Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 123456789
    Online

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,330
    Likes Received:
    3,083

    Question from someone who is politically ignorant (for u.s)

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by 123456789, Oct 14, 2015.

    Let's get things out of the way. I am not very interested in politics. I know very little about politics. I am not interested in spending inordinate amounts of time learning. I am sincere in my ignorance and am not arguing, but asking for other's insights. Let's accept these things as given. Let's also, for the sake of this discussion, pretend that I think votes matter ( I am not sure they do but we will pretend otherwise.)
    I do believe that corporations and the wealthy in general have a disproportionate amount of influence in this country(U.S), and I believe the statistics that there poor rich gap is increasing and the middle class is shrinking. I also see homeless everywhere, so I believe that this is a real issue in our U.S.

    Bernie Sanders accuses our government of being an oligarchy. He basically makes all the points I made up above and many more, including addressing our climate issues. These are his twelve agendas on his site.
    1. Rebuilding Our Crumbling Infrastructure
    2. Reversing Climate Change
    3. Creating Worker Co-ops
    4. Growing the Trade Union Movement
    5. Raising the Minimum Wage
    6. Pay Equity for Women Workers
    7. Trade Policies that Benefit American Workers
    8. Making College Affordable for All
    9. Taking on Wall Street
    10. Health Care as a Right for All
    11. Protecting the Most Vulnerable Americans
    12. Real Tax Reform

    So my question is, why would I not want to vote for Sanders, and why would anyone else (minus the wealthy elite) not for Sanders? I am not arguing. I am asking.
     
    Lea`Brooks likes this.
  2. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,255
    Location:
    California, US
    If you're a progressive and share those views, that's who you would vote for. If you like establishment candidates and entrenched political powers, you'd vote for Clinton or Bush (with respect to Clinton, you'd also not have to care that you can't believe anything the candidate tells you).

    So far, the focus group results I've seen (including CNN's), user responses at places like CNN, MSNBC, Slate, and the like, results from online search and social media analytics etc all have Sanders winning the debate by a substantial margin. But Clinton is the establishment candidate, and what you're going to see in the primary media sources is probably the opinion that she won. It's how you try to shift votes for people who are disconnected and not thinking. All Clinton had to do was not tank in order to give the talking heads enough to hang an argument on, which she managed to do.

    But yeah...Given what you said, you'd vote for Sanders unless you were all talk and willing to sell out your vote for the candidate the establishment wants you to pick :)

    Queue mindless Clinton cheerleaders to enter the thread...
     
    JadeX, 123456789 and Lea`Brooks like this.
  3. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,255
    Location:
    California, US
    123456789 likes this.
  4. Lea`Brooks
    Offline

    Lea`Brooks Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,608
    Likes Received:
    1,711
    Location:
    Virginia, United States
    People hear the word "socialist" in relation to Sanders and get scared. But he calls himself a democratic socialist, and democratic socialism is not socialism. It's not the scary thing people think it is.

    Another big reason people don't want to vote for him is because people think he can't win. And if you look at only media coverage, he can't. But if you look at the volunteers, the rallies, and Facebook -- the fact that Sanders has almost one million more followers than Clinton, the event group planned in DC with more than 120k RSVPs, the polls showing that he won the debate by a landslide, and the fact that he not only gained the most new followers and was the most googled person in the Debate last night -- it paints a completely different picture.

    As Sanders said in the Debate, the older folks are the main group that votes. And Sanders is winning over the millennials, as well as some older voters. The younger crowd is turning out for him. So he has a very good chance at winning.

    The media is biased. CNN's own poll showed he won the debate by 81%, yet their "experts" say Clinton won. One could argue that millennials are the ones mostly voting, since they are the most active in social media. But the majority CNN's focus group also pegged Sanders as the winner. Yet he's not getting any recognition for it. It's not even making the news. It's part of this reason people don't think he can win. But dig deeper, you'll see a completely different side to this race. He's gaining on Clinton and quickly.
     
  5. Shadowfax
    Offline

    Shadowfax Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    In the UK, Jeremy Corbyn has just been elected as leader of the Labour party, with a similarly progressive/socialist programme. The media is having a feeding frenzy about all his bad attributes...so far, all they've found is his poor dress sense! But, the big message they're putting out is that he'll make the party unelectable...that all the middle-of-the-road party supporters won't vote for him. A relative of mine who's a union official is going along with this.

    When a union official is buying the media line, how can somebody like Corbyn or Sanders stand a chance?
     
    123456789 likes this.
  6. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,255
    Location:
    California, US
    @Lea`Brooks

    Last national polls I saw show Sanders can win as well as Clinton in a general election.

    The divide between Clinton and Sanders is the divide between fake and genuine, both between candidates and their respective supporters.
     
    Lea`Brooks likes this.
  7. Bookster
    Offline

    Bookster Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Right between the eyes
    I'm not convinced Sanders can't win, either, but anyone who actually expects him to accomplish anything on his list is naive in the extreme. Do his supporters expect the oligarchy to roll over and go away just because a class warrior is elected president? Despite his (and Hillary's) threats of executive action, the president still can't accomplish much without the cooperation of Congress, and the rich people who aren't themselves members of Congress own those who are, and will expect value for their money.
     
    123456789 likes this.
  8. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,255
    Location:
    California, US
    I think everyone is aware of the situation with Congress. Doesn't change the Presidential calculus.
     
  9. Bookster
    Offline

    Bookster Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Right between the eyes
    Terribly sorry for expressing an opinion, and of course it does.
     
  10. 123456789
    Online

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,330
    Likes Received:
    3,083
    Are you suggesting we should consider candidates with more obtainable goals?
     
  11. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,255
    Location:
    California, US
    You could got for a moderate like Webb, but with the current Congress it's not going to make a great deal of difference, except to the extent the candidate wants to go along with the Congressional agenda...so, if you're a Republican you might favor Webb as a Dem alternative if your own side can't win.
     
    123456789 likes this.
  12. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,601
    Likes Received:
    5,875
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Despite all the 'rah rah Bernie' you hear, his entire premise is we need a "movement" to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. He admits that without that movement he cannot accomplish any of his goals.

    As wonderful as it sounds, it's not going to happen. And as solid as his effort is, he's not the charismatic leader that is capable of growing the kind of movement it would take.
     
  13. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,601
    Likes Received:
    5,875
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Don't mind him, he's a Clinton hater. You are correct, Sanders cannot deliver anything he's pushing without a mass uprising of dissent in this country and the make-up of the Congress is some pretty strong evidence Bernie's "movement" is not going to be sufficient.

    I hope the Sanders supporters continue with their enthusiasm, they are needed to change the make-up of the Congress.
     
  14. Bookster
    Offline

    Bookster Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Right between the eyes
    So am I. I'd work for Sanders before I'd vote for Hillary, but I think the question of how a candidate (from either party) would interact with the likely congressional makeup during his/her administration is a vital criterion.
     
  15. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,255
    Location:
    California, US
    I don't think it's that pertinent here. The Congressional makeup has to change. I think the current crop of GOPers probably hate Hillary more than they do Obama, so you'd get what Obama has - just blocking everything, if not worse. As I said, the calculus doesn't really enter into the Presidential consideration in this case, unless you think Sanders would be more likely to get things done with Congress. I don't know how likely that is, but he doesn't draw the irrational hate from the GOP that Hillary does.
     
  16. 123456789
    Online

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,330
    Likes Received:
    3,083
    Do you agree that the problems Bernie discusses exist? Do you agree we live in an oligarchy? If yes to either or both, do you think this problem should be addressed? If yes, how do you think it could be addressed?

    It sounds to me that Sanders hopes to win presidency, and after winning, get the support of American voters to help him make his changes. Is that so? If yes, do you know how american voters could change things? Just by putting pressure on congressmen? I looked online but iv only seen one mention of a draft Bill in Vermont that would limit congress...
     
  17. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,601
    Likes Received:
    5,875
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    It is. And Sanders supporters are wishfully imagining this great political movement overcoming that inconvenient fact. The odds are just as good that if Trump is elected there will be jobs and America will be great.
     
  18. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,601
    Likes Received:
    5,875
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    I absolutely believe all that. I just don't see a national movement of people rising up against the machine.

    So what do we get with Sanders? In my opinion we get an even weaker Obama. And much as I think Obama has been an excellent President, I don't think Sanders has that kind of talent. Sanders has the right goals but no way to achieve them. Obama had the right goals and a lot of talent. I don't think he had the foreign policy experience but it's impossible to know if Clinton would have been better. Now however, it's a different story. Clinton has the right goals and a wealth of foreign policy experience as well.

    When we were at war in Vietnam, there was a huge movement that stood up to the government and made themselves be heard. It took a decade, and the real threat of thousands of young Americans dying in a senseless war to get that kind of motivation one needs for a 'movement'. It took college students getting shot on campuses. It took people going to jail.

    Same with the civil rights movement, it took deaths and incredible injustice. There's a new movie coming out that depicts the real suffragette movement. It was not just a bunch of ladies holding up signs like the image we saw in Mary Poppins.

    Those are examples of the kinds of trauma a public has to endure before people rise up in a strong enough 'movement' to effect change. As bad as the income inequality is, it's not to the level it takes to motivate a movement. Look how quickly Occupy Wall Street died out. And it had begun to burn in fires all over Europe. But the economy was tanking and now it isn't. And all those occupy moments burnt themselves out.

    We'll know by the time the primary votes actually start coming in if Sanders' movement is materializing. I don't see it.
     
    123456789 likes this.
  19. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,255
    Location:
    California, US
    @123456789

    Broadly speaking in the U.S., you have those people who only care whether something or someone has a (D) or (R) in front of it, and regardless of the issue will support it because the (D) or (R) represents their "team." Think of it like sports fans or religious fanatics. Those people on the left side of the U.S. spectrum make up a lot of the Hillary Clinton support (e.g. Ginger's approach seems to me to be to tow the Democratic establishment line, whatever that happens to be in any given instance).

    Apart from those (D) and (R) fanclub members, which we have too many of, you have principled people who don't line up lockstep with any political party but cast issue-based votes. That number seems to have been growing in recent years but is still too low. And of course you also have those totally uninterested in the political process.
     
    123456789 likes this.
  20. BrianIff
    Offline

    BrianIff I'm so piano, a bad punctuator. Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    Canada
    I think I just realized something; I'll preface it by saying, in itself, it is not necessarily good or bad, and I'm actually leaning towards it being a good thing. I can't think of any other country in the world where outsiders and mavericks have a chance at winning the party leadership. Can anyone think of any?
     
    123456789 likes this.
  21. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,255
    Location:
    California, US
    I don't know. I think it is good, in theory, to have that kind of mobility in the political class, but at least on the right in the U.S. it has proven to result in some nutty political figures.
     
  22. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,911
    Likes Received:
    5,437
    They exist. He's right, on most things. If he has any reasonable chance (above, oh, twenty percent) of being elected, I'm voting for him for the primary and hoping against hope that he gets the Presidency. Right now, I think that means I'm voting for him. I think that he won the debate on substance, and barely lost to Clinton on style and gloss. The others were a waste of space, as far as I'm concerned.

    But even if he doesn't win the primary, I'm voting against the Republican, which means I'm voting for the Democrat.

    As for addressing the problems with a Congress firmly against him, I actually liked the fact that his discussion of gun control acknowledge political realities. To me, that means that he is capable of compromise.
     
    Lea`Brooks and 123456789 like this.
  23. BrianIff
    Offline

    BrianIff I'm so piano, a bad punctuator. Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    Canada
    It's a two-way street, though, as I'm sure you know. There is a strain of thought that says candidates need Wall St.'s blessing, especially in campaign financing, though, that I'm not committed to but should be replied to in Sanders' case.
     
  24. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,255
    Location:
    California, US
    There was a poll (CNN?) that had him doing as well or better than Clinton against each of the various GOP candidates. I think it is likely that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will win, and I don't see anything that leads me to believe Sanders has a substantially lesser chance than Hillary in the general election. That's sort of a mantra, but doesn't look correct based on hypothetical polling I've seen.
     
  25. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,601
    Likes Received:
    5,875
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Yes because certainly if anyone has a different opinion than you do they must be blindly following dogma. :rolleyes:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page