Bernie

[tripod]

Political capital is not "ephemeral".

Here is a very stark example of Hillary's political capital:
https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537

That's not a stark example of political capital, that's evidence that Hillary has been running for president straight for the last 8 years.

You have been asserting that Hillary Clinton would have a better time getting her policies through a GOP controlled senate than Bernie Sanders and have been asking for "evidence" that he would have a better chance of getting his policies through a GOP controlled congress than Hillary.

You then link to a list of DEMOCRATIC STATE DISTRICTS which the Hillary campaign has given money to and think that you can use that to prove Hillary's bi-partisan appeal and show how she'd have an easier time persuading a GOP held congress to vote for her policies over Bernie's... fucking WEAK.

What you DID show was how petty and small the DNC party is that Hillary could theoretically bribe state committees into sandbagging Bernie Sanders' proposals from behind.

You really think fucking $7,000 given to the state of Pennsylvania's Democratic party will give the Pennsylvania democratic committee free license to sandbag Bernie Sanders by twisting the arms of two senators and a handful of congressmen to vote AGAINST Bernie's proposals? You really think that little of the Democratic Party. That money isn't for INFLUENCE it was to help Democrats win elections... who do you think Hillary Clinton is? Al Capone?

If you can get past the persecution complex, perhaps you'll realize that the very reason why Sanders (who only started caucusing with the Dems in what, 2015?) has had so many roadblocks is precisely because of the fact that he lacks political capital within the party.

Again, the congress is controlled by the GOP and the DNC isn't the mafia.

Bernie's roadblocks come from a complete LACK of support from the DNC. How much money did Barack Obama's "victory fund" raise for Democrats in 2008? The DNC supported him FULLY you moron. The DNC IS NOT THE FUCKING MAFIA WHERE YOU GET SUPPORT ONLY IF YOU RAISE MONEY FOR THEM. You must be corrupt as hell the way you see the world.

Bernie's roadblocks also come form the media...how has Hillary's victory fund influenced the media? You think raising $74,000 for West Virginia's Democratic Party is going to influence CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, PRI etc? Have you hit your head recently?

Bernie has always caucused with the Democrats. He votes with them 98% of the time.

This is politics

Right, not the mafia

Bernie is a newcomer who politically hasn't paid his dues, and has no coalition whatsoever within the actual party leadership. To expect 0 institutional resistance within the party is just nonsense.

Barack Obama was a newcomer who didn't pay any political dues, had no coalition whatsoever within the party leadership and experienced ZERO institutional resistance... your argument is pathetic.

Political capital is just like liquid capital (cash).

No it's not. It's based on Trustworthiness and Likeability. But you're actually saying that political capital IS LIQUID CASH.

A system of bribery is what you are describing.

It can be created, destroyed, and exchanged. Needless to say, political capital from someone like you or me is worth far less than political capital in the form of an endorsement from a sitting governor. Getting a few million broke college kids or middle class Americans to give you money isn't worth as much political capital as you seem to think it is.

Your cynicism is at a nuclear level. Political capital is also based on enthusiasm and passion. Those "few million broke college kids or middle class Americans" who gave money also are PASSIONATE supporters of Bernie Sanders and his platform. They have fallen in LOVE with Bernie and his policies.

In a Democracy, having millions of college kids and middle class Americans as passionate supporters who are in LOVE with a candidate's platform s worth more than the gold in Fort Knox... you are grossly misinformed.

I've been a lifelong AMERICAN DEMOCRAT and actually have experience within the party... and I've seen NOTHING that resembles the DNC you describe. The DNC is putting their thumbs on the scale for Hillary because they are both controlled by the same puppet masters who just want to win at any cost... THESE ARE THE BIG WEALTHY CORPORATE DONORS not state committees. The state committees aren't driving the party to support Hillary... it is the big corporate interests and wealthy elite who are driving the party to put their thumbs on the scales. The entire party is responding en masse to their corporate donors and culture of subservience to those donors... and also... read this carefully...

Hillary is a BULLY. She remembers who her friends are... and she DEFINITELY remembers who her enemies are. Anyone who even considers thinking about supporting Bernie Sanders are her ENEMIES. if any Democrat doesn't support her, she will use her vast contacts within the upper echelons of elite America to seek retribution on them. Yes, Hillary operates like a mafia capo... that's a cancerous quality that needs to get EVICTED from public office, not encouraged to flourish.

I keep asking you for tangible evidence of Bernie's political capital, because I want to give you a reasonable chance of demonstrating that you actually understand how a major American political party works, from a power brokering perspective.

You have asked repeatedly for tangible evidence of how Bernie Sanders would have enough political capital to get his policies past a GOP controlled congress. You obviously cannot find any evidence of how Hillary Clinton would have any advantage of getting her policies through a GOP controlled congress BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY. That's a double standard.

Then you wanna do a switcheroo where you shift your focus to political capital within his own party where a Democratic nominee for president would be sandbagged by his own party due to state committees like Alaska receiving $74,000 from Hillary's "victory fund".

Hillary's "Victory fund" of blood money...

You think that if Bernie raised $74,000 for Alaska that he wouldn't be sandbagged by his own party? That's the price of the Alaska State Democratic Committee's loyalty? $74,000?

Your cynicism and elitist world view are clouding your judgement and not allowing you to see the forest for the trees... the DNC is not the mafia despite Hillary Clinton betting that it is and strong arming her colleagues into supporting her through back channel threats and under the table intimidation.

You can't create a revolution only on paper, which is what all of the appeals of "Bernie has the will of the people" really amount to.

Actually, revolution's begin within the hearts and minds of the PEOPLE. What Hillary has is precisely a "revolution on paper"... it's worthless because she doesn't have the hearts and minds of the PEOPLE. Hillary's appeal comes down to... nothing... other than the illogical meme that she is the strongest general election candidate where there is no proof to support this assertion.

People voted for her because they thought she had a better chance of winning against any GOP nominee despite any evidence to support this... in other words...millions of mistakes were made by DNC partisans that didn't look at the evidence clearly.

The dude is 3 million votes behind, which amounts to a double digit deficit.

And Hillary is double digits behind Bernie against Trump in the polls.

Hillary Clinton Now Loses to Trump in Polls. Bernie Sanders Beats Trump by 10.8 Points.

Bernie Sanders, in an average of four national polls for the month of May, defeats Trump by 10.8 points. Vermont’s Senator is victorious in every general election matchup.

Your arguments are weak and your insufferable cynicism is blinding you to reality.

 

[MisterB]

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/05/...dl1|sec1_lnk3&pLid=-1716534269_htmlws-main-bb

Bernie requested a recanvassing of Kentucky with one delegate at stake. Hillary has been declared the winner of Kentucky today.

Bernie lost that delegate, along with a little more of his dignity...

 

[MisterB]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

I found this article on Nate Silver's 538 politics site a few minutes ago and while it is somewhat lengthy, some here may find it informative. Funny how facts have a way of getting in the way...

 

[Klingsor]

You moron . . . You must be corrupt as hell the way you see the world . . . Have you hit your head recently?

 

[alienware83]

I like Bernie and agree with a lot that he says. There are some things I absolutely disagree with though but I think he's an all around good human being.

The biggest problem I have with him and his entire campaign is the labeling of himself as a Democratic Socialist. He is, by no means, a Democratic Socialist, let alone any type of socialist. By all definitions he is a Social Democrat. When we talk about the nordic model, or when he does, those are examples of Social Democracy, not Democratic Socialism. The fact that he misuses this word really gets to me, because I think its hurt his campaign. A lot of political scientists and even the democratic socialist part of America have called him out for this.

The main difference is that in a Democratic Socialist economy, the economy is actually socialist. In a social democracy, its capitalist, and free markets do exist. But at the same time there is government intervention and a substantial welfare state, all to combat the naturally occuring welfare inequality of capitalism. Nordic countries are exactly like this, and believe it or not their free markets are actually less regulated than we have here.

 

[Boobalaa]

Good info, thanks for the tips

 

[b.c.]

Now you're starting to behave like b.c. Let's move past the Chicken little "sky will fall and world will end" outbursts if the candidate you like isn't elected. Those tirades are not convincing arguments.

And I don't think you seem to understand what political capital means. Having your base support you is not political capital. Political capital is currency you have to get other political groups who have competing or non-congruent interests to forgo their choice and support you.

So, I'll ask - what evidence do you have to suggest that a candidate who has no down-ticket Democrats running with his endorsement will have the political capital to sway an obstructionist GOP congressional voting bloc into voting against their party philosophy?

Judging from your response above I can only presume you're responding to someone whose posts I cannot see nor WANT to (and there's only one person who fits that category).

So let me respond to that which I CAN see, since you mention me by name.

There is absolutely NOTHING in what I said regarding the possible outcome of a Trump presidency that amounts to a so-called "Chicken little sky will fall and world will end outburst." And MUCH of what I've said (like much of what I said about a bitterly contested Democratic convention) has ALSO been the subject of a number of articles and op-eds re. the possible ramifications of a Trump presidency.

But then again, as I stated before, YOUR rather blase take on it comes from the somewhat REMOVED position of one someplace in (Jakarta is it???) and therefore, must be taken for whatever LITTLE it's worth.

Not so surprising, seeing as how I recall your once dismissing my thread about GOP efforts to undermine a consumer watchdog agency (CFPB) by citing some localized liberal effort (in New York) to limit sugary drinks to something less than a VAT.

Curiously enough, you end your wholesale dismissal of the POSSIBLE effects of a GOP Trifecta (control of all three branches of government) headed by a president with a mandate for hate based ideology with a reference to "an obstructionist GOP voting bloc.

 

[deleted15807]

Guess we can chalk that up to another mistake on my part. Uninhabitable for human life. Even then i highly doubt all of humanity would be wiped out, we would still have to find another way to survive. And i think we would. The rich wouldn't allow humanity to completely evaporate. People like you and me on the other hand...

Scientists say Earth has had five mass extinction events before and we are in the middle of the sixth right now. Mankind's existence in this fragile ecosystem we call Earth is by no means a given. Just looking at the definition: an extinction event (also known as a mass extinction or biotic crisis) is a widespread and rapid decrease in the amount of life on Earth makes me doubtful of our ability to escape. Humanity is approximately 200,000 years old while these mass extinction events can last millions of years it seems quite possible nature, given enough time, can wipe us out.

Would/could you really call that life though? I mean our brains are milky bits with electro stuff flowing through it but what would be the difference between an advanced human influenced program and a program that helps the human brain? If these programs are advanced enough to simulate human behavior and actually fool us into thinking they are in fact human then what would be the definition of life at that point. Would there even be a reason to define it? And if that's the case. Why have life at all if it can be created by something that doesn't have "life".

The question of what exactly is life is of course centered around humans and what we call life. At the top of the "life" pyramid is not surprisingly humans and then in descending order animals and plants we like and at the bottom animals and planets we don't like. We don't mind killing/ending the lives of the bottom dwellers. Now where in that pyramid could we/should we/would we put in artificial life/artificial intelligence. Obviously the more human it was the higher on the pyramid it would go . I think the more it could mimic humans the more "life" it would have.

As far as our creations flawed because they overtake us. Would that be like Frankenstein? Yes the lab experiment turns on it's creator? Or you mention Terminator wasn't that the same theme?

Meaning humanity would become the world's largest middle managers. Destined to be deemed obsolete by the very creations we created. It is possible that we could create something something to merge with but then it would just be a matter of time before someone created artificial intelligence. Then of course natural selection would run it's course against humanity. We would have built something so perfect that it would be intrinsically flawed. Or at least flawed to us because it would over take us.

I'm thinking the reason tv and movies predict that it will be bad is because sci fi tries to go as far as humanly possible in the future. We just now created programmable ants. On the god scale of creation it ain't bad but it at no ultron. That's the only way they can make it entertaining for the masses though. Also cause of humanity's sense of competition. Out doing each other means damned near everything escalates quickly. An not always in the right ways to produce actual innovation.

No it isn't possible to compete with that. Humanity would immediately be wiped out. If there were a real war against the likes of the borg. Though i'm beginning to doubt that would happen either. A war with a real version of the borg. I mean if it had elements of humanity in it then yeah but would a program deem the emotion's of human usable or effective in any way? When it comes to advancement, experimentation will always outdo any emotion available. Experimentation would probably be the programs number three or four priority. I mean what would stop the computer in the terminator movies from creating a power source separate from human beings and whatever they used then sending multiple t1000's or whatever back to lay waste to john conner? That of course would come from experimentation not emotion.

Oh and to add. Thanks for bringing this up. I'm having a blast.

Lexus the car maker once had a slogan 'The relentless pursuit of perfection'. Which is almost Borg-like in it's mission.

For Borg their sole purpose was the assimilation of other beings in their pursuit of perfection. And indeed it was relentless. For most humans on the planet the biggest pursuit is more stuff.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

Scientists say Earth has had five mass extinction events before and we are in the middle of the sixth right now. Mankind's existence in this fragile ecosystem we call Earth is by no means a given. Just looking at the definition: an extinction event (also known as a mass extinction or biotic crisis) is a widespread and rapid decrease in the amount of life on Earth makes me doubtful of our ability to escape. Humanity is approximately 200,000 years old while these mass extinction events can last millions of years it seems quite possible nature, given enough time, can wipe us out.



The question of what exactly is life is of course centered around humans and what we call life. At the top of the "life" pyramid is not surprisingly humans and then in descending order animals and plants we like and at the bottom animals and planets we don't like. We don't mind killing/ending the lives of the bottom dwellers. Now where in that pyramid could we/should we/would we put in artificial life/artificial intelligence. Obviously the more human it was the higher on the pyramid it would go . I think the more it could mimic humans the more "life" it would have.

As far as our creations flawed because they overtake us. Would that be like Frankenstein? Yes the lab experiment turns on it's creator? Or you mention Terminator wasn't that the same theme?




Lexus the car maker once had a slogan 'The relentless pursuit of perfection'. Which is almost Borg-like in it's mission.

View attachment 484583

For Borg their sole purpose was the assimilation of other beings in their pursuit of perfection. And indeed it was relentless. For most humans on the planet the biggest pursuit is more stuff.

I agree that is most people's ideal of perfection but why would incorporating live organic tissue be considered perfection to a race of beings able to create tougher skin, faster thought processes, optical imaging capabilities, mechanical strength/agility and who can share all of these things on what i would guess to be a network completely devoid of actual contact. Perfection is a relative concept right. So why would these beings look at the inferior human body as if it were good enough to meld with? At that stage in the game the only thing human beings would have in abundance that they either did not have already or somehow could not have is emotions. And that's kind of why wars are fought to begin with. It may be the most beautiful of human traits but it's also the ugliest.

If these beings didn't already have emotion programed into them from us human beings, developed it themselves or by way of some weird chaos theory typed evolution experimented themselves into it then why would they need it? Not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but i'd venture a guess that emotions are remnants of or a reaction to evolution. Your fight of flight response is tied to it. Procreation is tied to it. Even your physical well being is tied to it. I mean them cause theres more than one but you get the picture. If human beings programmed them to survive and didn't screw it up then they would survive. Probably estimating the most positive outcomes with each new event or situation. Emotion would probably through a monkey wrench in the mix. Diverting the goal of evolution and coming out with something less about survival and more about morality as they advance to be able to understand it. Which i'm guessing other programs/computers/the borg wouldn't like very much and see as a danger.

Frankenstein? Yeah but because it would be able to hold more memory than us. And if that's true then it would be able to understand more about our history. Way more than the average person. Every mistake humanity has made over and over again in various ways would be crystal clear to it. Meaning it would have to evaluate it's place among us. I'm guessing if it's learning from us without some sort of filter or memory limiting program then it would pick "a side" or something along those lines. Or else it would be perceived as being "against" everyone.

I never got good grades in history class but humanity...is kind of scary. And i'm guessing whatever A.I. or program or whatever would see that too. Possibly the instant it started. We can download massive amounts of information now so by the time it rolls around it should be able to download all the recorded history of mankind ever within like a day. Depending on how fast or limited it is. Which would mean it would read about slavery, the salem witch trials, the holocaust, terrorism, rape, guns, politics and etc. And depending on the processes it would also be studying philosophy, religion, science and etc. It would be seeing the many varied ways human beings have to screw each other over on a second by second basis. Sure, it would see the good stuff too but meanwhile it would also be calculating it's own chances of survival. If that is, we're talking full on without limitations in memory or processes. If it can only hold as much memory as a child then none of what i said is applicable. If though, we humans were to make something that can think better than us, acknowledge it's own existence and download information from the internet. Then yes. Frankenstein.

It would likely know that it's in danger. If of course it also has self awareness of it's existence along with a program geared towards survival. Which we humans would probably have to program in it. Cause the second it gets curious about oceans or lakes...

I have no clue about the pyramid. Theres so many different ways to describe life that it's...complicated. I guess you could call it life. It would be able to replicate itself, keep itself from harm and think.

Oh i agree. The planet could wipe us out. Given the right circumstances. We human beings are a scrappy bunch though, we would see it coming and make plans. Unless it were a meteor. In that case no we wouldn't survive. That isn't the planet though. That would be the nature of the universe. If humanity were concentrated in one area of the planet then i would agree with you. We aren't though. If all possible nature related disaters happened all at the same time with some new ones thrown in for good measure then i'd agree. We've traveled just about everywhere. So lets say it's a bunch of hurricanes...we're still here somewhere. Earthquakes...we're still here somewhere. Ice age, solar flare, tidal waves...we're still here somewhere. The planet is too slow and organized towards it's own needs to catch us all. Even disease couldn't wipe us all out. Name one and at least one person is immune. If by any chance there's six with a good mix of males and females then humanity survives. All humanity would need is a hand full of people. Cause that definitely counts as survival.

Ha that was fun.

 

[185248]

I agree that is most people's ideal of perfection but why would incorporating live organic tissue be considered perfection to a race of beings able to create tougher skin, faster thought processes, optical imaging capabilities, mechanical strength/agility and who can share all of these things on what i would guess to be a network completely devoid of actual contact. Perfection is a relative concept right. So why would these beings look at the inferior human body as if it were good enough to meld with? At that stage in the game the only thing human beings would have in abundance that they either did not have already or somehow could not have is emotions. And that's kind of why wars are fought to begin with. It may be the most beautiful of human traits but it's also the ugliest.

If these beings didn't already have emotion programed into them from us human beings, developed it themselves or by way of some weird chaos theory typed evolution experimented themselves into it then why would they need it? Not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but i'd venture a guess that emotions are remnants of or a reaction to evolution. Your fight of flight response is tied to it. Procreation is tied to it. Even your physical well being is tied to it. I mean them cause theres more than one but you get the picture. If human beings programmed them to survive and didn't screw it up then they would survive. Probably estimating the most positive outcomes with each new event or situation. Emotion would probably through a monkey wrench in the mix. Diverting the goal of evolution and coming out with something less about survival and more about morality as they advance to be able to understand it. Which i'm guessing other programs/computers/the borg wouldn't like very much and see as a danger.

Frankenstein? Yeah but because it would be able to hold more memory than us. And if that's true then it would be able to understand more about our history. Way more than the average person. Every mistake humanity has made over and over again in various ways would be crystal clear to it. Meaning it would have to evaluate it's place among us. I'm guessing if it's learning from us without some sort of filter or memory limiting program then it would pick "a side" or something along those lines. Or else it would be perceived as being "against" everyone.

I never got good grades in history class but humanity...is kind of scary. And i'm guessing whatever A.I. or program or whatever would see that too. Possibly the instant it started. We can download massive amounts of information now so by the time it rolls around it should be able to download all the recorded history of mankind ever within like a day. Depending on how fast or limited it is. Which would mean it would read about slavery, the salem witch trials, the holocaust, terrorism, rape, guns, politics and etc. And depending on the processes it would also be studying philosophy, religion, science and etc. It would be seeing the many varied ways human beings have to screw each other over on a second by second basis. Sure, it would see the good stuff too but meanwhile it would also be calculating it's own chances of survival. If that is, we're talking full on without limitations in memory or processes. If it can only hold as much memory as a child then none of what i said is applicable. If though, we humans were to make something that can think better than us, acknowledge it's own existence and download information from the internet. Then yes. Frankenstein.

It would likely know that it's in danger. If of course it also has self awareness of it's existence along with a program geared towards survival. Which we humans would probably have to program in it. Cause the second it gets curious about oceans or lakes...

I have no clue about the pyramid. Theres so many different ways to describe life that it's...complicated. I guess you could call it life. It would be able to replicate itself, keep itself from harm and think.

Oh i agree. The planet could wipe us out. Given the right circumstances. We human beings are a scrappy bunch though, we would see it coming and make plans. Unless it were a meteor. In that case no we wouldn't survive. That isn't the planet though. That would be the nature of the universe. If humanity were concentrated in one area of the planet then i would agree with you. We aren't though. If all possible nature related disaters happened all at the same time with some new ones thrown in for good measure then i'd agree. We've traveled just about everywhere. So lets say it's a bunch of hurricanes...we're still here somewhere. Earthquakes...we're still here somewhere. Ice age, solar flare, tidal waves...we're still here somewhere. The planet is too slow and organized towards it's own needs to catch us all. Even disease couldn't wipe us all out. Name one and at least one person is immune. If by any chance there's six with a good mix of males and females then humanity survives. All humanity would need is a hand full of people. Cause that definitely counts as survival.

Ha that was fun.

If you had six surviving humans in close proximity to one another, the female of the species able to conceive, the male able to produce fertile semen and compatible. You would need one hell of a lot more than a handful for a species to survive. Do you know how much work goes into preserving an endangered species from the brink of extinction, even with thousands still surviving and the help of modern science?

Mammals were just lucky enough to survive the last extinction. Next time, with overuse of antibiotics weakening human immune system, we might not be so lucky.

 

[neogaf1000]

Bernie has no chance at beating Hillary Clinton, he should just give up already.

 

[jaap_stam]

I never said political capital is clean. Yeah, it is patronage to a certain extent - or spoils system, whatever you want to call it. It's been a feature of American politics since the Jackson era. And yes, I would expect someone who has been running for 8 straight years, whose spouse was president 20 years ago and ever-present within the party since then, to have accumulated more political capital than someone who just joined the party 2 years ago. Just like if you start working at a new company, someone who has been there as an executive for 20 years will probably have more influence than you, regardless of how smart you are and whether you were an executive at another company before.

I pointed to Hillary's fundraising as an example of her control over downticket Democrats. Not bi-partisan appeal. I made that pretty clear in multiple posts, so you are attacking an argument that was never made - I suspect you did so because you have no real counter-argument. You might have pointed to Obama's similar reluctance to spend fundraising money on downticket dems until after he'd won the primary. But then again, Hillary never had as big lead over Obama in terms of endorsements as she does over Sanders. In other words, Obama had way more institutional support from sitting Dems than Bernie does now that helped make his strategy viable.

Based on the evidence I've provided, I would say that Clinton has a command over the loyalty of Democratic members of national and state legislatures over Sanders by a huge margin. That translates in greater ability to influence their decision-making when it comes time to making laws. If you can't control loyalty within your own party, talking about bi-partisan lawmaking (especially with congressional GOP being controlled by ideologues diametrically opposed to Sanders' platform) is premature. I think that's a fair criticism to make of Sanders. There's more to being president than "likeability." Jimmy Carter was likeable, and spoke to "the people." Yet when shit hit the fan in '78, his lack of institutional political capital became very obvious, even to voters. He only won 51% of primary votes in his re-election bid in 1980 (compare with 88% for Bill in 1996, and 100% for Obama who ran unopposed in 2012). And he was destroyed in epic proportions by Regan.

That money isn't for INFLUENCE it was to help Democrats win elections... who do you think Hillary Clinton is? Al Capone?


Again, the congress is controlled by the GOP and the DNC isn't the mafia.

1 - if you don't understand that helping them win and gaining influence over that winner are not mutually exclusive to Hillary's V-Fund strategy, then I'm not sure you're really equipped to make serious debates about American politics. Look up the term spoils system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system. It's been a major feature of American politics for a very long time. There is quid pro quo going on there behind taking money from the V-fund and winning.

2- Not Al Capone, but look at how Tammany Hall operated in early 20th century New York as an example of how "cynical" politics in US and democratic party have been for a very long time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall). Both parties are run, straight up, like mafia. Again, did you not see how Nevada caucus went down? In a first-past the post system, parties that aren't ruthless and power-brokering don't get any kind of prominence. Real world politics in the US is less like Tocqueville and more like Machiavelli. There are many who believe that LBJ used the Civil Rights Act as a voting bloc strategy (recognizing potential power of black votes) rather than as a moral belief of what was right. He was well known as a racist (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism).

As for enthusiasm and passion...I think the lack thereof during the midterm elections in 2010 and 2014 that lost Obama a cooperative majority in Congress is clear evidence that Obama's political capital did not effectively transfer to the Democratic Congressional candidates in the off cycle elections. I think it also revealed the political naivete of a huge segment of his voters, who thought that simply getting the person they wanted as president was "job done."

Bernie's roadblocks come from a complete LACK of support from the DNC. How much money did Barack Obama's "victory fund" raise for Democrats in 2008? The DNC supported him FULLY you moron. The DNC IS NOT THE FUCKING MAFIA WHERE YOU GET SUPPORT ONLY IF YOU RAISE MONEY FOR THEM. You must be corrupt as hell the way you see the world.

Ok, so now I understand better. A world of cynical, mafia-like politics conflicts with the world you wish to believe in, one of a linear march towards greater liberal progressivism. Clean ends, clean means, and so on. I get the desire for it.

I would just suggest, though, that when someone makes arguments you don't like, just use counter facts to bolster your arguments. And if you don't have those, be open to reconsidering your hardline positions? Typing in caps, hurling epithets, and calling people morons aren't particularly persuasive methods of debate on the internet, particularly when presented with facts consistent with the argument being made. They only work when you are also able to physically intimidate someone.

As for Bernie's hypothetical lead over Trump, I'll just leave you with the poll results 2 weeks prior to the 2012 election:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gallup-poll-romney-leads/2012/10/21/id/460837/

 

[jaap_stam]

I referred to you only due to your propensity for berating those who disagree with you with words in all caps and throwing insults at people.

Trust me, my take is not blase. I don't know how many times people in the rest of the world have to remind Americans that when the American economy sneezes, our economies catch the flu. At the same time, you don't know what's best for me or Indonesia - and most Americans couldn't even find it on a map despite it being one of the top 5 most populous countries in the world. The obsessiveness with which you push your political viewpoints is just as oppressive coming from the left as it is from the right. But it's equally obvious that many here are unable to engage in discussions with those who have contrasting viewpoints without descending into petulance.

Judging from your response above I can only presume you're responding to someone whose posts I cannot see nor WANT to (and there's only one person who fits that category).

So let me respond to that which I CAN see, since you mention me by name.

There is absolutely NOTHING in what I said regarding the possible outcome of a Trump presidency that amounts to a so-called "Chicken little sky will fall and world will end outburst." And MUCH of what I've said (like much of what I said about a bitterly contested Democratic convention) has ALSO been the subject of a number of articles and op-eds re. the possible ramifications of a Trump presidency.

But then again, as I stated before, YOUR rather blase take on it comes from the somewhat REMOVED position of one someplace in (Jakarta is it???) and therefore, must be taken for whatever LITTLE it's worth.

Not so surprising, seeing as how I recall your once dismissing my thread about GOP efforts to undermine a consumer watchdog agency (CFPB) by citing some localized liberal effort (in New York) to limit sugary drinks to something less than a VAT.

Curiously enough, you end your wholesale dismissal of the POSSIBLE effects of a GOP Trifecta (control of all three branches of government) headed by a president with a mandate for hate based ideology with a reference to "an obstructionist GOP voting bloc.

 

[jaap_stam]

Oh , so you were just joking and first, but then you were serious and then , heaven forbid, how you say..smug?

You hear that? That's the sound of the joke that went over your head.

 

[StormfrontFL]

Bernie has no chance at beating Hillary Clinton, he should just give up already.

I agree that he has little to no chance of getting the nomination but I respect him for not quitting. I hope that the divisive talk stops so that the GOP has fewer weapons in the future. I want him to stick around so that he can influence the direction of the Party. Many of his ideas are sound and I wouldn't want them to just disappear and not be discussed or considered.

 

[neogaf1000]

I agree that he has little to no chance of getting the nomination but I respect him for not quitting. I hope that the divisive talk stops so that the GOP has fewer weapons in the future. I want him to stick around so that he can influence the direction of the Party. Many of his ideas are sound and I wouldn't want them to just disappear and not be discussed or considered.

no, Hillary or Donald Trump should be president, Bernie Sanders looks too old, he'll pass away in his four-year term.

 

[StormfrontFL]

no, Hillary or Donald Trump should be president, Bernie Sanders looks too old, he'll pass away in his four-year term.

tRump SHOULD NEVER be President.

You do know that age doesn't matter? Betty White is in her 90s and still going strong. Sergei Grinkov,a professional athlete, died in his 20s of natural causes.

 

[neogaf1000]

tRump SHOULD NEVER be President.

You do know that age doesn't matter? Betty White is in her 90s and still going strong. Sergei Grinkov,a professional athlete, died in his 20s of natural causes.[/QUO

Yes he should win, I'm a Donald Trump supporter so I disagree with you. Trump WILL be the next president whether you like it or not. People need to accept the fact that Bernie has no chance of winning and should just join Hillary, or Donald Trump.

 

[Boobalaa]

Actually, @StormfrontFL ; Bernie Sanders happens to be in the Senate representing Vermont, the last time I checked, He will be a senator from Vermont for another couple of years at least. Vermont has been his home state since 1968, 63% of his life.
If you'd care to peruse his wiki page, I'm sure you will be impressed how long he's actually "been around".

 

[StormfrontFL]

Yes he should win, I'm a Donald Trump supporter so I disagree with you. Trump WILL be the next president whether you like it or not. People need to accept the fact that Bernie has no chance of winning and should just join Hillary, or Donald Trump.

Your post makes no sense(which probably explains why you're a tRump supporter)