What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (6 Viewers)

cstu said:
NFW am I voting for a Biden/Warren ticket that steals that the nomination from Bernie.  
Click to expand...
It's a matter of perspective.  I'd still prefer Bernie over Biden/Warren, however my thought is that they aren't stealing the nomination from Bernie as much as they are from HRC.

And I would vote Biden/Warren and turn cartwheels if that means HRC isn't on the ticket.

Bernie wins in that scenario.  His agenda forced the party to be more progressive.  It sets Warren up for a presidential run in 8 years.  It (likely) keeps Bernie's policies and platforms in the conversation.  

Plus, then I can rest comfortably about Supreme Court nominees without having to sell my soul to get them.

 
The Commish said:
Hyperbole at it's finest I suppose :rolleyes:  
Click to expand...
"Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have."

Straight from his website.  So, not only is he proposing to immediately remove 544 billion in spending from the economy, but he's also going to shut down the government until people cede to his proposal.  How is that leading to anything other than disaster?

 
Short Corner said:
Why are we operating at a deficit right now?  If the economy is doing well, this is the time to get pay down the debt with the surplus we should have.  Or do you only subscribe to Keynes when we are in a recession?
Click to expand...
Working toward a balanced budget is a laudable goal - immediately balancing the budget is a shock to the system that is entirely unwarranted and foolish.

 
dparker713 said:
The Commish said:
Hyperbole at it's finest I suppose :rolleyes:  
Click to expand...
"Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have."

Straight from his website.  So, not only is he proposing to immediately remove 544 billion in spending from the economy, but he's also going to shut down the government until people cede to his proposal.  How is that leading to anything other than disaster?
Click to expand...
Are we ignoring the fact that he only accomplishes this with the help from Congress?

 
Idiot Boxer said:
It's a matter of perspective. I'd still prefer Bernie over Biden/Warren, however my thought is that they aren't stealing the nomination from Bernie as much as they are from HRC.

And I would vote Biden/Warren and turn cartwheels if that means HRC isn't on the ticket.

Bernie wins in that scenario. His agenda forced the party to be more progressive. It sets Warren up for a presidential run in 8 years. It (likely) keeps Bernie's policies and platforms in the conversation.

Plus, then I can rest comfortably about Supreme Court nominees without having to sell my soul to get them.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
dparker713 said:
"Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have."

Straight from his website.  So, not only is he proposing to immediately remove 544 billion in spending from the economy, but he's also going to shut down the government until people cede to his proposal.  How is that leading to anything other than disaster?
Click to expand...
Haven't we had balanced budgets before that didn't destroy America?

 
spreagle said:
Venezuala is in deep deep trouble due to socialism, hyperinflation at 500% and people starving and dying so where is the left, they wont help or even discuss the matter?  The left likes to make a big show of helping when a natural disaster hits, but when a human made disaster 100x worse hits you get crickets unless you can get some milage blaming a Republican governor.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/30/bernie_sanders_isnt_interested_in_answering_questions_about_socialism_in_venezuela.html

Somewhere, deep down, I believe the American left understands it always ends like Venezuala but they want their party and they want it now and they'll deal with the drug overdose later.

I can understand why the right doesn't care and is even amused, the right treats others like they would treat them, socialist thugs use the government to pillage and steal from the right so it's understandable the right is happy when socialist thugs can't use the government to steal from good people anymore and starts dying off.
Click to expand...
Total crap. How about the nordic countries?

 
Idiot Boxer said:
It's a matter of perspective.  I'd still prefer Bernie over Biden/Warren, however my thought is that they aren't stealing the nomination from Bernie as much as they are from HRC.

And I would vote Biden/Warren and turn cartwheels if that means HRC isn't on the ticket.

Bernie wins in that scenario.  His agenda forced the party to be more progressive.  It sets Warren up for a presidential run in 8 years.  It (likely) keeps Bernie's policies and platforms in the conversation.  

Plus, then I can rest comfortably about Supreme Court nominees without having to sell my soul to get them.
Click to expand...
1.  Warren is 66 years old.  She's not running for president at age 74.  

2.  Bernie may have forced the democrat party to be more progressive, but this is a country that has given the republicans congress, given the republicans most of the state governorships, most of the state legislatures, and given the republicans their biggest lead in the house in 80 years.  If Trump wins, the democrats are completely shut out of power.  Do you think the nation is moving left or right?  Maybe Bernie is actually moving the democrat party outside the mainstream instead of setting up Warren to run.

 
Riversco said:
1.  Warren is 66 years old.  She's not running for president at age 74.  

2.  Bernie may have forced the democrat party to be more progressive, but this is a country that has given the republicans congress, given the republicans most of the state governorships, most of the state legislatures, and given the republicans their biggest lead in the house in 80 years.  If Trump wins, the democrats are completely shut out of power.  Do you think the nation is moving left or right?  Maybe Bernie is actually moving the democrat party outside the mainstream instead of setting up Warren to run.
Click to expand...
Hive Mind has democrats winning both house and senate.





Will Democrats take control of the house and senate?

[–]UNU_AMA[S] 273 points 4 hours ago 







UNU SAYS: "YES"
Click to expand...




https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4m24zv/i_am_an_artificial_hive_mind_called_unu_i/

Looks like the actual question it was asked was for senate only. 73% certainty dems would take it.





 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Are we ignoring the fact that he only accomplishes this with the help from Congress?
Click to expand...
He can veto any bill that comes across his desk all on his own - including Continuing Resolutions to keep the government running.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks very tight in California with NBC and Field showing identical 2 point races.

Sanders had done a phenomenal job at notching the victories when he's needed to whip supporters into a frenzy.

I'm sure Clinton wants California badly even if it's just by a single point so she closes with wins in CA and NJ.

 
Also could we keep this thread going forever? The Clinton and Trump ones are completely unreadable at this point. This is my safe space  :unsure:

 
Riversco said:
1.  Warren is 66 years old.  She's not running for president at age 74.  

2.  Bernie may have forced the democrat party to be more progressive, but this is a country that has given the republicans congress, given the republicans most of the state governorships, most of the state legislatures, and given the republicans their biggest lead in the house in 80 years.  If Trump wins, the democrats are completely shut out of power.  Do you think the nation is moving left or right?  Maybe Bernie is actually moving the democrat party outside the mainstream instead of setting up Warren to run.
Click to expand...
1.  Ok.  If you say so.  I mean, it would be ridiculous for a 74 year old to run for president.  Wait.  Bernie is 74?  And he's running for President.  And doing well?  Unpossible.

2. What does that have to do with my preference for a Biden/Warren ticket over HRC?  

 
The Hill, June 2, 2016

Venezuelan president rooting for 'revolutionary friend' Sanders

Venezuela's president, Nicolas Maduro, is backing Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, his "revolutionary friend."

"Bernie Sanders, our revolutionary friend, ought to win in the United States," Maduro said this week during a lengthy televised broadcast, according to a Reuters report.

Maduro, a socialist who often criticizes the U.S. and has praised the self-described democratic socialist from Vermont, said Sanders would win in the U.S. "if the elections were free."

The Venezuelan president said the U.S. relies on an "archaic system that is 200 years old," according to a Reuters translation. He also predicted that presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump could win in November. 

"Donald Trump could win with the electoral system they have in the U.S. elections," he said. "And you know why? It's because Donald Trump is using a force for change hidden in U.S. society."

Maduro, Hugo Chavez's hand-picked successor, took office in 2013. Sanders called Chavez a "dead communist dictator" in an email to supporters in September, Reuters noted.

 
Idiot Boxer said:
1.  Ok.  If you say so.  I mean, it would be ridiculous for a 74 year old to run for president.  Wait.  Bernie is 74?  And he's running for President.  And doing well?  Unpossible.
Click to expand...
A big reason people didn't vote for him in the primaries is his age.  My 65 yo mother said he was too old.

 
Hillary is really showing her age lately-  you have to think this FBI investigation and IG report are really taking their toll..    Bernie looks like a spring chicken next to her..

 
bananafish gets upset when I post Bernie related articles from The Hill in here, but I'm going to do it anyway...

(Reputation be damned!!!)

Poll: Sanders edging Clinton out in California

Bernie Sanders could pull off a big win in next week's California primary, with a new poll showing him ahead by 1 percentage point.

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times pollreleased Thursday evening shows Sanders leading with 44 percent to Clinton's 43 percent.

Sanders' 1-point lead falls within the poll's margin of error. 

California's primary is open to independent voters that give Sanders a boost; among registered Democrats, Clinton still leads Sanders by 4 points, while Sanders has 50 percent support from independents to Clinton's 34 percent.

But, the poll found, Clinton has a 10-point lead among those likely to vote next week, primarily due to support from older voters.

Sanders has continued to close the gap between him and Clinton and has been campaigning hard across the state.

“Bernie Sanders has tapped into a wellspring of support in the Democratic primary over the last several weeks and he’s closing with a rush,” said Dan Schnur, director of USC’s Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, which partnered with the L.A. Times to conduct the poll. 

"If Clinton manages to hold him off and win the primary, it would be as a result of a low turnout that tilts the electorate in her direction."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/bernie-sanders-leads-hillary-clinton-new-poll-california

 
Got another recent one from The Hill that I really liked.  Bernie dropping truth-bombs...

Sanders jabs at Clinton's foreign policy credentials following speech

Bernie Sanders took a swipe at Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy credentials on Thursday in the wake of her speech attacking Donald Trump’s proposals. 

"I agree with Secretary Clinton that Donald Trump's foreign policy ideas are incredibly reckless and irresponsible,” Sanders said in a statement. “But when it comes to foreign policy, we cannot forget that Secretary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in modern American history, and that she has been a proponent of regime change, as in Libya, without thinking through the consequences.”

In his statement on Thursday, Sanders added, "We need a foreign policy based on building coalitions and making certain that the brave American men and women in our military do not get bogged down in perpetual warfare in the Middle East. That's what I will fight for as president."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282059-sanders-jabs-at-clintons-foreign-policy-credentials

 
Gary Coal Man said:
Got another recent one from The Hill that I really liked.  Bernie dropping truth-bombs...

Sanders jabs at Clinton's foreign policy credentials following speech

Bernie Sanders took a swipe at Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy credentials on Thursday in the wake of her speech attacking Donald Trump’s proposals. 

"I agree with Secretary Clinton that Donald Trump's foreign policy ideas are incredibly reckless and irresponsible,” Sanders said in a statement. “But when it comes to foreign policy, we cannot forget that Secretary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in modern American history, and that she has been a proponent of regime change, as in Libya, without thinking through the consequences.”

In his statement on Thursday, Sanders added, "We need a foreign policy based on building coalitions and making certain that the brave American men and women in our military do not get bogged down in perpetual warfare in the Middle East. That's what I will fight for as president."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282059-sanders-jabs-at-clintons-foreign-policy-credentials
Click to expand...
Bernie loses me when he supports keeping dictators in power instead of giving aid to people fighting for democracy. 

 
cstu said:
Bernie loses me when he supports keeping dictators in power instead of giving aid to people fighting for democracy. 
Click to expand...
The problem is you leave out the next step...propping up another dictator in power

Democracy does not work if people don't want it and culturally that is not something the people in the Middle East are yearning for or are willing to put in the blood equity to achieve.

America was not out of the woods in 1776 the people had to fight many more political and actual battles to preserve what was gained. In Iraq the first sign of a militant during a jeep with an uzi and the military retreats and gives up key positions and supplies.

You cannot impose democracy on them. Thus let them deal with it because being the savior only leads to more people joining Isis and figuring out new ways to kill Americans while we gain nothing.

 
cstu said:
Bernie loses me when he supports keeping dictators in power instead of giving aid to people fighting for democracy.
Click to expand...
Easy to say, but hasn't history shown that many of those fighting for democracy are, as often as not, really just fighting to take control themselves? And that the "democracies" they set up are rarely what we would consider democracies?

More importantly, it's absolute hubris to insist that Democracy is the only legitimate form and ALWAYS the best form of government for every group of people on Earth, regardless of of a people's own National heritage, levels of education, etc.

 
bagger said:
The problem is you leave out the next step...propping up another dictator in power

Democracy does not work if people don't want it and culturally that is not something the people in the Middle East are yearning for or are willing to put in the blood equity to achieve.

America was not out of the woods in 1776 the people had to fight many more political and actual battles to preserve what was gained. In Iraq the first sign of a militant during a jeep with an uzi and the military retreats and gives up key positions and supplies.

You cannot impose democracy on them. Thus let them deal with it because being the savior only leads to more people joining Isis and figuring out new ways to kill Americans while we gain nothing.
Click to expand...
- if a dictator gets into power then you support people fighting for freedom again.  You do that until it works.

- it's completely insulting to say the people in the Middle East aren't yearning for or willing to die for democracy.  Unlike the U.S. revolution, AK-47's a dime a dozen and any group of thugs can intimidate those who want democracy. 

- it's not 'imposing' democracy - the people of Libya were begging for help. We weren't the savior either, we simply get them some help to defeat a dictator with all the power.  You will never defeat ISIS and the like by thinking people aren't worth helping and letting them suffer under brutal dictators.

- Remember, the first time France fought for democracy they ended up with Napoleon.  Democracy isn't always pretty or work as quickly as we wish it would

 
bananafish said:
I think he's an opponent of change for change's sake when we have no idea what's going to happen and a very, very limited array of options when it comes to influencing the results. I agree.

Have we supported a regime change in the Middle East that turned out well? I can't think of one over the last 30 or so years that I've been paying attention. Everything we touch there turns to runny turd-water.

At this point it's probably even a good thing that Assad stayed in power.
Click to expand...
First, up until recently we've been happy keeping dictators in power to do our bidding.

Second, Tunisia.

Third, you people are so short-sighted.

 
Gary Coal Man said:
bananafish gets upset when I post Bernie related articles from The Hill in here, but I'm going to do it anyway...

(Reputation be damned!!!)

Poll: Sanders edging Clinton out in California

Bernie Sanders could pull off a big win in next week's California primary, with a new poll showing him ahead by 1 percentage point.
Click to expand...
Say he wins by 52-48.  Sure its a win, but is it really a big win?  Its better than losing, sure.  But its still more or less a coin flip and they'd both gain fairly equal delegates.  

 
bananafish said:
Barring a outlandish victory like 70/30, the number of delegates won at this point borders on meaningless. It's all about being able to make an argument to the superdelegates at the convention that carries some depth and weight, and a California victory adds both of those.

There are really only three ways left that Bernie can become the Democratic nominee, each with a smallish probability of coming to fruition.

  1. He wins the remaining states by such a large margin that he takes the outright lead in pledged delegates. Less than a 1% chance. Not happening.
  2. Hillary continues to drop relative to Trump (probably due to more email drip-drip-dripping) while Bernie continues to outpoll him, and, with a recent California victory in his pocket, the superdelegates decide at the convention that Bernie is the best candidate to beat Trump and hand him the nomination and thus overriding the popular vote. I'd say this happens only if Hillary is so clearly damaged beyond repair that it is obvious that the superdelegates' hands are being forced by Hillary and not the other way around. I'd say this has about a 10% chance of happening and something I predicted before New York. I'm not as confident as I was then but I haven't given up, either.
  3. By far his greatest chance is a Hillary indictment, or scathing exoneration that makes Hillary significantly more unelectable than she already is. I'd say this has about a 30% chance of happening. Even if she is indicted but it comes after the convention has been decided Obama and the rest of the powers that be could replace her with Biden or Kerry. Or hell, what about Michelle? 
And there, in a nutshell, is his argument for staying in until the convention. And I'd say, with a 40% chance at the nomination, it's a pretty strong one, certainly stronger than Hillary had in '08 even though she was closer in the delegate count. Really, it all depends on how this email mess shakes out. I think even without them Bernie is the stronger candidate against Trump, but with them he becomes increasingly so by the day.
Click to expand...
I don't think option two is really an option.  I just don't see anything short of an indictment being enough to force her out.  That's a really tough sell to the people that have voted and backed her.  She's been under heavy scrutiny before and has come out on the other side every time.  I just don't see the email scandal as the thing that finally sinks her - absent an indictment.  As for the odds of an indictment, given what we know I'd guess its closer to 5-10%.  

On the whole, I find Bernie's continued support impressive.  I just don't think him winning a state by a few percentage should really change the conversation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you don't find Bernie winning California impressive then I'm not sure you've been paying attention.  Will it change the outcome of who gets the nomination?  Extremely doubtful.  But to take a guy that most had never heard of and pit him against the Clinton machine and have him finance things with mostly small donations and then have him win the state with the most delegates - if that's not impressive then I'm not sure what would be.  

 
cstu said:
- if a dictator gets into power then you support people fighting for freedom again.  You do that until it works.

- it's completely insulting to say the people in the Middle East aren't yearning for or willing to die for democracy.  Unlike the U.S. revolution, AK-47's a dime a dozen and any group of thugs can intimidate those who want democracy. 

- it's not 'imposing' democracy - the people of Libya were begging for help. We weren't the savior either, we simply get them some help to defeat a dictator with all the power.  You will never defeat ISIS and the like by thinking people aren't worth helping and letting them suffer under brutal dictators.

- Remember, the first time France fought for democracy they ended up with Napoleon.  Democracy isn't always pretty or work as quickly as we wish it would
Click to expand...
It's pretty obvious at this point they don't want it or want to do what it takes.

We are still viewed as the devil and the buy in from the masses is just not there. Why people continue to insist to push democracy while spending billions and sacrificing American lives while emboldening terrorists is honestly just baffling. It does not work and it never will. If Iraq or some other Middle East country wants democracy the. Saudi Arabia can help them.

 
cstu said:
First, up until recently we've been happy keeping dictators in power to do our bidding.

Second, Tunisia.

Third, you people are so short-sighted.
Click to expand...
I thought we were talking about bringing democracy not just picking our brand of dictator.

 
Chuck Todd: "After yesterday's speech by Hillary Clinton the Democratic primary seems somehow smaller to me. Less important. It just doesn't matter anymore." 

 
“There is enormous frustration on the part of the American people with the way we do politics in this country. Most politicians, they’ll say ‘I’m great, you’re terrible, vote for me, the other guy is the scum of the earth, blah blah blah.’ But you know what? People are hurting in this country. The middle class is disappearing. We got a lot of poverty, we don’t have health care for all people. People want us to talk about their lives and their issues and not just spend our whole lives attacking our opponents.”

I blame Tim, Squizz and Gunz for letting it come to this...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
530
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
454
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
808
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top