Jump to content
270soft Forum

Bernie is running.


Recommended Posts

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/427071-sanders-to-announce-presidential-campaign-report

 

Well,no need to go through the rest of the Dems. SANDERS 2020! 

 

@vcczar I was wondering will you support him again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, MysteryKnight said:

His advisor says otherwise, but i'd think this just means it'll probably won't happen until next week

 

I read this in the artical,it was confirmed later. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jayavarman said:

Please, no.  Save time time and money for a next generation viable Democratic candidate.

I 100000000% agree, though his platform is just common scene to most of the world, we need Top Cop Kamala Harris, or  Tulsi Gabbard the paleocon isolationist, sure the most desperate and destitute of us will still be fucked over massively, but we all have days like that, and hey at least they are not boring old white men!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

I 100000000% agree, though his platform is just common scene to most of the world, we need Top Cop Kamala Harris, or  Tulsi Gabbard the paleocon isolationist, sure the most desperate and destitute of us will still be fucked over massively, but we all have days like that, and hey at least they are not boring old white men!

I will take Bernie over either of them anyday. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jayavarman said:

Please, no.  Save time time and money for a next generation viable Democratic candidate.

It's too bad one has to sell out to engines of evil - and virtually sell their own soul - to be a viable candidate for EITHER major U.S. party nowadays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

It's too bad one has to sell out to engines of evil - and virtually sell their own soul - to be a viable candidate for EITHER major U.S. party nowadays.

This is COMPLETELY factual. I couldn't agree more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

It's too bad one has to sell out to engines of evil - and virtually sell their own soul - to be a viable candidate for EITHER major U.S. party nowadays.

 

52 minutes ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

This is COMPLETELY factual. I couldn't agree more.

Ranked Choice Voting is the solution.

Candidates in a primary would have to appeal to a broader audience to win enough 2nd choice votes.

Voting for a 3rd party in a general election would not be a "waste" since the vote could go to the next major candidate after the first round.

What would the Clinton-Trump result have been if Greens and Libertarians were allowed a 2nd choice preference on their ballot?

https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jayavarman said:

 

Ranked Choice Voting is the solution.

Candidates in a primary would have to appeal to a broader audience to win enough 2nd choice votes.

Voting for a 3rd party in a general election would not be a "waste" since the vote could go to the next major candidate after the first round.

What would the Clinton-Trump result have been if Greens and Libertarians were allowed a 2nd choice preference on their ballot?

https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

That system still acknowledges that one of the two major parties be considered default victors of every election, still makes those two parties' primaries run through public money and electoral agencies, and still solidifies, institutionally the power of the political Duopoly, rigging and stacking the deck, in their favour, like the ruling parties' in many Third World emerging democracies and Post-Soviet-States, and does nothing to take away the need for an artificial, forced two-party system, leaving no incentive or logic for the two main parties to split along their natural fault lines into separate parties, and for new parties that are not extreme, fringe, or one-issue to form and be viable - things that happen in a healthy and functional political party system and culture, in fact, but that the U.S.'s artificially and cancerously calcified political setup has prevented through institutional rigging and corruption for 150 years - and, in fact, takes away the fact, as it is, of Third Party voting to show disapproval for the Duopoly, because they'll suddenly start benefitting from votes, so it becomes even worse. The U.S. would still have one of the five worst political party systems and cultures in the First World for REAL choice, and thus, accountability, transparency, and responsibility, and the feeling of need for them, by elected officials to their constituents, by far, along with Singapore, Japan, Hungary, and Romania, which it already. Nothing will be fixed, and the protest or disapproval vote, will just be nerfed, all the further worsening and corrupting the system. Forgive me if I don't see that as a benefit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Patine said:

That system still acknowledges that one of the two major parties be considered default victors of every election, still makes those two parties' primaries run through public money and electoral agencies, and still solidifies, institutionally the power of the political Duopoly, rigging and stacking the deck, in their favour, like the ruling parties' in many Third World emerging democracies and Post-Soviet-States, and does nothing to take away the need for an artificial, forced two-party system, leaving no incentive or logic for the two main parties to split along their natural fault lines into separate parties, and for new parties that are not extreme, fringe, or one-issue to form and be viable - things that happen in a healthy and functional political party system and culture, in fact, but that the U.S.'s artificially and cancerously calcified political setup has prevented through institutional rigging and corruption for 150 years - and, in fact, takes away the fact, as it is, of Third Party voting to show disapproval for the Duopoly, because they'll suddenly start benefitting from votes, so it becomes even worse. The U.S. would still have one of the five worst political party systems and cultures in the First World for REAL choice, and thus, accountability, transparency, and responsibility, and the feeling of need for them, by elected officials to their constituents, by far, along with Singapore, Japan, Hungary, and Romania, which it already. Nothing will be fixed, and the protest or disapproval vote, will just be nerfed, all the further worsening and corrupting the system. Forgive me if I don't see that as a benefit.

False.  More people will vote and run 3rd party if they know that their vote or candidacy is not a "throw away".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jayavarman said:

False.  More people will vote and run 3rd party if they know that their vote or candidacy is not a "throw away".  

Agreed. 1992, 1996, 2016. These elections had candidates that preformed well for a variety of reasons. And I doubt people don't vote third party because they don't think they could win, they don't vote third party because the third parties suck. If there truly is a good third party expect them to actually get some votes/seats. Reason most people vote in this "duopoly" for the two major parties is because that is a mix or reasons being party id, candidate attractiveness, and their platform. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/427071-sanders-to-announce-presidential-campaign-report

 

Well,no need to go through the rest of the Dems. SANDERS 2020! 

 

@vcczar I was wondering will you support him again?

Ask me again during the PA primary. It's very possible. I tend to vote for the most progressive person in the primaries, and in the most progressive of the two major parties in the general. If Sanders is still in the race, it will likely be him. Here's my primary history and general history:

2000: No one in the primary; George W. Bush in the general (I was a stupid teenager and just voted based on who was more likable). 

2004: Kucinich in the primary and Kerry in the general

2008: Obama in the primary and in the general. Was a Kucinich supporter again. When he dropped out, went first to Hillary, but found Obama more genuine before TX Primary.

2012: No one in primary, Obama in general.

2016: Sanders in primary, Hillary in general. 

2020: Will be the most progressive candidate in the primary, and the Democrat in General (unless the impossibly unlikely change that a more progressive 3rd party has a shot at 270 EVs). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Jayavarman said:

False.  More people will vote and run 3rd party if they know that their vote or candidacy is not a "throw away".  

 

2 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

Agreed. 1992, 1996, 2016. These elections had candidates that preformed well for a variety of reasons. And I doubt people don't vote third party because they don't think they could win, they don't vote third party because the third parties suck. If there truly is a good third party expect them to actually get some votes/seats. Reason most people vote in this "duopoly" for the two major parties is because that is a mix or reasons being party id, candidate attractiveness, and their platform. 

No. It's because the political Duopoly has the electoral system of funding, ballot access, visibility, publicly paid for funding of Duopoly primaries, "dirty-pool" tactics to marginalize outside candidates, a fatalistic sense ingrained in voters that only the two main parties can EVER win, public voter education dominated by the two major parties with Third Parties/Independent only ever mentioned as a side-note concept, and the horrid, outdated, anachronistic, and unrepresentative Electoral College that forces a two-party system and cheats the voters and their again and again. Plus, the Republican and Democratic Parties are NOT proper and functional political parties by the standards of more politically-healthy First World multi-party systems - their forced, unstable, and tumultuous coalitions lacking in true cohesion and only forced together by the U.S. Constitutional system - which may have been the greatest and most novel in the world in the late 18th Century, but has since lagged behind many other First World systems - and the U.S. political would be far healthier and far better served if the camps represented within were allowed to break along their natural fault-lines into separate and more functional, but multiple parties. Also, Third Parties do not INHERENTLY suck by nature and as a concept - it's just that the corrupt system and the deck is institutionally stacked against them and they only flourish at all by taking extreme niches usually neglected by the two major parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

 

No. It's because the political Duopoly has the electoral system of funding, ballot access, visibility, publicly paid for funding of Duopoly primaries, "dirty-pool" tactics to marginalize outside candidates, a fatalistic sense ingrained in voters that only the two main parties can EVER win, public voter education dominated by the two major parties with Third Parties/Independent only ever mentioned as a side-note concept, and the horrid, outdated, anachronistic, and unrepresentative Electoral College that forces a two-party system and cheats the voters and their again and again. Plus, the Republican and Democratic Parties are NOT proper and functional political parties by the standards of more politically-healthy First World multi-party systems - their forced, unstable, and tumultuous coalitions lacking in true cohesion and only forced together by the U.S. Constitutional system - which may have been the greatest and most novel in the world in the late 18th Century, but has since lagged behind many other First World systems - and the U.S. political would be far healthier and far better served if the camps represented within were allowed to break along their natural fault-lines into separate and more functional, but multiple parties. Also, Third Parties do not INHERENTLY suck by nature and as a concept - it's just that the corrupt system and the deck is institutionally stacked against them and they only flourish at all by taking extreme niches usually neglected by the two major parties.

Focus on specific policy and legislative actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

I'm still a Conservative Republican for Biden at this point.

Will you be able to vote in 2020? I remember you being slightly younger than me and I'll be able to then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jayavarman said:

Focus on specific policy and legislative actions.

That's pointless. When the whole system groans under it's own inefficiency and endless failures because of it's broken, corrupt, outdated, and inadequate political system, poking out individual anecdotes and playing "whack-a-hole" with specifics becomes counter-productive.

9 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Communism is a mental disability.

That statement shows you have absolutely no understanding of Communist ideology (a flaw you share in common with a lot of Americans, it seems). Plus, how did Communism even become relevant here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jayavarman said:

Please, no.  Save time time and money for a next generation viable Democratic candidate.

I agree. I love Sanders' platform and vision for the US; however he is too old to run. If he was 50 or 60, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. However, if he were elected, the stress of the office could mean a heartbeat away from VP Harris being president.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

That statement shows you have absolutely no understanding of Communist ideology (a flaw you share in common with a lot of Americans, it seems). Plus, how did Communism even become relevant here?

 

If you support Communism despite it murdering over 100 million people just because "iT wAsNt iMpLeMeNtEd RiGhT" you have a mental disability.

Bernie is a commie. Through and through. Strange though, as he was a witness to both Mao's ''Great Leap Forward' and the Soviet Union. Communism isn't even good on paper either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Communism is a mental disability.

As opposed to Free-Market Capitalism, an economic system that's responsible for at least 20 million deaths a year. What do you think Socialism actually is?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

If you support Communism despite it murdering over 100 million people just because "iT wAsNt iMpLeMeNtEd RiGhT" you have a mental disability.

Literally never happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...