Politics Can Sanders beat Trump?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Minstrel said:
Trump's gotten very little of what he wanted going into his Presidency. Much of his "agenda" either never got through Congress or got tied up/killed in the courts.
Click to expand...

Which is why the Republicans have been stacking the courts for the last decade. It's a slow process but it's getting close to a tipping point.
 
I'm an independent and I have to say that as much as I hate Trump this would be a tough choice for me. Other Democratic candidates not so much.
 
Doesn't matter if Bernie can beat Trump. It's gonna be Pete.
 
Minstrel said:
Trump's gotten very little of what he wanted going into his Presidency. Much of his "agenda" either never got through Congress or got tied up/killed in the courts.
Click to expand...
Concur.

A) As shown in other threads, none of the "Trump Wall" has been put in place. The Legislative Branch is holding up funding, as is its right.
B) Even when a sitting court erroneously call something a "muslim ban", it's able to be ruled against. The Judicial Branch is holding up enactment, as is its right.
C) Agencies within the Executive Branch can and have investigated the President's actions. They are ensuring he is not taking illegal imperial powers, as is their charter.

That said, I don't like supermajorities or "owning all three branches of government". If Trump not getting what he wants done because Pelosi et al. are throwing a fit, I'm ok with that. Gridlock supports the status quo, which by-and-large I'm better with than rampant progressivism or warmongering. I'd rather have a presidency blocked from doing whatever it wants (even if I'd agree with some of the legislation) than what we had in 2010 and still aren't recovered fully from.
 
calvin natt said:
hey it’s great. Just weird that so many people say they are independent- so many - yet the party is zilch and a total non factor. It’s just interesting to me.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think it's partially because of the dilution of not being a major party. Just look at 2016...the 3rd party vote (even without representation in debates and funding for commercials and the like) was 5%, and many of the candidates weren't even on the ballots in all states. The differences between Evan McMullin and Gary Johnson aren't nearly as wide as, say, Hillary and Bernie or Jeb and Trump. But they consolidate, while the 3rd-party parties don't.

Edit to clarify: If there was a "Warmonger party" and a "Fiscal Responsibility Party" and a "Tea Party" and a "Trump Party" and an "Evangelical Party", rather than the Elephants, I think you could end up in similar levels of irrelevancy. But they don't do that, unlike the Green/Libertarian/Independent/Constitution/etc.
 
calvin natt said:
hey it’s great. Just weird that so many people say they are independent- so many - yet the party is zilch and a total non factor. It’s just interesting to me.
Click to expand...

Not everyone wants, or needs, to commit to one gang over another to feel like they are somebody.

From an independents view. It is the people that vote 100% of the time for one party/gang that can not think for themselves
 
calvin natt said:
hey it’s great. Just weird that so many people say they are independent- so many - yet the party is zilch and a total non factor. It’s just interesting to me.
Click to expand...

Independents are "a non factor"?...wow.
 
oldfisherman said:
Not everyone wants, or needs, to commit to one gang over another to feel like they are somebody.

From an independents view. It is the people that vote 100% of the time for one party/gang that can not think for themselves
Click to expand...

Listen I love the idea of being an Independent. I just don’t get what’s wrong with the party if so many people claim to be one. Nobody says in conversation “I’m a republican/democrat”. You never hear it. But people love to say they are Independent. Look at this place. Happens all the time. Yet every four years this huge population can’t muster together a candidate or make money. It’s just interesting to me.
 
calvin natt said:
Listen I love the idea of being an Independent. I just don’t get what’s wrong with the party if so many people claim to be one. Nobody says in conversation “I’m a republican/democrat”. You never hear it. But people love to say they are Independent. Look at this place. Happens all the time. Yet every four years this huge population can’t muster together a candidate or make money. It’s just interesting to me.
Click to expand...

If you still do not understand how being an independent thinker does not fit into belonging to only one party. I only have one thing to say to you. Think about it.
 
oldfisherman said:
If you still do not understand how being an independent thinker does not fit into belonging to only one party. I only have one thing to say to you. Think about it.
Click to expand...

An “independent thinker”? Huh? I’ve been pretty clear what I’m talking about - over and over- if YOU cannot understand, there’s not much else I can explain.
 
I think there is a lack of agreement on terminology here.

Independent can either mean a member of the Independent Party (a very minor party) or a person who claims not to be affiliated with any party.

Further muddying the waters, most of the people in the latter, larger group vote as if they are partisan members of one of the two major parties.

Like someone who claims to be asexual but in reality has sex with sheep.

barfo
 
Stevenson said:
Hey @MARIS61 wtf do you know about being Jewish? You are about the least Jewish thinking person here.
Click to expand...

Born and raised in LO, and consequently have always had a few Jewish friends.

I know next to nothing about "being Jewish", or even what that means.

But you imply that "they all think alike" and that's erroneous and insulting.
 
calvin natt said:
Listen I love the idea of being an Independent. I just don’t get what’s wrong with the party if so many people claim to be one. Nobody says in conversation “I’m a republican/democrat”. You never hear it. But people love to say they are Independent. Look at this place. Happens all the time. Yet every four years this huge population can’t muster together a candidate or make money. It’s just interesting to me.
Click to expand...

Pretty hard for a party to raise hundreds of millions of dollars and remain credibly "Independent".
 
The conundrum of being a true Independent Voter is you have to vote for someone who's just going to do what they want to do, no matter what you or anyone else wants.
 
6ec6580772942554d347e1237b6f0515.jpg
 
If someone considers themselves as an independent with no specific loyalty to either party, and on election day there are only 2 choices, they obviously can only vote for one. Whichever way they choose to vote does not necessarily make them partisan.
 
MARIS61 said:
Born and raised in LO, and consequently have always had a few Jewish friends.

I know next to nothing about "being Jewish", or even what that means.

But you imply that "they all think alike" and that's erroneous and insulting.
Click to expand...
When I was a kid there were no Jews in Oswego. The first Jew must have moved into Lake Oswego which didn't come into being until very nearly 1960.
In the beginning of summer 1959 we moved to Portland where I suddenly experienced a lot of Jewish kids most of whom I still remember. I could name them all or nearly all right now.
 
calvin natt said:
Listen I love the idea of being an Independent. I just don’t get what’s wrong with the party if so many people claim to be one. Nobody says in conversation “I’m a republican/democrat”. You never hear it. But people love to say they are Independent. Look at this place. Happens all the time. Yet every four years this huge population can’t muster together a candidate or make money. It’s just interesting to me.
Click to expand...
Corrupt two party stranglehold on our political system maybe? Just a guess.
 
yankeesince59 said:
If someone considers themselves as an independent with no specific loyalty to either party, and on election day there are only 2 choices, they obviously can only vote for one. Whichever way they choose to vote does not necessarily make them partisan.
Click to expand...

Of course not. What would make them partisan is if they always tend to vote for one of those two choices. And that's the behavior of the vast majority of "independents." Not every single one so, again, if that doesn't reflect your (anyone who's reading this) behavior then you aren't included.
 
yankeesince59 said:
If someone considers themselves as an independent with no specific loyalty to either party, and on election day there are only 2 choices, they obviously can only vote for one. Whichever way they choose to vote does not necessarily make them partisan.
Click to expand...

why isn’t there a third option?
 
calvin natt said:
why isn’t there a third option?
Click to expand...
The DNC & RNC do all they can to prevent a legit third option. The media is also biased as to one or the other.
Bernie even knows he's must align with dems even though he's an independent.
If the networks would promote the viability of a third party and some donors get behind it, you never know.
 
It's not the DNC and RNC that make third parties not viable, it's the "first past the post" voting system--one election and whomever gets the most votes wins. That forces people who might consider a third (or fourth or fifth) party to choose between "give an extra vote to a party you like most in their bid to reach 1% of the vote" or "give an extra vote to one of the parties that might actually win, allowing you to have some voice in who's in charge."

If, for example, we used a run-off vote, that choice would be eliminated. In the first vote, you could vote for anyone your heart desires. If you really like the Constitutional Pirate Party, vote for them and get excited by their attempt to pick up a percentage point or two. Then, in the run-off between the top two vote-getters, you can have a voice in who actually runs things. That would allow parties aside from the Democrats and Republicans to slowly build coalitions and popularity and maybe one day challenge to be among those top two vote-getters.

Beyond that, a parliamentary system also tends to be more friendly to smaller parties, but we aren't completely restructuring our form of government any time soon, so it would be better to advocate for something like run-off voting or ranked-choice voting. Some states have begun experimenting with those types of systems--maybe one day there will be enough support for it at the federal level.
 
MARIS61 said:
Born and raised in LO, and consequently have always had a few Jewish friends.

I know next to nothing about "being Jewish", or even what that means.

But you imply that "they all think alike" and that's erroneous and insulting.
Click to expand...

No that's not what I am implying. And for me, it's not "they" its "we." There is a Jewish-American point of view, whether you like it or agree with it or think its insulting. Generally speaking, we are left-leaning and socially conscious. We strive to help the marginalized and the underdog. It stems from Jews being ostracized, the Holocaust, our teachings. We believe it is our job to engage in Tikkun Olam, literally help "repair the world". @crandc might be able to add more.

I'm sure you have Jewish friends and that's great. One of my best pals is an evangelical Christian. When I say you are not of Jewish thought, what I am trying to say is that the far right of today is about as un-Jewish as I can imagine; the Trump loving, each man for himself, mean-spirited, rude, demeaning, invective-filled rhetoric of the right, especially these days, is an anathema to Jews in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Not a lot to add, except commitment to equality and to church/state separation. Also, Halacha states a human life begins when a baby is born and draws breath, and that in a conflict between needs of pregnant woman and fetus, the woman takes precedence. I would add a commitment to education and except for ultra orthodox, scientific viewpoint.

So not too many Jews could support Trump.
 
I have struggled for decades over the abortion topic. One religion says it is a human life when conceived, another religion says when it is born and takes its first breath.

I also spent decades trying to find the true God by investigating many religions. I failed. Religions are run by people that get tempted and corrupted by the power it gives them. They all have set up rules that support their agendas.

I did find God, in nature. And found the answer to the abortion issue.

If you stop the heartbeat of any living creature, you kill it. That is the law of nature.

A human fetus develops a heartbeat from as early as 5.5 weeks, and almost always by 7 weeks.

Therefore, if a heartbeat can be detected in an unborn human. And you stop that heartbeat. That is murder!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top