United States of Corporate America

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Corso312 said:
It isn't about the actual question it is about the collusion that he was up against from the DNC and mainstream media.
Click to expand...
bernie received similar hints about what might have been a question from everyone in his campaign as well, you stooge.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
MisterBouncyBounce said:
Comparatively speaking, he ran a very radical campaign, he garnered a lot of support and coalesced a base behind him. but as the writing became clear and he had to decide how far he was willing to go, how much was he willing to break with the status quo and the DNC proper, he pulled back closer to the party and establishment politics and chose to support the "more of the same" candidate and the DNC leadership.

Hillary comes from and represents the same old guard. surely electing her, while being historic as the first women, would not be "revolutionary", she's part of the democrats we know well.

But he had a lot of political currency he built up from the campaign. I seriously doubt he gave that up for nothing. he had to get something in return for not running independently and throwing his support behind Hillary and for not making a stink about what the DNC did to sandbag him. why wouldn't he with the leverage he had.

so with a seemingly likely probability that Clinton was going to be President, he could either go back to the Senate with President Clinton maybe having a score to settle with him, or he could go back with the President owing him a debt of gratitude.

He chose the conservative way. he took the "cash" if you will and played ball. He did what they wanted him to do. He had to get paid for it somehow.

The changes he was calling for were very significant, the were very left of today's center.
So he was calling for real change. But regardless how it can be analyzed, like say, he didn't want to split the vote or what have you, in the end he said to the people vote for the status quo. That is the antithesis of someone calling for a "revolution", calling for very divergent policies.

If he was someone who could truly be convicted by his beliefs, then he would never have compromised and would have ran as an indy with the intention of building something transformative beyond this election. Like a Ralph Nader would have done.

I'm sorry, I like the guy a lot too, I wish he was President. But he clearely showed he would not put himself on the line for what he says he believes.
Click to expand...
He should of taken Door #3, everyone knows the car is almost always behind this door (if you were paying attention) instead of the 'cash'..the American people didn't go home a winner.

Worried about a Clinton presidency while back in the Senate?..I guess he doesn't have much to worry about now..not the usual Chinese fucking with us during transition and in case you haven't heard, they just stole an unmanned sub readying themselves to push the boundaries of
not only a new administration but one that believes Obama isn't black, but Arab in disguise (see General Flynn tweet).

I had this much figured out, but what was the deal? There's more to this and I have to say I disagree with a few of the assumptions you've made.
 
Last edited:
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
bernie should have run as an independent to begin with, since that's what he is. he is not a democrat.

he just benefited from the DNC, like a mooch.

he wouldn't have broken 10% without all the help he got by running as a democrat.
Click to expand...
Do you like his vote in the Senate, mooch?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Corso312 said:
Agreed again, could have made the 3rd party candidate a legit threat and a force to be taken seriously from here on out.

He never even commented let alone drove home the ass banging he received from the DNC or the biased media coverage or that cunt from CNN giving Hillary the questions before the debates.
Click to expand...
There's a reason why..we don't have all the facts yet.
 
Last edited:
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Corso312 said:
I don't even think Trump wanted to win, everything he's said was horseshit..he won't deliver on a God damn thing.
Click to expand...
No, no..he wanted to win..that's the whole game.

He didn't expect that he would have to actually DO it.

Once he gets the commit of the win, he wants to move on to something else..his ego needs the win..he loses interest after. That's why he had no plans for transition.
 
Last edited:
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
LSD-25 said:
OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!! BIG BUSINESS IS NOT THE BAD GUY!! don't YOU want YOUR business to get 'big'?.. its "government" that is the problem.. If YOU all the sudden made a successful business, would it be YOUR fault that the government made it so easy to move your factory overseas? no. its government plans like NAFTA and TPP and high taxes on Big business, that cripple our economy. you cant just take someones money and give it to the poor. This isn't the movie "Robinhood".. just like Bernie's free health care plan.. those billionaires he wants to steal the money for all that shit from , are just going to move to another country, or create an off-shore bank account, or some other fucking lophole.. bottom line is, IT WONT WORK!!!! he would in reality end up taxing the middle class. that is what Socialists do. The U.S already has thee best way of doing things we just need to clean it up, and GET RID OF LOBBYISTS!!
Click to expand...
Corporations being big and successful isn't the issue. The issue is the fact that they own damn near every politician, and because of that they control policy, pay ZERO taxes, receive corporate welfare, and shit all over the environment with no repercussions.

I'd bet everything I own that you're some schlep living paycheck to paycheck...and yet somehow you've been convinced that you paying a higher tax rate than billionaires is a good thing.

As far as a single payer health care system, it isn't "free". It's funded through tax payer dollars, and most everyone would have skin in the game. The only difference is that we would remove an unnecessary middle man that exists soley to skim profit. Health insurance companies add no value between the patient and the health care provider. Why wouldn't we want to receive the exact same health care, but at a 30%-50% discount? Do you love corporate America so much that you're willing to pay substantially more for the same service? Name one thing that health insurance companies bring to the equation that couldn't be accomplished via a single payer system. Do you ever hear of senior citizens bitching about Medicare, or ditching it and buying health insurance on the open market? No, no you don't.
 
Corso312

Corso312

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
No, no..he wanted to win..that's the whole game.

He didn't expect that he would have to actually DO it.

Once he gets the commit of the win, he wants to move on to something else..his ego needs the win..he loses interest after. That's why he had no plans for transition.
Click to expand...



I think he was as surprised as anybody that he won, the reality quickly set in on how much work and pressure is on his plate..I bet part of him wishes he lost.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
Name one thing that health insurance companies bring to the equation that couldn't be accomplished via a single payer system
Click to expand...
Oooo-oooo I know. Health insurance companies deny expensive but life savings procedures to cancer patients knowing that those patients won't survive the protest and review process. Universal health are wouldn't be able to do that.

And nobody can point at the VA as an example of universal health care. That system has been underfunded by congress for decades.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
He should of taken Door #3, everyone knows the car is almost always behind this door (if you were paying attention) instead of the 'cash'..the American people didn't go home a winner.

Worried about a Clinton presidency while back in the Senate?..I guess he doesn't have much to worry about now..not the usual Chinese fucking with us during transition and in case you haven't heard, they just stole an unmanned sub readying themselves to push the boundaries of
not only a new administration but one that believes Obama isn't black, but Arab in disguise (see General Flynn tweet).

I had this much figured out, but what was the deal? There's more to this and I have to say I disagree with a few of the assumptions you've made.
Click to expand...
It's a wonderful fact free world you live in Sky. No, Sanders wasn't a lock for the presidency. There is no sign of Trump's supporters caring one whit for him restocking the swamp with globalization loving big corporation swamp creatures. No, Clinton did not steal the nomination from Sanders either.

No, Bernie Sanders Would Not Have Beaten Trump
Bernie Sanders’ platform just isn’t as popular as it’s made out to be.

By now, who hasn’t heard a Bernie supporter or surrogate claim that Sanders would have won the election against Donald Trump? The Sanders wing of the Democratic Party has developed a narrative that the Democratic Party was held back by Hillary Clinton. They claim that she was fatally flawed, that the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders, and that the ever so coveted white working class voter dislodged by globalization will never again vote for corporate interests.

Of course, this narrative ignores the facts—that despite Clinton’s supposed flaws, she easily defeated Sanders in the primary via the pledged delegate count, that Sanders inability to convince minority voters doomed his campaign for the nomination, and that the attempt to use superdelegates to override the popular vote was an undemocratic power grab.

And the white workers whose supposed “hate for corporate interests” led them to vote for Trump? They don’t seem upset that Trump has installed three Goldman Sachs executives in his administration. They don’t seem to be angry that Trump’s cabinet is the wealthiest in US history. And we haven’t heard any discontent from the white working class over Trump choosing an Exxon Mobil CEO for Secretary of State.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballotand-he-underperformed_us_5852fbbce4b06ae7ec2a3cb7
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Click to expand...
Interesting poll, shows Bernie doing better than Mrs. Clinton.

But you realize they guy ranking the worst actually won (unfortunately)?
So it's kind of invalid, as it implies the asshole couldn't win. But he somehow did.
Therefore, it doesn't prove Bernie would have done better than Clinton.

Do you recall that Trump called Bernie a communist in speech after speech during the primaries? That plays well with the fake news people.

I voted for Bernie in the primary here. He lost by 16 points. It sure as hell wasn't my fault.
Maybe we were doomed from the start. How can anyone compete against fake news? Don't you expect the opposition to believe and accept facts. It used to be that way. Until now.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:




Click to expand...
tangerinegreen555 said:
Interesting poll, shows Bernie doing better than Mrs. Clinton.

But you realize they guy ranking the worst actually won (unfortunately)?
So it's kind of invalid, as it implies the asshole couldn't win. But he somehow did.
Therefore, it doesn't prove Bernie would have done better than Clinton.

Do you recall that Trump called Bernie a communist in speech after speech during the primaries? That plays well with the fake news people.

I voted for Bernie in the primary here. He lost by 16 points. It sure as hell wasn't my fault.
Maybe we were doomed from the start. How can anyone compete against fake news? Don't you expect the opposition to believe and accept facts. It used to be that way. Until now.
Click to expand...
I voted for Bernie too. The charts that Bernie's supporters cling to only say what people are thinking at the time of the poll, in May. We all witnessed how differently things appear come the real election. Honestly, I don't know if Bernie would or would not have won.

Just saying that the logic to explain why people think Bernie would win falls apart when looking at what voters really did and really cared about at election time. The people who voted for Trump knew he is a narcissistic CEO-fraudster with dubious values regarding a whole range of issues from civil rights to not paying debts. Also Russian ties were clearly visible. Nobody cared. Could Bernie have overcome this? None of Paddy's data makes that as certain as he wants it to be.

To repeat what was I guess unread in an earlier post:
And the white workers whose supposed “hate for corporate interests” led them to vote for Trump? They don’t seem upset that Trump has installed three Goldman Sachs executives in his administration. They don’t seem to be angry that Trump’s cabinet is the wealthiest in US history. And we haven’t heard any discontent from the white working class over Trump choosing an Exxon Mobil CEO for Secretary of State.

If these white voters don't care now, why does anybody think they ever really cared for Bernie's primary issues? I understand the passion that Sky and Paddy have for these issues. It's just that they and I are in the minority then and still are. Bernie's (and my own) desires to break the hold of Wall Street and Global Corporations on the US economic and social systems isn't important to these people. Trump's bigoted, racist, populist "turn back the clock" rhetoric certainly was. And still is. Even if Trump was lying all the time.

One major factor everybody seems to overlook is the reluctance voters have for returning the incumbent's party to power after a full 8 year term. This may have been a bigger factor than all the other crap that went down including the fact that 25% of the adult population are racist assholes who love them some Trump and never would have voted for Bernie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top