Feel the Bern!

[Yojimbo]

Bernie pulled the largest crowd to date of any of the candidates running for president. In Madison, WI. 9,600 in attendance with more outside waiting to get in. I'd love to see Bernie take down Clinton.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8e46d288608b41a79372e51edba7abe3/wisconsin-sanders-hopes-find-minded-liberals

[Bilbo Saggins]

If Bernie somehow beats Clinton, I believe that he will take the presidency.

Why you my ask? A few reasons:
1. Obama's presidency is turning out to be a moderate success despite the historic backlash against him. The economy is improving, healthcare costs are going down, fewer Americans are dying in wars.
2. The US hasn't had a real FDR or JFK type of president in a LONG time. We're overdue.
3. The Republican Party has some serious rebranding to do. Young people and minorities are making up a greater percentage of the voting population each year and they simply do not vote republican. Gerrymandering and attempts to purchase public opinion can only get them so far. The aforementioned groups tend to vote more regularly in presidential elections as well.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-02-2015, 06:35 AM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: If Bernie somehow beats Clinton, I believe that he will take the presidency.  

Why you my ask? A few reasons:
1. Obama's presidency is turning out to be a moderate success despite the historic backlash against him. The economy is improving, healthcare costs are going down, fewer Americans are dying in wars.
2. The US hasn't had a real FDR or JFK type of president in a LONG time. We're overdue.
3. The Republican Party has some serious rebranding to do. Young people and minorities are making up a greater percentage of the voting population each year and they simply do not vote republican. Gerrymandering and attempts to purchase public opinion can only get them so far. The aforementioned groups tend to vote more regularly in presidential elections as well.

1.The economy is improving?  He's been in office over six years.  It improves by default unless you have some FDR type. And didn't we just have negative growth a quarter ago?  I guess you could call it historic backlash if you skip the 8 years previous to his.

2.  What is a FDR or JFK type of person?  Most people have three initials.  JFK was in office less than three years.  "Ich bin ein Sozialist."

[Benton]

(07-02-2015, 06:35 AM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: If Bernie somehow beats Clinton, I believe that he will take the presidency.  

Why you my ask? A few reasons:
1. Obama's presidency is turning out to be a moderate success despite the historic backlash against him. The economy is improving, healthcare costs are going down, fewer Americans are dying in wars.
2. The US hasn't had a real FDR or JFK type of president in a LONG time. We're overdue.
3. The Republican Party has some serious rebranding to do. Young people and minorities are making up a greater percentage of the voting population each year and they simply do not vote republican. Gerrymandering and attempts to purchase public opinion can only get them so far. The aforementioned groups tend to vote more regularly in presidential elections as well.

1. Ok

2. I'm not getting the comparison, outside of the fact both were popular.

3. They're trying. They're running an Indian, a Canadian, a black man, a white woman and a Cuban. Ranging from 40s-70s. They're shotgunning the canvas and seeing who they hit.

[Bilbo Saggins]

(07-02-2015, 09:59 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I guess you could call it historic backlash if you skip the 8 years previous to his.

What is a FDR or JFK type of person?  Most people have three initials.  JFK was in office less than three years.  "Ich bin ein Sozialist."

By historic backlash I was referring to how often he was filibustered.  Obama has been filibustered 82 times.  All of the previous presidents combined have been filibustered 86 times.  Bush faced media and popular backlash partly due to him winning an election despite receiving fewer total votes in a supposedly democratic system.  The Iraq war and tanking the economy certainly didn't help his cause either.

Explained the JFK/FDR association below.

(07-02-2015, 10:37 AM)Benton Wrote: I'm not getting the comparison, outside of the fact both were popular.

They're trying. They're running an Indian, a Canadian, a black man, a white woman and a Cuban. Ranging from 40s-70s. They're shotgunning the canvas and seeing who they hit.

FDR and JFK were both fearless liberals.  FDR busted up trusts/monopolies and got behind the idea that a working wage should be a livable wage.  JFK had the nerve to keep the US out of war many times despite tremendous pressure from the Pentagon(he was also gutsy enough to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis).  JFK enacted Social Security, printed money without the Federal Reserve's blessing, and helped to get the Civil Rights ball rolling.  Sanders has that same sort of vibe, not being afraid to call out the very powerful and also bucking party lines on some issues(gun rights in particular).  That's why I see Sanders as similar to FDR and JFK and believe that he would be a similar type of president.

The huge problem that the GOP has is that their base is quite out of touch with most Americans.  See: the support for Donald Trump.  Trump is one of the stingiest bosses and most fraudulent business men in the US - he will never get elected.

[StLucieBengal]

I saw where he was winning with white people by a lot. And could take both iowa and NH from clinton. But then suffers once he hits the state's with decent amounts of blacks.

I think that scares the Democrat money people more than anything. Dems won't win in an election with white support only. Minorities just won't vote.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-24-2015, 05:44 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: By historic backlash I was referring to how often he was filibustered.  Obama has been filibustered 82 times.  All of the previous presidents combined have been filibustered 86 times.  Bush faced media and popular backlash partly due to him winning an election despite receiving fewer total votes in a supposedly democratic system.  The Iraq war and tanking the economy certainly didn't help his cause either.

Explained the JFK/FDR association below.


FDR and JFK were both fearless liberals.  FDR busted up trusts/monopolies and got behind the idea that a working wage should be a livable wage.  JFK had the nerve to keep the US out of war many times despite tremendous pressure from the Pentagon(he was also gutsy enough to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis).  JFK enacted Social Security, printed money without the Federal Reserve's blessing, and helped to get the Civil Rights ball rolling.  Sanders has that same sort of vibe, not being afraid to call out the very powerful and also bucking party lines on some issues(gun rights in particular).  That's why I see Sanders as similar to FDR and JFK and believe that he would be a similar type of president.

The huge problem that the GOP has is that their base is quite out of touch with most Americans.  See: the support for Donald Trump.  Trump is one of the stingiest bosses and most fraudulent business men in the US - he will never get elected.

How dare you compare JFK to FDR. They were nothing alike. When was JFK in support of concentration camps for americans?

[Bilbo Saggins]

(07-24-2015, 06:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: How dare you compare JFK to FDR.  They were nothing alike.  When was JFK in support of concentration camps for americans?

Come on now, the internment camps weren't nearly as bad as the concentration camps.  All major powers did ugly things to try to win WWII-the Japanese internment camps were barely a blip on the radar as far as atrocities go.  The firebombing of civilian areas by the allies, the Holocaust and starving out millions of Russians by the Germans, Japanese soldiers bayoneting civilians and torturing POWs in work camps, Russian soldiers raping innocent women all the way to Berlin, the use of atomic weapons...

[RoyleRedlegs]

(07-02-2015, 06:35 AM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: If Bernie somehow beats Clinton, I believe that he will take the presidency.  

Why you my ask? A few reasons:
1. Obama's presidency is turning out to be a moderate success despite the historic backlash against him. The economy is improving, healthcare costs are going down, fewer Americans are dying in wars.
2. The US hasn't had a real FDR or JFK type of president in a LONG time. We're overdue.
3. The Republican Party has some serious rebranding to do. Young people and minorities are making up a greater percentage of the voting population each year and they simply do not vote republican. Gerrymandering and attempts to purchase public opinion can only get them so far. The aforementioned groups tend to vote more regularly in presidential elections as well.

1. Economy isn't exactly improving...it's just not spiraling out of control. Healthcare isn't down for everyone. Sure. But that's more about advancement in technology than Obama. If we had drones like we do now in the 60s and 70s....

2. Unabashed socialists? 

3. Sure, but even a semi-decent GOP candidate would beat Bernie. He's ancient...a socialist...and a socialist...

[CKwi88]

It's a sad state of affairs when Bernie Sanders is the best candidate for the presidency.

Alas, he is probably too old, and will stick to his guns. Oh well. Another 4 years of same ol same ol

[RoyleRedlegs]

(07-24-2015, 07:32 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: It's a sad state of affairs when Bernie Sanders is the best candidate for the presidency.

Alas, he is probably too old, and will stick to his guns. Oh well. Another 4 years of same ol same ol

That's far from fact, well it might be for the left but overall....

[StLucieBengal]

(07-24-2015, 07:13 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: Come on now, the internment camps weren't nearly as bad as the concentration camps.  All major powers did ugly things to try to win WWII-the Japanese internment camps were barely a blip on the radar as far as atrocities go.  The firebombing of civilian areas by the allies, the Holocaust and starving out millions of Russians by the Germans, Japanese soldiers bayoneting civilians and torturing POWs in work camps, Russian soldiers raping innocent women all the way to Berlin, the use of atomic weapons...

So your ok with putting American citizens into camps against their will..... Got it

[*michaelsean*]

(07-24-2015, 08:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So your ok with putting American citizens into camps against their will..... Got it

It's ok because worse things happened.  One of which, oddly enough, seems to be bombing the enemy.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-24-2015, 05:44 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: By historic backlash I was referring to how often he was filibustered.  Obama has been filibustered 82 times.  All of the previous presidents combined have been filibustered 86 times.  Bush faced media and popular backlash partly due to him winning an election despite receiving fewer total votes in a supposedly democratic system.  The Iraq war and tanking the economy certainly didn't help his cause either.

Explained the JFK/FDR association below.


FDR and JFK were both fearless liberals.  FDR busted up trusts/monopolies and got behind the idea that a working wage should be a livable wage.  JFK had the nerve to keep the US out of war many times despite tremendous pressure from the Pentagon(he was also gutsy enough to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis).  JFK enacted Social Security, printed money without the Federal Reserve's blessing, and helped to get the Civil Rights ball rolling.  Sanders has that same sort of vibe, not being afraid to call out the very powerful and also bucking party lines on some issues(gun rights in particular).  That's why I see Sanders as similar to FDR and JFK and believe that he would be a similar type of president.

The huge problem that the GOP has is that their base is quite out of touch with most Americans.  See: the support for Donald Trump.  Trump is one of the stingiest bosses and most fraudulent business men in the US - he will never get elected.

How do you filibuster a president?

JFK enacted SS?

The Bay of Pigs doesn't come across as avoiding war.

And he sure didn't avoid Vietnam.

[fredtoast]

(07-24-2015, 08:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So your ok with putting American citizens into camps against their will..... Got it

(07-24-2015, 09:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's ok because worse things happened.  One of which, oddly enough, seems to be bombing the enemy.

Except he never said it was okay.

Re-read what he actually wrote.

The internment camps were not okay, but calling them "concentration camps" like Lucy did is just silly.  Some people are actually capable of putting things in proper perspective.

[*bfine32*]

John McCain thinks Bernie is too old to run for President.

[fredtoast]

(07-24-2015, 09:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: John McCain thinks Bernie is too old to run for President.

I don't think that is true.  Let's find out.

Everyone who thinks Bernie is too old to run for president raise your hand.

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2015, 09:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think that is true.  Let's find out.

Everyone who thinks Bernie is too old to run for president raise your hand.

[Bilbo Saggins]

(07-24-2015, 09:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: How do you filibuster a president?  

JFK enacted SS?

The Bay of Pigs doesn't come across as avoiding war.

And he sure didn't avoid Vietnam.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

My mistake, it was FDR

There were multiple instances other than the Bay of Pigs.  He resisted pressure to commit in Vietnam on many occasions.

While Kennedy was alive, about 16,000 US military advisers were deployed to Vietnam.  Around 500,000 are deployed under the Johnson administration.

[fredtoast]

(07-24-2015, 10:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote:

Well Okay then.





rep