You're framing elections based on your own wishful thinking of what you would like them to be, not what they actually are. Anyone who hasn't been hibernating on an Asteroid for the past 7 years knows the GOP are not going to participate in single payer, Obamacare, or dramatic hikes in the minimum wage.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
You're framing elections based on your own wishful thinking of what you would like them to be, not what they actually are. Anyone who hasn't been hibernating on an Asteroid for the past 7 years knows the GOP are not going to participate in single payer, Obamacare, or dramatic hikes in the minimum wage.
If that happens they will lose alot of their legislative clout due to the redistricting in 2020. I doubt he will get nothing done, he was able to get things done through bipartisan work as a senator and will continue that trend as POTUS imo.
you missed the point.
what do voters want? both sides. The GOP would not support him sure. why do you think they hate Trump? He has not sold out to the trickle down garbage and other bullshit like gutting social security.
I think I've actually become quite a bit more conservative since I started following this thread. Or rather, the more I read it, the more I realize that my place on the spectrum really isn't as far on the left as I had thought.
Hold on. From the link IB posted 2 pages back:
"For this debate about effectiveness, the most important pieces of legislation are arguably bills which the two members sponsored, and which proposed substantive changes in law. This excludes commemorative bills; both Clinton and Sanders, for example, passed several bills renaming post offices after prominent local residents. This also excludes resolutions, which are either symbolic or procedural in nature.
This also excludes legislation that Sanders and Clinton co-sponsored. A bill’s sponsor typically shepherds the bill through Congress and is usually (but not always) the bill’s primary author. By contrast, a co-sponsor merely signs his or her name on to a bill after it has been written and introduced, to indicate that she or he supports it.
Here’s what the numbers say: During her eight years in the Senate, Hillary Clinton sponsored 10 bills that passed the chamber. The mean senator passes 1.4 bills a year, so Clinton’s 1.25 bills per year is approximately in line with the chamber average. By contrast, Bernie Sanders has been in the Senate nine years and has sponsored only one bill that passed."
...
"Another way members of Congress can influence legislative outcomes is to amend a bill someone else has sponsored, particularly in the Senate. The rules in the Senate allow for much more and freer amending activity than in the House, so senators introduce (and pass) many more amendments than House members do.
Clinton successfully amended bills 67 times in her eight years in the Senate. Sanders did so 57 times in nine years. On a year-by-year basis, that comes to 8.4 per year for Clinton and 6.3 per year for Sanders. Moreover, the mean senator passed 7.4 amendments. Clinton’s is significantly higher than the mean, and Sanders’s is significantly below the mean. Put differently, Clinton passed 33 percent more amendments per year than did Sanders."
So...yeah.
he will take his policies to everyone. use his voice as President and point out who is stopping these from happening.
Massive difference - when he was a Rep and Sen, he was considered an affable, vaguely harmless fringe politician which obviously wouldn't happen if he was POTUS.
I hope so, but even if he does it doesn't do any good if people aren't receptive or are mislead.
That's what happens when people are so dogmatically sure they are right to where they can't compromise with any other side. Anyone or politician who takes such a position should be rejected imo.
Trump has helped open their eyes to the Republican lies.
Bush kept us safe
The Iraq war was needed to keep us even safer
Social Security needs to 'gutted'
and more.
You're just parroting his talking points. He would be crushed by the gridlock, at which point he wouldn't be able to pivot to Plan B .... because he doesn't have one. Such is the ideological thin ice of the Bern.
If he comes in with a mandate from the the people and they continually obstruct his efforts they will pay for it during the next election cycle. I do agree that it will be more difficult as POTUS but I highly doubt that he will get nothing done.
Look at the criticism levelled at the Republican party right now for continuously obstructing Obama. The GOP bubble is shrinking and demographics are changing, they can only do shit like that for so long before it comes back to bite them. Trump being the probable nominee is a perfect example of GOP antics coming back to haunt them.
Raoul. The alternative. Hillary does nothing for ordinary people. What is the point of her winning?
You don't offer a vision where ordinary people actually come out of this fake economy that is set up to crush them while helping people at the top.
You`re kidding. The state controlling everything didn´t work? Can you imagine your reaction if I actually said that, or even implied it.
Not a chance. The Republicans give two fecks about Dem mandates. They care only about undercutting the President to make him (or her) look incompetent and ineffective, then fundraise against that to win the mid term and next Gen election. See what happened under Obama, then magnify it x2 if Sanders is the President.
many people cannot read the sign of the times.
I'm for any establishment politician who is able to cooperate with reasonable members of the opposition party to advance governance and public policy. Fringe candidates like Cruz, Trump, or Sanders obviously don't jive with that. Hillary and Kasich do.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. For one thing, that stuff is undertaken by lobbyists who are hired by the companies. Corporate people know corporate stuff and lobbyists know how government works.
that does not address what I said.
more importantly it does not address the need of millions.
In the end the needs of the many far outweighs the needs of the few and will prevail...one way or another.
Exactly. It's a bit frustrating seeing the same few people posting here, repeating their purely ideology-based opinion for the last few months and absolutely rejecting any evidence that doesn't support it entirely. It's not helping that many of those opinions are quite naive and removed from reality. I don't want to attack anyone but that sort of attitude is not productive in politics.
Yes, I agree that his views on guns is bizarre. All types of guns need to be banned.
I agree, but its not you who gets to decide what the needs of the many are. There are millions of conservatives and moderates who want no part in the Sanders racket; infact they want to move in the opposite direction.
Once again, if that does happen people will notice, as they have already begun to. When that happens these same obstructionist politicians that only hold things up will be replaced by politicians willing to carry out the will of the people. Add into that redistricting that benefits dems/liberals and that could be trouble for the GOP.
that is a completely wrong reading of what is happening now.
I can't help but think that Obama did kind of upset things. If he had sat back and let Hillary win back in 2008 and taken a deal and then run now we'd have got a lot more done. Hillary would have got things through and then Obama could have taken things further.
Trouble is you never know what might have happened in the interim to make him less viable.
Trouble is you never know what might have happened in the interim to make him less viable.
You should drive cross country sometime. You'd see a much broader perspective of what America is and the cultural and political diversity of its inhabitants.
Obama had good intentions but he did not have the balls to carry them through.
Hillary has always been about power, nothing else.
Raoul in pompous condescending post shocker. Unusual for you...
You can make a similar argument for the emergence of the Tea Party in 2010 - it was an answer to gridlock and a lack of "principled conservative leadership". The nutter revolution on the right is actually just as much, if not more organized than the Sanders side on the left. At least the Tea Partiers got the Congress back, which helped harry and thwart Obama's life for the past 6 years.
with all due respect. People are bleeding, dying. what we are seeing is only the beginning. People waking up to the injustices and lies. Accepting garbage like trickle down economics... there no such things. The job creators are ordinary people. People are not buying it anymore.
It may take a couple of cycles. But change will happen.
You could offer a bit more clarity in regards to which opinions you believe are 'naive and removed from reality' so people could actually discuss it with you. Or you can continue with these vague, unspecific criticisms that don't allow for any kind of actual discussions that might be educational for one or all participants.
We all have limited time so I can't, for example, see the full Bill Clinton speech @InfiniteBoredom linked.
In case you do get some free time and want to get angry at the left (I often get angry at what I think is the cherrypicking by pro-Hillary articles), this article spells out the case. Keep in mind that "the left" is a very broad term, it includes people who think Sanders is an establishment stooge. Just like the right would believe Rand Paul is a centrist compromiser.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...e-For-Why-Hillary-Clinton-is-the-Wrong-Choice
Edit: thought i was replying to someone else.
Last edited:
Its neither - I've driven cross country at least 10 times and it completely changed my perception about the country to where its inescapable that nothing will get done unless centrist politicians who know how to cooperate with one another are elected, as opposed to the lobotomized kool aid drinkers who support the likes of Cruz, Trump, or Sanders.
indeed. I don't need to drive across America to understand basic economics. To understand how the system is fixed against the have nots.
It is not their fault they are poor.
But they have been taught that it is their fault.
The difference now is they are waking up to the truth.
That kind of proves my point, people are tired of the usual on both sides and will react accordingly during elections.
If they are, they would be incentivized to elect politicians who are able to "reach across the isle' as opposed to dogmatically "my way or the highway" types like Trump or Sanders. Its the politicians AND their policies that have to be centrist for incremental change to become possible.
So everyone that supports those candidates is a lobotomized kool aid drinker? Are the only sane people the ones that agree with you?
Sanders HAS reached across the aisle as a senator. I'm talking about things that have actually happened, you are speculating about things that MAY happen.
The sane people are the ones who recognize that effective governance takes place through cooperation, not pie in the sky policies that are so far from what the other side might consider plausible that it will only reinforce, not alleviate the gridlock.
Yes, back when he was vaguely irrelevant as the easily ignored Independent Senator from Vermont. None of his current platform positions are remotely acceptable to the Republicans and vice versa, so there is zero chance of that happening if he were President.
- Status