Bernie Sanders quit Democratic party to return as a independent senator - Polidicks

And how did the bird flew in in the picture

[QUOTE=Monkah;50809151]I honestly don't get the capitalism-hate circlejerk on this site. For a good majority of America's history, spanning centuries, we've been the world economical superpower-- and we've managed that feat through capitalism. Capitalism has brought us to where we are today. Sure, there'll occasionally be issues like corruption, but that doesn't outweigh the massive benefits that capitalism has brought us. It's one thing to have a preference of systems, but outright slamming capitalism as something that isn't a functional and efficient system is eyeroll-worthy. We wouldn't be where we are today technologically or in choices of products if it weren't for capitalism's encouragement to innovate within the Western world.[/QUOTE] i dont think many people hate capitalism is general, i mean if you propose outright communism here, you'll get piled on unless trotsky is still around the beef would be against unbridled capitalism and pretending if people are left to their own devices without the dog dang evil government interefering, the magical invisible hand will self-right everything but once you open a history book and go through it, you'll see as to why the country that values individualism more than others still desired to draft regulations and form unions

[QUOTE=Skanic;50808964]Democratic Socialism is just a sugar coat name for Communism, because the word Democratic makes it sound nicer. And what does me living in Norway have to do with that? At the moment we have Conservative party as State minister called Erna Solberg. We also don't have your 2 party system. We have the Stortinget which roughly translated the Great Council which has 8 Party in it that choose what Laws etc are being passed. You can read here [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storting[/url][/QUOTE] What does this have to do with Sanders being a communist (which he isn't)? What he is saying sounds a lot like what we're doing in Denmark, and last I checked my bank account, private property was still a thing.

[QUOTE=killerteacup;50808984]1) Clinton has made it very clear through action that actually, she does want and need your vote, due to the fact that her entire party platform has changed to include a substantial number of policies that Sanders advocated. This is how democracy works. If you want the change that Sanders offered, you vote for the platform that the party offers.[/QUOTE] Has she offered Sanders a position on her ticket or a cabinet position? Has she enacted any reforms to the DNC, or criticized the recent change to allow corporate financing once again? Has she done anything to [i]demonstrate[/i] that she's adopting Sanders' policies, or has she only [i]said[/i] she will? [QUOTE=killerteacup;50808984]For anyone who is now not voting Bernie simply because Hilary is in change, I reserve the right to condemn - it shows a fundamental ignorance of the way democracy and political systems work at their heart in almost every free country. The leader is a powerful figure but is not the sole agent for change in any country and the one thing I've gotten from this american campaign is that a lot of people find it very easy to pay lip service to progressive ideas but are very quick to abandon them[/QUOTE] Which is why at this moment I won't vote for Hillary but will still support progressive and democratic ideals by electing progressives to Congress. I may be ethically unable to support Hillary herself, but I will still support progressive policies. Like you said, the president is not the sole agent for change in any country. I could hold my nose and vote Hillary if I saw actual evidence that Sanders' campaign had an effect, but so far Hillary's campaign has only given lip service to his policies while trying to vote-shame progressives into falling in line. The Democratic Party seems to think that if I'm a progressive I'm obligated to support her simply because she's not Trump, rather than making any effort to appeal to me as a voter. That's not good enough.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50809944]What does this have to do with Sanders being a communist (which he isn't)? What he is saying sounds a lot like what we're doing in Denmark, and last I checked my bank account, private property was still a thing.[/QUOTE] Only that Denmark is not a Socialism Democracy It is a Social Democracy.

If we're going to do this, can we talk about Sanders' views instead of what labels imply? [quote=Bernie Sanders]I don’t believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production.[/quote] He is certainly not a communist, or what people usually think of as socialist.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50810209]Has she offered Sanders a position on her ticket or a cabinet position? Has she enacted any reforms to the DNC, or criticized the recent change to allow corporate financing once again? Has she done anything to [I]demonstrate[/I] that she's adopting Sanders' policies, or has she only [I]said[/I] she will?[/QUOTE] its on the platform lol, regardless of walls of text made by some posters or whatever, its common sense that the party at least tries to push for whatever is on the platform. obama's platform included advancing lgbtq rights, pushing for more healthcare, funding more education, and etc. and hes fulfilled all those while failing to achieve others if hillary doesnt follow the platform and go entirely rogue, shes risking democrats loss against republicans for decades. fact that warren, sanders, obama, biden, and etc. laid all their cards down & doubled on her should mean something, this isn't house of cards [QUOTE=catbarf;50810209]Which is why at this moment I won't vote for Hillary but will still support progressive and democratic ideals by electing progressives to Congress. I may be ethically unable to support Hillary herself, but I will still support progressive policies. Like you said, the president is not the sole agent for change in any country. I could hold my nose and vote Hillary if I saw actual evidence that Sanders' campaign had an effect, but so far Hillary's campaign has only given lip service to his policies while trying to vote-shame progressives into falling in line. The Democratic Party seems to think that if I'm a progressive I'm obligated to support her simply because she's not Trump, rather than making any effort to appeal to me as a voter. That's not good enough.[/QUOTE] if trump wins because you stayed home, its the death of the progressive movement. no one will take progressivism seriously ever again and it'll be pushed back to fringe ideas to be laughed at in the general political scene seriously, have you guys not seen the progress of the tea party? many of them would have preferred even more conservative candidates rather than mccain or romney, but they didn't stay home. they remained united with their party & used their cooperation to push the party to the right. and now the tea party is the most powerful right-wing political machine, because they at least know how to think long-term because they're dinosaurs anyways if trump wins, the progressive version of the tea party will never form because we'll be considered blamed for the loss easy and we'll never be included in the talks again

That's not what the article says. He was elected as an independent so he's going to stay until next election. Then he'll switch to the democratic party.

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;50810332]People will call anything communism these days I guess.[/QUOTE] That's not going to stop until the last few generations are all dead and buried. The root of the problem really lies with the Baby Boomers regurgitating the same crap they learned when they were kids and acting like the Cold War is still in full swing.

[QUOTE=Skanic;50810296]Only that Denmark is not a Socialism Democracy It is a Social Democracy.[/QUOTE] That means essentially the same thing genius! What's next? Democratic Socialism is not Socialism Democracy?

[QUOTE=Chaitin;50811182]That means essentially the same thing genius! What's next? Democratic Socialism is not Socialism Democracy?[/QUOTE] it isn't the same thing actually [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism[/url] [QUOTE]"Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside [B]social ownership of the means of production[/B]"........."Democratic socialism is distinguished from both the Soviet model of centralized socialism and from social democracy, where "social democracy" refers to [B]support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state.[/B] (what Bernie wants)"[/QUOTE] Bernie wants the US to be a [B]social democracy[/B] like Denmark and various other European countries. Bernie Sanders is a [B]social democrat[/B]. He called himself a socialist, but that's actually not the right term for his beliefs. How Bernie does not know this, I have no idea.

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;50811430]it isn't the same thing actually [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism[/url] Bernie wants the US to be a [B]social democracy[/B] like Denmark and various other European countries. Bernie Sanders is a [B]social democrat[/B]. He called himself a socialist, but that's not the right term for his beliefs.[/QUOTE] In the US communism is a big nebulous term including communism, socialism, social democracy and god knows what else

[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;50808365]Not a good reason to doom your country[/QUOTE] You're acting as if either choice is a good one; they aren't. Clinton isn't to just reskin the Obama tenure with her face and keep going. She has her own plans, and exactly ONE of the them is a net positive. In a great race with actual ethics and 'of the people, for the people, by the people' in place it would have been Sanders versus Kasich. The rest of the choices were either people without a clue or without a plan, or the kind of 'change' as espoused by Clinton and Bush, aka business as usual.

[QUOTE=27X;50811466]You're acting as if either choice is a good one; they aren't. Clinton isn't to just reskin the Obama tenure with her face and keep going. She has her own plans, and exactly ONE of the them is a net positive. In a great race with actual ethics and 'of the people, for the people, by the people' in place it would have been Sanders versus Kasich. The rest of the choices were either people without a clue or without a plan, or the kind of 'change' as espoused by Clinton and Bush, aka business as usual.[/QUOTE] Clinton's still the best choice to make sure Sanders's changes aren't for naught

[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;50811975]Clinton's still the best choice to make sure Sanders's changes aren't for naught[/QUOTE] The DNC has demonstrated absolutely nothing that reinforces the idea that they'll actually keep those changes. If anything they've acted like Sanders and his supporters are nothing more than an annoying animals, They've shown zero respect for people they're trying to shame into voting for the DNC's candidate. Reminder that Tim Kaine was the DNC chair who stepped down in 2011 to let Debbie Wasserman Schultz run the DNC during Hillary's campaign, and now that Hillary won the nomination she's selected Tim Kaine as her VP and Schultz is now in her own personal campaign staff. Hillary virtually owned the DNC this election, Corruption this blatant is an insult.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50812067]The DNC has demonstrated absolutely nothing that reinforces the idea that they'll actually keep those changes. If anything they've acted like Sanders and his supporters are nothing more than an annoying animals, They've shown zero respect for people they're trying to shame into voting for the DNC's candidate. Reminder that Tim Kaine was the DNC chair who stepped down in 2011 to let Debbie Wasserman Schultz run the DNC during Hillary's campaign, and now that Hillary won the nomination she's selected Tim Kaine as her VP and Schultz is now in her own personal campaign staff. Hillary virtually owned the DNC this election, Corruption this blatant is an insult.[/QUOTE] If the DNC wants to get any votes in the future it has to follow the platform Not doing so is political suicide and a sure way of making the GOP win next time

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;50808604]2020 election debate: "miss clinton, why did you ignore your democratic platform and the promises you promised like a stereotypical comic villian?" "durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, heil hitler"[/QUOTE] Lel, amusing, but no. Itt'l be more like 'Uhh, well, see, I had some people mention a few things to me over my term and decided doing this was better than the platform.' I'll believe it when I see the change they promise every cycle in my everyday life. You know, the same change every presidential hopeful we've gotten since the advent of televised election coverage has promised us, yet none have actually delivered. The promise us the world in the hopes we'll be gullible enough to believe them and put them in the white house, it's all hollow rhetoric.

[quote]Not doing so is political suicide[/quote] They sure seem just fine with political suicide at the moment.

[QUOTE=revanade;50808889]Why do you think that? Not only does the Democratic Party not own my vote simply because I'm a member, Hillary has made it very clear she doesn't want or need my vote. From "correcting the record" to straight up insulting Sanders on numerous issues including accusing him of being partly guilty of the Sandy Hook massacre, she's shown a distinct lack of integrity.. She's lied repeatedly, from weird white lies like being under fire in Bosnia, to straight up insulting lies like DOMA somehow being in the defense of gay people. For those reasons, and many more, I'm not going to vote for her, and I never will. Frankly, I don't owe her a damn thing, and neither does anyone else. It's not "her turn", and you shouldn't be voting for a president because they want to be the leader of the free world really badly, and certainly not because your party is telling you that you're a bad person otherwise. If you agree with her policies and still think she's a reliable politician who will be able to implement those policies, go ahead and vote for her, and I'm glad you find a candidate you agree with. That's sure as hell not a reason to try to force other people to do so though.[/QUOTE] It is amusing to me how much the Democrats talk about "uniting to stop Trump" when they undermined their own efforts by insulting Sanders and his supporters in the past.

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;50811430]it isn't the same thing actually [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism[/url] Bernie wants the US to be a [B]social democracy[/B] like Denmark and various other European countries. Bernie Sanders is a [B]social democrat[/B]. He called himself a socialist, but that's actually not the right term for his beliefs. How Bernie does not know this, I have no idea.[/QUOTE] Because earlier, the terms were pretty close as many identified as both. I believe in recent decades, social democracy has moved away from socialism. Increasing the divide between the terms.

[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;50812084]If the DNC wants to get any votes in the future it has to follow the platform Not doing so is political suicide and a sure way of making the GOP win next time[/QUOTE] You know what's funny to me is that Obama won on a platform promising "Change", Contrasting Hillary who's primary message is that she simply wants more of the same. More of the same bad policy that enriches her and her friends at the expense of everyone else, more of the corruption that devalues the democratic values that get people to go to the polls and vote in the first place. More of the lower classes who vote democrat getting beat with the short end of the stick into submission. If Trump gets does get elected in November it will be because He's promising change, there's a pattern there. People don't like stagnation, and they shouldn't. Those who benefit the most from an active system will always resist changing it, Hillary will never do more than pay lip service to these people who she has done nothing to show any respect for whatsoever.

[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;50811444]In the US communism is a big nebulous term including communism, socialism, social democracy and god knows what else[/QUOTE] Just like capitalism is a big nebulous term including crony capitalism, corporate welfare, government enforced monopolies, and god knows what else.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50812162]You know what's funny to me is that Obama won on a platform promising "Change", Contrasting Hillary who's primary message is that she simply wants more of the same. More of the same bad policy that enriches her and her friends at the expense of everyone else, more of the corruption that devalues the democratic values that get people to go to the polls and vote in the first place. More of the lower classes who vote democrat getting beat with the short end of the stick into submission.[/QUOTE] Please point to me what bad policies are beating the lower classes with the short end of the stick into submission. [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=soulharvester;50812162]If Trump gets does get elected in November it will be because He's promising change, there's a pattern there. People don't like stagnation, and they shouldn't. Those who benefit the most from an active system will always resist changing it, Hillary will never do more than pay lip service to these people who she has done nothing to show any respect for whatsoever.[/QUOTE] Not all change is good.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;50812351]No it fucking doesn't. Obama wasn't a one term president even though this six page list of things that didn't materialize; [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/?page=3[/url] Voters are NOT that vigilant because low and behold some of these things ARE the new platform.[/QUOTE] [img]https://i.imgur.com/Mjixo8h.png[/img] You ignore all the other things he has followed through with. This is also inline with [url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/]politicians keeping 2/3 of their promises.[/url]

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50812162]You know what's funny to me is that Obama won on a platform promising "Change", Contrasting Hillary who's primary message is that she simply wants more of the same. More of the same bad policy that enriches her and her friends at the expense of everyone else, more of the corruption that devalues the democratic values that get people to go to the polls and vote in the first place. More of the lower classes who vote democrat getting beat with the short end of the stick into submission. If Trump gets does get elected in November it will be because He's promising change, there's a pattern there. People don't like stagnation, and they shouldn't. Those who benefit the most from an active system will always resist changing it, Hillary will never do more than pay lip service to these people who she has done nothing to show any respect for whatsoever.[/QUOTE] Have you seen Trump's tax plan.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;50812391]Did you see the part where trump is being elected to the head of one branch of government and not the supreme dictator of all three?[/QUOTE] That's a cop-out that applies to Clinton as well. You can't say she is going to keep the same bad policy that enriches the rich at the expense of the lower class wihout acknowledging Trump's plans are the same thing [I]but worse[/I]. Either policy doesn't matter because it's just "the head of one branch of government" or it does matter. You don't get it both ways.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;50812391]Did you see the part where trump is being elected to the head of one branch of government and not the supreme dictator of all three?[/QUOTE] If you're going to make that argument, then you can't say Hillary has any power in controlling taxes or enacting laws either.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50812367][img]https://i.imgur.com/Mjixo8h.png[/img] You ignore all the other things he has followed through with. This is also inline with [url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/]politicians keeping 2/3 of their promises.[/url][/QUOTE] This is utterly meaningless because of how loosely it defines promises. It's not enough that they only examine whether or not politicians act on their "I'm going to do X, Y, and Z" promises, but moreover they need to also examine whether the promised results of them actually translated in reality. Reagan promised that he'd enact tax cuts and institute trickle-down economics, and he did; but he also told us that they'd result in amazing things for the country, which they did not. Politicians do not keep 2/3rds of their promises when you count all those secondary promises that they make; "X will do great things for our country-- it will create all these new jobs, it will be good for the economy, etc." People in general have an overwhelming inclination to distrust them because, surprise, it turns out that they actually break their promises a lot and also tell outright lies. [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50812433]If you're going to make that argument, then you can't say Hillary has any power in controlling taxes or enacting laws either.[/QUOTE] She has more than Trump does because she's a Washington insider and knows people who can manipulate things for her. That's how politics works: favors, alliances (not friendships), cultivating relationships in general. Having said that, she will not have enough power to make the DNC's platform that everybody keeps creaming in their pants over a reality the way her supporters seem to think she will.

[QUOTE=TestECull;50812085]Lel, amusing, but no. Itt'l be more like 'Uhh, well, see, I had some people mention a few things to me over my term and decided doing this was better than the platform.' I'll believe it when I see the change they promise every cycle in my everyday life. You know, the same change every presidential hopeful we've gotten since the advent of televised election coverage has promised us, yet none have actually delivered. The promise us the world in the hopes we'll be gullible enough to believe them and put them in the white house, it's all hollow rhetoric.[/QUOTE] wtf are you talking about, are you still in highschool or something not to be affected? how have you not seen the changes over the last eight years? economy has been turned around from the shitty recession from bush, my type of business ( hospitality ) is one of the best indicators how the economy is doing. its been doing so much better than it got clients it can handle, created a management position which i got PELL grants & more methods of loan repayment has been improved & increased which gave me my degree & internship for a cheap ass price whereas i had to choose job over education before lgbtq has achieved unprecedented rights from repealing don't ask don't tell to defense of the marriage act a lot of people got coverage under obamacare, especially with those pre-existing conditions where have you been lol

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;50813163]wtf are you talking about, are you still in highschool or something not to be affected? how have you not seen the changes over the last eight years? economy has been turned around from the shitty recession from bush, my type of business ( hospitality ) is one of the best indicators how the economy is doing. its been doing so much better than it got clients it can handle, created a management position which i got PELL grants & more methods of loan repayment has been improved & increased which gave me my degree & internship for a cheap ass price whereas i had to choose job over education before lgbtq has achieved unprecedented rights from repealing don't ask don't tell to defense of the marriage act a lot of people got coverage under obamacare, especially with those pre-existing conditions where have you been lol[/QUOTE] Some people will only be satisfied when a president rolls into office, immediately successfully proposes a constitutional amendment that reforms our election system, creates universal healthcare, eliminates all government waste, starts an economic golden age, and personally pays off all their debts. There's this idea that "progressiveness" means instantaneous change that will help everyone over a few years. That's not what it is. It's progress. It's incremental and slow and frustrating. Change can happen, but nobody is ever satisfied with what the government's managed to achieve. It takes a lot of time, and people are just impatient and forgetful.