EPTCampaign Stream: Starts @ 7:00 PM EDT
Bernie Sanders Grassroots Stuff - Page 6
| Blogs > GreenHorizons |
|
GreenHorizons
United States24368 Posts
Campaign Stream: Starts @ 7:00 PM EDT | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10959 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24368 Posts
On July 07 2015 08:14 Velr wrote: Is the NASL soundguy working for you? :p it would appear so lol. That's a downside of not being funded by the billionaires. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24368 Posts
"Women control their body, not the government" is going to kill republicans. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24368 Posts
That's a city (Portland, Maine) That only has 66,000 people in the city limits. That's a crowd bigger than Hillary's in New York. This guy is not Santorum, Trump, or any of those guys. No one running for president is getting the grassroots support Bernie is period. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24368 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On July 02 2015 17:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: 84% Rand Paul 68% Sanders Clinton 51% Bush 43% Ben Carson 74% Pretty close to yours. 82% Paul 76% Jeb (only really different one) 72% Carson 60% Sanders (expected it to be lower) 56% Hillary (no major issues lol) Glad to see Sanders doing so well in all honesty. I don't agree with him on... apparently only 40% of stuff... but I love the fact that he has a backbone and doesn't just move around his platform with the political wind. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24368 Posts
On July 07 2015 10:24 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Pretty close to yours. 82% Paul 76% Jeb (only really different one) 72% Carson 60% Sanders (expected it to be lower) 56% Hillary (no major issues lol) Glad to see Sanders doing so well in all honesty. I don't agree with him on... apparently only 40% of stuff... but I love the fact that he has a backbone and doesn't just move around his platform with the political wind. Is that what also helps attract you to supporting Rand and Jeb? (Presuming your agreement is also some level of support) | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On July 07 2015 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote: Is that what also helps attract you to supporting Rand and Jeb? Policies have nothing to do with character. I don't actually like Jeb, I agree with him on a lot but it's still gonna be the same old shilling to special interests and ineffectiveness we saw with Bush-43 and Obama. I'd say my big two issues don't appear on this survey - consistency (how much can I trust this person not to break their promises once elected), and decisiveness (how strong of an executive is this person in the event Congress splits along party lines and nothing gets done like the last six years) I like Rand because I've been shifting farther into the libertarian right with him recently. My only real disagreement with his policies is foreign policy, otherwise that percentage might be in the 90s. Also he did go against his party when it came to extending the Patriot Act, something I very much approve of. On the Republican side my two favorites are by far Christie and Rand, both for the backbone reason and because in both cases they can establish some kind of control over gridlocked congress, probably my most important criterion for voting. Rand by way of stepping out of the party bounds and following his own platform, Christie by absolute not giving a shit (he strongarms the state legislature a lot, but he does actually do a lot of cooperation with the Democratic state senate president as well) what the party thinks of him. And if Sanders does get elected, I don't think there'll be a gridlocked Congress to begin with, so he's got 2 years to make magic happen until the 2018 midterms. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
He's also "100% pro-life". So fuck that. That said from reading into it it seems like he has some positions which are better than much of the outrageous shit I've been hearing around. He's very shy about certain things like gay marriage and whatnot, but at least he's not completely opposed... Still, not the biggest fan. I understand the libertarian ideals but I believe that in the real world you have to sacrifice a lot for them and financial "freedom" for the rich is bought with the sweat and tears of the working class. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On July 07 2015 11:46 Djzapz wrote: I find it hard to find a man who believes in a flat tax of 14.5% for individuals and no taxation on capital gains like Rand Paul to be credible. The notion of a flat tax in a country like the US would be so insanely detrimental to the working class it's not even funny. Their services would go way the fuck down, their taxes would go up, and social inequality would be through the roof. Fiscal responsibility is not negligible, and "brain drain" as they call it is an issue, but it's not truly an issue that the US is struggling with at all. The US has plenty of brain, and is super competitive for businesses. A flat tax for the US would thoroughly damage the quality of life of most Americans. He's also "100% pro-life". So fuck that. That said from reading into it it seems like he has some positions which are better than much of the outrageous shit I've been hearing around. He's very shy about certain things like gay marriage and whatnot, but at least he's not completely opposed... Still, not the biggest fan. I understand the libertarian ideals but I believe that in the real world you have to sacrifice a lot for them and financial "freedom" for the rich is bought with the sweat and tears of the working class. No taxes on the first 50k of income for a family of four, according to this. Current family of four at the 50k level is in the 15% bracket, according to this (married filing jointly). If anyone's going to get shafted by that it's not the working class. It'll be the middle class, but they're getting shafted either way. I'm just unsure where he's going to pull all the other money out of. I do like Christie's approach on tax reform better. Tax percentages go down across the board (three brackets, lowest bracket goes from 10% to 'single digits', highest bracket goes from 35 to 25) at the expense of losing tax deductions and other things written into the current tax code. Hillary says keep things where they are for everyone under 250k (or said, in 2008). Sanders has the huge percentage he wants to tax the wealthy at (90% I believe) but I can't find anything on his plans for the middle class. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 07 2015 12:14 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: No taxes on the first 50k of income for a family of four, according to this. Current family of four at the 50k level is in the 15% bracket, according to this (married filing jointly). If anyone's going to get shafted by that it's not the working class. It'll be the middle class, but they're getting shafted either way. I'm just unsure where he's going to pull all the other money out of. I do like Christie's approach on tax reform better. Tax percentages go down across the board (three brackets, lowest bracket goes from 10% to 'single digits', highest bracket goes from 35 to 25) at the expense of losing tax deductions and other things written into the current tax code. Hillary says keep things where they are for everyone under 250k (or said, in 2008). Sanders has the huge percentage he wants to tax the wealthy at (90% I believe) but I can't find anything on his plans for the middle class. You think taxing 14.5% on the income of the middle class is to "shaft" them? That would be a tax cut. Unless I'm mistaken, it's already above 15% not even counting social security. As for what you mention about Christie, we're talking about the Washington reducing its income by literally hundreds of billions of dollars (not unlike Rand Paul's, which is even worse). It's unworkable fantasy either and it's nothing more than populist bullshit to be elected. For one, even more so than other agendas, you couldn't possibly balance a budget which reduces the fed's income by hundreds of billions. How would you reduce the spending? It would take the WILDEST of austerity measures the world has ever known and then you'd have the follow up crisis that comes from the fact that the austerity measures have cost jobs because many people are dependent on the federal government. Christie keeping progressive taxes is MUCH better than Paul, but it's still fantasy. For a country like the US IMO, there's just no way around progressive taxation. As much as republicans hate the notion of "redistributing the wealth", it seems to me like directly supporting the most vulnerable members of society benefits everybody. It's not about "taxing the rich", it's about contributing to the construction of a society. Social services and redistribution and welfare programs do cost money, but in the long run I think that money is well invested. Not all of it, but some of it seriously uplifts the lives of people who would otherwise be lost. So perhaps we fundamentally disagree on the principles, but I maintain my point that Rand's flat tax cockadoodles are fucking madness. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24368 Posts
Even if you don't agree with him, he's authentic and not bought and paid for by the billionaire class. Can you say that about any of the other candidates? | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 08 2015 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Even Republicans are calling Sanders "Authentic". I'll post the clip when it goes up but it was Dana Perino (Former Bush press secretary) on Fox News. Even if you don't agree with him, he's authentic and not bought and paid for by the billionaire class. Can you say that about any of the other candidates? https://youtu.be/5cuEFCfT7zM?t=2m24s As much as I agree with you, I think saying that is a bit disingenuous... I mean for one, calling Bernie Sanders "authentic" is clearly an underhanded way to undermine Clinton who's seen as much more of a threat. I mean she does directly draw a parallel, implying that Clinton is not authentic. Second, it's not "republicans" saying he's authentic, it's this one fox news lady. I would've let it pass but I just feel like I've seen the exact form of your argument being made against me too many times and I can't give it much weight, given the circumstances. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24368 Posts
On July 08 2015 22:44 Djzapz wrote: As much as I agree with you, I think saying that is a bit disingenuous... I mean for one, calling Bernie Sanders "authentic" is clearly an underhanded way to undermine Clinton who's seen as much more of a threat. I mean she does directly draw a parallel, implying that Clinton is not authentic. Second, it's not "republicans" saying he's authentic, it's this one fox news lady. I would've let it pass but I just feel like I've seen the exact form of your argument being made against me too many times and I can't give it much weight, given the circumstances. There have been several Republicans that have called Bernie authentic. No one I've seen talk about Bernie denies he is authentic (no one did on the panel). If you can find an example otherwise, I'll check it out. I don't know what I have to do with the facts that Bernie is authentic, and his campaign is not paid for by the billionaire class, and you can't say that about any of the other candidates? | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 09 2015 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote: There have been several Republicans that have called Bernie authentic. No one I've seen talk about Bernie denies he is authentic (no one did on the panel). If you can find an example otherwise, I'll check it out. I don't know what I have to do with the facts that Bernie is authentic, and his campaign is not paid for by the billionaire class, and you can't say that about any of the other candidates? I just don't find it to be a very convincing argument for the reasons I said in my previous post. If you think he's authentic that's great, but I still feel like republicans say he's authentic to say Clinton isn't. I mean in the video she posted they all go onto how he's authentic but Hillary (who presumably isn't authentic) is just as socialist and crazy as he is. They don't care about his authenticity, they just say that to damage Clinton. If you feel like anybody here needs a republican's opinion to be convinced of Sander's authenticity I'll argue that you're acting like a demagogue. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24368 Posts
On July 09 2015 02:32 Djzapz wrote: I just don't find it to be a very convincing argument for the reasons I said in my previous post. If you think he's authentic that's great, but I still feel like republicans say he's authentic to say Clinton isn't. I mean in the video she posted they all go onto how he's authentic but Hillary (who presumably isn't authentic) is just as socialist and crazy as he is. They don't care about his authenticity, they just say that to damage Clinton. If you feel like anybody here needs a republican's opinion to be convinced of Sander's authenticity I'll argue that you're acting like a demagogue. I'm just saying no one can or will deny his authenticity whether Hillary is involved or not. He also isn't taking the billionaire class money through things like superPAC's, those are facts that matter which people who support other candidates simply can't say about their candidate. I think you know why it matters that he is universally considered authentic and isn't sponsored by the billionaire class, but I'll explain if that's why you think I'm acting like a "demagogue" | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Not a huge deal though, sorry if I come off as overly critical. It just seems like a cheap argument to me. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24368 Posts
On July 09 2015 03:08 Djzapz wrote: I think it matters that he is authentic, but I don't think the republican opinion regarding that actually matters when they're mobilizing that argument strategically. And the reason why I called it demagogy is that this is a kind of argument that might be able to convince people who don't really think about the motives behind the thinly veiled attack on Hillary that was disguised as a compliment for Sanders's campaign. If anybody is convinced that Sanders is authentic solely because everyone seems to think so on the most basic level regardless of their motives, I might think that person is soft in the head. Not a huge deal though, sorry if I come off as overly critical. It just seems like a cheap argument to me. Surely that wouldn't be the "only" reason people would come to that conclusion. I'd agree if it was though, they would be a little soft in the head. It's not like if he won the primary suddenly Republicans or anyone else would start claiming he wasn't authentic. They are saying it publicly because they think it hurts Hillary but the rant on him shows that they don't actually want him to beat her, just chip away at her credibility. You have to admit, regardless of the reasons, it's extremely rare that politicians and talking heads on all sides of the aisle agree that another politician is authentic. Even more rare that said politician not be funded by the billionaire class. You're fine on your tone though, it's a heated subject (presidential elections) and I'm used to much worse. | ||
| ||
