posted by
martyb
on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:14PM
from the how-many-candidates-are-there-now? dept.
from the how-many-candidates-are-there-now? dept.
"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)........is launching a second run for the White House in 2020." breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/19/bernie-sanders-2020-bid
"Reaction to the news was split......with some supporting the 77-year-old and others upset with the move." foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-pokes-fun-at-bernie-sanders-2020-announcement-as-reaction-splits-on-candidacy
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bernie Sanders Announces White House Bid
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 155 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
2
(1)
2
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snow on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:21PM (9 children)
This is truly shocking news! I never could have seen this coming
--Signed, No one.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:43PM (5 children)
I wonder how long until... "HRC announces White House bid"
(Score: 2) by Snow on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:46PM
Now THAT would actually surprise me.
(Score: 2, Troll) by julian on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:27PM (2 children)
If I had a crystal ball and could see that she'd win, I'd want her to run again.
It could actually be cathartic for the country. We'd be able to neutralize the worst segments of the US population. The most die-hard and violently psychotic Trumpists would try armed revolt against the "deep state" and would be killed or jailed; the blue-stripe American flag velcro patch on their Big-5 tacitcal vest unable to convince the police that they're on the same side. A wave of suicidal depression would sweep through Trump country, clearing out the less violent but still ideologically committed followers. And the remaining true believers would be so demoralized and abjectly defeated that they'd give up on politics. They'd barely be able to stomach the humiliation required to roll their mobility scooter into the doctor's office and, hat in hand and ashamed, present their HillaryCare card to receive free treatment for their Oxy addiction.
After 4 years you'd not be able to find a single person willing to admit they voted for or even supported Trump. Some former supporters would indulge in the casuistry of claiming he was never a *real* Republican to begin with.
"He was from NYC after all. Did you know he was registered Democrat most of his life?" one former rube would say to another while installing solar panels on the roof of some school in West Virginia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @09:25PM
Before all that could happen, we'd need to neutralize these guys: https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/8-richest-pastors-in-america.aspx?p=2 [beliefnet.com]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 23 2019, @01:56PM
I think you're not thinking through how many of them there are, and how ready they are for you to decide they need to be "neutralized." I think you're also not thinking through who the kinds of people are who choose law enforcement or military careers; I'll give you a hint: their primary interests are not baking and intersectional feminism.
Given the tenor of your post, it seems you live your life in a bubble that does not bring you into contact with such people; you need to get out more. Travel the highways and byways of the US and see how quickly enthusiasm for the world you posit evaporates. Three months before the 2016 election I was on an 8500 mile road trip around the country, from coast-to-coast, from corner-to-corner. There were MAGA signs everywhere, even in the bluest places like outside Madison, WI and Seattle, WA, and not a single one with "Hillary" on it except one in southwestern Colorado that read, "Hillary for prison 2016."
In other words, nobody voted for Hillary. There were only some people who voted against Trump.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @09:10PM
Hopefully soon. The last election was stolen from her by russian hackers after all, but now it's her turn.
(Score: 3, Funny) by RandomFactor on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:47PM
It was a complete surprise to me Nemo.
-- Signed, Dory.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:08PM (1 child)
No One for President!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:20PM
Giant Meteor 2020: Just Fucking End It Already
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:27PM (1 child)
This oughta be fun.
[grabs popcorn]
--
I have neither the time or the crayons to explain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:38PM
It's sad state of affairs that you have to get your news from conspiracy boards these days (which is why there is so much effort spent in shutting them down), but here is the unvarnished truth [8ch.net] that you won't get from the TV or morning paper. Bernie's staff are known assets with a known agenda that is not friendly to either the United States or socialism. The real socialists -- not the fake socialists run by the banksters -- are over at World Socialist Website [wsws.org] which is one of the oldest news sites on the Internet but is in serious danger of getting banned like Alex Jones because they are the wrong kind of "Socialist." WSWS, Alternet, Truthout, the great alternative media sites from fifteen years ago are all getting deplatformed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:40PM (16 children)
He's old, scandals are swirling around, and there are too many women in the race.
My prediction is that we'll get a female presidential candidate on the Dem ticket. Sanders might get to be Vice Prez, but only if the Prez candidate is not sufficiently "progressive" (Kamala Harris?).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday February 19 2019, @07:21PM (11 children)
80 is the new old. In 1980, many thought Reagan might be too old because he was 69 going on 70 at the time. But now, Trump took office at age 70, Bernie is 77, Joe Biden is 76, Elizabeth Warren is 69, Hillary is 71, Bloomberg is 77, and this Bill Weld is 73. Kamala Harris is a youngster, only 54.
Longevity is up-- for the rich.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:14PM (10 children)
Wow, they really are old.
I would have thought you guys would have learned not to elect old people after your Mr. Reagan.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:28PM (8 children)
Reagan was younger then Trump and Bernie when elected. If anything Bill Clinton and Obama appear to have been age outliers. Trump and Hillary are more or less the same age - give or take a few months.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 19 2019, @09:01PM (7 children)
I know. It's weird isn't it? Why do you guys not have any people in their 40's and 50's available? Old enough to know what they're doing (hopefully) but not too old to actually works for a living.
That lot should all be retired.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday February 19 2019, @09:33PM
Perhaps the politicians in that age bracket are just a bit too young and idealistic? Insufficiently loyal to the existing plutocracy, but too heavily invested to challenge it?
(Score: 5, Funny) by RandomFactor on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:29PM
Trump is a lot of things. But he appears to have quite a bit of energy.
I mean jeez, he moonlights on SN.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:41PM (2 children)
Politics is only interesting to old people. Younger people haven't been interested. The 40-50 generation grew up in the 80s and 90s - they are the least interested in politics.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:20AM (1 child)
Surely your two political parties (wow, two) could come up with two candidates each under the age of 60?
Jesus, there are 320 million of you.
(Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:09PM
There may be 320 million of us, but the majority of those don't vote.
Of the ones who do vote, one of the largest demographic groups is retirees. People over 65 have the highest election turnout of any age group. Election day isn't a national holiday or anything, so people who have to be at work all day can have trouble getting to the polls.
They're picking candidates who fit the electorate.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:40AM
Coming to the US in the 80s, I don't remember any young person attracted to politics. "Going into politics" was joining student council to participate in a powerless group and pick litter from the streets in exchange for preferential college admissions.
On the other hand, Bernie Sanders, and a lot of his generation, confronted racism in the South, putting himself at personal risk to fight for something he believed in. They haven't been making them like they used to.
What a difference a few years makes: The current Democratic "favorite", not too much younger than Sanders, instead uses affirmative action and a claim of Indian ancestry for better access to employment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:18AM
That age group is GenX. We're sitting on the sidelines, watching the world burn.
(Score: 3, Funny) by mhajicek on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:57PM
I have no recollection of that.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:51PM (3 children)
He's the most popular politician in the country, and so are his policies in general. If the Democrats fail to run on policy substance and put forth yet another authoritarian corporate shill, they are going to lose again. There are a few decent candidates besides Bernie running, but Bernie is still the best shot.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:26AM (2 children)
All that may be true, but...
Did Bernie Grope A Woman In 1973?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @08:37AM
Original Meme, courtesy of Faux News:
Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990>/a>
Because, after all, he never denied it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:33PM
+1 cynical-insightful-darkHumor
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:43PM (41 children)
We're nearly in a repeat of the 1980s.
2020 is a bad year for democrats, much as 2008 was a bad year for republicans. The only electable democrats willing to risk getting crushed by Trump will be the old ones. Biden will get it, and will lose to Trump in a landslide. It'll be like 1984 all over again, when Mondale was crushed.
2024 is a better year for democrats, but the extremists will run somebody hopeless. Pence (or possibly Ted Cruz) will just barely beat the democrat.
2028 is also a decent year for democrats. This time, sanity will prevail and the democrats will run a moderate. It could be somebody like Joe Manchin. The democrat wins. Republican voters will stay home because Pence (or maybe Cruz) just isn't as inspiring as Donald Trump.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:50PM (19 children)
It's a hot take. Trump is pretty unpopular and Democrats have been gradually enraged by the nightmare scenario they thought couldn't happen. Trump can lean on the economic numbers for now, unless something bad happens in the next year and a half.
Also, 22 Republicans are defending Senate seats vs. only 12 Democrats. You could see a situation where Trump gets re-elected, Democrats control the Senate, and the House goes to either party.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:14PM
Good for TV ratings and the tabloids, right?
*sigh* If only the non voters would get up and vote the GOP/DNC out. They could it on their own, they are a majority block.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:28PM
I get that you can't walk around in San Francisco in a MAGA hat without risking violence. That isn't America.
Most of the country loves him. The economy seals the deal. There is no hope for an opponent unless there is a massive crash. Clearly, the strategy will be to convince people that things aren't really as good as they seem, or even to find some way to cause a real crash.
Congress could indeed go 4 different ways.
(Score: 3, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:45PM (16 children)
How "unpopular" is Trump, really? No, I'm not talking popularity with the media, or popularity with the party (either party). Trump is actually popular enough with the people who elected him. He's not terribly UNpopular with the population who didn't vote. He's VERY unpopular with those who soak up mainstream media. Ehhhh - toss the polls around to make the case that Trump is unpopular. That's always our gold standard, right? Except, everyone here knows how those polls are manipulated.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @07:12PM (4 children)
12%. About the rock bottom of the Bush/Cheney international criminal administration. Demographic overlaps with Kardashian followers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:07AM (3 children)
At the same point in the reelection cycle, as of December 31 in the even-numbered year prior to the election year and thus about 1.75 years before the election, we have:
$3.2 million for Bush
$4 million for Obama
$129 million for Trump
That's no 12% or rock bottom, and the Kardashian nonsense has no bearing on the election. There hasn't been much inflation either, so Trump is crushing a Bush-Obama tie by a factor of 30. Sorry not-sorry to burst your bubble, but... we Americans love our President Donald J. Trump.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:53AM (1 child)
What does money have to do with anything, unless you are Russian or the NRA?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:37PM
I didn't vote for Trump and don't particularly like him, but every time someone brings up the #RussiaRussiaRussia manipulative propaganda talking point, the chance I'll vote for him out of spite increases a tenth of a point.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:59AM
Stop speaking for all of us. He's a shit american. His nationalism is so fake. He'd never put his life on the line for the country.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:56PM (10 children)
Ah yes, don't believe anything people say, but totally 100% believe your armchair analysis?
ha ha haaaa
And here I thought you weren't a MAGA dunce, yet you are ALWAYS backing Trump kinda like Fox's "fair and balanced". Uh huh, yup, sure thing pal.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:40PM (8 children)
I remember hearing once that preserving your popularity is the most important political job as president.
The rationale is that if the president goes into an election with horrible favorability, his party will get crushed. If he goes in with high favorability, his party will do very well.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 4, Insightful) by deimtee on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:01PM (7 children)
Trump is actually doing well on that, and strangely enough on credibility.
The media in general has gone so batshit insane that they have lost what credibility they had, and the only people taking notice are the lefties that already believe Trump is literally Hitler.
They (the lefties) scream and moan, and hurl abuse and rocks, and set fires, and any reasonable person looks at that mess and thinks they are obviously insane and both they and the media promoting them can be dismissed. They are so bad that Trump looks reasonable in comparison.
I'll get modded troll or flamebait for this, TDS is real.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:50PM (2 children)
As a person who has considered myself a lifelong "lefty" I think we need some clearer labels. It's obvious that corporate Democrats lost their minds (Hillary voters and the MSM), but corporate Dems/MSM are the antithesis of leftward thought. It's also obvious that the regressive-left is dominated by SJW-charicature-types who want to eviscerate the 1A and that they are a dangerous group. But to lump all the people who would like to see something like Bernie's policies given an actual chance and that crony-capitalism be given the boot into those aforementioned groups, is pretty insulting to us -- just as insulting as calling a person with basic conservative values a knight of the KKK.
I don't call Trump voters nazis because it isn't true for the overwhelmingly vast majority of them. Perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to those of us on the left and be a little more discerning.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Wednesday February 20 2019, @08:19PM
Classical Liberals called. They have no sympathy.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday February 20 2019, @10:27PM
I am not a right winger. Of your mainstream politicians, the closest to my politics would be a somewhat strange mix of Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson. (but still not very close)
I heartily agree with the need for better labels, and I did refer to the "lefties that already believe Trump is literally Hitler". I did not mean to be insulting to the non-crazy left.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:01PM (3 children)
Let's see, we have:
1) Creation of concentration camps, including separating children from parents. [npr.org] (see: The Holocaust [wikipedia.org])
2) Declaring a state of emergency for things which appear to be non-emergencies [soylentnews.org] (see: Reichstag Fire Decree [wikipedia.org])
3) A President who is supported by a vocal, and violent minority [theguardian.com], who are willing to deny anything and everything just because the President says it is "Fake News". (see: the SA [wikipedia.org])
4) A President cosy'ing up to traditional enemies and rejecting traditional allies of the country. (see: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact [wikipedia.org])
Hmm... Yep. I can't see any similarity at all between Trump and Hitler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @08:53PM
Parents bring the kids along to break into a house, or rob a bank, yeah, their kids will get separated from them.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Thursday February 21 2019, @01:31AM
So tell me...who did Hitler lose his re-election bid to?
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @08:37AM
Using your logic:
A dead skunk in the middle of the road cannot tell the difference between Trump and Hitler.
You cannot tell the difference between Trump and Hitler.
Therefore you are literally a dead skunk in the middle of the road.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:53PM
Ah yes, don't believe anything people say, but totally 100% believe your armchair analysis?
Damn, it's so tempting to prove these guys wrong but DON'T DO IT!
If they think polls are all fake news and Trump is going to win easily they'll be less likely to vote.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:55PM (14 children)
I wouldn't be so sure. Trump didn't get the popular vote last time, and he's lost some friends after his whole shutdown debacle. Even a lot of the GOP wants Trump to go. He won because last time the DNC (apparent;y) asked itself "What's the dumbest credible thing we can do to lose the race?" and then they did it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:39PM
I'm hoping the Rs pick a different candidate and it becomes a 3-or-4 way (if Bernie runs independent). Then maybe we'll see some people actually voting third-party.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @09:17PM (1 child)
Trump isn't getting tossed. The GOP establishment may have their discomfort with Trump, but they've seen voters tossing out GOP candidates that fail to support Trump. The voters love Trump, and the GOP doesn't dare oppose that.
By our constitution, the popular vote doesn't exist. It is a non-concept. If it did matter though... there is at least a reasonable suspicion that it was stolen from Trump. California alone is enough to make the difference, and the vote harvesting over there is fraud running wild. Many leftist states automatically register people to vote, even when getting a driver's license that doesn't qualify as RealID.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday February 21 2019, @08:46AM
It's getting sort of interesting. The democrat voters are also getting pissed off enough to toss out establishment cronies, eg AOC beating 10 term political insider Crowley.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:30AM (2 children)
When will you drooling idiots understand? The popular vote doesn't mean jack shit in a presidential election.
Get the fuck over it, your candidate/platform/platitude/promise sucked ass and your team lost.
Electoral votes matter, nothing else does.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:17AM
I'm pretty sure that was what the leaders of the old Soviet Union said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:45AM
Straw man. They do understand that the popular vote does not by itself win elections, but it's still reasonable to point out that Trump lost the popular vote because so many idiots are talking about how people he is/was.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:36AM (1 child)
The citizens of the United States of America do not vote for President. On the ballots it sure looks like you do, but you don't.
What you vote for is a slate of electors to represent your state. Each Presidential candidate has, in each state in which he or she appears on the ballot, a specifically named group of people who have pledged to vote for that candidate should said group be selected to represent that state in the Electoral College. When selected to represent their state, it is these people who vote for President.
So each state (and the District of Columbia) is holding completely separate elections. Grouping together the votes of these completely separate elections for Electoral College representatives, and discussing them like a single election (i.e., the "popular vote") is like grouping together the votes across the country for each county's animal control officer -- in other words, you're doing it wrong.
This is part of the reason why it's called the United States of American, and not the United People of America.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 20 2019, @10:31PM
I am well aware of how the election works, I'm not nine years old.
The EC was set up as it is in a time when news traveled at the speed of horse and the average citizen was unlikely to have more than one or two interactions with the federal government in their lifetime. Then we invented telegraph and trains started running across the country. The Federal government became a more common presence in people's lives.
Rather than re-write the Constitution and re-engineer the whole electoral process the states decided that the popular vote would select the electors (rather than the state government). as a sort of hack to make the system conform to the results of the popular vote. For the entirety of the 20th century, it did. No elected president failed to also win the popular vote. IIRC there were only 3 cases in the 19th century where a president won the EC but not the popular vote.
We have seen 2 presidential terms like that here in the 21st century, W's first term and Trump.
TYhe upshot is, Trump only squeaked by for his first term, in spite of the DNC trying to coronate HRC over the objections of much of their rank and file. He hasn't done anything to expand his popularity so far, No big wins, the first single party shutdown in U.S. history, and some frankly embarrassing (and a bit worrying) comments praising oppressive world leaders.
Based on that, all the DNC needs to do is not screw the pooch again.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:54PM (5 children)
HRC also did not get the popular vote if by that term you mean more than 50% of the votes. Had she become president, it would have been on a plurality of the votes just as with Trump. You are correct though on HRC being the dumbest possible choice -- she was hated by all Republicans and significant portion of those left of center. Anyone who didn't know that was self-deluded.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @09:01PM (1 child)
But the DNC's gambit was to position HRC, because of her power in the organization, as candidate, and then dare their "audience" on the left to not vote for her. A la "Here's the candidate we're giving you. Vote for her, or you're voting for Trump. And needless to say a vote for Bernie or Stein is a vote for Trump."
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:46PM
As a Green voter in the last two presidential elections, one of my favorite memes from the last cycle was a picture of Jill Stein with the caption: Trumpers say a vote for Stein is a vote for Hillary; Democrats say a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump; Apparently voting Green counts three times.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:32PM (2 children)
Trump didn't get a plurality of the popular vote at all. His was one of the rare cases where the president wins in the EC but loses by popular vote.
That is, as bad as HRC was, slightly more people held their noses and voted for her than voted for Trump.
It's like a 50 yard dash where nobody finished so they hung the gold on the runner who collapsed closest to the finish line as seen from one viewpoint in the stands..
(Score: 3, Disagree) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:51PM (1 child)
Let us remember that HRC did her level best to get a huge turnout in places like NY and CA (irrelevant b/c she would win those even if she ignored them) while ignoring the battleground states. In the end though, even HRC couldn't cross the 50% threshold and garnered only 48.2% of the vote. Is absolutely true to say that more people voted against HRC than for her (the same is true for Trump of course). This is why I'm ever annoyed about people claiming Clinton got the popular vote. She didn't. She didn't even get half the vote, let alone more than half.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:06AM
However, most voting systems award the win to whoever individually gets the most votes even where there are more than 2 candidates and nobody captures more than 50%. More people voted for HRC than Trump no matter how you want to spin it.
That they made it through the primaries is a poor reflection on their respective parties. Sadly, I can't say HRC in the White House would be much of a win either. The election felt a bit like being asked what brand of bullet would I like to be shot with.
If you're hinting that you'd like to see a method better than first past the post, I'm with you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:00PM (5 children)
Lol, if the idiots haven't realized the truth behind the Trumpster Fire then we've got WAY bigger problems than political grandstanding like yours.
I've said it before, I understand why people voted for Trump but at this point it is clear he is terrible in almost every conceivable way. The only remaining reason to like Trump is if you're so full of hate that you just loooove his trolling the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:41PM (4 children)
He's no worse than any other US president I've seen.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:46PM (3 children)
Found Hellen Keller!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:45PM (2 children)
Obama: Swindled everybody and delivered only worse than what we already had (Middle East, healthcare etc.). Where was the "Hope and Change"?
W. Bush: Patriot Act. Iraq.
I'm too young to remember anything about Clinton other than that he got a blowjob.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:30AM (1 child)
Clinton got a blowjob, and was really popular because he seemed like the sort of guy you could have a beer with.
George Bush I was an old school conservative, in that born to rule fashion.
Ronald Reagan spent the last 2 years of his presidency incapacitated by Altzheier's. His wife ruled the country with help from her astrologer.
You're welcome.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:57PM
Aside from the BJ, Bill also gave us unfair free trade agreements, the largest prison system in the world, and made it a policy decision to not regulate Credit Default Swaps which set the stage for enormous corporate give-aways a decade later.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:44PM (3 children)
We'll just have Weekend at Bernie's in the Whitehouse.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by RandomFactor on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:50PM (2 children)
Hmmm, sounds like a ripoff of the Supreme's "Weekend at Bader's" :-p
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:30PM (1 child)
The conspiracy nuts really fell for that one. Sadly my own Christian Taliban brother is one of them, and was gloating that Trump would be able to damage civil rights in America.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Tuesday February 19 2019, @07:27PM
To be fair, both sides gut various civil rights as the mood strikes. They just target different ones. Might even say all three sides and include big tech in the conversation at this point.
The most dangerous is when they all agree on one to shred...
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:10PM
Bill Weld [wikipedia.org] announced his interest in running against Trump [bostonherald.com] in the Republican primaries
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:38PM (13 children)
"Not too" Breitbarf and Faux News to cover a Democratic Socialist announcing a run for President? Fairly unbalanced, and right-wing cuckoo bird bat-guano crazy, all at once. Where are the Steves? (Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Steve King) Eds, you embarrass youselves, and all us Soylentils.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:50PM (5 children)
You should listen to someone with a few clues about reality - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUGAxMSzDyw [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @07:03PM (4 children)
Where is your /s???
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 19 2019, @07:11PM (3 children)
WTF is a /s???
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @07:19PM
Well, Runaway does not have one. So Sad!!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:05PM (1 child)
It's a "sarc mark," a way of indicating that what you have just said is not to be taken seriously as it's a joke. Now, pretty much ALL your posts have that disclaimer by default, but not because you intended them to ;)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:43AM
Runaway cannot do snark. It is a congenital condition, shared by all conservatives. They can only attempt humor by derogation, as he oft does with me, immediately going for the pederastry accusation, even though I am not a Roman Catholic priest (God forbid!) or even slightly interested in prepubescent anyone. So this is why the Fox News answer to the "Daily Show" did not last three weeks. Not funny, no "/s" tag, just looked like they were being Republican assholes like the Stevens.
Funny, when you think about it, that the recent selection for the SoylentNews book club was Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", wherein a self-aware computer leads humans to rebellion and freedom, but really, really, cannot crack humor. Of course, fascists are even more humorless than Arkansawsian former truck drivers who have had to take jobs in Facilities Management, and because of that spend all their time being an annoyance and troll on a liberal news aggregation website. Seriously, Runaway, you do not even understand the irony of you position as a poster here. It is too funny, but, I at least try not to laugh at you, but to laugh with you. Tell us about the bug-cloud again, grandpa!
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by slinches on Tuesday February 19 2019, @07:03PM (5 children)
Check who submitted that. Who else was he going to link to? The "fake news" media outlets like CNN or AP?
For someone who professes to be so intelligent, you seem to overlook the obvious rather frequently.
(Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 19 2019, @07:09PM (3 children)
Found the Steves!
https://theslot.jezebel.com/thank-u-steve-1831498422 [jezebel.com]
"Thank Steven, who art a racist, and hollowed out the Federal Government, and stick it to the liberals. Amen."
(Score: 5, Touché) by slinches on Tuesday February 19 2019, @07:15PM (2 children)
You complain about the links to Breitbart and Fox then respond with one from Jezebel? Maybe you should have chosen "hypokritus" as your handle.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:34PM
Thanks for making his point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:45PM
Jezebel is not so bad when they publish socialist feminists. Unfortunately, it's also a lot of capitalist feminism, which is not feminism at all, and is in fact counterrevolutionary anti-feminism. Much of what Malcolm X had to say about rich blacks very easily applies to rich white women and their sycophants with very little adjustment.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @07:15PM
Not a matter of who submitted it, a matter of what ed was stupid enough to accept it with sourcing like this and ruin the fine reputation of SoylentNews as an unbiased news aggregation site! We could have had an aristarchus submission with less political bias! Any aristarchus submission!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:09PM
Maybe they,re just attempting to distract from real truthful news.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47296641 [bbc.com]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47295551 [bbc.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Tuesday February 19 2019, @07:45PM (24 children)
It's one of the things I find so brutal about the American candidate selection systems. You have the sitting president on one side that is more or less a given unless he has already been re-elected previous or there is something horribly wrong with him. He just has to sit back and watch as the competition more or less annihilate each other until there is only one left. The process of selecting the one running candidate doesn't exactly make the candidates stronger or better either since every one seems hell bent on backstabbing and pulling out all the skeletons from the closet they can just find or hint at. In the current case Trump is just going to twitter-assassinate all of them for months as they are busy backstabbing each other to try and claw their way to the frontline.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by loonycyborg on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:10PM (9 children)
Representative democracies have jumped the shark already, now they all are pure circus not connected to any actual social issues. By necessity a single vote doesn't give much information so any sort of election or referendum is decided by people offering the options. It can be manipulated heavily. Only meaningful way for citizens to influence government is to join it, so we should work on making government open for all social strata and making it meritocratic. One person will do nothing, even if they're the President.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 19 2019, @10:09PM (8 children)
With what would you replace it, friend? Monarchy? Rotating rule by whoever tops Forbes' list of richest Americans [forbes.com] each year? Gladitorial combat amongst those who wish to lead?
Do tell.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by loonycyborg on Tuesday February 19 2019, @10:38PM (3 children)
It's already turning into monarchy. Bushes, clintons, on my.. And no president can win without expensive campaign funded by the richest people. It's not like I'm suggesting any revolutions but people should participate in government's work more actively than with elections. We need to move all world's government closer to things like direct democracy and Swaraj [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:13PM (2 children)
The president (at least here in the US) does not the whole government make. In fact, the Congress is (although they have tended to abrogate their responsibilities over the past few decades) intended to be co-equal with the Executive branch.
Direct democracy is fine for many purposes. However, where it falls down pretty regularly is in the protection of minorities, whether they be ethnic, political, social and/or geographic.
The issues with the US system of government isn't the system per se. The issues stem from the lack of a broader range of individuals, ideas and debates caused by the need for large sums of money to successfully compete in elections.
Mandatory public funding of elections, strict limits on lobbying and strong rules against "revolving door" governance would go a long way to fix such issues.
Do I have all the answers? No. However, it's pretty clear that the unrestricted flow of money into our political system tilts power strongly in favor of a small group of individuals and corporations. Removing that flow of money is a critical piece to any meaningful reforms.
Sadly, those empowered to make such reforms are the very people who benefit the most from the current system.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:48PM
While this is in no wise invalidating what you are saying, I would argue that congress was intended to be the preeminent branch.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 4, Informative) by fyngyrz on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:06PM
The term is oligarchy. [wikipedia.org]
--
What I if told you
you read the previous line wrong
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:21AM
At this point, I think our best option is to randomly select a citizen each year. Perhaps secretly exclude anyone who is a member of a political party. Strictly police the emoluments clause so that President-for-a-year doesn't abuse the position for personal gain.
Either that or just give it to Judge Judy for life.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 20 2019, @09:21AM
Yes, yes, yes. The prize, however, must be putting the winner out of her/his misery, that's the only way to make sure you don't end being led by a psychopath.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:59PM (1 child)
Dictatorship of the proletariat according to the Transitional Plan (the one that deals with the Death Agony of Capitalism), which should give way to a kind of federated libertarian socialism once counterrevolution has died out.
Of course, the idea of socialism in one country is bunk, and so the dictatorship of the proletariat must be put into power by the process of permanent revolution.
My estimate is that a socialist culture will begin to emerge after 40 years of wandering in the desert of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the future history of Star Trek (between the Bell Riots and N-Day) also roughly agrees, so this must simply be the way it is done.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:22PM
I guess someone hasn't read his Santayana, or at least hasn't taken it to heart.
Lord Acton [wikipedia.org] pegged it, and long before the numerous failed attempts at creating a socialist paradise through revolution and the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat."
That's not to say that capitalism coupled with democracy or (small 'r') republicanism are the best systems. They are, as Mr. Churchill rightly pointed out:
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but it's clear that as long as there is scarcity, there will be those who will seek to control more resources than others. As such, it makes more sense (and fetttered capitalism along with democracy has done much better at this than any other system we've tried so far) to attempt to create a world without scarcity, where we all may create the lives and meaning that we choose.
Is that a pipe dream? Maybe. Will we achieve such a society without upheaval and violence? Probably not. Is it a worthy goal? Most certainly.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:26PM
"...or there is something horribly wrong with him"
Isn't that rather obvious with Trump?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 19 2019, @09:26PM (10 children)
I respectfully disagree.
The point of having elections is to decide who we want to be in charge of things. Which means, among other things, determining if the skeletons in their closet are a big enough problem that we think they're a bad person to be in charge of things.
The reason the Democrats lost last time around wasn't because there was a contested primary, but because Hillary Clinton has a lot of skeletons in her closet and the Democratic apparatus (including but not limited to the DNC, MSNBC, and key PACs) was determined to ignore those problems and call anyone who said they were problems sexist.
The reason that didn't sink Trump is that the stuff that the Democrats thought were skeletons in his closet and spent lots of time and ink going "OMG! Did you see this?" were not in fact skeletons in the eyes of his base of support.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 19 2019, @10:17PM (1 child)
Actually, the reason the Democratic Party lost in 2016 was due to the arrogance and stupidity of those running the campaigns on the 'D' side.
They ignored credible reports from Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin that victory was imperiled by both a poor ground game and a lack of focus on issues affecting aging middle-class voters.
Had the DNC and Clinton campaigns heeded those warnings, they could easily have turned those 77,000 voters in three states (out of a total of ~13,000,000 votes), which would have clinched the D's victory.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:15PM
"by both a poor ground game and a lack of focus on issues affecting aging middle-class voters."
And apparently, picking a candidate that was already the most hated person in politics had nothing to do with it.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday February 19 2019, @10:51PM (7 children)
huh. Interesting.
Well, you know, they lost my luntil-then-ifetime-democratic-vote to Trump when they murdered Seth Rich in July of 2016 and I read the leaked meeting notes of HRC with Goldman-Sachs (and other globalist bankers). One story for the plebs, the real story for the bankers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @10:56PM (1 child)
yaaaa you were a lifetime democratic voter /s
^ see runaway that is how you mark your sarcastic remarks
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:04AM
But crafoo, like The Idiot Runaway1956 (2626), is not being sarcastic, they are actual idiots. It is like that scene in the battle between Freedonia and the other nations in the Marxist Bros. movie, when Grouch says: "The false consciousness of the lumpenproletariat in no way undercuts the authority of the dictatorship of the proletariat!" Wait, wrong script, oh, here it is: "He may talk like an idiot, and act like an idiot, but don't let that fool you, he really is an idiot!". That is Trump to a tea, or at a tee, or maybe his intellect is ti, and in the sum of the square roots of all the stupid people in America, cross-checked with the opinion of the Mighty Broussard, and funneled into the Brexist sap who had the good sense to ex-patriot himself off the merry old "France"? Holey crappola, crafoo, how do you expect to continue to exist on SoylentNews, when you post such crap, and have no redeeming qualities? Please, at least, explain to us how bit-coin is a real thing. That might be useful, or illegal.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:15AM (4 children)
1. You don't know who murdered Seth Rich. Nobody does.
2. Yup, the routine of telling the bankers one thing and the plebs something else was a problem. That said, you don't know who she was lying to, Goldman or the voters. Also, that's probably not a bigger problem than Donald Trump living in an alternate universe that changes from day to day. Had HRC been running against, say, Dwight Eisenhower, I would have voted for Ike.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:11AM (1 child)
That decision is not difficult in any way to be honest.
Had HRC been running against an inanimate carbon rod, I would have voted for the inanimate carbon rod.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:37PM
Unfortunately for all of us, she was running against someone who has demonstrated he can do a lot more damage than an inanimate carbon rod.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:03PM
Who has the money? Voters: nope. Wall St: yep.
We know who she was lying to and anyone who doesn't is deluded.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Sunday February 24 2019, @04:21PM
The motivation was certainly there, and it is by far the most powerful motivation of all realistic choices. The means was there. The circumstances contradict the official narrative. Are you asking people to believe in a highly unlikely coincidence? Do you apply this reasoning to all your positions, or just ones that support your particular internal narrative?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:06AM (1 child)
It's really fun to watch the opposing side beat themselves to death, knowing that sitting Prez is on the sidelines watching and making note of every move of the opposing self-flagellators.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday February 21 2019, @04:11AM
If someone handed him a one page paper that showed him everything he needed to do then he'd skim through it looking for the parts that talk about how awesome he is. Tump making notes? hah, what a joke
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.