|
@davidsirota Gov. @JohnKasich's Wall St firm lost OH $440M - he then cut teachers/police/firemen pensions to pay for the losses http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-jeb-bush-john-kasichs-work-lehman-spotlights-different-revolving-door-2061128 "Bush and Kasich received big Lehman paychecks as the bank’s mortgage-backed securities decimated the investments intended to support their states’ retired workers, and today, both are getting financial support for their presidential campaigns from donors they worked with during their time at Lehman." "Kasich was hired to help run Lehman’s investment banking operation in January 2001 despite, by his own admission, having “close to zero” knowledge of the business. He was, however, a longtime ally of the financial industry during his 18 years in Congress. He voted for legislation to eliminate regulations on banks like Lehman. "
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:50 |
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Sanders as POTUS would be wasting Sanders. He just needs a good running mate like Sydneys Voluptuous Buttocks (an actual candidate) Link to the FEC filing
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:i think "sanders winning the presidency would be bad for sanders and the left" is possibly the dumbest anti-sanders argument yet I think you underestimate how bad it is to have the establishment of your own party against you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:@davidsirota Republicans are pretty nasty individuals who helped tank the economy at large. Chantilly Say posted:I think you underestimate how bad it is to have the establishment of your own party against you. Nobody likes the politicians you like, this somehow is bad for everybody else. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Sanders as POTUS would be wasting Sanders. Wrong, and here's why: 1. Sanders would be a strong bully pulpit. 2. Sanders would motivate people to vote that normally wouldn't vote, therefore would swing seats that can be swung due increased down ballot voting. So think Obama's first term, with a mandate and a blue enough congress, in an environment where his presidency is a strong media narrative. And now replace Obama with Sanders. Edit: Not sure if your post was a troll post, but my answer is assuming you were serious posting. Dahbadu fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:
Yeah, that's pretty much the pro-Sanders For POTUS argument as I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Mandates don't exist though
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
"mandate" is a word used by dumb people who want to sound like they know how American politics works
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Who was the one who said George W. Bush was a genius, I think he is now correct, because Jeb is a payaso.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Mandates don't exist though
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:Wrong, and here's why: My take is 100% serious and it's that I would love to think that you're right but I honestly don't. I have not been convinced that 1 or 2 are really going to happen. And I think that if Sanders is nominated and 1 and 2 don't happen, that will be bad for the left in America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:"mandate" is a word used by dumb people who want to sound like they know how American politics works This is a smug argument of semantics and isn't a very good one. When I use the term "mandate," I mean what Obama had (its weaknesses and strengths) during the beginning of his first term. If you don't want to call this a mandate, you don't have to. Also, there probably won't be an economic crisis for Sanders to deal with at the time, so yea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
No whats bad for the left is keeping Hillary as the nominee, because Trump is gonna smoke her. Polls are meaningless again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:My take is 100% serious and it's that I would love to think that you're right but I honestly don't. I have not been convinced that 1 or 2 are really going to happen. And I think that if Sanders is nominated and 1 and 2 don't happen, that will be bad for the left in America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:No whats bad for the left is keeping Hillary as the nominee, because Trump is gonna smoke her. Polls are meaningless again. I really doubt Trump is going to win the general election. He may be able to be the front runner in the Republican Primary because of his racist views, but that will catch up to him in the general election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
I would like to see a Sanders/Ghost of Utah Phillips 2016 ticket myself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I think you underestimate how bad it is to have the establishment of your own party against you. Good, maybe then he can tear apart and rebuild the Democratic Party as a genuine party of the left.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Who was the one who said George W. Bush was a genius, I think he is now correct, because Jeb is a payaso. I said something like that. GWB was a smart guy, and actually a very well-read person, who was playing a role as a dumb hick very successfully, whereas JEB really is that loving stupid. He was a horrible president for most people in America, and for many more people around the world, but that doesn't change the fact that he was president for two terms, and largely got exactly what he wanted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:And I think that if Sanders is nominated and 1 and 2 don't happen, that will be bad for the left in America. I agree here. In response to this, I'll say: You remember how enthusiastic and motivated a lot of people were with Obama, right? I'd argue that grassroots enthusiasm and support is more for Sanders than Obama at this stage and I don't see it dying out. Hopefully we can get some debates and up Sander's name recognition. Edit: Also, and just as importantly, Sanders like Obama is a very strong candidate. Hillary is not a strong candidate comparatively. She couldn't beat Obama (who admittedly is a very strong candidate, like Sanders), and honestly, I feel that she would have done worse against McCain / Romney than Obama did, maybe even to a point of not winning. Dahbadu fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
I knew, when the socialist was swept into the most powerful political office in the world, that the left was doomed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:I really doubt Trump is going to win the general election. He may be able to be the front runner in the Republican Primary because of his racist views, but that will catch up to him in the general election. I hope so mang.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:Wrong, and here's why: This is a thing which doesn't actually exist in politics and people should stop pretending it does. (Kind of like the existence of a significant American Left constituency.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:I agree here. I think the difference here is that Obama was an establishment candidate. Sheng-ji Yang posted:Good, maybe then he can tear apart and rebuild the Democratic Party as a genuine party of the left. Yes, this! This would be great! What's the plan for this? If there isn't one, there needed to be one a year ago. JT Jag posted:I'll let you into a secret. Functionally speaking, there is no Left in America. There are Leftists, but there's no political organization. A Sanders presidency is a chance to change that, and to rally Leftists behind a common cause in a way we haven't seen since the draft was abolished. I agree wholeheartedly--I just don't think that's what's happening now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:They do, but only if the same party has been given control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress. That is a pretty strong message that the American people want that party to implement some of their policies. The Democrats didn't make especially good use of the mandate they had from 2009-2011. Joseph Lieberman
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Kalman posted:This is a thing which doesn't actually exist in politics and people should stop pretending it does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:Wrong, and here's why: The bully pulpit is vastly overrated. The idea of a President giving an amazing speech that changes people's opinions is not how things usually play out, because Presidents are polarizing figures and instead what often happens is the issue becomes more polarized. However, this is why grassroots organizing is so essential, because that is how you change public opinion. And so Sanders ability to motivate volunteers would help in that. I agree with #2 though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Joseph loving Lieberman Nothing less than the full name is appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I said something like that. GWB was a smart guy, and actually a very well-read person, who was playing a role as a dumb hick very successfully, whereas JEB really is that loving stupid. He was a horrible president for most people in America, and for many more people around the world, but that doesn't change the fact that he was president for two terms, and largely got exactly what he wanted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I think the difference here is that Obama was an establishment candidate. Well, considering a line he has said in every single speech hes given is: quote:You can have the best president in the history of the world but that person will not be able to address the problems that we face unless there is a mass movement, a political revolution in this country. I think Sanders obviously recognizes your concerns. I think he intends to turn his campaign machinery he is building now, if he wins or loses, into a more general left wing political machine. I think he would be much more successful at it as president.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
I would argue that Bush, maybe not necessarily the man himself but the apparatus around him, used the "bully pulpit" effectively. Sanders would do the same thing, but in a different way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
For two guys born in New England to an elite family, how did the Bush boys get hosed up Southern/regional accents?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvknGT8W5jA
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Bush was the most fun president. It just sucked that he was president.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Montasque posted:For two guys born in New England to an elite family, how did the Bush boys get hosed up Southern/regional accents? w moved to west texas when he was 2, jeb was born there, both were raised there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
you don't want liebermen? then don't advocate for a 50 state strategy, because that's how you get liebermen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
In 1975, Donald Trump made a bet with George Lucas, that if the Star Wars Saga would still continue even 40 years later, he would pay him 20$. It's 2015 and the latest movie is about to come. There's only one way for Trump to stop it and avoid paying George: Becoming the President of the USA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Well, considering a line he has said in every single speech hes given is: Yes! My argument is that it's better long-term for him to lose now and create that machinery, than for him to win now and have everyone pin leftist hopes and the rising reputation of leftism on one Presidency with an unusually large array of challenges. It is amazing to me that so many of my friends are deeply into Sanders, and I really, really don't want to gently caress that up by actually electing the man President and then having the Democratic establishment screwjob him. Because then people throw their hands up and say "well gently caress it then, you can't change anything" and I can feel my tightening blood vessels shaving hours off my lifespan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Yes! My argument is that it's better long-term for him to lose now and create that machinery, than for him to win now and have everyone pin leftist hopes and the rising reputation of leftism on one Presidency with an unusually large array of challenges. I absolutely disagree, Sanders would be in a much more powerful position to build a left wing movement as President than as the loser. He has decried Obama for abandoning the movement built around him after winning, Sanders would expand and empower his.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:50 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Joseph Ratfucking Lieberman
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:31
|
|
