SANDERS 2016

KravtZBernie is nothing but a toned down communist.

What about all of those people who busted their butt's to be successful and now can afford some extra income to invest? I came from NOTHING. Worked full time in college basically and did fairly well and now have a successful career. So what...so since I made the sacrifices needed I should have to perpetually pay for other losers to go to college? Go on a college campus today and see how many are willing to give up partying on weekends for extra money to pay tuition / books/ car whatever they might need. Pretty slim.

If Bernie also puts this through (if he was elected) I want a refund for my own college education which I recently finished paying off all $40,000 of my own debt. So becuase I made sacrifices, stayed in many nights on weekends, etc in order to be debt free....now I have to pay for others who aren't willing to do this?

I just dont understand why college is THAT hard to pay for. Yes we need some reform perhaps on grace periods or whatever it might be....but lets say you have $50,000 in debt and assuming you went to college for a degree that will actually get you a decent job that has a strong future (good bye art majors, liberal arts, women studies, etc).

$50,000 is basically a nice car loan extended out over 30 years which isn't really that unreasonable.

Bernie didn't work till he was 40....guy is a loser who has taken a public paycheck his entire life.

Charlie_KellyI want a refund for the taxes I paid that went to bail out the big banks.

I want a refund for the taxes I paid that went to fund a illegal Itaq war and subsequent occupation.

Im sure plenty of people want a refund for the years they spent paying into privitized health insurance just to be dropped or denied coverage.

Did you go to a public or private university? Did you get a two year associates or 4 year bachelors? If its the latter of either of those you should stop bitching.

I worked 1-2 jobs all four years of school and didnt come anywhere close to being able to pay tuition on top of rent, living expenses, utilities, vehicle expenses, and books...I worked week days and weekends alike, some days id be up 20+ hours between class and work and would have to do it again the next day. You make it sound easy, it's not. And guess what? Im still gonna vote for Bernie.

Charlie_KellyI want a refund for the taxes I paid that went to bail out the big banks.

KravtZIf Bernie also puts this through (if he was elected) I want a refund for my own college education which I recently finished paying off all $40,000 of my own debt. So becuase I made sacrifices, stayed in many nights on weekends, etc in order to be debt free....now I have to pay for others who aren't willing to do this?

.MASSHOLE.I hate reiterating this point, but the government received that money back, plus interest.

If my understanding is correct (which it very well may not be), we did not see a tax increase due to TARP, rather the government chose to spend our tax money on this rather than other areas.

I know the Financial Crises is a hotly debated topic, but would you rather have had those banks go under and lose all your money with them?

Charlie_KellyA lot of people DID lose most if not all of their money. And like I said, not only were these banks bailed out for knowingly crashing the economy, but many of the higher ups still recieved bonuses, money that whould have been going back to the investor. Maybe a failure would have been ok. Yes in the short term it would be more devastating, but it would also open up the market again, giving room for more diversity. Maybe im naive but that doesnt seem terrible.

.MASSHOLE.Well, it looks like if Bernie wants to win the nomination, he needs results like he had in NH and VT. NY just ruined many peoples days.

VinnieFwtf is with all the voter purging in NY? From the very very few media outlets that have run articles about it, it's making it seem like the Democrats are essentially rigging the election in favour of Clinton.

.MASSHOLE.This is from CNN,

"Of the 126,000 voters taken off the rolls from Brooklyn 12,000 had moved, 44,000 were inactive after mailings to their homes bounced back, and 70,000 were already inactive and having failed to vote in two successive federal elections or respond to cancel notices were removed"

Not sure how valid it is, but it is the explanation out there.

onenerdykidBernie lost New York to Clinton by 42% to 57%.

In 2008, Obama lost New York to Clinton by 40% to 57%.

It was a long shot to ever think that Bernie could win New York, a closed primary where voters would have needed to re-register as Democrat in September if they wanted to vote for Bernie. But at least he did better than Obama ;)

If he can keep sweeping other states the way Obama did, then there's still hope.

VinnieFI wonder what their source is on that. I mean, it's no secret CNN supports Clinton and would lie through their teeth to prop her up.

onenerdykidBernie lost New York to Clinton by 42% to 57%.

In 2008, Obama lost New York to Clinton by 40% to 57%.

It was a long shot to ever think that Bernie could win New York, a closed primary where voters would have needed to re-register as Democrat in September if they wanted to vote for Bernie. But at least he did better than Obama ;)

If he can keep sweeping other states the way Obama did, then there's still hope.

Charlie_KellyYeah people saying its already over are sadly mistaken. Bernie did better than expected in New York and there is over 700 delegates still available come June. I still have hope America can step it up.

.MASSHOLE.That being said, I think Sanders' supporters need to look at the positives here, even if he loses.

He has shown that there is a rift in the Democratic Party, one that can open the door to a potentially new third party, one that falls more towards the European-left than the US-left.

He also now has the name recognition to potentially influence major policy changes in the Congress, assuming he can be pragmatic.

.MASSHOLE.Their source is the Board of Elections Exec. Director Michael Ryan, aka the guy who oversees everything.

De Blasio, a Clinton supporter, has already called for reforms as well as the NYC Comptroller saying they will audit the BoE.

This affects Clinton supporters as much as it affects Sanders supporters.

This frankly shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, the process for US elections have long been fraught with errors and mistakes. The only difference now is people actually care since they are voting.






He needs to win around 58-59% of the remaining elected delegates to eliminate his deficit. To do so, he more or less has to win out, and win out big. And his old foe, demographics, is standing in the way.

Polls currently have him down 23 percentage points in MD, 9 in NJ, and 14 in PA. Combined, those states have 410 elected delegates, which is 65 short of California's 475, where Clinton currently holds a 13 percentage point lead.

If he wants to make up lost ground from this loss, he has to win PA by 10 percentage points, lose MD by only 9, and win NJ by 6. He now has to win California by almost 15 percentage points.


His campaign adviser said they would reassess where they stand after PA, NJ, and MD. If he gets blown out there, it is certainly over.

That being said, I think Sanders' supporters need to look at the positives here, even if he loses.

He has shown that there is a rift in the Democratic Party, one that can open the door to a potentially new third party, one that falls more towards the European-left than the US-left.

He also now has the name recognition to potentially influence major policy changes in the Congress, assuming he can be pragmatic.

THEPROPHET

.MASSHOLE.The sad thing is, these rules have been around for years.

Sanders' campaign should have been educating their supporters from the start.

THEPROPHETare you serious?!?


why should people be forced to register under a party they don't identify with just to vote. The voting process is fucked.


You literally will say anything to be anti-sander, Even if it makes you look like an idiot.

.MASSHOLE.I never said I agree with it, anywhere. But the rules are the rules, they have not been changed and have been known for the last 4? 8? 12? years.

It sucks, it is a stupid system, and it needs to be changed.

But to complain NOW because Sanders lost? Makes those people look like sore losers.

THEPROPHETYeah, ok, raising concerns about voter suppression means you are a sore loser... It's ignorant to believe that everyone should have known when there is a strong initiative to keep people uninformed

you are placing blame on the people instead of the corrupt system. That makes you part of the problem. Good job...

.MASSHOLE.This is not a new phenomenon, that is the irony. It is a rinse and repeat event every election cycle.

In 2012 you saw issues in CO, PA, AZ, and OH.

In 2008, GA, PA, etc. The list goes on.

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/publications/Voter.Purges.f.pdf

Do you really believe that Sanders' campaign did not know about these restrictions leading into the campaign season?


I am not blaming the people, I blaming Sanders' campaign for not raising awareness about these restrictions beforehand.

But please, continue to make assumptions about me. I really enjoy proving you wrong.

.MASSHOLE.This is not a new phenomenon, that is the irony. It is a rinse and repeat event every election cycle.

THEPROPHETLol. Prove me wrong? You don't know what you are talking about.

but I'll fill you in.


October 9th 2015 was the last day New Yorkers were able to switch their Affiliation.
http://voteforbernie.org/alerts/new-york-last-chance/
Thats 6 months before the vote.

Do really believe that Sanders wasn't able to gain any new support in those 6 months? Because the majority of his momentum was gained in those 6 months.

The sanders campaing did raise awareness, 6 months ago...

but,


im sure you will say Im mistaken no matter what I bring to the discussion, Because your ego won't allow you to be wrong.

onenerdykidInteresting map that shows county victories for Bernie & Hillary. Proud to say my home county voted correctly. Odd that she lost the capital though.

Drailin conclusion: Deep down I knew Bernie wouldn't win, but when things get bad enough there will be a real revolution (slogans and sound bites aside, his campaign was nothing close to revolutionary). I just hope you guys do it right, and in time. Just remember that you guys are still the current empire and the world is watching.

To those that are way too deep in Bernie please, for the love of the world, don't vote republican out of spite. Hilary has her flaws (as do every single human on the planet), but ego is the true evil and despite what youight think, one person can't do as much damage as you might think vs a collective.

DFJThis whole "time" thing is what has really been making me anxious and upset lately. For the most part I would accept that it wasn't Bernie's time (even though he has proven that it is) and that it will come around again in a few election cycles where his ideas will be able to gain even more traction.

But then you realize that we really don't have time. Especially for the (arguably) two most important issues we are facing: climate change and campaign and wealth finance reform.

We can't even put off climate change four more years and Hillary sure as hell won't do shit about it. We need change now.
Finance reform isn't as pressing, but it should be. People talk about how there are more important topics that need to be focused on, but working on those problems before finance reform is not actually going to fix it. We need to allow people have more of a say in voting and the political process and get big money out of politics and then other issues will start to fall into line.

Bernie probably wont be able to run in 4 years. Who will take his place on the national scale? Elizabeth Warren?

/End 420 rant

.MASSHOLE.Also, I find it ironic that Sanders is so pro-climate change, yet is against both nuclear energy and fracking. Fracking, when done correctly, is a much better option than fossil fuels. It certainly is not perfect, and is not a long-term solution, but it is better than fossil fuel dependency.

mirozFracking produces fossil fuels. Natural gas is a fossil fuel.

.MASSHOLE.I meant oil, my bad. Thanks for the correction.

.MASSHOLE.I'm no Hillary fan, but she too has a platform on campaign financing. She, like Sanders, is against campaign finance and Citizens United.

Also, I find it ironic that Sanders is so pro-climate change, yet is against both nuclear energy and fracking. Fracking, when done correctly, is a much better option than fossil fuels. It certainly is not perfect, and is not a long-term solution, but it is better than fossil fuel dependency.

Bateman+k to anyone who votes sanders

.MASSHOLE.The sad thing is, these rules have been around for years.

Sanders' campaign should have been educating their supporters from the start.

onenerdykidWhile this is true, I would say the mass share of Sanders' supporters came around after the deadline to change party affiliation. My mom is a perfect example. She never felt the need to vote in a primary before and now that Bernie actually inspired her to do so, she realized that she had missed the deadline to change party affiliation (from Independent) because she would have had to have done it in September/October 2015.

While the rules have been around for a long time, this is still new/foreign to a lot of people and it's caught a lot of new/previously uninspired voters to come out and actually try to vote. It's at least raised awareness of how retarded our version of democracy can be. Even my mom is pissed over it, and she's one of the calmest, non-politically charged people I know.

onenerdykidIs it the form of government that is to blame or the politicians who made mistakes? Don't forget that in all of these countries there is a political spectrum. There are liberal whacktards who make Sanders look like a regressive monarchist and conservative right wing nationalists who want to kick out migrants & illegal immigrants. Yet both sides fight for universal healthcare, free university, and other government programs designed to contribute to the common good.

CampeadorYes, it is absolutely to blame.

Why are they going there? Because leftists are bending over backwards to give the muslim horde all the social benefits that they previously convinced everyone were "designed to contribute to the common good".

Now you're drowning.

.MASSHOLE.I'm no Hillary fan, but she too has a platform on campaign financing. She, like Sanders, is against campaign finance and Citizens United.

Also, I find it ironic that Sanders is so pro-climate change, yet is against both nuclear energy and fracking. Fracking, when done correctly, is a much better option than fossil fuels. It certainly is not perfect, and is not a long-term solution, but it is better than fossil fuel dependency.

Charlie_KellyFracking releases harmful chemicals into the ground and subsequent water table. Nuclear fuel rods do not break down and release radiation. Both arent good for the environment. Meanwhile we have endless possibilities with solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and hydrogen fuel cells that have been swept under the rug for decades...

.MASSHOLE.Here are two documents you can read on fracking. You may find your views are misguided/incomplete. When done incorrectly, yes, there are issues. But when done correctly, there are not.


http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/rdsgeisecon0811.pdf
http://www.ides.illinois.gov/LMI/ILMR/Fracking.pdf

and in regards to nuclear energy, that is again, a misconception. Obviously it is not perfect, but for mass consumption, it is one of the BEST and most efficient systems out there. There is a reason it is used to power naval submarines...

Much of the hysteria surrounding nuclear reactors is due to the fact that older reactors were designed using older nuclear technology, while we have seen massive improvements across the board

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/the-nuclear-debate.aspx

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=nuclear_environment

Geothermal and solar are great, but hydroelectric-methods (dams I am assuming) have some pretty poor environmental effects as well...

THEPROPHETYou CLEARLY do not know anything about fracking. Stop trying to act like you do... It makes you look pretentious....

.MASSHOLE.that some people may not understand.

THEPROPHETyou are the worst.

Charlie_KellyFracking releases harmful chemicals into the ground and subsequent water table. Nuclear fuel rods do not break down and release radiation. Both arent good for the environment. Meanwhile we have endless possibilities with solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and hydrogen fuel cells that have been swept under the rug for decades...