|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
skinsk05
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Location: Jeonju
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 5:48 am Post subject: Bernie Sanders (anyone?. . . well any USA voting citizens?) |
 |
|
| So I've been watching the republican circus, and the three remaining democrats. As a bleeding heart liberal who enjoys her "socialised" medical coverage here in Korea, I've become a Bernie Sanders fan. I would love to help volunteer to get him elected. It will take a lot of groundwork in the caucuses and primaries. Expatriate Americans can vote fairly easily in the general elections (of course, the rules vary by state and district). Not always as easy in the primary and caucus stages, but we can still help raise funds and awareness and get people registered to vote.) Anyone interested in supporting Sanders for president? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GTFO, there's no place for your kind round here. This here is internet Libertarian ground. Publicly funded health care is slavery, climate change doesn't exist, our negroid friends are butthurt, and all other miscellaneous problems are the fault of the gubmint. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brooks
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2015 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, even though my father is from Vermont.
His record on gun control and illegal immigration is poor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2015 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brooks wrote: |
No, even though my father is from Vermont.
His record on gun control and illegal immigration is poor. |
So then you're going to vote for Hillary? Apologies if you are one of the 1% voting for Martin O'Malley.
Brooks is right about Sanders's weaknesses, but he's the most plausible alternative to the Clinton Machine. I say his working class convictions are sincere, and he's good enough.
Nonetheless, he will not be President, and he will not even be the nominee. He's from Vermont, and thus the comparisons to Howard Dean are irresistible. He'll pull a white crowd, but that's not enough to succeed in the Democratic Party anymore. The majority of blacks will go with Hillary because of her loyalty to Obama, and the majority of hispanics will go with Hillary because of her former opposition to Obama. Please come back and taunt me if my prediction proves wrong, I will be happy for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brooks
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2015 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, Hillary is worse since she lies so much.
She is such a sell out.
She did nothing as a senator and just made friends with rich bankers so she could get money.
I am in the Green Party in New York. Don't know who I will vote for.
If Sanders is for working people then how is being pro-illegal immigration good?
Democrats will do anything to get elected and they take their base for granted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GENO123
Joined: 28 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2015 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bernie Sanders has the same chance of being president of Korea that he does of the US.
He is a nice guy probably would be a good mayor of a city. But he is not electable nor is presidential material.
Welcome president Clinton. It is already a done deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bernie already knew before entering he would not be President. What he is trying to do is change the narrative and bring attention to progressive issues and sensible solutions.
Hillary will win because of the 'blue wall'. The GOP is unelectable in a national campaign in its present form. Even the 'solid south' is eroding. Virginia went twice for Obama. Unheard of 20 years ago. It was always a solid GOP state. North Carolina is now a swing state. Georgia will be a swing state within 5-10 years. The GOP has made no gains on prior Democrat states and have lost a few swing states to Dems (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico) and others are swing but shaded slightly blue and will need more work than the Dems to take (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin). The Dems pretty much have about 250 electoral votes sewed up and just need to get another 30 roughly. The Republicans have a much, much harder road.
Changing demographics and alienation of non white groups, gays, women, young people, have stifled them. All the GOP has left is angry, bigoted whites, mostly males and fringe right religious whites. That population is getting smaller each year and each national election cycle is shrinking more and more.
The leadership wants to change to attract them but the hardcore right is doubling down on a losing platform. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brooks wrote: |
No, Hillary is worse since she lies so much.
She is such a sell out.
She did nothing as a senator and just made friends with rich bankers so she could get money.
I am in the Green Party in New York. Don't know who I will vote for.
If Sanders is for working people then how is being pro-illegal immigration good?
Democrats will do anything to get elected and they take their base for granted. |
Fair enough.
Here's an article from an avowed socialist who is on the fence about Sanders:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/is-bernie-sanders-a-socialist-in-name-only-120545?o=0
Still, I can't help admire skinsk05's passion. I really hope our well-reasoned comments don't dampen his/her enthusiasm, because even though his/her passion may not change the system, without his/her passion the system will never really change for the better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brooks
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look, I lived in Burlington and my father has been in Vermont for 29 years.
He did a good job as Burlington mayor. Later he became the sole congressman, then senator.
If you e-mail Sanders you tend to get a reply, as I have.
But partly that is because Vermont is a smaller place.
I sent him e-mails about various issues, and I agree with some things that he says, especially the TPP, the environment, and other issues.
I am on his mailing list. He is getting 74 percent of his donations from donors who make small contributions.
Anytime he criticises Hilary I am all for it.
She was for the Iraq war and she pushed Obama for drone strikes that killed many in Pakistan, and mostly innocent civilians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yodanole
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: La Florida
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2015 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will support him as far as he goes. Then, unless the Democratic Party nominates Hitler, Stalin or Ted Bundy, I'll vote for the nominee.
If they do nominate Hitler, Stalin or Ted Bundy, I'll simply not submit my ballot. Not really kidding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have been giving him a small monthly donation since August or September. I am almost certain he won't win, but figured the longer he's in the race, the more his ideas will get publicity, and that generally isn't a bad thing. And if it pulls HRC more leftward, so much the better. Unfortunately she hasn't changed at all in foreign policy.
Speaking of foreign policy, a part of me wishes Rand Paul had a chance of being the GOP nominee... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skinsk05
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Location: Jeonju
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, Trump and Sanders are changing America
| Quote: |
Both candidates succeed because they draw out popular feelings of dissatisfaction. But their effect is more than that: They have legitimized for discussion "[non-establishment] beliefs” that millions of Americans beforehand had been unsure of or too shy to fully embrace, but nonetheless felt strongly about. They do not create new beliefs; instead they appeal to unspoken feelings often held by people who have recently felt increased economic strife and political disenfranchisement.
Sanders appeals to what used to be known as the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd, especially mostly middle-class citizens, who believe America is being taken over by Wall Street and other pernicious traditional powers. Trump appeals to nationalistic conservatives, especially noncollege-educated whites, who believe America is being taken from them by liberal values, minorities and immigrants.
And there’s another important psychological factor at work here: Once outed, these opinions don’t go away. By unapologetically synthesizing and stating these different dissenting opinions, Sanders and Trump help these [non-establishment] beliefs flourish, and their expression is likely to outlive both candidates’ campaigns. Today, Trump supporters voice opinions that yesterday they may have been unsure of or publically afraid to acknowledge for fear of being alone and called a “racist” or “bigot.” Likewise, today, Sanders supporters voice opinions that yesterday they may have been unsure of or publically afraid to knowledge for fear of being alone and called a “socialist.” |
I replaced "fringe" with non-establishment because obviously these beliefs are not really fringe but popular.
| Quote: |
Many Americans seem not to realize just how large a role human psychology plays in whether a public figure is seen as legitimate. If people realize this, they wouldn’t believe they could easily undermine Sanders and Trump with logic and facts alone. Look at all the pundits (and all your Facebook friends) who have predicted that both candidates—but especially Trump—would fall after his latest outrageous statement.
In a classic experiment, professor Charles Lord and colleagues showed how debate and facts actually increase, rather than reduce, polarization. They found when people read two equally valid pieces of evidence, one that supports their political views and one that contradicts their political views, they come out of the balanced reading with more unbalanced views.
They call this phenomenon biased assimilation. If people are given a little legitimate support of their beliefs, they can deploy that against a sea of contradicting evidence. If a potentially legitimate politician agrees with a voter, that politician becomes the voter’s bedrock source. More and more debate against that politician often just makes that bedrock stronger.
. . .
The ideas will live on for two key reasons. First, people have become part of social networks and these social networks will keep people in contact with like-minded others and ideas. Even if their respective politicians were to fall from national media attention, they would now still be surrounded by the ideas via their groups.
Second, and most importantly, Sanders and Trump supports have crossed the line of public commitment. It is a long road back after you have publicly declared in conversation or on Facebook that you are a socialist or you are against allowing Muslims into the country. When a person makes a belief public, that belief strengthens. Sanders and Trump have turned many people’s unspoken thoughts into battle cries. In doing so, they have strengthened those beliefs so much, those beliefs will outlast their campaigns.
This might be a good thing. As there may be logical good ideas in one or both of these politicians [non-establishment] beliefs. Regardless of the validity of the [non-establishment] beliefs, what is true is the groups that formed around the beliefs formed not just because of logical or even selfish forces. They formed because of social psychological forces that began with one uncompromising politician—or two—playing the role of an enabling dissenter, resulting in a massive group solidifying the declared [non-establishment] beliefs. |
Here is to the hope that a pincer movement on the establishment can dismantle some of the infrastructure, including that of political party campaign structure, campaign finance, the electoral college, or other establishment perversions on the system.
As for the Democratic Primary specifically, Bernie Sanders polls well in New Hampshire and Iowa. Hillary Clinton has therefore held to Nevada as a firewall.
Sanders threatens Clinton Firewall in Nevada
| Quote: |
He has now hired almost twice the number of staffers on the ground in Nevada – 40 to Clinton's 22. And he has opened nine field offices across the state compared to Clinton's five (the campaign said it is opening its sixth office in Elko on Thursday).
Sanders also has invested heavily in ad buys on English and Spanish language television and radio, spending $767,539 to date compared to Clinton's recent $162,490 ad buy.
. . .
The powerful Culinary Union that represents 60,000 members, multiple sources said, is expected to remain neutral and offer no endorsement until after the caucuses. In 2008, the union backed Obama about three weeks before the caucuses.
Same day registration for Democrats here also means more non-traditional voters can participate in the process if Sanders campaign manages to turn them out on caucus day. To that effect, National Nurses United launched a "Bernie Bus" on Wednesday, making multiple stops in Las Vegas to rally supporters ahead of the Democratic dinner. The bus made stops in front of the Tropicana Las Vegas and the MGM Grand Conference Center to turn out Nevada registered nurses for Sanders.
. . .
Sanders supporters said they were hopeful that his message will resonate here in a state that was hard hit by the 2008 financial crisis, and where wages have not kept pace with the rising cost of living. |
Here are some polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-4167.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hillary Clinton flip-flops on Single Payer
For it before she was against it.
| Quote: |
Hillary Clinton’s sudden attack on Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan is a dramatic break with Democratic Party doctrine that the problem with single-payer is that it is politically implausible — not that it is a bad idea.
Single-payer, the Canadian-style system in which the government pays for universal health care, takes the health insurance industry out of the picture, saving huge amounts of money. But the health insurance industry has become so rich and powerful that it would never let it happen.
That was certainly Clinton’s position back in the early 1990s, when she was developing her doomed universal coverage proposal for her husband, Bill.
But in the ensuing years, both Clintons have taken millions of dollars in speaking fees from the health care industry. According to public disclosures, Hillary Clinton alone, from 2013 to 2015, made $2,847,000 from 13 paid speeches to the industry.
This means that Clinton brought in almost as much in speech fees from the health care industry as she did from the banking industry. As a matter of perspective, recall that most Americans don’t earn $2.8 million over their lifetimes.
Hillary Clinton’s record on single-payer dates back to 1993, when she was tasked to help formulate White House policy. According to the notes of former Clinton confidante Diane Blair, Clinton told her husband during a dinner in February 1993 that “managed competition” — a private health insurance market — was “a crock, single payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare.”
She eventually came to believe that the health care industry was too powerful to allow this reform to happen, and the plan she ended up putting together was not single-payer. Also in 1993, two physician advocates for single-payer lobbied her during a meeting at the White House. They said she told them they made a “convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?”
The next year, in response to a question at a financial conference, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton said that if there was not a health care overhaul “by the year 2000 we will have a single-payer system. I don’t think it’s — I don’t think it’s a close call politically. I think the momentum for a single-payer system will sweep the country.”
. . .
Since then, she has shifted to assailing the policy on its merits.
. . .
As part of her newly found opposition to single-payer on the merits, Hillary Clinton’s attacks on Sanders’ health care plan mischaracterize what he is proposing. For example, she has claimed that his plan, which relies on states to administer the single-payer plan, would turn “over your and my health insurance to governors.”
Warren Gunnels, the policy director of Sanders’ campaign, told The Week that actually this is not the case. If a governor chose not to participate, “citizens would receive coverage from the feds.” It’s actually the Clinton-backed status quo under the Affordable Care Act that is allowing governors to pick and choose who to cover. |
There's also some noise she is making against Sanders's position on guns, but I just do not care about that, as I am sure either would support gun control as President but without practical result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Hillary Clinton flip-flops on Single Payer
For it before she was against it.
| Quote: |
Hillary Clinton’s sudden attack on Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan is a dramatic break with Democratic Party doctrine that the problem with single-payer is that it is politically implausible — not that it is a bad idea.
Single-payer, the Canadian-style system in which the government pays for universal health care, takes the health insurance industry out of the picture, saving huge amounts of money. But the health insurance industry has become so rich and powerful that it would never let it happen.
That was certainly Clinton’s position back in the early 1990s, when she was developing her doomed universal coverage proposal for her husband, Bill.
But in the ensuing years, both Clintons have taken millions of dollars in speaking fees from the health care industry. According to public disclosures, Hillary Clinton alone, from 2013 to 2015, made $2,847,000 from 13 paid speeches to the industry.
This means that Clinton brought in almost as much in speech fees from the health care industry as she did from the banking industry. As a matter of perspective, recall that most Americans don’t earn $2.8 million over their lifetimes.
Hillary Clinton’s record on single-payer dates back to 1993, when she was tasked to help formulate White House policy. According to the notes of former Clinton confidante Diane Blair, Clinton told her husband during a dinner in February 1993 that “managed competition” — a private health insurance market — was “a crock, single payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare.”
She eventually came to believe that the health care industry was too powerful to allow this reform to happen, and the plan she ended up putting together was not single-payer. Also in 1993, two physician advocates for single-payer lobbied her during a meeting at the White House. They said she told them they made a “convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?”
The next year, in response to a question at a financial conference, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton said that if there was not a health care overhaul “by the year 2000 we will have a single-payer system. I don’t think it’s — I don’t think it’s a close call politically. I think the momentum for a single-payer system will sweep the country.”
. . .
Since then, she has shifted to assailing the policy on its merits.
. . .
As part of her newly found opposition to single-payer on the merits, Hillary Clinton’s attacks on Sanders’ health care plan mischaracterize what he is proposing. For example, she has claimed that his plan, which relies on states to administer the single-payer plan, would turn “over your and my health insurance to governors.”
Warren Gunnels, the policy director of Sanders’ campaign, told The Week that actually this is not the case. If a governor chose not to participate, “citizens would receive coverage from the feds.” It’s actually the Clinton-backed status quo under the Affordable Care Act that is allowing governors to pick and choose who to cover. |
There's also some noise she is making against Sanders's position on guns, but I just do not care about that, as I am sure either would support gun control as President but without practical result. |
She really is a bad politician. I'm not talking about policy or anything like that, I just mean running for office. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
