Reply With Quote
Read the wikipedia definition. I tend to agree mostly with that.
at 101A being chapped at 'education' because they wouldn't hire his wifey...
Read the wikipedia definition. I tend to agree mostly with that.
lol it was obviously a dumbed down answer, but the general gist is the state that runs the show. i took a class on marxism a few years back to fill in some extra units, and i recall some of the basics. but yeah the socialism/communism confusion is always there in the public
The media’s lying to you about Bernie Sanders: This is why a socialist can win the Fox-loving red states
I spent days with Sanders fans across red states. They watch Fox, live in the heartland, and are voting for Bernie
Nate Silver has the Bernie Sanders campaign figured out. Ignore what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire, the “data-driven” prognostication wizard wrote back in July, when Sanders was polling a healthy 30 percent to Clinton’s 46 percent in both contests. That’s only, Silver says, because “Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa and Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire are liberal and white, and that’s the core of Sanders’ support.”
Silver has a chart. It shows that when you multiply the number of liberals and whites among state electorates, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa rank first, second, and third. Texas is near the bottom—a place where Bernie Sanders should feel about as welcome as a La Raza convention at the Alamo, right?
I have a new friend who begs to differ.
He’s watching Fox News on his cell phone. He tells me he considers himself a conservative. I tell him I’m a political reporter covering the Bernie Sanders campaign. He perks up: “I like what I’ve heard from him. Kind of middle of the road.”
Eleven days later, I’m at a Bernie Sanders house party in the depressed steel town of Griffith, Indiana, in a state that places in the bottom quartile on Silver’s chart. I approach a young man in his twenties wearing a thrift store T-shirt. I ask him what brings him here tonight.
“I’m just helping out my friends because they asked me to help out,” he tells me. He adds that he’s a conservative: “But I approve of some of the stuff that Bernie stands for. Like appealing to more than just the one percent and just trying to give everybody a leg up who’s needing it these days.”
Sanders has been extraordinarily clear about the kind of shift he’d like to effect: Republicans “divide people on gay marriage. They divide people on abortion. They divide people on immigration. And what my job is, and it’s not just in blue states. . . [is] to bring working people together around an economic agenda that works. People are sick and tired of establishment politics; they are sick and tired of a politics in which candidates continue to represent the rich and the powerful.”
The theory that economic populism unites voters is hardly new.
Lyndon Johnson, in New Orleans and about to lose the South to Barry Goldwater in 1964, expressed it in one of the most remarkable campaign speeches in history. A Southern Democratic politician was on his deathbed, Johnson said.
“He was talking about the economy and what a great future we could have in the South, if we could just meet our economic problems. . . ‘I would like to go back down there and make them one more Democratic speech. I just feel like I have one in me. The poor old state, they haven’t heard a Democratic speech in 30 years. All they ever hear at election time is n****r! n****r! n****r!’”
The theory suggests that when upwards of 60 percent of voters consistently agree that rich people should have their taxes raised, a candidate who promises to do so might be identified as what he actually is: middle of the road. That if Democrats give Democratic speeches on economic issues, voters suckered into Republicanism by refrains like Jihad! Jihad! Jihad! just might try something else.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/12/the_...ng_red_states/
btw, Bernie 2015 is ahead of Barry 2008 on every measure at this point.
He is worse then hillary
Young people are going to vote for him because they can make a cool hash tag #feelthebern
Hahaha! Sad but true.
Sanders blasts broken system: Kids busted for pot while economy-wrecking CEOs are ‘too big to jail’
Speaking at William Penn University, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders tore into unequal laws that result in young people having criminal records for small amounts of pot while corrupt Wall Street bankers who wrecked the economy have never faced consequences for their actions.
“Here’s an issue, and I think this drives the American people a little bit nuts,” Sanders said, after being asked by a woman about student loan debt.
“You got kids who have police records in this country for possessing a small amount of marijuana.
Does any major CEO of a Wall Street financial ins ution whose greed and recklessness and illegal behavior destroyed this economy, resulted in the loss of millions of jobs, people lost their homes, lost their life savings. Does any one of those guys have a criminal record?”
That reflects the priorities of a system that considers banks “too big to fail” and CEOs “too big to jail,” Sanders said.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/sand...e+Raw+Story%29
Sounds like Avante.
"Avante, what do you think about climate change?"
"hmmm....yes....here's a list of 1000 black athletes"
have record for mj possession and try to get job to pay off your student loan
"intellectual featherweight" is putting it mildly. At least mouse is entertaining.
Where'd you get that?
"Wifey" is a full professor in the Chemistry Department at the university I'm referencing...
Eleven minutes of cuckoldry. I'm surprised nobody bum-rushed the stage and took the old got's mic away from him.
cuckconservative paranoia (a Euro-American white conservative male not fighting enough to "take his county back". But, "It's Gone, Jim") and its derivations of "cuck-anything" got old after about 1 week, but CN's rightwingnut brain keeping running around in the same ruts.
This will be difficult if not impossible, but what SPECIFICALLY do you object to in Bernie's positions, policies?
or is just a personality, racist thing of him being an old, white-haired Brooklyn Jewboy?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-25-2015 at 12:35 PM.
Says the got with over 41,000 posts of worn-out schticks such as VRWC, rightwingnuts, gun fellators, You Lie, -slapped, The Great Bou s, etc.
All of them.This will be difficult if not impossible, but what SPECIFICALLY do you object to in Bernie's positions, policies?
You've spent the last eight years referring to our current president as "The Cool N!gg@." You don't get to play the race card, got.or is just a personality, racist thing of him being an old, white-haired Brooklyn Jewboy?
You're a very stupid little man.
Th'Playtex
STOP SHOUTING
Bernie Sanders Speaks The Truth: Hillary Clinton Would Be Better Than Any Republican
With one statement, Sen. Bernie Sanders explained why Democrats are more united than Republicans. On ABC’s This Week, Sanders said,
“On her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and president than the Republican candidate on his best day.”
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/11/08/bernie-sanders-speaks-truth-hillary-clinton-republican.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=f eed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Po liticus+USA+%29
The Case for Bernie Sanders
The New York Times published a piece over the weekend about the political prospects of Bernie Sanders, a politician who apparently does not kiss enough babies:
"[Sanders] rarely drops by diners or coffee shops with news cameras in tow, unlike most politicians. He hardly ever kisses babies, aides say, and does not mingle much at fund-raisers.
"His high-minded style carries risk.
As effective as his policy-laden speeches may be in impressing potential supporters, Mr. Sanders is missing opportunities to lock down uncommitted voters face to face in Iowa and New Hampshire, where campaigns are highly personal."
The media response to the Sanders campaign has been alternately predictable, condescending, confused and condescending again.
The tone of most of the coverage shows reporters deigning to treat his campaign like it's real, like he has a chance. John Cassidy of The New Yorker, for instance, swore he wouldn't be patronizing about the Sanders run. "Indeed, I welcomed Sanders to the race!" Cassidy wrote recently.
But Cassidy's hokey "Welcome to the 2016 Race, Bernie Sanders!" piece from last spring had a small catch. It basically said that Sanders was welcome because he would be a boon to the real candidate, Hillary Clinton.
"[Sanders] can't win the primary," Cassidy wrote. "And he will occupy the space to the left of Clinton, thus denying it to more plausible candidates, such as Martin O'Malley."
(!)
Noting that Sanders held positions that were "eminently defensible, if unrealistic," Cassidy nonetheless said he was glad Sanders was running, because he would "provide a voice to those Democrats who agree with him that the U.S. political system has been bought, lock, stock, and barrel."
This passage he wrote just after arguing that Sanders cannot win and was only useful insofar as he would help the bought-off candidate win.
So what Cassidy really meant is that the Sanders campaign was allowing people who are justifiably pissed about our corrupted system to blow off steam, before they ultimately surrender to give their support to the system candidate.
And he welcomed that! But he wasn't being condescending or anything.
Cassidy referred back to that old piece recently, after he became among the first of many pundits pronouncing Hillary the knockout winner of a debate that most actual human beings seemed to think Sanders handled quite well. Cassidy went so far as to ask, "Did the media get the Democratic debate wrong?"
He thought and thought on this, then decided he/it didn't.
"Based on Clinton's manner," he wrote, "and her deftness in evading awkward questions, I think she delivered the best performance."
Campaign-trail reporting is like high school: a brutish, interminable exercise in policing mindless social rules. In school, if someone is fat or has zits or wears the wrong clothes, the cool kids rag on that person until they run home crying or worse.
The Heathers of the campaign trail do the same thing. Sanders is just the latest in a long line of candidates – Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, to name a few – whom my media colleagues decided in advance were not electable, and covered accordingly, with a sneer.
When we reporters are introduced to a politician, the first thing we ask ourselves is if he or she is acceptable to the political establishment. We don't admit that we ask this as a prerequisite, but we do.
Anyone who's survived without felony conviction a few terms as a senator, governor or congressperson, has an expensive enough haircut, and has never once said anything interesting will likely be judged a potentially "serious" candidate.
If you're wondering why no Mozarts or Einsteins ever end up running for president in America, but an endless succession of blockheads like Rick Perry are sold to us on the cover of Time magazine as contenders, it's because of this absurd prerequisite.
Ultimately, what we're looking for is someone who's enough of a morally flexible gasbag to get over with the money people, and then also charming enough on some politically irrelevant level to attract voters. ("I'm a war hero, and Sharon Stone's cousin" was Chris Rock's take on acceptable presidential self-salesmanship).
Bernie Sanders bluntly fails the Rick Perry test. In fact he pretty much defines what it means to fail that test. It isn't just that he doesn't kiss babies or comb his hair or "deftly evade answers." He's also unapologetically described himself as a socialist, which makes him a giant bespectacled block of Kryptonite for Beltway donors and mainstream journalists alike.
If questioned, most reporters would justify this by noting that an effective president must be able to bridge the gap between powerful interests and populist concerns. So it makes some sense to interrogate candidates accordingly, to make sure they're acceptable to both sides.
The flaw in this reasoning is that it assumes that Wall Street and Silicon Valley and Big Pharma and the rest need the help of us reporters to weed out the undesirables.
They don't, of course. Big money already has a stranglehold on the process of government. It outright owns most of the members of Congress, and its lobbyists write much of our important legislation. With Citizens United, buying elections is now more or less legal. Big money even owns most of the media companies that employ those pundits who are all telling us now to worry about how "realistic" Sanders isn't.
Everybody knows this. In fact, this numbing reality of how completely corrupted the modern American political process is bends the brains of those whose job it is to cover it. What happens over time is that you lose hope, and you begin to view everything through the prism of the corruption to which you're so accustomed.
When you stop believing in the electoral process, then the only questions left to interest a professional observer are who wins, and how many laughs there will be along the way. We've gotten good at thinking about these things. Cassidy's bit about Sanders harmlessly occupying the left flank and blocking more "plausible" candidates from threatening Hillary is exactly the kind of sounds-smart observation we've been trained to believe passes for political journalism today.
Conversely, we've been trained not to care about which old ladies are freezing to death this week because some utility somewhere is turning the heat off, or who's having their furniture put on the street by a sheriff executing a foreclosure order, or who's losing a leg to diabetes because they didn't have the money for a simple checkup two years ago, etc.
None of those characters make it into campaign reporting. As good as we are at the horse-race idiocy, we suck that much at writing about these other things.
Watching Bernie slog forward to an audience of political gatekeepers who wish he would stop being a bummer and just kiss more babies shames me into a confession. I find myself giving up on this process all the time.
Donald Trump, a man whose idea of policy is a big wall, was the Republican frontrunner for months, and ceded the lead to a man who wants to fight immigrants with drones.
This whole thing is a joke. At times, the only thing you can take seriously about any of this is the gambler's question of who wins.
I got into the act a few weeks back, gushing about how Trey Gowdy's Benghazi hearing solved Hillary Clinton's voter-sympathy problem. Quite a development in the soap opera! But a million miles from anything that matters.
Successful politicians today on both sides of the aisle are sprawling celebrity franchises. They seem always to be making piles of money and hobnobbing with Beautiful People when they're finished moving the status quo in some incremental direction, which some hack somewhere will always be willing to call change.
Whether it's the Clintons with their foundations or Al Gore with his movies and his carbon-trading interests or the Bush/Cheney axis of hereditary politics and energy commerce, we expect the politicians who make it to the big time to cash in somewhere along the line because, hey, this is America. Donald Trump, if elected, would find a way to turn being the president into a moneymaking operation.
Sanders is a clear outlier in a generation that has forgotten what it means to be a public servant.
The Times remarks upon his "grumpy demeanor." But Bernie is grumpy because he's thinking about vets who need surgeries, guest workers who've had their wages ripped off, kids without access to dentists or some other godforsaken problem that most of us normal people can care about for maybe a few minutes on a good day, but Bernie worries about more or less all the time.
I first met Bernie Sanders ten years ago, and I don't believe there's anything else he really thinks about. There's no other endgame for him. He's not looking for a book deal or a membership in a Martha's Vineyard golf club or a cameo in a Guy Ritchie movie. This election isn't a game to him; it's not the awesomely repulsive dark joke it is to me and many others.
And the only reason this attention-averse, sometimes socially uncomfortable person is subjecting himself to this asinine process is because he genuinely believes the system is not beyond repair.
Not all of us can say that. But that doesn't make us right, and him "unrealistic." More than any other politician in recent memory, Bernie Sanders is focused on reality. It's the rest of us who are lost.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-case-for-bernie-sanders-20151103
So you Bernie supporters, how are WE going to pay for free college tuition, free health care for all and free parental leave when we are already 18+ trillion in debt? Think the 1% has enough money for all that?
nothing wrong with USA being in debt. Bond buyers still buying US bonds. We need more for $Ts in govt spending to fix infrastructure, the environment, renewables, scientific research.
yes, the 1%, the 5% have enough, not gonna take it away, but we should stop them from ac ulating $Ts more.
If high-tax, high-cost countries like Canada, Germany, Scandinavia can do it, why can't falling-behind, ruthlessly brutal USA?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions