Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

...well then. We have one candidate who the media vilifies, one candidate who the media obsesses over, and one candidate who the media ignores. The first candidate would be more-or-less status-quo, perhaps with a small shift leftwards. The second candidate would be a very big bag of unknowns, most of which would not be positive. The third candidate would be a complete and utter disaster (another sticking point- Johnson, when governor, vetoed more legislation than the other 49 governors in the country combined. So, do-nothing Congress, veto-everything President, literally nothing would get done) economically.

Can't I just get my candidate who considers the term "natural monopoly" bullshit? I'm pretty sure even Sanders doesn't go that far.

The Green Party will be running a candidate too (who will be Jill Stein; she's dominating their primary).

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/meet-jill-stein-green-party-candidate-president-n541536

http://www.jill2016.com/plan

[smjjames]

You have to be registered with them to vote Green party in the primaries, not sure if you need to in the general.

I might go and vote green party this year, dunno. They're a decent third party.

[TheBiggerFish]

Stein/Sanders 2016?

[Rolan7]

You have to be registered with them to vote Green party in the primaries, not sure if you need to in the general.

I might go and vote green party this year, dunno. They're a decent third party.

You can write-in for president, so you don't need to register as green party.  Tempting, though.  I'm so sure that Clinton will win that I might just vote for Stein myself...  Then again, that's largely how third parties spoil elections.

And if I'm being honest, I don't have any reason to think Stein would be more effective than Sanders.  A green president is a silly fantasy.  Green representatives are actually helpful, though, much as Sanders was a helpful senator.  Even if he wasn't particularly *successful*, he was a progressive vote.

[Shadowlord]

You have to be registered with them to vote Green party in the primaries, not sure if you need to in the general.

I might go and vote green party this year, dunno. They're a decent third party.

They show up on the general election ballot here. Also I had the choice of voting in one of the republican, democratic, libertarian, or green party primaries this year, which is normal as well in this state, because open primaries. (I'm registered independent)

[Morrigi]

The Greens are crazy and have no way to pay for what they want, just like they are in most countries.

[SalmonGod]

Sanders was a helpful senator.  Even if he wasn't particularly *successful*, he was a progressive vote.

Google'd "List of Sander's Accomplishments"
First result

Spoiler: Highlights (click to show/hide)

Organized a sit-in against segregation when he was still a student in college. This was the first civil rights sit-in in Chicago history. This led to the University of Chicago investigating the discrimination just a week afterward.

Especially important when the argument against getting anything substantial done is lack of political support...

Caused voter turnout to double during his tenure.

He not only balanced the city budget, but undertook ambitious downtown revitalization projects.

Kept a developer from turning important waterfront property into condominiums, hotels, and offices to be used only by the wealthy and affluent. Instead, it was made into housing, parks, and public space.

His 1990 victory was described by The Washington Post as being the “First Socialist Elected” to the United States House of Representatives in more than 40 years.

Speaking of fighting natural monopolies...

He sued the town’s local cable franchise and won reduced rates for customers.

In his very first year in the House, he co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He led this group for its first eight years. Its primary devotion is to advance liberal causes and is currently the largest organization within the Democratic congressional caucus.

Voted against the Patriot Act despite the majority of Congress voting for it (357 to 66). He also sponsored several amendments trying to limit its effects, even getting a proposal passed through the House preventing the government from obtaining a record of the books people buy.

He passed more amendments than any other member during his time in the House. It earned him the nickname “The Amendment King.” He did this despite being a “socialist” and Congress being controlled by Republicans from 1994 to 2006, in one of the most partisan right-wing Houses ever.

... I've received these notices before.  I didn't know he was the reason I received those calls.

Passed an amendment to “require offenders who are convicted of fraud and other white collar crime to give appropriate notice to victims and other persons in cases where there are multiple victims eligible to receive restitution.”

Looks he's successfully sponsored a lot of stuff against corruption/wealthy interests.

Passed an amendment making sure that solar water heaters provide at least 30 percent of hot water for new federal buildings. This is forcing us to use green energy.

Required a public database be made available showing the names of senior Department officials seeking employment with defense contractors. This helped crack down on corruption.

Won a battle requiring the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the part that doesn’t interfere with monetary policy).

There's a lot more through the link.  These were just bits that stood out to me at a glance as particularly impressive or meaningful.

This is why I see the Clinton camp's perceptions of Bernie as shallow.  No experience?  Just a wide-eyed idealist that makes promises he can't live up to?  But as far as I can tell, these characterizations aren't challenged, because Clinton has had name recognition since the 90's, when her name was connected to Bill's highly publicized scandal.  Sander's name hasn't seen widespread media recognition until very recently.  So in the average voter's mind, this means they don't need to question whether Clinton is really more experienced or successful.  They've been hearing Clinton's name in politics for 20 years (even though she had yet to ever hold elected office at that point), while most wouldn't have ever learned to recognize Sander's name until this election.  I think this is also the biggest reason Sander's campaign has continually gained momentum throughout the primary as these perception issues get sorted out.

The Greens are crazy and have no way to pay for what they want, just like they are in most countries.

Maybe.  But such criticism can be turned both ways.  Most everyone else hasn't accepted there's a price they'll eventually pay for what they want, and it isn't monetary.  If they did, maybe there'd be money for what the Greens want.

[Rolan7]

Thanks for that list, and there is some good stuff on it like opposing the Iraq war and Patriot act.  But I'm not really impressed by things like "First socialist representative in 40 years" or founding caucuses.  Here's the other side of the story:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/27/bernie-sanders-record-in-congress-shows-little-soc/?page=all

He was in congress for 25 years, and only sponsored 3 successful bills.  1 of which was good (raising veteran's benefits) and 2 trivial renaming bills.
That's pretty close to what HRC did in only 8 years:  2 renaming bills and one establishing a historic site.

Of course it isn't fair to look only at what they personally sponsored, they both co-sponsored a lot of successful legislation.  It's complicated.  But I think this is worth pointing out:

Mr. Sanders already has tried to get his agenda through the Senate with amendments and bills to break up big Wall Street banks, expand Social Security, create a European-style single-payer health care system and provide free college tuition for most students. Even when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and President Obama occupied the White House in 2009 and 2010, those proposals failed to gain traction.

He doesn't have a record of working across the aisle.  It'd be gridlock, even worse than under Obama.  I get that people are worried about compromising too much, but we won't get any progress if the president refuses to cut deals with a hostile congress.

[PTTG??]

The Greens are crazy and have no way to pay for what they want, just like they are in most countries.

That's the most vaccuous argument I've ever heard. If someone are 13 years old and grew up listening to fox news, I might imagine them making a statement like that one. Is that the case?

[mainiac]

(even though she had yet to ever hold elected office at that point)

She was a Senator.

[penguinofhonor]

His phrasing was slightly vague, but I'm pretty sure he meant she hadn't held office when people first started hearing her name 20 years ago.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Obama was ineffective after the initial burst precisely because he clinged to the bipartisanship that served him in getting Obamacare passed. It put blood in the water at a time when he had just little enough support for the Republicans to run roughshod with the Yellow Dems. As a result, the Republicans were able to morph "reaching across the aisle" into "giving us all of what we want and none of what you want".
 
This is the price of being too savvy and pragmatic for your own good. When your opponents recognize that you'll twist and turn to make the deal they'll be all too happy to mold you like putty. It took Obama, way, way too fucking long to understand that, but once he did it also lead to some of his best successes later on, such as when he finally grew a spine against John the Boner holding the global economy hostage.

For Berine to win would require, as he's always said, a radical political shift. However, his very upstanding nature, neither compromisingly pragmatic nor ineffectually aggressive, would serve well in dealing with Congress even if it didn't get upturned during the election. After all, the President has a good share of the power as well, with both the veto and the whole of the executive staff for dealing with them.

[mainiac]

His phrasing was slightly vague, but I'm pretty sure he meant she hadn't held office when people first started hearing her name 20 years ago.

I'm pretty sure that it's an example of the haters just blotting anything positive about Hillary from their minds.

Obama was ineffective after the initial burst precisely because he clinged to the bipartisanship that served him in getting Obamacare passed.

Or maybe it was because of this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts,_2010

Al Franken didn't take office until June 30th, 2009 because of a drawn out court challenge to his victory.  That is the first day that Democrats have working control of Congress.  On January 19th, 2010, Scott Brown wins the special election in a surprise upset and the democrats lose their ability to end a fillibuster.  And the republicans proceed to fillibuster more times then ever before in history.  Democrats only controlled congress for six months.  And the end came surprisingly soon so they didn't even jam as much into those six months as possible.  And keep in mind they had to win over assholes like Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman to get things passed even when they were in control.  Fucking Max Baucus, what an asshole.

Remember that Obamacare court case?  The reason that happened was because Obamacare was a working draft.  It was the last draft that the Senate voted on before Scott Brown won the special election.  They expected to kick the bill back and forth a few times and work out a few more details.  Then Scott Brown wins and the republicans acting like children given power decide that no more votes will happen on Obamacare.  They dont vote against it.  They say no more votes are allowed.  They dont even allow for a vote to correct vague wording.  Then they sue to get the law repealled on the basis of vague wording that they made sure was in there.

The reason why Obama stopped doing things in 2010 is because these fucking morons called republicans had just enough power to act like an intestinal blockage in the sewage system that is congress.  Their petulant attitude towards Obamacare was just the taste of things to come.  Obama didn't want to be massively ineffectual starting in 2010, he didn't have a fucking choice.  Then instead of lynching these fuckheads like they deserve, they were given control of the state redistricting process.  As a result even though the republicans lost the last two congressional representatives they still control congress and can still act like fucking assholes.

That fucking asshole God had to go and fucking kill Ted Kennedy like a goddamn asshole right in the middle of an important legislative session.  Christ is an asshole.

[Powder Miner]

The Greens are crazy and have no way to pay for what they want, just like they are in most countries.

That's the most vaccuous argument I've ever heard. If someone are 13 years old and grew up listening to fox news, I might imagine them making a statement like that one. Is that the case?

This is an equally vacuous statement, though. It's just an ad hominem.

[PTTG??]

The Greens are crazy and have no way to pay for what they want, just like they are in most countries.

That's the most vaccuous argument I've ever heard. If someone are 13 years old and grew up listening to fox news, I might imagine them making a statement like that one. Is that the case?

This is an equally vacuous statement, though. It's just an ad hominem.

Actually, I just said that it sounds so. I didn't say anything about Morrigi him or herself, just commented on the poor argument.