The next president of the United States

[ThunderKiss1965]

Will be Bernie Sanders.
Here he is in Iowa last week already gathering momentum for
an election that's still 20 months away.



You can talk about Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump all you want, but they don't have what Bernie has....a real enthusiastic following. My biggest hope right now as far as the 2020 election is the he picks Tulsi Gabbard to be VP.

 

[the other mike]

Suppose I came down with a disease that required complex treatment, and I wanted to be operated on by the top surgeon in the field.

Under Medicare for All, how will I be able to get the top flight people will treat me? I have no political connections, although I do have money.

Good question.

 

[Polishprince]

Suppose I came down with a disease that required complex treatment, and I wanted to be operated on by the top surgeon in the field.

Under Medicare for All, how will I be able to get the top flight people will treat me? I have no political connections, although I do have money.

Good question.

I'm not talking about a generic concept of health care, but specifically competent medical treatment done by the top people in their fields. Not all proctologists are created equal, some have better depth perception.

 

[miketx]

No chance Sanders wins the nomination, never mind the general election. The new generation of Progressives won’t allow an old white guy to be the candidate.

Sounds like a Fox wishful thinking panel analysis.

You babies are soooo predictable. Can't help but mention fox during one of your lie fests.

 

[the other mike]

You babies are soooo predictable. Can't help but mention fox during one of your lie fests.

Don't know which babies you mean, but as for myself, I am
never predictable. It is one of my defining characteristics.

 

[xyz]

You babies are soooo predictable. Can't help but mention fox during one of your lie fests.

Don't know which babies you mean, but as for myself, I am
never predictable. It is one of my defining characteristics.

Chaos is the goal.

Russia: Trump's chaos means 'we will finally defeat America'

New evidence emerges that Russia infiltrated Facebook to sow political chaos in the US

US spies caught Russian officers bragging about causing chaos in the election 6 months before the vote

 

[the other mike]

Chaos is the goal.

Russia: Trump's chaos means 'we will finally defeat America'

New evidence emerges that Russia infiltrated Facebook to sow political chaos in the US

US spies caught Russian officers bragging about causing chaos in the election 6 months before the vote

^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Pogo]

Again --- what does that even mean, to "join a party"?

If one runs as, in this case, a "Republican", that means they got the endorsement of the Republican Party. That's all it means. It tells us nothing about the candidate personally.

Well parties have platforms. For example if Hillary kept her ideals and said "I'm running for the rep

Again --- what does that even mean, to "join a party"?

If one runs as, in this case, a "Republican", that means they got the endorsement of the Republican Party. That's all it means. It tells us nothing about the candidate personally.

No it doesn't tell you completely about them personally. But my thought is if you want to run for their party you should be a member. If you want to be an independent then run as an independent.

I just think if you aren't willing to join the party through your political career, then if they don't welcome you with open arms to win their nomination that's okay to me.

I've still got no answer on what it means to "join" a party. To register in their name, that's it? What's the point?

Absolutely true, the party is going to nominate who it wants to nominate, and the "primaries" are bread and circus to make it look like a real thing. But that's all it is --- a cartel. You get two subcartels, one red, one blue, and they control everything. Go outside the cartel, you go nowhere. Think of the two together as a Mob. It may feel nice and idealistic to fantasize about breaking the system from the outside but it's not gonna happen in the real world as long as Duopoly rules. Therefore you run red or you run blue, and those are your only choices. Regardless of anybody's ideals.

Well one is to say "in this election I will be opposing your parties candidates"

And if you want to run blue then run blue. Don't run to beat the guy running blue, then decide that is the group you want to join for your political gain as you choose. That's it.

Or in Sanders case run as a Dem, then decline the nomination to ensure they can't field a candidate to oppose you in the election.

I just am fine if the party you run against to keep out of an election doesn't want you using their party when it suits you.

I'm afraid that IS the only function of a political party. It's the horse you ride to get to the office.
That's what I'm trying to tell you.

It doesn't mean anything ideologically --- it means "what will work in this time and place". That's why mayors like Frank Rizzo and Ray Nagin ran as Democrats .... they knew if you're going to run a city that's the only way you get elected. That's simply practical, nothing to do with ideologies. That's why Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms and Richard Shelby and Trent Lott et al jumped from Democrat to Republican. Same people with the same ideologies, jumping to a different horse because the odds had changed.

I keep bringing up the example of the sheriff in my town. In different years he runs as a Democrat or as a Republican, depending on whichever way he thinks the winds are blowing. Same guy doing the same job in the same way.

This is step one to overthrowing the Duopoly --- to be honest about what it IS. What it is NOT is anything "ideological". It's a racket, with the goal of attaining Power. I think the more we exalt them with this cockamamie idea that "Democrat" or "Republican" somehow mean something "pure", the longer the Duopoly stays entrenched.

And what I'm saying is if you're going to ride the horse to defeat the other primary candidates from that party then reject the nomination, and run as an independent without Democrat party opposition, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't really support you.

How exactly is anyone going to run as an independent without Democratic (correct spelling) Party opposition? This is a Duopoly -- if you run for office you're going to be opposed by Democrats or Republicans, whichever one is not the one nominating you, and if neither one nominates you you're gonna be opposed by BOTH.

Bernie Sanders, the erstwhile subject here, defeated an entrenched Democrat to win his first office, and along the way continued to defeat both Democrats and Republicans. In at least one instance the Ds and Rs in the state ran a joint candidate that they both endorsed, and Sanders still won.

But that of course is the state level, a far cry from a POTUS run. Nobody but nobody gets elected POTUS without going through the Duopoly. Does not happen. Is it a racket? Is it collusion? Absolutely it is, no question. The Duopoly even controls the debates, jointly --- and that too serves to keep out any "third party" threat to the Duopoly. But it's the only shot you have coming from outside the Duopoly --- to ride one of its horses.

So again, the reality is your three choices for POTUS-running are: seek the Democratic nomination, seek the Republican nomination, or run as a "statement", a candidate who gets shut out of the process before it even starts, where your one and ONLY chance to effect a win is to siphon off enough D and R votes so that nobody comes out with the 270 needed to win, which then throws the entire decision to the House of Reps, where literally anything can happen ---- and that, in effect, undermines what's left of the entire election process. That hasn't happened since John Quincy Adams in 1824, before there were Democrats or Republicans (in other words it has never happened under the Duopoly).

So no, running "Independent" in this broken system is simply not at all realistic. It's a way-too-expensive way to make what amounts to nothing more than a philosophical point. To try to shunt some candidate off with "no, you can't ride our horse" is the same thing as extricating that candidate out of the race entirely. It's a power trip.

Matter of fact the Republicans did that with Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, even though TR had dominated the primary elections. They made him run 3P which was to date the most effective 3P run ever, pushing the Republican to third place --- which enabled Woodrow Wilson to sneak into office with less than 42% of the popular vote. But ultimately the Duopoly still won that election.

Those characters like Strom who jumped party did so because of the shift in political stances of the two parties. When they believed that Democrats were abandoning the southern conservative stance, they tried the dixiecrat thing to get back to their roots, and when the Republicans stepped in, to align more with their ideology they first started campaigning with them and then some even joined them.

That's not an accurate depiction of causative context. Thurmond (who was a distant relative of mine) had always been an archconservative. Matter of fact the South Carolina Democratic Party threw him off the ballot the first time he ran for Senator because he had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952. The "Dixiecrats" ---- there were a total of two, Thurmond and Wright his running mate ---- were Thurmond's foray into running against the Democrats because he and his ilk couldn't stomach the nods to "civil rights" at the convention, so they balked --- but the same element did the same thing in 1860 for the same reason. Thurmond even got Truman (the Democrat)'s name removed from some of the Southern ballots. So this internal schism between the Left and the Right within the bipolar Democratic Party had been going on for close to a century before Thurmond officially bolted. And the main thing holding that bipolar dysfunctional relationship together was the simple Southern-conservative aversion to being associated with the "party of Lincoln".

When Thurmond jumped in '64 .... or when he bolted in '48 or when he got kicked off the ballot in '54 .... he represented the same hyperconservative values he always had and would always have. The main thing that changed was conquering the traditional Southern aversion to the "party of Lincoln". In the big political picture the sea change was in the regional resources of the Democrats, who had been playing both sides of the ideological fence for decades, complacent in the knowledge that their archconservative Southern base would "never" go to the other party.

But cracks in that mixed marriage were already appearing before the Dixiecrat split in '48... in 1936 when FDR, at the height of his influence, got the party rules changed so that nominations required only a simple majority and not a 2/3 vote, which had before then enabled the Southerners to hold the process hostage (particularly in 1924), which meant that Southern contingent lost a hefty chunk of its influence. And before that, cracks were appearing at the turn of the 19th/20th century when the DP led by WJ Bryan took on the Populist movement after dabbling in "fusion parties", thereby taking on the interests of the working class and minorities, another unpopular concept in the South. And before that, the party's 1860 convention was disrupted by the South to the extent it had to be suspended and moved, effectively kicking the party out of the South (again, over the slavery issue).

This had always been an ideologically bipolar struggle within the party, held into place by that emotional aversion to the "party of Lincoln" ("revenooers") --- again, leaning on tradition as befits conservatism --- and the Democratic Party exploited that emotional aversion as long as it could. Ironically it was a politician from Texas who ultimately initiated the official divorce. When LBJ mused "we (the Democratic Party) have lost the South for a generation" he underestimated the time frame but rather than "losing" something they never had philosophically it was more of a resettling into where the South had belonged all along: in a party that preached closer to the hyperconservative values it believed in, which meant it no longer had to infight. So ultimately this was a practical move; it's easier to get your agenda done when you're not fighting within your own organization. Thurmond merely took the step of the Unthinkable and made it thinkable, after which the deluge. George Wallace almost beat him to the punch, offering Barry Goldwater to be his running mate (Goldwater wisely declined; he didn't need any help in the South).

So to cut to the chase (I've never been known for brevity) I don't think it's accurate to say Thurmond et al jumped because of changing party ideologies. Those conflicts had been there and thriving for a century. It was a purely political move, to smooth his conservative path via a smoother road -- especially after the sting of being defeated on the Civil Rights Bill. It was not the first time Thurmond had ventured into the unthinkable; he won his first Senate election as a write-in after the Democrats kicked him off the ballot.

 

[xyz]

Chaos is the goal.

Russia: Trump's chaos means 'we will finally defeat America'

New evidence emerges that Russia infiltrated Facebook to sow political chaos in the US

US spies caught Russian officers bragging about causing chaos in the election 6 months before the vote

^^^^^^^^^^

Not so fast.


your post pretty much proves you a Putlerbot.

 

[the other mike]

your post pretty much proves you a Putlerbot.

 

[xyz]

your post pretty much proves you a Putlerbot.

View attachment 249967

So then explain this.

 

[the other mike]

Locked out of the DNC Convention.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Well parties have platforms. For example if Hillary kept her ideals and said "I'm running for the rep
No it doesn't tell you completely about them personally. But my thought is if you want to run for their party you should be a member. If you want to be an independent then run as an independent.

I just think if you aren't willing to join the party through your political career, then if they don't welcome you with open arms to win their nomination that's okay to me.

I've still got no answer on what it means to "join" a party. To register in their name, that's it? What's the point?

Absolutely true, the party is going to nominate who it wants to nominate, and the "primaries" are bread and circus to make it look like a real thing. But that's all it is --- a cartel. You get two subcartels, one red, one blue, and they control everything. Go outside the cartel, you go nowhere. Think of the two together as a Mob. It may feel nice and idealistic to fantasize about breaking the system from the outside but it's not gonna happen in the real world as long as Duopoly rules. Therefore you run red or you run blue, and those are your only choices. Regardless of anybody's ideals.

Well one is to say "in this election I will be opposing your parties candidates"

And if you want to run blue then run blue. Don't run to beat the guy running blue, then decide that is the group you want to join for your political gain as you choose. That's it.

Or in Sanders case run as a Dem, then decline the nomination to ensure they can't field a candidate to oppose you in the election.

I just am fine if the party you run against to keep out of an election doesn't want you using their party when it suits you.

I'm afraid that IS the only function of a political party. It's the horse you ride to get to the office.
That's what I'm trying to tell you.

It doesn't mean anything ideologically --- it means "what will work in this time and place". That's why mayors like Frank Rizzo and Ray Nagin ran as Democrats .... they knew if you're going to run a city that's the only way you get elected. That's simply practical, nothing to do with ideologies. That's why Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms and Richard Shelby and Trent Lott et al jumped from Democrat to Republican. Same people with the same ideologies, jumping to a different horse because the odds had changed.

I keep bringing up the example of the sheriff in my town. In different years he runs as a Democrat or as a Republican, depending on whichever way he thinks the winds are blowing. Same guy doing the same job in the same way.

This is step one to overthrowing the Duopoly --- to be honest about what it IS. What it is NOT is anything "ideological". It's a racket, with the goal of attaining Power. I think the more we exalt them with this cockamamie idea that "Democrat" or "Republican" somehow mean something "pure", the longer the Duopoly stays entrenched.

And what I'm saying is if you're going to ride the horse to defeat the other primary candidates from that party then reject the nomination, and run as an independent without Democrat party opposition, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't really support you.

How exactly is anyone going to run as an independent without Democratic (correct spelling) Party opposition? This is a Duopoly -- if you run for office you're going to be opposed by Democrats or Republicans, whichever one is not the one nominating you, and if neither one nominates you you're gonna be opposed by BOTH.

Bernie Sanders, the erstwhile subject here, defeated an entrenched Democrat to win his first office, and along the way continued to defeat both Democrats and Republicans. In at least one instance the Ds and Rs in the state ran a joint candidate that they both endorsed, and Sanders still won.

But that of course is the state level, a far cry from a POTUS run. Nobody but nobody gets elected POTUS without going through the Duopoly. Does not happen. Is it a racket? Is it collusion? Absolutely it is, no question. The Duopoly even controls the debates, jointly --- and that too serves to keep out any "third party" threat to the Duopoly. But it's the only shot you have coming from outside the Duopoly --- to ride one of its horses.

So again, the reality is your three choices for POTUS-running are: seek the Democratic nomination, seek the Republican nomination, or run as a "statement", a candidate who gets shut out of the process before it even starts, where your one and ONLY chance to effect a win is to siphon off enough D and R votes so that nobody comes out with the 270 needed to win, which then throws the entire decision to the House of Reps, where literally anything can happen ---- and that, in effect, undermines what's left of the entire election process. That hasn't happened since John Quincy Adams in 1824, before there were Democrats or Republicans (in other words it has never happened under the Duopoly).

So no, running "Independent" in this broken system is simply not at all realistic. It's a way-too-expensive way to make what amounts to nothing more than a philosophical point. To try to shunt some candidate off with "no, you can't ride our horse" is the same thing as extricating that candidate out of the race entirely. It's a power trip.

Matter of fact the Republicans did that with Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, even though TR had dominated the primary elections. They made him run 3P which was to date the most effective 3P run ever, pushing the Republican to third place --- which enabled Woodrow Wilson to sneak into office with less than 42% of the popular vote. But ultimately the Duopoly still won that election.

Those characters like Strom who jumped party did so because of the shift in political stances of the two parties. When they believed that Democrats were abandoning the southern conservative stance, they tried the dixiecrat thing to get back to their roots, and when the Republicans stepped in, to align more with their ideology they first started campaigning with them and then some even joined them.

That's not an accurate depiction of causative context. Thurmond (who was a distant relative of mine) had always been an archconservative. Matter of fact the South Carolina Democratic Party threw him off the ballot the first time he ran for Senator because he had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952. The "Dixiecrats" ---- there were a total of two, Thurmond and Wright his running mate ---- were Thurmond's foray into running against the Democrats because he and his ilk couldn't stomach the nods to "civil rights" at the convention, so they balked --- but the same element did the same thing in 1860 for the same reason. Thurmond even got Truman (the Democrat)'s name removed from some of the Southern ballots. So this internal schism between the Left and the Right within the bipolar Democratic Party had been going on for close to a century before Thurmond officially bolted. And the main thing holding that bipolar dysfunctional relationship together was the simple Southern-conservative aversion to being associated with the "party of Lincoln".

When Thurmond jumped in '64 .... or when he bolted in '48 or when he got kicked off the ballot in '54 .... he represented the same hyperconservative values he always had and would always have. The main thing that changed was conquering the traditional Southern aversion to the "party of Lincoln". In the big political picture the sea change was in the regional resources of the Democrats, who had been playing both sides of the ideological fence for decades, complacent in the knowledge that their archconservative Southern base would "never" go to the other party.

But cracks in that mixed marriage were already appearing before the Dixiecrat split in '48... in 1936 when FDR, at the height of his influence, got the party rules changed so that nominations required only a simple majority and not a 2/3 vote, which had before then enabled the Southerners to hold the process hostage (particularly in 1924), which meant that Southern contingent lost a hefty chunk of its influence. And before that, cracks were appearing at the turn of the 19th/20th century when the DP led by WJ Bryan took on the Populist movement after dabbling in "fusion parties", thereby taking on the interests of the working class and minorities, another unpopular concept in the South. And before that, the party's 1860 convention was disrupted by the South to the extent it had to be suspended and moved, effectively kicking the party out of the South (again, over the slavery issue).

This had always been an ideologically bipolar struggle within the party, held into place by that emotional aversion to the "party of Lincoln" ("revenooers") --- again, leaning on tradition as befits conservatism --- and the Democratic Party exploited that emotional aversion as long as it could. Ironically it was a politician from Texas who ultimately initiated the official divorce. When LBJ mused "we (the Democratic Party) have lost the South for a generation" he underestimated the time frame but rather than "losing" something they never had philosophically it was more of a resettling into where the South had belonged all along: in a party that preached closer to the hyperconservative values it believed in, which meant it no longer had to infight. So ultimately this was a practical move; it's easier to get your agenda done when you're not fighting within your own organization. Thurmond merely took the step of the Unthinkable and made it thinkable, after which the deluge. George Wallace almost beat him to the punch, offering Barry Goldwater to be his running mate (Goldwater wisely declined; he didn't need any help in the South).

So to cut to the chase (I've never been known for brevity) I don't think it's accurate to say Thurmond et al jumped because of changing party ideologies. Those conflicts had been there and thriving for a century. It was a purely political move, to smooth his conservative path via a smoother road -- especially after the sting of being defeated on the Civil Rights Bill. It was not the first time Thurmond had ventured into the unthinkable; he won his first Senate election as a write-in after the Democrats kicked him off the ballot.

I mainly liked your comment because you said "erstwhile"

 

[the other mike]

 

[miketx]

You babies are soooo predictable. Can't help but mention fox during one of your lie fests.

Don't know which babies you mean, but as for myself, I am
never predictable. It is one of my defining characteristics.

 

[Pogo]

The Independents determine the winner.

Which at the moment heavily favor Trump.

Ha ha. Linkie? This oughta be fun.

Where have you been?
Independents favored Trumps SOTU to the tune of 82%

Lying ****.

LOL....

Bring in the Fake Dave,he's bound to know how to use the Google.

Dave's right, you're a lying ****. Here's the same YouGov saying 42% of Independents approve, 47% disapprove, and 13% not sure what to make of this shit.

Page 2, if you can count that far.

And sorry, that's an actual link to the actual poll. It seems we're fresh out of user-generated Googly Image memes.

EDIT: Link fixed

 

[the other mike]

A self-proclaimed comedy genius. That's me.
I'll be playing @ Daingerfield's on 1st Ave in NYC all next week.

 

[xyz]

Which at the moment heavily favor Trump.

Ha ha. Linkie? This oughta be fun.

Where have you been?
Independents favored Trumps SOTU to the tune of 82%

Lying ****.

LOL....

Bring in the Fake Dave,he's bound to know how to use the Google.

Dave's right, you're a lying ****. Here's the same YouGov saying 42% of Independents approve, 47% disapprove, and 13% not sure what to make of this shit.

Page 2, if you can count that far.

And sorry, that's an actual link to the actual poll. It seems we're fresh out of user-generated Googly Image memes.

I'm not sure it would be that high even then, but couldn't it be from early 2017?

 

[litman]

Bernie lost to our weakest candidate to ever run for the democrats. So why the hell do any of you think he will win against good strong candidates. I think that you on the radical right just don't understand where the majority of people are in this country. Many voted against Clinton following Putins orders. But with all the swift boating against her she would have won if she had campaigned late in the areas that caused her to lose. The only way I would vote for Bernie is if the other choice was the Donald. Trump has proven that we can not trust him with foreign leaders and he cannot for the life of him ever tell the truth. In his last two hour speech he told 103 lies and yet you on the right still follow him a proven liar. But the worst about trump is all a foreign leader or despot has to do is compliment him and he will believe anything they say even though the intelligence cummintiy has evidence what they said is a lie. And you want him another 4 years. That folks is just sick. I don't want a man that believes these world class killers over our own intelligence cummintiy.

 

[the other mike]

The Independents determine the winner.

Ha ha. Linkie? This oughta be fun.

Where have you been?
Independents favored Trumps SOTU to the tune of 82%

Lying ****.

LOL....

Bring in the Fake Dave,he's bound to know how to use the Google.

Dave's right, you're a lying ****. Here's the same YouGov saying 42% of Independents approve, 47% disapprove, and 13% not sure what to make of this shit.

Page 2, if you can count that far.

And sorry, that's an actual link to the actual poll. It seems we're fresh out of user-generated Googly Image memes.

I'm not sure it would be that high even then, but couldn't it be from early 2017?

You're all wrong except for Independent's original post .
Independents are an undefined category that stretches across the whole political spectrum. The biggest thing we have in common is distrust for the two major parties. Other than that we look like fans at an Eagles concert...from all walks of life.