Sen. Bernie Sanders most likely won't be running for president. - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Bernie Sanders hasn’t made any big hires for a potential presidential run. He doesn’t have the money he needs for a campaign and isn’t sure he can raise it. And he’s already sick of hearing about Hillary Clinton. This is not a guy who’s ready for 2016. The Vermont independent — a self-described democratic socialist — is fond of saying that he doesn’t wake up every morning hoping to become president. But spend some time with him, and it’s clear he genuinely doesn’t like talking about it. When he does, he’s apprehensive — and not just because of how it would affect his reputation. “If I run it has to be done well,” Sanders said in an interview with POLITICO this week. “And if it’s done well, and I run a winning campaign or a strong campaign, it is a real boon to the progressive community, because I believe that the issues I talk about are issues that millions and millions of people believe in. On the other hand, if one were to run a poor campaign, didn’t have a well-funded campaign, didn’t have a good organization, did not do well, because of your own limitations, then that would be a setback for the progressive community.” Read more: [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bernie-sanders-isnt-so-sure-about-this-2016-thing-116031.html#ixzz3UJxCZG8N[/url] [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bernie-sanders-isnt-so-sure-about-this-2016-thing-116031.html[/url]

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;47318833]Fuck.[/QUOTE] It's not like he stood a chance.

you'll always be the president of my heart, bernie

[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47318836]It's not like he stood a chance.[/QUOTE] If you ask me, it's pathetic if raising the taxes on the rich, rebuilding our infrastructure, fixing the tax code, and making college free, are liberal ideas. Considering most Americans won't back a 'socialist liberal'.

The moment he self-proclaimed himself a socialist, any presidential hopes died. There's a terrible stigma to the word 'Socialism' in the U.S. that most people simply equate to total government control and redistribution of 100% of a person's income. It's an entirely retarded belief that it's anything like that, but the right has done a pretty good job of convincing people that socialists will take their money away from them because the government is evil. The media and opponents would make an unbelievably big shit storm over it, even if it's undeserved, they'd just repeat the fact he's an 's' word over and over again and unfortunately it would work in scaring off the majority of the country from voting for him. It's better he doesn't run, him winning the nomination would be tantamount to throwing the election to the right.

[QUOTE=Maegord;47318875]The moment he self-proclaimed himself a socialist, any presidential hopes died. There's a terrible stigma to the word 'Socialism' in the U.S. that most people simply equate to total government control and redistribution of 100% of a person's income. It's an entirely retarded belief that it's anything like that, but the right has done a pretty good job of convincing people that socialists will take their money away from them because the government is evil. The media and opponents would make an unbelievably big shit storm over it, even if it's undeserved, they'd just repeat the fact he's an 's' word over and over again and unfortunately it would work in scaring off the majority of the country from voting for him. It's better he doesn't run, him winning the nomination would be tantamount to throwing the election to the right.[/QUOTE] gah why can't people just have common sense

Snip

I'm fucking sad to hear this. I planned on volunteering for his campaign. I wanted my first work in politics to be for Senator Sanders. I'm still holding out hope for his announcement, though.

He wouldn't have stood a chance. But I hoped he'd run either way, I had high support for him.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47318884]*United States[/QUOTE] I dunno, a lack of common sense in voters seems to be a global issue. Not trying to sound like a shithead here, but Id love you to prove me wrong.

[QUOTE=spazthemax;47318911]I dunno, a lack of common sense in voters seems to be a global issue. Not trying to sound like a shithead here, but Id love you to prove me wrong.[/QUOTE] No, you're right, actually. By United States, I meant the average voter. So if anything, I agree with you. Faulty wording on my part.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47318867]If you ask me, it's pathetic if raising the taxes on the rich, rebuilding our infrastructure, fixing the tax code, and making college free, are liberal ideas. Considering most Americans won't back a 'socialist liberal'.[/QUOTE] Obama promised a lot of fantastic shit if he got elected. So did Bush. So did Clinton. How much of those promises actually come to fruition? How many even become actual attempts while in office?

[QUOTE=darunner;47318937]Obama promised a lot of fantastic shit if he got elected. So did Bush. So did Clinton. How much of those promises actually come to fruition? How many even become actual attempts while in office?[/QUOTE] Depends, actually. Is the congress the same party as the president?

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;47318882]gah why can't people just have common sense[/QUOTE] That's asking for a lot of the common man when people in our highest offices in the nation think bringing a snowball into congress is a good way to disprove global warming.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47318951]Depends, actually. Is the congress the same party as the president?[/QUOTE] It was for Obama's first term and all we got out of it was that abortion of a health care law.

[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47318836]It's not like he stood a chance.[/QUOTE] Still Elizabeth Warren Bernie sanders 2016 doesn't sound bad except to republicans and libertarians [editline]13th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=darunner;47318967]It was for Obama's first term and all we got out of it was that abortion of a health care law.[/QUOTE] If by abortion you mean the 57 attempted abortions the republicans have tried, quite a lot for a pro-life bunch

[QUOTE=darunner;47318967]It was for Obama's first term and all we got out of it was that abortion of a health care law.[/QUOTE] I'd beg to differ. [url]http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/[/url]

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47319013]I'd beg to differ. [url]http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/[/url][/QUOTE] Such a stupid website. He had a meeting with some people about possible ideas for making changes. Whooptie-do. Bush did that, too. [editline]13th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;47318975]If by abortion you mean the 57 attempted abortions the republicans have tried, quite a lot for a pro-life bunch[/QUOTE] I mean that handout to the insurance companies who were kind enough to throw a couple bones to people in the law THEY WROTE so that the people didn't riot. [editline]13th March 2015[/editline] Aww, man, nobody can afford health insurance! What do we do? I know! Let's MAKE them get health insurance under penalty of law, that oughta do it!

[QUOTE=darunner;47319062]Such a stupid website. He had a meeting with some people about possible ideas for making changes. Whooptie-do. Bush did that, too. [editline]13th March 2015[/editline] I mean that handout to the insurance companies who were kind enough to throw a couple bones to people in the law THEY WROTE so that the people didn't riot. [editline]13th March 2015[/editline] Aww, man, nobody can afford health insurance! What do we do? I know! Let's MAKE them get health insurance under penalty of law, that oughta do it![/QUOTE] Yes, making people get health insurance under penalty of law makes health insurance less expensive. Cheap insurance rates depend on a bunch of healthy people putting money into the system that they won't ever take out, because they're healthy. Without artificially manipulating rates, ensuring that healthy people buy health insurance is the easiest way to ensure lower rates. A penalty against people who do not purchase health insurance is an effective way for the government to encourage healthy people to purchase health insurance, and therefore lower costs. Do your research, please.

Why not single payer?

[QUOTE=darunner;47319115]Why not single payer?[/QUOTE] Well we could've gotten something rather close to that, but a certain group of self-proclaimed moderate Democrats called the Blue Dog Democrats screwed everything over by refusing to go along with the much better original draft of the bill, and forced them to gut a number of critical points of it--such as an actual government plan--to get it passed. Obama really did try for what its worth, but some jerks had to ruin it for everyone to appear more centrist. In a funny twist of fate, said group proceeded to lose around half their members due to losing seats in the following election because they pissed off the majority of the Democrat party due to their interference with the bill, and the Republicans still hated them for technically being Democrats.

[QUOTE=darunner;47319115]Why not single payer?[/QUOTE] Considering the "abortion" that is the ACA is largely the fault of the Republicans fucking with it constantly, and still voting against it because "lol fuck black prez". What chance in hell did a single payer system have of even being considered? The Democrats are not left enough to consider that, I'm sure a good number of their rank would vote against it because "oh god it's another tax :(:(:(". [editline]14th March 2015[/editline] Obama trying to be fair and letting everyone actually have their say with the ACA was probably the thing that killed it the most. But if he hadn't there'd be people screeching for his impeachment all day long for years.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47318867]If you ask me, it's pathetic if raising the taxes on the rich, rebuilding our infrastructure, fixing the tax code, and making college free, are liberal ideas. Considering most Americans won't back a 'socialist liberal'.[/QUOTE] Anything "socialist" really. It's depressing as fuck really, but if candidates like Bernie Sanders want to even have a small chance in hell convincing people to vote for them on their standings, they'd need to literally rename themselves, "Social Capitalist" or fly under Democrat/Republican. You cannot win a really high seat in politics with a "socialist" label, and if you attempt to, you'll be buried alive in yellow journalism.

good, we can't have no facist commies in our good old american office its bad enough to have a mooslim in office [sp]people actually talk like this[/sp]

There was never a real chance that he was going to run. He's just too old, and will never command the hundreds of millions of dollars in donor money required for a modern presidential campaign. Sad. He's one of the last true progressives left in all of Washington. But, at the end of the day, rich people won't donate gigantic amounts of money to someone who promises to focus on helping people that [I]aren't[/I] rich. And, in 2016, the ONLY factor that matters in a presidential election is how much money a candidate can bring in. Hillary knows how to milk the East Coast blue-bloods for money...and on the Republican side, it's a simple matter of the candidates groveling at the feet of the Koch brothers like they're rushing a frat. Until elections are funded by the taxpayers ONLY to the tune of $3-5 billion per election cycle, this is how the system works.

That's too bad, at least I know he'll still be fighting in the Senate. So it's down to: - Hillary Clinton - Martin O'Malley - Jim Webb - Joe Biden

[QUOTE=spazthemax;47318911]I dunno, a lack of common sense in voters seems to be a global issue. Not trying to sound like a shithead here, but Id love you to prove me wrong.[/QUOTE] I wish we had a 2 consecutive term limit for prime minister :(

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;47319451]That's too bad, at least I know he'll still be fighting in the Senate. So it's down to: - Hillary Clinton - Martin O'Malley - Jim Webb - Joe Biden[/QUOTE] Uggghhhh goddamnit 2016 is going to be a nightmare.

He doesnt have the money to run really. [quote]Democrats, he says, aren’t doing enough for workers. “I think the average working-class person does not perceive the Democratic Party as prepared to take on the billionaire class, the big-money [interests]to protect the interest of all workers,” he says. Republicans, Sanders argues, are even worse. “What Gov. [Scott] Walker [of Wisconsin] and others are doing is just accelerating the war against the working-class citizens in this country, no question about it,” he says. “And the goal of that is to break unions, to lower wages, to make people work longer hours for lower wages to give them less ability to protect their jobs.”[/quote] get em'

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;47319167]Anything "socialist" really. It's depressing as fuck really, but if candidates like Bernie Sanders want to even have a small chance in hell convincing people to vote for them on their standings, they'd need to literally rename themselves, "Social Capitalist" or fly under Democrat/Republican. You cannot win a really high seat in politics with a "socialist" label, and if you attempt to, you'll be buried alive in yellow journalism.[/QUOTE] He's a senator though that's a high seat and a great achievement if you ask me But this isn't just about socialists; the far-left isn't the only "victim" of this reality. If you were to run for president as a Libertarian you'd probably be screwed too. [editline]13th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Code3Response;47319640] get em'[/QUOTE] idk I'm becoming a bigger fan of Walker every time I hear about him. I think it's great that the public sector unions are being put in their place. It's far from being a "war on the working class" when the "working class" are entitled pricks.