Amazon has whacked our affiliate account. Hosting Donations/Commitments $2063 of $1920 (Sept 13/18). In Hand $1466 (Lump sum payments minus paypal graft). Paypal Donation Link Here

Go Bernie!

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17761
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Defiant » Mon Jun 20, 2016 2:23 am

Bernie Sanders is on a crash course with the Congressional Black Caucus.

In a letter sent to both the Sanders and Hillary Clinton campaigns, the CBC is expressing its resolute opposition to two key reforms demanded by Sanders in the run-up to the Democratic convention: abolishing the party’s superdelegate system and opening Democratic primaries up to independents and Republicans.
link

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by El Guapo » Mon Jun 20, 2016 12:18 pm

Defiant wrote:A couple of things to consider about Warren:

1. Some of the Bernie-or-Busters are loudly attacking Warren for endorsing Clinton. Which makes me think that they wouldn't be drawn in with a Warren VP candidacy.

2. Warren's favorability ratings aren't that great (25 favorable/27 unfavorable). Those numbers will get better as she gains visibility, but I don't think she's some sort of silver bullet to winning the election.
I saw those Warren favorability ratings, but I'm not sure how reliable they are - from the HuffPo link, it doesn't seem like Warren's favorability has been polled since early 2015 (which seems odd to me - maybe pollsters stopped when it became reasonably clear that she wasn't running for President?).

But regardless, the real question is Warren's favorability among the Obama coalition, because if Clinton can hold together that coalition then she wins (I am sure that Warren's favorability in Alabama, for example, is in the crapper, but that doesn't matter). And I don't think that there's anyone who is as well regarded among both the centrist and liberal wings of the democratic party than Warren:

Enlarge Image

And I know that there will certainly be Sanders dead-enders who will never ever accept Clinton even if Marx himself returned from the dead and endorsed Clinton. But that's ok, as long as Clinton can consolidate a healthy majority of the Sanders wing.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by El Guapo » Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:25 am

Still enjoying my Sanders dead-ender relatives. They're still counting California primary votes (evidently the process typically takes many weeks before there's a final certification). He was posting about how the counting has reduced Hillary's lead in California from around 14 points to merely a little over 10ish.

Victory is at hand!

Image


User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33707
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Kraken » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:15 pm

Another victory for the Sandernistas
Bernie Sanders’ ‘‘Medicare for all’’ plan seems even less likely now that he’s all but out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but there’s a way that he and Hillary Clinton could still find common ground on health care.

It would let Democrats rally around the cause of government-run health care without committing to the politically perilous course of trying to change the entire US system at once.

The idea is a ‘‘public option’’ for states to set up their own insurance plans that compete against private industry.

Sanders helped to pass the federal legislation that would allow it, and Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, says if elected she would work with interested governors to implement it.
It's not of the same magnitude as winning the argument for expanding Social Security, but in the long run it could prove more transformative.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by El Guapo » Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:55 pm

Kraken wrote:Another victory for the Sandernistas
Bernie Sanders’ ‘‘Medicare for all’’ plan seems even less likely now that he’s all but out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but there’s a way that he and Hillary Clinton could still find common ground on health care.

It would let Democrats rally around the cause of government-run health care without committing to the politically perilous course of trying to change the entire US system at once.

The idea is a ‘‘public option’’ for states to set up their own insurance plans that compete against private industry.

Sanders helped to pass the federal legislation that would allow it, and Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, says if elected she would work with interested governors to implement it.
It's not of the same magnitude as winning the argument for expanding Social Security, but in the long run it could prove more transformative.
I'm all for it, although this is not exactly super shocking or revelatory. The Obama administration supported that and pushed for it during the Affordable Care Act debate, but (after a long fight) it was ultimately dropped because Republicans were uniformly opposed to any legislation and one or two democratic senators didn't support it.

So it would make sense for Clinton (who has basically run under an Obama third term type mandate) to support that, and it seems like a pretty sensible place to make nice with Sanders.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40365
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by GreenGoo » Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:59 pm

I thought it was illegal for your government to compete against private industry?

No kidding, I really thought that. Is that not true?

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by El Guapo » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:02 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I thought it was illegal for your government to compete against private industry?

No kidding, I really thought that. Is that not true?
No, that's definitely not true. For example, the U.S. Postal Service competes with FedEx and UPS. American political culture generally smiles on the private market, so that sort of thing is comparatively unusual, but it does happen.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40365
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by GreenGoo » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:06 pm

El Guapo wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I thought it was illegal for your government to compete against private industry?

No kidding, I really thought that. Is that not true?
No, that's definitely not true. For example, the U.S. Postal Service competes with FedEx and UPS. American political culture generally smiles on the private market, so that sort of thing is comparatively unusual, but it does happen.
I thought that was a "special" case. Anyway, I learned something. Or unlearned something. Whatever.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by El Guapo » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:10 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I thought it was illegal for your government to compete against private industry?

No kidding, I really thought that. Is that not true?
No, that's definitely not true. For example, the U.S. Postal Service competes with FedEx and UPS. American political culture generally smiles on the private market, so that sort of thing is comparatively unusual, but it does happen.
I thought that was a "special" case. Anyway, I learned something. Or unlearned something. Whatever.
I mean, it's special in that it's unusual, like I said. Point being that it's perfectly legal, it's just less common here than internationally.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33707
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Kraken » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:10 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I thought it was illegal for your government to compete against private industry?

No kidding, I really thought that. Is that not true?
It is legal when legislation says it is, as in "Sanders helped to pass the federal legislation that would allow it." The government never signed a noncompete agreement (unless that's buried in the depths of the ACA, which it might be, since the insurance companies basically wrote it).

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by El Guapo » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:16 pm

Kraken wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I thought it was illegal for your government to compete against private industry?

No kidding, I really thought that. Is that not true?
It is legal when legislation says it is, as in "Sanders helped to pass the federal legislation that would allow it." The government never signed a noncompete agreement (unless that's buried in the depths of the ACA, which it might be, since the insurance companies basically wrote it).
Wait, now I'm confused from the article - how is this a victory for the Sandernistas, or otherwise new? I'm especially confused by this:
Incremental improvements to President Obama’s health care law that Clinton has proposed aren’t fulfilling to liberals, said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who follows public opinion on health care.

‘‘What’s exciting to them is not just adding benefits,’’ he said. ‘‘It’s offering some sort of public alternative to current private insurance.’’
Soooo...incremental improvements to the Affordable Care Act aren't appealing to liberals, but what might appeal to them are current provisions of the Affordable Care Act?

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33707
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Kraken » Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:35 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Kraken wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I thought it was illegal for your government to compete against private industry?

No kidding, I really thought that. Is that not true?
It is legal when legislation says it is, as in "Sanders helped to pass the federal legislation that would allow it." The government never signed a noncompete agreement (unless that's buried in the depths of the ACA, which it might be, since the insurance companies basically wrote it).
Wait, now I'm confused from the article - how is this a victory for the Sandernistas, or otherwise new? I'm especially confused by this:
Incremental improvements to President Obama’s health care law that Clinton has proposed aren’t fulfilling to liberals, said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who follows public opinion on health care.

‘‘What’s exciting to them is not just adding benefits,’’ he said. ‘‘It’s offering some sort of public alternative to current private insurance.’’
Soooo...incremental improvements to the Affordable Care Act aren't appealing to liberals, but what might appeal to them are current provisions of the Affordable Care Act?
Getting Clinton on board is a win. Resurrecting the public option is an advance over merely tinkering with the insurance-company oligopoly, as she had said she would do. The public option is the first step in turning the ACA into Medicare-for-all.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by El Guapo » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:18 pm

Kraken wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Kraken wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I thought it was illegal for your government to compete against private industry?

No kidding, I really thought that. Is that not true?
It is legal when legislation says it is, as in "Sanders helped to pass the federal legislation that would allow it." The government never signed a noncompete agreement (unless that's buried in the depths of the ACA, which it might be, since the insurance companies basically wrote it).
Wait, now I'm confused from the article - how is this a victory for the Sandernistas, or otherwise new? I'm especially confused by this:
Incremental improvements to President Obama’s health care law that Clinton has proposed aren’t fulfilling to liberals, said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who follows public opinion on health care.

‘‘What’s exciting to them is not just adding benefits,’’ he said. ‘‘It’s offering some sort of public alternative to current private insurance.’’
Soooo...incremental improvements to the Affordable Care Act aren't appealing to liberals, but what might appeal to them are current provisions of the Affordable Care Act?
Getting Clinton on board is a win. Resurrecting the public option is an advance over merely tinkering with the insurance-company oligopoly, as she had said she would do. The public option is the first step in turning the ACA into Medicare-for-all.
But that's what I'm confused about. Getting Clinton on board with what? This is talking about states using existing authority under the ACA to institute state-level public options. Nor is there any indication of a change of position for (or any action by) Clinton here. The only evident federal action involved would be to not deny waivers to states that want to institute state level public options. But given that that would be states going farther than the ACA, I doubt that getting a federal waiver would be an issue under Obama or Clinton (or most democrats, for that matter) - after all, as the article says, Vermont already received a waiver to do full state-level single payer (which is farther than a state-level public option).

That's the thing - this is less than tinkering as far as the federal government is concerned. This is literally applying the existing ACA (just not stopping the states from going farther). It would be news if Trump (or any other leading Republican) said they wouldn't stop states from creating a public option, though.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33707
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Kraken » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:21 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Kraken wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Kraken wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I thought it was illegal for your government to compete against private industry?

No kidding, I really thought that. Is that not true?
It is legal when legislation says it is, as in "Sanders helped to pass the federal legislation that would allow it." The government never signed a noncompete agreement (unless that's buried in the depths of the ACA, which it might be, since the insurance companies basically wrote it).
Wait, now I'm confused from the article - how is this a victory for the Sandernistas, or otherwise new? I'm especially confused by this:
Incremental improvements to President Obama’s health care law that Clinton has proposed aren’t fulfilling to liberals, said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who follows public opinion on health care.

‘‘What’s exciting to them is not just adding benefits,’’ he said. ‘‘It’s offering some sort of public alternative to current private insurance.’’
Soooo...incremental improvements to the Affordable Care Act aren't appealing to liberals, but what might appeal to them are current provisions of the Affordable Care Act?
Getting Clinton on board is a win. Resurrecting the public option is an advance over merely tinkering with the insurance-company oligopoly, as she had said she would do. The public option is the first step in turning the ACA into Medicare-for-all.
But that's what I'm confused about. Getting Clinton on board with what? This is talking about states using existing authority under the ACA to institute state-level public options. Nor is there any indication of a change of position for (or any action by) Clinton here. The only evident federal action involved would be to not deny waivers to states that want to institute state level public options. But given that that would be states going farther than the ACA, I doubt that getting a federal waiver would be an issue under Obama or Clinton (or most democrats, for that matter) - after all, as the article says, Vermont already received a waiver to do full state-level single payer (which is farther than a state-level public option).

That's the thing - this is less than tinkering as far as the federal government is concerned. This is literally applying the existing ACA (just not stopping the states from going farther). It would be news if Trump (or any other leading Republican) said they wouldn't stop states from creating a public option, though.
The gist is that their positions converged, and Clinton moved more than Sanders did. "It would let Democrats rally around the cause of government-run health care without committing to the politically perilous course of trying to change the entire US system at once." Yes, Democrats already could have done that, but they showed little stomach for it without Clinton's blessing. The public option "would probably trigger a sharp backlash from the deep-pocketed insurance industry", and Hillary and her establishment pals are the deepest into those pockets.

What's in it for her, besides Bernie's blessing? "The idea also could give Clinton a way to change the conversation if, as expected, a wave of sharp premium increases hits the health law’s insurance markets later this summer and fall." Odds are good that she'll actively encourage state-level public options when the wailing and gnashing of teeth start up again.

The D Party took a baby step in the direction of government-run health care. That's another notch in Bernie's belt.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by El Guapo » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:32 pm

Kraken wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Kraken wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Kraken wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I thought it was illegal for your government to compete against private industry?

No kidding, I really thought that. Is that not true?
It is legal when legislation says it is, as in "Sanders helped to pass the federal legislation that would allow it." The government never signed a noncompete agreement (unless that's buried in the depths of the ACA, which it might be, since the insurance companies basically wrote it).
Wait, now I'm confused from the article - how is this a victory for the Sandernistas, or otherwise new? I'm especially confused by this:
Incremental improvements to President Obama’s health care law that Clinton has proposed aren’t fulfilling to liberals, said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who follows public opinion on health care.

‘‘What’s exciting to them is not just adding benefits,’’ he said. ‘‘It’s offering some sort of public alternative to current private insurance.’’
Soooo...incremental improvements to the Affordable Care Act aren't appealing to liberals, but what might appeal to them are current provisions of the Affordable Care Act?
Getting Clinton on board is a win. Resurrecting the public option is an advance over merely tinkering with the insurance-company oligopoly, as she had said she would do. The public option is the first step in turning the ACA into Medicare-for-all.
But that's what I'm confused about. Getting Clinton on board with what? This is talking about states using existing authority under the ACA to institute state-level public options. Nor is there any indication of a change of position for (or any action by) Clinton here. The only evident federal action involved would be to not deny waivers to states that want to institute state level public options. But given that that would be states going farther than the ACA, I doubt that getting a federal waiver would be an issue under Obama or Clinton (or most democrats, for that matter) - after all, as the article says, Vermont already received a waiver to do full state-level single payer (which is farther than a state-level public option).

That's the thing - this is less than tinkering as far as the federal government is concerned. This is literally applying the existing ACA (just not stopping the states from going farther). It would be news if Trump (or any other leading Republican) said they wouldn't stop states from creating a public option, though.
The gist is that their positions converged, and Clinton moved more than Sanders did. "It would let Democrats rally around the cause of government-run health care without committing to the politically perilous course of trying to change the entire US system at once." Yes, Democrats already could have done that, but they showed little stomach for it without Clinton's blessing. The public option "would probably trigger a sharp backlash from the deep-pocketed insurance industry", and Hillary and her establishment pals are the deepest into those pockets.

What's in it for her, besides Bernie's blessing? "The idea also could give Clinton a way to change the conversation if, as expected, a wave of sharp premium increases hits the health law’s insurance markets later this summer and fall." Odds are good that she'll actively encourage state-level public options when the wailing and gnashing of teeth start up again.

The D Party took a baby step in the direction of government-run health care. That's another notch in Bernie's belt.
The thing is that the article gives no indication about Clinton doing or saying anything - it just says "there’s a way that [Sanders] and Hillary Clinton could still find common ground on health care." It's not clear whether this reflects some news or agreement, or whether this is coming out of the author's head. Nor is there any indication that anything Clinton has said or done has held states back to this point - as the article notes, Vermont already received a waiver for full single-payer (though that subsequently fell apart at the state level), and Colorado is already planning on voting on an ambitious expansion of health care coverage at the state level.

Given that I can find no other article about any sort of Clinton / Sanders agreement on state-level health care expansion, and given that granting a waiver for a state that wants to go beyond the ACA is current mainstream democratic policy 101, I think the most likely conclusion is that the author of the article is presenting a regular democratic policy preference at the state level as a possible compromise between Clinton and Sanders.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33707
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Kraken » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:39 pm

Agreed that the article is short on specifics. I am reading between the lines. We'll see if Clinton's rhetoric changes in the coming weeks and months.

User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 17136
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Unagi » Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:38 pm

Wait, what are you replying to Kraken. I don't get this random reply of yours. Was that to El Guapo?

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by El Guapo » Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:38 pm

Unagi wrote:Wait, what are you replying to Kraken. I don't get this random reply of yours. Was that to El Guapo?
Yes.

User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 17136
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Unagi » Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:39 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Unagi wrote:Wait, what are you replying to Kraken. I don't get this random reply of yours. Was that to El Guapo?
Yes.
OK, cause it was unclear to the casual follower. :coffee:

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33707
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Kraken » Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:40 pm

Unagi wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Unagi wrote:Wait, what are you replying to Kraken. I don't get this random reply of yours. Was that to El Guapo?
Yes.
OK, cause it was unclear to the casual follower. :coffee:
Sorry, it grew past my quoting threshold and I didn't take the time to pare it down to size because Wife was leaning on me to leave for Pizzapalooza.

To summarize for the potentially further confused: The Guapster's right that there is no apparent news there; yet the Boston Globe, being the mouthpiece of the Democratic establishment, would not have run a story that was favorable to Bernie unless they saw something newsworthy in it. Hence, I was reading between the lines. Whatever party-insider horsetrading occasioned that story is not explicit in the story.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by El Guapo » Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:56 pm

Sanders says it "doesn't appear" that he will be the nominee.

Facts and math are making steady inroads, but there's a ways to go yet.

Jeff V
Posts: 31117
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Jeff V » Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:23 am

El Guapo wrote:Sanders says it "doesn't appear" that he will be the nominee.

Facts and math are making steady inroads, but there's a ways to go yet.
Naturally. Appearances, after all, could be deceiving, so he still has that to hang his hat on.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 59737
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Isgrimnur » Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:51 am

Start packing it in
Bernie Sanders said Friday he will likely vote for Hillary Clinton for president in November, the strongest expression of support yet from the Vermont senator, but he left the door open that he could change his mind.

"In all likelihood, it will be Hillary Clinton," Sanders told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day."
Sanders said he was focused on his leverage over the Democratic party platform.

"My job right now as a candidate is to fight to make sure that the Democratic Party not only has the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party, but that that platform is actually implemented by elected officials," Sanders said on CNN.

He also declined to say whether the time will come that he fully endorses Clinton, saying he is waiting to see what she says about his priorities. He also would not say explicitly, when pressed by Cuomo, that she won the nomination fairly.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 7505
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Max Peck » Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:15 pm

Draft of Dems' policy positions reflects Sanders' influence
A draft of the Democratic Party's policy positions reflects the influence of Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign: endorsing steps to break up large Wall Street banks, advocating a $15 hourly wage, urging an end to the death penalty. Hillary Clinton's supporters turned back efforts by Sanders' allies to promote a Medicare-for-all single-payer health care system and a carbon tax to address climate change, and freeze hydraulic fracking. While the platform does not bind the Democratic nominee to the stated positions, it serves as a guidepost for the party moving forward. Party officials approved the draft early Saturday. The Democratic National Convention's full Platform Committee will discuss the draft at a meeting next month in Orlando, Florida, with a vote at the convention in Philadelphia in late July.
Time and tide melt the snowman.

There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
-- The Doctor

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17761
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Defiant » Fri Jul 01, 2016 7:33 pm

Sanders supporters that will vote for Trump

On how they have so much in common:
"Bernie and Trump both don't have hair. They're both old. They both want to be president"

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17761
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Defiant » Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:31 pm


User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17761
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Defiant » Wed Jul 06, 2016 10:56 pm

Sanders has an interview with Jake. You know, some day, that guy might be a big name in interviewing.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by El Guapo » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:05 am

There's growing buzz about a Sanders endorsement of Clinton, likely to happen next week. Sanders has at least confirmed that there are talks to that extent. This is helped significantly by Clinton signing on to Sanders' "free public college" proposal, only Clinton has limited it to families making under $125,000 a year (which makes sense).

I hope this happens, not only because it will help Trump lose, but even more so because I am absolutely dying to see how the Sanders dead-enders on my Facebook feed react.

Side note on that: one of them posted about the "House democrats boo Sanders" story, saying that Sanders wasn't booed, it was just the House democrats groaning in response to what he said. Oh, that's much better, then.

User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 26250
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana
Contact:
Blackhawk’s avatar
Online

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Blackhawk » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:24 am

El Guapo wrote: I hope this happens, not only because it will help Trump lose, but even more so because I am absolutely dying to see how the Sanders dead-enders on my Facebook feed react.
The freak show on Facebook has been one of the highlights of this election season.

That's actually kind of sad. :doh:
[This space left intentionally blank.]

User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 15764
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish
coopasonic’s avatar
Offline

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by coopasonic » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:01 pm

El Guapo wrote:This is helped significantly by Clinton signing on to Sanders' "free public college" proposal, only Clinton has limited it to families making under $125,000 a year (which makes sense).
Can I get a discount at least? Maybe I can go part time at work for a while. :P
-Coop

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17761
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Defiant » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:19 pm


Jeff V
Posts: 31117
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Jeff V » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:33 pm

El Guapo wrote:There's growing buzz about a Sanders endorsement of Clinton, likely to happen next week. Sanders has at least confirmed that there are talks to that extent. This is helped significantly by Clinton signing on to Sanders' "free public college" proposal, only Clinton has limited it to families making under $125,000 a year (which makes sense).
Potentially awesome as I might actually be able to stop working some day after all. I imagine a limit imposed in the next 5 years will increase some over 16 years from now when my first kid will be ready for college; perhaps wife's salary+my SS will be under the cap. Of course, she could very well be making close to the cap by then, in which case she'd have to scale back on working (meaning more time to do retiree things together such as travel and shuffleboard).

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33707
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Kraken » Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:28 pm

El Guapo wrote:There's growing buzz about a Sanders endorsement of Clinton, likely to happen next week. Sanders has at least confirmed that there are talks to that extent. This is helped significantly by Clinton signing on to Sanders' "free public college" proposal, only Clinton has limited it to families making under $125,000 a year (which makes sense).
That's a pretty big win. Combined with the news that Clinton will not face indictment, Sanders no longer has any reasonable justification to keep his campaign alive. He got far more than anybody expected when he announced, so it's time to declare victory. Apparently he sees it that way, too.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by El Guapo » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:49 pm

Kraken wrote:
El Guapo wrote:There's growing buzz about a Sanders endorsement of Clinton, likely to happen next week. Sanders has at least confirmed that there are talks to that extent. This is helped significantly by Clinton signing on to Sanders' "free public college" proposal, only Clinton has limited it to families making under $125,000 a year (which makes sense).
That's a pretty big win. Combined with the news that Clinton will not face indictment, Sanders no longer has any reasonable justification to keep his campaign alive. He got far more than anybody expected when he announced, so it's time to declare victory. Apparently he sees it that way, too.
Makes sense. Of course, it's all pretend anyways since the House is very likely to remain Republican, and the new majority isn't going to be any more fond of passing democratic bills than the old one was.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33707
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Kraken » Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:56 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Kraken wrote:
El Guapo wrote:There's growing buzz about a Sanders endorsement of Clinton, likely to happen next week. Sanders has at least confirmed that there are talks to that extent. This is helped significantly by Clinton signing on to Sanders' "free public college" proposal, only Clinton has limited it to families making under $125,000 a year (which makes sense).
That's a pretty big win. Combined with the news that Clinton will not face indictment, Sanders no longer has any reasonable justification to keep his campaign alive. He got far more than anybody expected when he announced, so it's time to declare victory. Apparently he sees it that way, too.
Makes sense. Of course, it's all pretend anyways since the House is very likely to remain Republican, and the new majority isn't going to be any more fond of passing democratic bills than the old one was.
Bernie's always been playing a long game and altering the D platform is consistent with that. Of course, holding either party's candidate to their platform after they take office is a whole different matter. Still, it's a win insofar as it sketches out the principles that Democrats are expected to endorse. It enshrines some progressive goals for the next political generation or two.

But yeah, obstructionists gonna obstruct.

User avatar
Chrisoc13
Posts: 3991
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Maine

Go Bernie!

Post by Chrisoc13 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:40 pm

Kraken wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Kraken wrote:
El Guapo wrote:There's growing buzz about a Sanders endorsement of Clinton, likely to happen next week. Sanders has at least confirmed that there are talks to that extent. This is helped significantly by Clinton signing on to Sanders' "free public college" proposal, only Clinton has limited it to families making under $125,000 a year (which makes sense).
That's a pretty big win. Combined with the news that Clinton will not face indictment, Sanders no longer has any reasonable justification to keep his campaign alive. He got far more than anybody expected when he announced, so it's time to declare victory. Apparently he sees it that way, too.
Makes sense. Of course, it's all pretend anyways since the House is very likely to remain Republican, and the new majority isn't going to be any more fond of passing democratic bills than the old one was.
Bernie's always been playing a long game and altering the D platform is consistent with that. Of course, holding either party's candidate to their platform after they take office is a whole different matter. Still, it's a win insofar as it sketches out the principles that Democrats are expected to endorse. It enshrines some progressive goals for the next political generation or two.

But yeah, obstructionists gonna obstruct.
Not sure you could call that being obstructionist. That's just your bias showing. People disagreeing with your ideas and not being willing to pass them just because you are president is not always being obstructionist despite what the party in the white house always tries to sell. Free college isn't going to pass the house because Republicans disagree with it, not because they are obstructionists. There are times to call out congress on being obstructionists and times when it doesn't fit and instead it's a difference of ideology. This is the latter.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33707
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Kraken » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:11 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:
Kraken wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Kraken wrote:
El Guapo wrote:There's growing buzz about a Sanders endorsement of Clinton, likely to happen next week. Sanders has at least confirmed that there are talks to that extent. This is helped significantly by Clinton signing on to Sanders' "free public college" proposal, only Clinton has limited it to families making under $125,000 a year (which makes sense).
That's a pretty big win. Combined with the news that Clinton will not face indictment, Sanders no longer has any reasonable justification to keep his campaign alive. He got far more than anybody expected when he announced, so it's time to declare victory. Apparently he sees it that way, too.
Makes sense. Of course, it's all pretend anyways since the House is very likely to remain Republican, and the new majority isn't going to be any more fond of passing democratic bills than the old one was.
Bernie's always been playing a long game and altering the D platform is consistent with that. Of course, holding either party's candidate to their platform after they take office is a whole different matter. Still, it's a win insofar as it sketches out the principles that Democrats are expected to endorse. It enshrines some progressive goals for the next political generation or two.

But yeah, obstructionists gonna obstruct.
Not sure you could call that being obstructionist. That's just your bias showing. People disagreeing with your ideas and not being willing to pass them just because you are president is not always being obstructionist despite what the party in the white house always tries to sell. Free college isn't going to pass the house because Republicans disagree with it, not because they are obstructionists. There are times to call out congress on being obstructionists and times when it doesn't fit and instead it's a difference of ideology. This is the latter.
Fair point. How about "conservatives gonna conserve." :wink:

User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 4357
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Alefroth » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:20 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote: Not sure you could call that being obstructionist. That's just your bias showing. People disagreeing with your ideas and not being willing to pass them just because you are president is not always being obstructionist despite what the party in the white house always tries to sell. Free college isn't going to pass the house because Republicans disagree with it, not because they are obstructionists. There are times to call out congress on being obstructionists and times when it doesn't fit and instead it's a difference of ideology. This is the latter.
That's like not calling someone a racist because not every single thing they say is racist. You do it often enough, you get the label.

User avatar
Chrisoc13
Posts: 3991
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Maine

Re: Go Bernie!

Post by Chrisoc13 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:00 am

Kraken wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:
Kraken wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Kraken wrote:
El Guapo wrote:There's growing buzz about a Sanders endorsement of Clinton, likely to happen next week. Sanders has at least confirmed that there are talks to that extent. This is helped significantly by Clinton signing on to Sanders' "free public college" proposal, only Clinton has limited it to families making under $125,000 a year (which makes sense).
That's a pretty big win. Combined with the news that Clinton will not face indictment, Sanders no longer has any reasonable justification to keep his campaign alive. He got far more than anybody expected when he announced, so it's time to declare victory. Apparently he sees it that way, too.
Makes sense. Of course, it's all pretend anyways since the House is very likely to remain Republican, and the new majority isn't going to be any more fond of passing democratic bills than the old one was.
Bernie's always been playing a long game and altering the D platform is consistent with that. Of course, holding either party's candidate to their platform after they take office is a whole different matter. Still, it's a win insofar as it sketches out the principles that Democrats are expected to endorse. It enshrines some progressive goals for the next political generation or two.

But yeah, obstructionists gonna obstruct.
Not sure you could call that being obstructionist. That's just your bias showing. People disagreeing with your ideas and not being willing to pass them just because you are president is not always being obstructionist despite what the party in the white house always tries to sell. Free college isn't going to pass the house because Republicans disagree with it, not because they are obstructionists. There are times to call out congress on being obstructionists and times when it doesn't fit and instead it's a difference of ideology. This is the latter.
Fair point. How about "conservatives gonna conserve." :wink:
That's fair. Now the bs they are doing with the supreme court? That's some world class obstructionism at it's finest. And it's absurd. I get mad just thinking about it.

Post Reply