That may convince the money people to back him.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
- Status
That may convince the money people to back him.
Great interview yeah, first time I've heard him speak.
My only problem is that he sounds exactly like Larry David's George Steinbrenner impression. It's all I could picture as he was speaking.
Bernie has that classical Brooklyn jewish accent, as does Larry David. The real Steinbrenner didn´t even have a New York accent.
So is your ageist agenda. Nothing wrong with Sanders or Joe Biden
I think age is fair game when it comes to electing Presidents. More importantly, so does the voting public.
There should be a cut off age of 70 or so just as there is one at 35.
No, it should be 71 and 34. Wonder how on earth they came up with 35. If you are good enough you are young/old enough.
Good enough being subjective, which is why there is an actual age limit.
Interesting - Sanders has now reached Obama's 2007 levels of popularity:
In the last 4 polls conducted over the last 2 weeks Sanders has cut Clinton's lead down to 21.5 points.
How anyone can look at that trend and say Sanders doesn't have a shot is mind-boggling. Clinton's bods are shitting it.
How anyone can look at that trend and say Sanders doesn't have a shot is mind-boggling. Clinton's bods are shitting it.
Don't do it to yourself lads. Not a snowballs chance.
Thats fair enough, but I was talking about you equating age with lack of intelligence especially about Biden
In the last 4 polls conducted over the last 2 weeks Sanders has cut Clinton's lead down to 21.5 points.
How anyone can look at that trend and say Sanders doesn't have a shot is mind-boggling. Clinton's bods are shitting it.
Those numbers are extremely skewed by the fact that Hillary's numbers are lower because of the email issue as well as the fact that many polls include Biden who isn't even running at the moment. Most of Biden's votes would likely go to Hillary if he wasn't an option in the poll since their policies are similar.
If you read back what I said about Biden, I didn't. The lack of intelligence comment in regards to Biden has nothing to do with his age and everything to do with Biden.
I'm going to be very naive and say that it would be a great victory for democracy if Sanders beats Clinton to the nomination and then becomes the President. He'd work hard for the working and middle classes.
Hope his ideas resonate among the middle classes. If I was an American, I'd vote for him. No doubt about that.
Hope his ideas resonate among the middle classes. If I was an American, I'd vote for him. No doubt about that.
Sorry, not buying it.
Also, early season tends to skew numbers by bringing out the crazies in each party, which is why the likes of Trump and Sanders are doing well at the moment. Fortunately, primary season is usually mean reverting where people actually begin paying attention to the candidates and discard the nutjobs for more establishment candidates they believe have a chance of winning Gen election.
How is Sanders a crazy nutjob?
How is Sanders a crazy nutjob?
He would certainly be out of the mainstream during a general election, and by extension, unelectable.
Yes, that's arguably true. How does that make him a crazy nutjob though?
He would be perceived as such by centrists who don't care for his policies.
The entire process is subjective. That's why there is a vote among 120 million people (should be more) and not limits on thousands of criteria to select a single person. Why stop at age?
Unfortunately, he'd work hard and hit a brick wall of lobbyists and republicans. The system is so broken.
Because that's the law now. There's a cap on how young a candidate can be, and there should also be a cap on how old they should be (imo). Although older people may have a sense of wisdom about them, they are also progressively detached from the socio-cultural norms of the rest of society.
imo the voters should decide that. Again, there are many ways to detach from the norm. Age is just one.
The age restriction is ridiculous.
Raoul's making a better case for stopping the elderly from voting than he is for the ban on the under 35's standing.
Raoul's making a better case for stopping the elderly from voting than he is for the ban on the under 35's standing.
I don't see it as much of a relevant issue under the current rules since there haven't been any sub 35 year olds who would've been mature, experienced, or ready to run for President. There haven't been any recent 40 year olds in that category.
What about Deeze Nuts? Seems as mature as some of the current candidates.
hehe....I'm sure he is.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersFor...a_conservative_and_this_is_why_im_voting_for/
I´m a Conservative, and This Is Why I´m Voting For Bernie Sanders
Because I believe that in today's climate where the Republicans are anything but conservative(wars, corporate welfare, healthcare, and oil), and Democrats are anything but conservative, that Bernie Sanders proposes less spending, smarter spending, with less tax dollars being spent on all the wrong things. I'll explain below if you'd like to read. Send this to your conservative family members, or rewrite it and regurgitate.
Bernie is conservative on healthcare. Currently this country spends more on healthcare than any other country in the world without even guaranteeing it. This is a result of tax dollars competing to provide care with private health insurance. Private health insurance offers no transparency or oversight and the prices keep skyrocketing to pay off investors, CEOs, overhead, and more, with very little of the actual cost paid going to real health providers like nurses, technicians, and doctors. Sanders national single payer medicaid would result in us paying LESS while offering better care. Sanders has a fiscally conservative stance on healthcare. Most other countries that offer single payer healthcare like Norway, Sweden, and more offer better care for cheaper. These countries have higher life expentacies, and lower rates of infant mortality. The number one cause of bankrupcty in these countries is not healthcare expenses as it is in the USA. Why is the USA still behind the rest of the world? Sanders is also conservative by letting middle class families conserve more money that would otherwise be spent on healthcare, while making healthcare even cheaper so they're taxed less. Conservative.
Sanders is against foreign intervention, with a long history of voting against military intervention. With one javelin missile($400,000) used to blow up a non threat on the other side of the planet, he realizes we could put 4 kids at home through college and house/feed them in the process as well for the same amount of money. Sanders wants to decrease military spending and the military as a whole, making it smarter and more efficient. Sanders is a conservative in that he wants to conserve resources, spending less tax dollars on the military and using them less. Sanders is a conservative. An original conservative as envisioned by the founding fathers, because any large standing military is a sure sign of tyranny. perpetual warfare is a sign of tyranny.
Sanders voted against the patriot act. He's against the government locking inmates up at the rate we are for non violent crimes. He's against internet surveillance. Sanders opposes the government telling citizens who they can't marry, what contraceptives I can use or when I can choose to have my baby. Sanders is against the government using harmless marijuana users as a source of income and bodies to perpetuate the prison for profit system. By deescalating the war on drugs, by getting the government out of marriage, out of the internet, and our of our bodies, Sanders is a conservative here. He's a social conservative because the government should not be involved in determining what's moral and what's not, only in what's harmful and what's not. The government shouldn't be controlling how people start/run their families. Yes abortion is a key issue, on the flip side so is an issue like second hand tobacco smoke.
(If republicans are so against abortion, why do they want to drop bombs indiscriminately on the other side of the planet? How is perpetual war pro life? How is letting children want for healthcare pro life? What about greener energy so children grow up with less cancer? Getting junk food out of viral marketing to drop obesity? There are hundreds more ways to be pro life that Republicans and Democrats fail to act on, although Republicans are slightly more guilty in this way beyond the desperate push to end abortion. Voting for a candidate to save babies does nothing when babies on the other side of the planet are dying and families are too broke to even care for their babies.)
Senator Sanders opposes corporate welfare. He opposes subsidies for companies that are already breaking records for productivity and profits(http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/407161/file-2606257452-png/blog-files/corporate-profits-graph.png), like big oil, automotive, big pharmacy, big banks, and many more. He wants our tax dollars to stop being handed over freely to the rich elite and to stop unfairly being used to ensure the largest corporations in our country are constantly operating despite devastatingly poor decisions and predatory practices. By spending less on corporate welfare and less on welfare for the top 1%, Sanders proves himself to be conservative. By contrast Hillary and all Republicans want to continue this cycle of dropping taxes on corporations that profit heavily off of operating in the USA under our safety net, with companies like Walmart paying starvation wages driving their employees to use tax dollar paid for food stamps. We're literally giving Corporations money and then paying part for half of their labor because they refuse to pay their employees a decent wage all the while profits are soaring higher than ever before and the money all goes to the top. How is this, in any way, just? Don't you remember how Jesus told the rich to give to the poor? Why do so many Christians support the poor giving to the rich? Because that's what's happening. The poor give to the rich. Sanders would save tax dollars and shift the tax burden off the families already drowning in healthcare fees and taxes. He's conservative because he'd drop tax expenditures, and conservative to the middle class because he'd drop the taxes on the middle class . . . (cont)
I´m a Conservative, and This Is Why I´m Voting For Bernie Sanders
Because I believe that in today's climate where the Republicans are anything but conservative(wars, corporate welfare, healthcare, and oil), and Democrats are anything but conservative, that Bernie Sanders proposes less spending, smarter spending, with less tax dollars being spent on all the wrong things. I'll explain below if you'd like to read. Send this to your conservative family members, or rewrite it and regurgitate.
Bernie is conservative on healthcare. Currently this country spends more on healthcare than any other country in the world without even guaranteeing it. This is a result of tax dollars competing to provide care with private health insurance. Private health insurance offers no transparency or oversight and the prices keep skyrocketing to pay off investors, CEOs, overhead, and more, with very little of the actual cost paid going to real health providers like nurses, technicians, and doctors. Sanders national single payer medicaid would result in us paying LESS while offering better care. Sanders has a fiscally conservative stance on healthcare. Most other countries that offer single payer healthcare like Norway, Sweden, and more offer better care for cheaper. These countries have higher life expentacies, and lower rates of infant mortality. The number one cause of bankrupcty in these countries is not healthcare expenses as it is in the USA. Why is the USA still behind the rest of the world? Sanders is also conservative by letting middle class families conserve more money that would otherwise be spent on healthcare, while making healthcare even cheaper so they're taxed less. Conservative.
Sanders is against foreign intervention, with a long history of voting against military intervention. With one javelin missile($400,000) used to blow up a non threat on the other side of the planet, he realizes we could put 4 kids at home through college and house/feed them in the process as well for the same amount of money. Sanders wants to decrease military spending and the military as a whole, making it smarter and more efficient. Sanders is a conservative in that he wants to conserve resources, spending less tax dollars on the military and using them less. Sanders is a conservative. An original conservative as envisioned by the founding fathers, because any large standing military is a sure sign of tyranny. perpetual warfare is a sign of tyranny.
Sanders voted against the patriot act. He's against the government locking inmates up at the rate we are for non violent crimes. He's against internet surveillance. Sanders opposes the government telling citizens who they can't marry, what contraceptives I can use or when I can choose to have my baby. Sanders is against the government using harmless marijuana users as a source of income and bodies to perpetuate the prison for profit system. By deescalating the war on drugs, by getting the government out of marriage, out of the internet, and our of our bodies, Sanders is a conservative here. He's a social conservative because the government should not be involved in determining what's moral and what's not, only in what's harmful and what's not. The government shouldn't be controlling how people start/run their families. Yes abortion is a key issue, on the flip side so is an issue like second hand tobacco smoke.
(If republicans are so against abortion, why do they want to drop bombs indiscriminately on the other side of the planet? How is perpetual war pro life? How is letting children want for healthcare pro life? What about greener energy so children grow up with less cancer? Getting junk food out of viral marketing to drop obesity? There are hundreds more ways to be pro life that Republicans and Democrats fail to act on, although Republicans are slightly more guilty in this way beyond the desperate push to end abortion. Voting for a candidate to save babies does nothing when babies on the other side of the planet are dying and families are too broke to even care for their babies.)
Senator Sanders opposes corporate welfare. He opposes subsidies for companies that are already breaking records for productivity and profits(http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/407161/file-2606257452-png/blog-files/corporate-profits-graph.png), like big oil, automotive, big pharmacy, big banks, and many more. He wants our tax dollars to stop being handed over freely to the rich elite and to stop unfairly being used to ensure the largest corporations in our country are constantly operating despite devastatingly poor decisions and predatory practices. By spending less on corporate welfare and less on welfare for the top 1%, Sanders proves himself to be conservative. By contrast Hillary and all Republicans want to continue this cycle of dropping taxes on corporations that profit heavily off of operating in the USA under our safety net, with companies like Walmart paying starvation wages driving their employees to use tax dollar paid for food stamps. We're literally giving Corporations money and then paying part for half of their labor because they refuse to pay their employees a decent wage all the while profits are soaring higher than ever before and the money all goes to the top. How is this, in any way, just? Don't you remember how Jesus told the rich to give to the poor? Why do so many Christians support the poor giving to the rich? Because that's what's happening. The poor give to the rich. Sanders would save tax dollars and shift the tax burden off the families already drowning in healthcare fees and taxes. He's conservative because he'd drop tax expenditures, and conservative to the middle class because he'd drop the taxes on the middle class . . . (cont)
That's a very narrow Barry Goldwater / Ron Paul interpretation of conservative.
The age limits are paternalistic and undemocratic. Voters elect their representatives in a democracy and if they want to elect someone of a different age they should be able to do so.
They're also democratic in that if voters cared enough they could elect representatives who vowed to change the constitution and let anyone become President. The fact that this isn't an issue in American politics speaks volumes as to how much citizens care about this.
Not quite, seeing as changing the constitution requires a massive supermajority which is itself another limit on pure democracy. The fact that this isn't an issue in American politics is irrelevant to the validity of the issue. Lots of important things aren't currently relevant in American politics.
Well that's how business is done in a constitutional republic. Its not as if no one knows the rules going in. The fact that it isn't an issue basically proves how irrelevant it is to the citizens who live in the country and is more or less a shallow thought experiment for some in the internet.
This thread is 36 pages of hollow thought experiments. No one here will directly impact policy or politics. There are many undemocratic elements in a constitutional republic. The senate is one big glaring example. I don't see what's wrong with pointing out the inherent paternalism in restricting something as fundamental as the voters right to choose who represents them.
We're not talking about whats in this thread though - we're talking about how citizens feel about this or a lack there of. If it were relevant, more people in the public, media, and civil society would care about it and be attempting to change it. The fact that there haven't been any sub 35 people who would've made great presidential candidates and the fact that frankly no one gives a damn, speaks volumes about how utterly vapid the topic is.
It's not valid. Frankly I think using Whether the media covers it or not as a test of vapidity that will end up with stuff like terrorist fist jabs and flag pins being discussed seriously and fundamental democratic issues, however inside baseball they may be, relegated to political threads on the Internet.
Or another way of looking at it would be that if citizens cared, political candidates would get wind and start using it as a populist weapon to get elected. People do care about jobs, the economy, and basic things that affect their lives as opposed to changing the constitution so 29 year olds can be President.
- Status