oligarchy. For me the former is a clear and obvious choice.

 

[robertblake60]

An upper middle class (at best) income != making bank.

Well if their annual income is $250,000 along with government healthcare and cushy pensions from government and educational jobs, then yeah, I think compared to the average household income of like $60,000 I think they're doing pretty damn well for themselves salary wise....financially though, they have not managed their money very well, it's almost embarrassing really.

If I look at what his government positions have paid in sum over the last 30 years I calculate that to be roughly 4.5 million dollars ($150,000/yr), tack on another 1.5 million for his wife's salary (conservative estimate of $50,000/yr) for a total of $6 million in salary (200k/yr). Had he saved even 15% of that money and lived off of just $170,000 minus taxes) he'd have over $4 million in savings right now.

Instead he's lived paycheck to paycheck and has spent almost all of the money his family has made.


Bernie Sanders -

Top 4% of income earners (annually)
Top 20% of net worth

Could have been top 2% of net worth if he had the discipline to save a measly 15% of his income.

 

[Casper]

The problem with this approach is that it utterly ignores the fundamental realities of American politics: in particular that political power is utterly monopolized by the two major political parties, and that the system is such that competing parties will probably never be able to challenge them. The present in fact serves as living, ongoing evidence and testimony of this, a perfect case study of the resilience of the status quo, and the relative impossibility of any real third party upheaval. Despite record discontentment with the Republicans and Democrats and establishment politics, no third party has managed to ascend to anything close to representing a threat to the current political order, and there's no sign that this will change.

In the event that the Republicans and Democrats didn't utterly domineer the political process, including the avenues for reform which would permit for real change in the status quo (such as the elimination of First Past the Post, control over money in politics, etc), I'd be in full agreement with you. The simple, irrefutable fact is that democracy simply cannot survive in any meaningful form if these parties have strong or worse, absolute powers of filtration, therefore the choice is either keep those powers as marginal as possible, or embrace oligarchy. For me the former is a clear and obvious choice.

We are a Republic, we do not elect the President as is done in a true Democracy, the states make that choice, welcome to reality.

 

[Surrealistik]

Well if their annual income is $250,000 along with government healthcare and cushy pensions from government and educational jobs, then yeah, I think compared to the average household income of like $60,000 I think they're doing pretty damn well for themselves salary wise....financially though, they have not managed their money very well, it's almost embarrassing really.

If I look at what his government positions have paid in sum over the last 30 years I calculate that to be roughly 4.5 million dollars ($150,000/yr), tack on another 1.5 million for his wife's salary (conservative estimate of $50,000/yr) for a total of $6 million in salary (200k/yr). Had he saved even 15% of that money and lived off of just $170,000 (minus taxes) he'd have over $4 million in savings right now.

Instead he's lived paycheck to paycheck and has spent almost all of the money his family has made.

Yes, 250k is higher than the mean of 70k as would be expected of an upper middle class income level afforded as standard to Senators.

That said, all of this superfluous detail is an indictment of his ability to be president how?

Again, a household != a national economy. Totally different set of responsibilities and parameters; it's not even close. My sister for example, is irresponsible as **** with her money much to my chagrin, but when it comes to managing her dealership she's extremely diligent and thorough; something that has far more in common with a household than the presidency does.

We are a Republic, we do not elect the President as is done in a true Democracy, the states make that choice, welcome to reality.

Democratic republic.

That said, to be unambiguous, you are effectively advocating for the removal of the democratic component, which I cannot countenance even for a second.

 

[robertblake60]

Again, a household != a national economy. Totally different set of responsibilities and parameters; it's not even close. My sister for example, is irresponsible as **** with her money much to my chagrin, but when it comes to managing her dealership she's extremely diligent and thorough; something that has far more in common with a household than the presidency does.

I can't trust a man/woman to run/lead/have sway over something a complex as our government and national economy when they can't even manage a household's budget. I don't care if they're related. If a cop and a nurse (my neighbors) can manage to have a net worth of over a million but a presidential candidate who's earned over $6MM as a family cannot then I find it extremely troubling.

I wouldn't trust your sister to be president for the same reason (although there are probably others, such as lack of qualifications).

 

[Surrealistik]

I can't trust a man/woman to run/lead/have sway over something a complex as our government and national economy when they can't even manage a household's budget. I don't care if they're related. If a cop and a nurse (my neighbors) can manage to have a net worth of over a million but a presidential candidate who's earned over $6MM as a family cannot then I find it extremely troubling.

I wouldn't trust your sister to be president for the same reason (although there are probably others, such as lack of qualifications).

You seem to be missing the fundamental point in that even someone who is ostensibly poor at managing their personal finances can often be excellent at managing finances where they are responsible for more than themselves; this is not a rare or isolated thing either. Even if I were to grant that Sanders is a spendthrift when it comes to his own income, it doesn't in any way mean he would be an irresponsible president.

 

[robertblake60]

You seem to be missing the fundamental point in that even someone who is ostensibly poor at managing their personal finances can often be excellent at managing finances where they are responsible for more than themselves; this is not a rare or isolated thing either. Even if I were to grant that Sanders is a spendthrift when it comes to his own income, it doesn't in any way mean he would be an irresponsible president.

And a convicted rapist could be a wonderful teacher, but I'm not going to let my (fictional) daughter take his class.

 

[Surrealistik]

And a convicted rapist could be a wonderful teacher, but I'm not going to let my daughter take his class.

Not comparable, just like personal finances are not comparable to the presidency.

And again, Clinton's incestuous and repeatedly demonstrated closeness with those whose policies (administered by proxy via politicians on the take such as herself) actually crashed the national economy should be of far more concern to you.

 

[robertblake60]

And again, Clinton's incestuous and repeatedly demonstrated closeness with those whose policies (administered by proxy via politicians on the take such as herself) actually crashed the national economy should be of far more concern to you.

And yet, when compared to Sanders policies that are most assuredly going to crash our economy....they don't.

Had to LOL at your 'on the take' snipe too. Too funny (and unproven).


None of this matters though. The country got a good look at your guy and have chosen (wisely) to reject him. Sanders will not be the nominee. He will not be the president.

 

[Surrealistik]

And yet, when compared to Sanders policies that are most assuredly going to crash our economy....they don't.

It's actually the inverse; Sanders' policies have not remotely been proven a disaster (in fact they work quite well where implemented, with case studies of success all around the world), yet those promulgated by big finance and implemented by their politician proxies certainly did in 2007-8.

Had to LOL at your 'on the take' snipe too. Too funny (and unproven).

Not at all: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

None of this matters though. The country got a good look at your guy and have chosen (wisely) to reject him. Sanders will not be the nominee. He will not be the president.

It's looking that way thus far; I can only hope California or the e-mails make the difference.

 

[robertblake60]

Not at all: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Somewhere in this PDF it proves that Clinton is 'on the take'?

 

[Surrealistik]

Somewhere in this PDF it proves that Clinton is 'on the take'?

It shows that politicians respond about exclusively to those who invest in their person, campaigns and candidacy with cash and favours, not the people they presumably represent, and there is no reason to believe that Clinton would be any different.

 

[robertblake60]

It shows that politicians respond about exclusively to those who invest in their person, campaigns and candidacy with cash and favours, not the people they presumably represent, and there is no reason to believe that Clinton would be any different.

Got it. Guilt by association.

Do you think that if Sanders were the nominee that he'd decline donations from the same people that give to Clinton? You know, those individual people who work at Goldman Sach's and support socially liberal causes and maybe gun control or a woman's right to choose. Or would he reject those donations because of the employer of those individual citizens.

 

[Surrealistik]

Got it. Guilt by association.

Do you think that if Sanders were the nominee that he'd decline donations from the same people that give to Clinton? You know, those individual people who work at Goldman Sach's and support socially liberal causes and maybe gun control or a woman's right to choose. Or would he reject those donations because of the employer of those individual citizens.

It's not guilt by association, the study is a factual demonstration that virtually every politician who is materially sponsored by corporate interests and the wealthy ends up effectively beholden to them, and votes accordingly. Unless Clinton is a statistical anomaly or some kind of greatly improbable outlier (and there is nothing to suggest she is), she would in overwhelming likelihood engage in the same modes of behaviour.

Sanders has always accepted individual donations as he should (individual donations subject to standard limits are not an issue, whether in the case of Sanders, Clinton or otherwise), not bundled donations (outside of organized labour, which is a pittance compared to those received from Clinton by corporates, even if you believe their influence is subversive/pernicious and to be avoided), corporate contributions or SuperPAC support.

 

[Ntharotep]

Besides the 30+ years of saying the same thing and fighting for the same things without deviation, all of which contradict your's and the OP's biased opinion of him.

Communist!
Sorry. I hadn't seen the stock answer to Sanders' campaign in awhile so I felt bad for it.
Unfortunately, I really don't think sticking to your ethics and to your guns goes very far with modern Americans.

That's why I'd have hoped Bernie would have brought up more about her record during the debates. He really should have IMO.
Hopefully, Trump will try to do that instead.

Yeahhhh. Him falling on his sword in the beginning and saying "we don't give a damn about her emails" was not the best political career move. Though he may have been thinking about the party good but still.
My answer would have been "I can't attest to Hillary Clinton's guilt or innocence. I can only say that the Government is not looking into my own emails."
There were a few times he could have brought the fight a bit more. But hindsight and all that.

That would be very interesting to watch. Stopping candidates from running would reduce the efficiency of the US system and a very significant competitive advantage over multi-party ones.

I think if the Bipartisan Empire started limiting more who can e nominated under their respective parties, you would see independent's grow stronger. Anything that helps bring down the two party system is a good thing.

We are a Republic, we do not elect the President as is done in a true Democracy, the states make that choice, welcome to reality.

I don't feel this way about everything but choosing our president is one place where I think majority should rule. One citizen one vote. Period.
Its easier to bribe or coerce a smaller body of career politicians than it is to buy the entirety of the American voters. And considering how corrupt the parties are, I am pretty sure that corruption is passed down at least a bit to the delegates.

 

[robertblake60]

Sanders has always accepted individual donations as he should (individual donations subject to standard limits are not an issue, whether in the case of Sanders, Clinton or otherwise), not bundled donations (outside of organized labour, which is a pittance compared to those received from Clinton by corporates, even if you believe their influence is subversive/pernicious and to be avoided), corporate contributions or SuperPAC support.

You realize that when Sanders claims that Hillary takes money from the big banks, these sums (i.e. $711,490 from Goldman Sachs from a popular meme) it's made up of individual contributions (up to the limit of $2700) from individual employees who work for Goldman Sachs right???

If individual contributions subject to standard limits are NOT an issue like you said, then you should have nothing to worry about that a lot of Clinton's money comes from INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS who work for financial companies (which is going to be obviously skewed by her career as a politician in NY State).

Goldman Sachs' has NOT contributed $711,000 to Clinton throughout her career....it's the thousands of individual employees who have.

 

[joG]

Communist!
Sorry. I hadn't seen the stock answer to Sanders' campaign in awhile so I felt bad for it.
Unfortunately, I really don't think sticking to your ethics and to your guns goes very far with modern Americans.


Yeahhhh. Him falling on his sword in the beginning and saying "we don't give a damn about her emails" was not the best political career move. Though he may have been thinking about the party good but still.
My answer would have been "I can't attest to Hillary Clinton's guilt or innocence. I can only say that the Government is not looking into my own emails."
There were a few times he could have brought the fight a bit more. But hindsight and all that.


I think if the Bipartisan Empire started limiting more who can e nominated under their respective parties, you would see independent's grow stronger. Anything that helps bring down the two party system is a good thing.


I don't feel this way about everything but choosing our president is one place where I think majority should rule. One citizen one vote. Period.
Its easier to bribe or coerce a smaller body of career politicians than it is to buy the entirety of the American voters. And considering how corrupt the parties are, I am pretty sure that corruption is passed down at least a bit to the delegates.

I know systems with numerous parties quite well and have found them less divers in the breath and depth of competing policies that the US system.

 

[robertblake60]

Here's a good article on what I mentioned.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/1361...om-goldman-sachs-she-was-criticized-for-it-on

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs funded $760,740 of Clinton's career, though the Center notes that the organizations themselves did not make these donations. Rather, the money is from the organizations' PACs — or political action committees — or individual members, employees, owners, and families of said PACs. In the case of Goldman Sachs, individual donors granted her $750,740, and the PACs provided her $10,000.

Note that this total is from 1999-2016. It equates to $45,000 per year divided up among hundreds or thousands of employees. How much influence do you think that would really buy????

 

[Surrealistik]

You realize that when Sanders claims that Hillary takes money from the big banks, these sums (i.e. $711,490 from Goldman Sachs from a popular meme) it's made up of individual contributions (up to the limit of $2700) from individual employees who work for Goldman Sachs right???

If individual contributions subject to standard limits are NOT an issue like you said, then you should have nothing to worry about that a lot of Clinton's money comes from INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS who work for financial companies (which is going to be obviously skewed by her career as a politician in NY State).

Goldman Sachs' has NOT contributed $711,000 to Clinton throughout her career....it's the thousands of individual employees who have.

I don't consider bundled donations to qualify as individual donations.

Further, PAC/SuperPAC support is another major point of divide.

Third, Clinton has received egregious sums for paid speeches to the financial industry.

Also it is worth noting that even outside of bundling not all individual donations are created equal: several max level donations in lieu of hundreds of small ones most definitely implicates undue influence more than the inverse; though I don't have strong objections to a legitimately individual donation (again, non-bundled) within legal limits, I am certainly far more leery of those at the maximum amount.