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.

You Can't Be Kidding Me With Sanders (2 Viewers)

Judge Judy vs Bernie Bros is the fight I didn't know I wanted.  

Judge Judy, who endorsed former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg last month, has some advice for supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders: Step off.

“I’ll fight them to the death,” said the judge, whose full name is Judy Sheindlin.

“America doesn’t need a revolution. It’s the most perfect country in the world, and those people that are trying to change it and revolutionize it don’t have a chance, because I’ll fight them to the death,” she said.
Click to expand...

 
Funny thing is Bernie isn't nearly as "crazy" as everyone makes him out to be.

Are any of his proposed policies not already working successfully in many other countries?

 
The "I'm a Democratic socialist" has to be a blunder, no?

Fox News literally won't say his name without saying "Democratic socialist" before it.

 
jm192 said:
The "I'm a Democratic socialist" has to be a blunder, no?

Fox News literally won't say his name without saying "Democratic socialist" before it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Jon Favreau (the Pod Save America host, not the dude from "Swingers") has been making this point for awhile. Bernie could talk about the exact same policies and frame it as he's continuing the tradition of FDR and Truman and representing the true roots of the Democratic Party. The DS label just confuses things and makes it easier for Republicans to tar him as a communist. But I guess that's his brand at this point.

 
Skoo said:
Funny thing is Bernie isn't nearly as "crazy" as everyone makes him out to be.

Are any of his proposed policies not already working successfully in many other countries?
Click to expand...
and already implemented on a smaller scale in this country

 
rockaction said:
Trump and Sanders as the respective heads of their parties and the main two viable alternatives in the Presidential election marks the absolute brokenness and cravenness of our politics.
Click to expand...
I relate to those feelings. Four years ago I was massively anti-Trump, and only slightly less anti-Sanders.

Then something weird happened: I started to really examine the problems that Sanders is talking about in an evidence-based way. And I came to the conclusion that I wasn't being very logical. So I watched some longer form interviews with him and really listened to what he had to say (and what he didn't). And now I would call myself a moderately energized supporter.

 
dozer said:
Let’s not lose focus. If Bernie is the nominee that’s who you vote for. It’s a two party system. Let’s rescue our country and work out the minutia later. Please.
Click to expand...
Every election that I can recall has been postured as an emergency of the moment.  We must hold our nose or proudly vote to do what is expedient now, even at the obvious cost to us of the future implications.  It is this thinking and this action which has us where we are today.   Ill vote third party.  I will let both of the current non-responsive, power-hungry for power's sake and not to serve the citizens parties be on notice that I disapprove.  I will not be part of a mandate for something I disagree with simply to prevent something I disagree with more from happening.  Give me something I can affirmatively support, for once.

Fool me once shame on you.  Fool me perpetually, shame on me and all who join in supporting, perpetually, the lesser of two evils.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew said:
Based on links from other posters previously, Bernie Bros didn't stay at home.  In fact, they came out stronger for Hillary than Hillary Hose did for Obama.
Click to expand...
The data I saw suggested only about 74% of Bernie supporters ended up voting for Hillary.  I don't know what that percentage was for Hillary supporters and Obama in '08.  Do you know?  I'm genuinely curious, as some who didn't support Hillary in '08 but did in '16.   

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Every election that I can recall has been postured as an emergency of the moment.  We must hold our nose or proudly vote to do what is expedient now, even at the obvious cost to us of the future implications.  It is this thinking and this action which has us where we are today.   Ill vote third party.  I will let both of the current non-responsive, power-hungry for power's sake and not to serve the citizens parties be on notice that I disapprove.  I will not be part of a mandate for something I disagree with simply to prevent something I disagree with more from happening.  Give me something I can affirmatively support, for once.

Fool me once shame on you.  Fool me perpetually, shame on me and all who join in supporting, perpetually, the lesser of two evils.   
Click to expand...
Excellent post. Couldn’t agree more

 
AAABatteries said:
Trump's issues are old news but Bernie who has been doing the same thing for 40 years is current news?  Just say it - the electorate are morons.
Click to expand...
Presidential general much bigger animal than senate race in vermont.   We're talking 100's of millions of dollars vs a few million in vermont.

 
NutterButter said:
Most of it is old news.   At this point, he's a known commodity.   
Click to expand...
It might be old news, but a well crafted ad can frame things in ways that the media can't, or won't. Bloomberg's best ads were devastating. Hopefully Sanders and the Democrats in general learn from that.

And if this country chooses Trumpism over a guy who wants to help US society move to the grown ups table in the developed world, then we deserve the resulting kakistocracy. Even more than we already do.

 
rockaction said:
Trump and Sanders as the respective heads of their parties and the main two viable alternatives in the Presidential election marks the absolute brokenness and cravenness of our politics.
Click to expand...
I know this comparison is coming, but it's still so infuriating.  You may disagree with Bernie's policy positions, but he's a longtime US Senator whose competence, patriotism, and adherence to traditional governing norms is well established.  Trump is an actor with no history of civic participation and a long history of corruption, fraud, and unethical behavior, to say the least.  

They aren't even in the same universe.  

 
tommyGunZ said:
I know this comparison is coming, but it's still so infuriating.  You may disagree with Bernie's policy positions, but he's a longtime US Senator whose competence, patriotism, and adherence to traditional governing norms is well established.  Trump is an actor with no history of civic participation and a long history of corruption, fraud, and unethical behavior, to say the least.  

They aren't even in the same universe.  
Click to expand...
For sure.  Bernie (while I disagree with his positions) is a man of convictions and belief.  Trump is quite literally the opposite.  

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
I voted Libertarian through the Bush years and the Obama years. This is different.

And it is good to be back. I've missed a lot of folks here, including you.
Click to expand...
I understand.  I agree things have never been so bad before.  I am a huge believer in the rule of law and the Constitution. I never imagined we would be where we are today, not really.  I just cannot support perpetuating a cycle that has brought us here.    

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
It might be old news, but a well crafted ad can frame things in ways that the media can't, or won't. Bloomberg's best ads were devastating. Hopefully Sanders and the Democrats in general learn from that.

And if this country chooses Trumpism over a guy who wants to help US society move to the grown ups table in the developed world, then we deserve the resulting kakistocracy. Even more than we already do.
Click to expand...
Big fan of expanding one's vocabulary.  This is a new one on me.  Seems something one probably should have in their verbal arsenal given the climate of the day.

 
NutterButter said:
Presidential general much bigger animal than senate race in vermont.   We're talking 100's of millions of dollars vs a few million in vermont.
Click to expand...
The guy has basically been running for POTUS for 5 years now - if you haven't been paying attention during this time I doubt you are going to start paying attention in the next 8 months

 
AAABatteries said:
The guy has basically been running for POTUS for 5 years now - if you haven't been paying attention during this time I doubt you are going to start paying attention in the next 8 months
Click to expand...
if sanders made it to the general, i'd say you have more of point.   whole different set of rules when its the opposition attacking you vs someone from your own party.   I don't think Trump,  the RNC or conservative super pacs have given Sanders much thought over those 5 years.   

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Me too.  Generally the arguments against it are fear based.  That tells me something.
Click to expand...
The argument against third party (for me) is reason based: It is simply not the way our system of representative democracy was set up with winner take all voting.  I still remember my PoliSci 101 professor proofing it out.  A third party can't live long-term, because if it ever came close to happening, it would get gulped up by the smaller of the two remaining parties.

Now, a system COULD be created so that a third (or forth, or fifth) party is viable long term, but the very nature of how we elect representatives would have to change.  Saying "i'm not going to vote for one of the main two parties until a third is viable" is as effective as saying "I'm not voting for one of the main two parties until the Electoral College is abolished."  I mean, sure, maybe the system will be fundamentally altered so that it happens.  But I don't think not voting is going to speed it along. 

 
Sweet J said:
The argument against third party (for me) is reason based: It is simply not the way our system of representative democracy was set up with winner take all voting.  I still remember my PoliSci 101 professor proofing it out.  A third party can't live long-term, because if it ever came close to happening, it would get gulped up by the smaller of the two remaining parties.

Now, a system COULD be created so that a third (or forth, or fifth) party is viable long term, but the very nature of how we elect representatives would have to change.  Saying "i'm not going to vote for one of the main two parties until a third is viable" is as effective as saying "I'm not voting for one of the main two parties until the Electoral College is abolished."  I mean, sure, maybe the system will be fundamentally altered so that it happens.  But I don't think not voting is going to speed it along. 
Click to expand...
What if instead of being gulped up by one of the two existing parties it gulped up one of them, fundamentally altering their philosophy and their party platforms?

I am not advocating, necessarily, a continuously extant third party.  I am advocating for something not status quo.

Oh, and I do vote, faithfully.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ren hoek
I think voters are worse than nonvoters
Replies
22
Views
997
ren hoek
ren hoek
GordonGekko
OP/ED: Explaining Why Donald Trump Going To Prison Would Be Good For America (7/12/22 21:26 PST)
Replies
3
Views
351
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
466
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top