United States of Corporate America

tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
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.
Click to expand...
Disappointingly accurate.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
MisterBouncyBounce said:
I don't see any hindsight. he made his choices based on something.
They were choices someone who truly was for change could not make, simply because they don't represent change.
You can't really be for change and then vote for not change and tell other people to not vote for change.
Sincerity dictated he run as an indy.
Click to expand...
I disagree

Sanders is smart, he's been in the political game for a while. He knows that what he did by endorsing Clinton against Trump would garner him the most political clout, regardless of the outcome of the election. Had Clinton won, as was expected by most, he could have held a significant position in Clinton's administration. Had she lost, as is what happened, he's still seen by most as 'playing ball'. Had he ran as an independent and lost, he'd have been the scapegoat for Clinton's loss. Since he didn't and she still lost, it exposed her message and the Democratic Party's platform for the absolute failure that it is; Corporate capitalism.

Now he holds one of the most influential positions moving forward
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I disagree

Sanders is smart, he's been in the political game for a while. He knows that what he did by endorsing Clinton against Trump would garner him the most political clout, regardless of the outcome of the election. Had Clinton won, as was expected by most, he could have held a significant position in Clinton's administration. Had she lost, as is what happened, he's still seen by most as 'playing ball'. Had he ran as an independent and lost, he'd have been the scapegoat for Clinton's loss. Since he didn't and she still lost, it exposed her message and the Democratic Party's platform for the absolute failure that it is; Corporate capitalism.

Now he holds one of the most influential positions moving forward
Click to expand...
you keep talking about how shitty hillary is, but she absolutely clobbered bernie. 4 million votes, 55%-43%.

and bernie had the benefit of running as a democrat, which he isn't. if he had ran as the independent which he is, he would not have cracked 10%.

the oppo research on him was deep and wide. or you could just call him a commie. non-starter.

not to mention trump voters got out there on the basis of "we hate immigrants and ISIS", and bernie's message on those issues was no different than hillary's.

if bernie ran, trump would have been picking his cabinet in september.
 
MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
.
Padawanbater2 said:
I disagree

Sanders is smart, he's been in the political game for a while. He knows that what he did by endorsing Clinton against Trump would garner him the most political clout, regardless of the outcome of the election. Had Clinton won, as was expected by most, he could have held a significant position in Clinton's administration. Had she lost, as is what happened, he's still seen by most as 'playing ball'. Had he ran as an independent and lost, he'd have been the scapegoat for Clinton's loss. Since he didn't and she still lost, it exposed her message and the Democratic Party's platform for the absolute failure that it is; Corporate capitalism.

Now he holds one of the most influential positions moving forward
Click to expand...
The red text makes my case. I pretty much said the same thing, only you take it as him being shrewd and i take it as him selling out.

he ran as a revolutionary, he called for a social revolution. was that just a campaign slogan then?

you do think the things and policies he speaks about are things he actually stands for, that they are his positions, his beliefs and philosophies and values?

If so, then he campaigned on what he really thinks is what the US needs.........a social revolution......he said it, he meant it.

if a revolution is what you advocate, then you can't compromise with those who have the power because that is not revolutionary. that is business as usual.
Just like you said, you laid it all out.........does what you describe sound like revolutionary thinking or typical political thinking?

he is what you described.

Now he'll get help get a $15 min wage or something, and it'll been touted as a victory for the middle and lower class, while not much else changes.

Your avatar would have run as an independent, not compromise with those he disagrees with.

he's still relevant and has his place, but not with the momentum not quite the support he had when he was taking no prisoners early/mid campaign.
in the end he dealt with the establishment instead working against it.

Bernie Sanders is, and i swear I love the guy, a pragmatic revolutionary.
Which is a contradiction in terms.

What he did was great, he seized back the word "socialism" from the chuckle heads who treated it like an obscenity and he lit a fire that brought a lot of people out of the shadows and showed there is support for radical reform based on socialism.

but he didn't take it all the way, he made his choices for whatever reasons.

Things are better because of his campaign, there is much more serious organizing and a belief it is possible we are more closer to reforming our government into a more socialized one than ever before.

I was hoping for more. but I'll take it.















 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I disagree

Sanders is smart, he's been in the political game for a while. He knows that what he did by endorsing Clinton against Trump would garner him the most political clout, regardless of the outcome of the election. Had Clinton won, as was expected by most, he could have held a significant position in Clinton's administration. Had she lost, as is what happened, he's still seen by most as 'playing ball'. Had he ran as an independent and lost, he'd have been the scapegoat for Clinton's loss. Since he didn't and she still lost, it exposed her message and the Democratic Party's platform for the absolute failure that it is; Corporate capitalism.

Now he holds one of the most influential positions moving forward
Click to expand...
Moving forward where? LOL!!! How old is Bernie? He isnt the person to lead the Democratic movement.

I am not sure why you want to tie yourself to one or the other banner now that your eyes are partially open.

Bernie has been in office as long as he has because he rages against the government and then he votes the way the Democrats tell him to. He is a convenient pawn in their game so they let him stay. Nobody ever intended for him to get near the White House as evidenced by the DNC email hack.

The game is rigged, you are realizing that. Thinking that things are going to change or that a career politician is the path to change is the fastest way back to anger and depression.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
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
Click to expand...
7M didn't show..I'm gonna say that was a pretty big lock.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
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...
The point is, HOW she won..through dirty political tricks such as cheating and media collusion.

You can paint it any way you wish..these 'accusations' are FACT.
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
The point is, HOW she won..through dirty political tricks such as cheating and media collusion.

You can paint it any way you wish..these 'accusations' are FACT.
Click to expand...
When was the last 'clean' election, in your opinion? Politics has always been dirty. If you knew some of the behind the scenes stuff, you'd vomit.

Winning isn't the big thing, it's the only thing. Vince Lombardi said that about football. It applies to politics even more, like it or not.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
When was the last 'clean' election, in your opinion? Politics has always been dirty. If you knew some of the behind the scenes stuff, you'd vomit.

Winning isn't the big thing, it's the only thing. Vince Lombardi said that about football. It applies to politics even more, like it or not.
Click to expand...
Just pointing out the facts.
 
Uberknot

Uberknot

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The only way for democrats to win is by convincing the middle-class they will work for them

If they fail to do that, the party is already dead
Click to expand...

Hell republicans already died...right now they are sucking hind tit to Donald trying to piece something back together.
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The only way for democrats to win is by convincing the middle-class they will work for them

If they fail to do that, the party is already dead
Click to expand...
Well, there's the fake news conspiracy theory believers. Maybe convincing them of actual facts is a bigger obstacle.

Some voters didn't show up in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania with somebody saying they would bring back lost jobs. When, ever, has a lost job been brought back?

She actually got 2.9 million more votes, 2.1% more. The general polls were close to pre-election projections.

There's just a new definition for winning now. Winning the EC while losing the popular used to be a fluke in a much smaller country.

Over the last 16 years, that has apparently changed, no?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
The establishment got exactly what it wanted in Donald Trump's candidacy. His cabinet picks illustrate exactly where he plans on taking his administration. It's going to be a corporate giveaway the likes of which this country has never seen before.
tangerinegreen555 said:
Well, there's the fake news conspiracy theory believers. Maybe convincing them of actual facts is a bigger obstacle.

Some voters didn't show up in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania with somebody saying they would bring back lost jobs. When, ever, has a lost job been brought back?

She actually got 2.9 million more votes, 2.1% more. The general polls were close to pre-election projections.

There's just a new definition for winning now. Winning the EC while losing the popular used to be a fluke in a much smaller country.

Over the last 16 years, that has apparently changed, no?
Click to expand...
Convincing people to believe actual facts over the feel good ones they choose to believe instead is a problem without a current solution

How are we going to convince a republican controlled government to get rid of the electoral college when republicans are largely the ones who benefit from having it?
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The establishment got exactly what it wanted in Donald Trump's candidacy. His cabinet picks illustrate exactly where he plans on taking his administration. It's going to be a corporate giveaway the likes of which this country has never seen before.

Convincing people to believe actual facts over the feel good ones they choose to believe instead is a problem without a current solution

How are we going to convince a republican controlled government to get rid of the electoral college when republicans are largely the ones who benefit from having it?
Click to expand...
I never promised you a rose garden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top