Almost Every Major Poll Shows Bernie Sanders Challenging Clinton and Defeating Republicans. - Polidicks

i would be much less worried about a republican president if there weren't so much at stake the presidential veto has basically been the only thing keeping the GOP from rolling back every single one of obama's keynote reforms, all of which are in some function crucial to the future of millions of people in this nation. without the ACA, we'd have 19 million americans losing their insurance without dodd-frank, we'd lose an essential regulatory response to the growing complexity of the financial system without the iran deal, we'd lose a huge amount of our international credibility along with years of tense work and negotiation

[QUOTE=joes33431;48388118]i would be much less worried about a republican president if there weren't so much at stake the presidential veto has basically been the only thing keeping the GOP from rolling back every single one of obama's keynote reforms, all of which are in some function crucial to the future of millions of people in this nation. without the ACA, we'd have 19 million americans losing their insurance without dodd-frank, we'd lose an essential regulatory response to the growing complexity of the financial system without the iran deal, we'd lose a huge amount of our international credibility along with years of tense work and negotiation[/QUOTE] the ACA is total garbage, even for someone who needs insurance (such as my diabetic dad) it's cheaper to pay the fine than to actually get insurance. based on the plans available to him the fine would have to be raised above $12,000 before it's cheaper to get insurance.

[QUOTE=butre;48388181]the ACA is total garbage, even for someone who needs insurance (such as my diabetic dad) it's cheaper to pay the fine than to actually get insurance. based on the plans available to him the fine would have to be raised above $12,000 before it's cheaper to get insurance.[/QUOTE] i don't think you understand what the ACA does. here's a helpful video: [video=youtube;wBr3fniyb4w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBr3fniyb4w[/video]

[QUOTE=joes33431;48388118]i would be much less worried about a republican president if there weren't so much at stake the presidential veto has basically been the only thing keeping the GOP from rolling back every single one of obama's keynote reforms, all of which are in some function crucial to the future of millions of people in this nation. without the ACA, we'd have 19 million americans losing their insurance without dodd-frank, we'd lose an essential regulatory response to the growing complexity of the financial system without the iran deal, we'd lose a huge amount of our international credibility along with years of tense work and negotiation[/QUOTE] In regards to the PPACA at least, you're wrong in assuming the Republicans would just scrap it. Yes, they've tried dozens of times to get it repealed but each time was simply the Republicans playing politics; they knew that each time the bill would pass Congress, the President would simply veto it. The Republicans don't want to repeal it because they know that would be asking for a massive public swing against them. In fact, the Republicans have sponsored bills including one sponsored by party elite John Boehner which was very similar to the PPACA. So what would the Republicans do if they got the Presidency? Fine-tune the act. Repeal the individual mandate, then say that it's a victory for liberty, small governance and hard-working Americans. Repeal the employer mandate, and say that it's a victory for small businesses and for jobs. They won't go after the entirety of the bill because they know that would only bring disaster.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48388336]In regards to the PPACA at least, you're wrong in assuming the Republicans would just scrap it. Yes, they've tried dozens of times to get it repealed but each time was simply the Republicans playing politics; they knew that each time the bill would pass Congress, the President would simply veto it. The Republicans don't want to repeal it because they know that would be asking for a massive public swing against them. In fact, the Republicans have sponsored bills including one sponsored by party elite John Boehner which was very similar to the PPACA. So what would the Republicans do if they got the Presidency? Fine-tune the act. Repeal the individual mandate, then say that it's a victory for liberty, small governance and hard-working Americans. Repeal the employer mandate, and say that it's a victory for small businesses and for jobs. They won't go after the entirety of the bill because they know that would only bring disaster.[/QUOTE] except that repealing the individual/employer mandates will literally doom the law the reason they put that mandate in is because they wanted to keep people from waiting until they were sick to buy insurance, something that could now be done due to guaranteed issue (i.e. not being denied for pre-existing conditions). it also makes subsidy programs and medicare/medicaid expansions easier to cut, because the individual mandate was the reason they put those in there in the first place. as the video says, the PPACA is like a stool: without all three legs (regulations, mandate, subsidies/expansions), the law falls apart.

[QUOTE=joes33431;48388431]except that repealing the individual/employer mandates will literally doom the law the reason they put that mandate in is because they wanted to keep people from waiting until they were sick to buy insurance, something that could now be done due to guaranteed issue (i.e. not being denied for pre-existing conditions). it also makes subsidy programs and medicare/medicaid expansions easier to cut, because the individual mandate was the reason they put those in there in the first place. as the video says, the PPACA is like a stool: without all three legs (regulations, mandate, subsidies/expansions), the law falls apart.[/QUOTE] But the thing is that assuming the Republicans win the Presidency, the PPACA would have been around for many years and millions of Americans who used to lack insurance would have it by the end of 2016. People aren't suddenly going to drop their health insurance plans. I understand why the individual mandate is there and why it was almost necessary for it to be there, but by the time the Republicans would get their hands on tuning the act, the number of uninsured would be so low that the net effect of repealing the individual mandate would almost be nil. That would be an easy call for the Republicans to make years down the line; the Democrats wouldn't have had that option when they made it into law.

[quote]Bernie Sanders is closing in on Hillary Clinton, according to new polling from New Hampshire. In a WMUR/University of New Hampshire poll released Tuesday, the Vermont senator is in a statistical tie with the Democratic presidential frontrunner, [B]trailing her by six percentage points, which is just within the poll's margin of error... Sanders and Clinton are virtually tied in terms of net electability[/b], polling at 30 percent and 32 percent, respectively.[/quote] lolling at this. terribly deceitful way of writing this blog post by including this. the blogger is quoting two publications with drastically different tones in an attempt to make it look rosier for sanders because (as he explicitly states) he wants him to win. quoted in the same article runs this: [quote][B]The fact that Sanders beats Walker by six to seven points[/B], depending on whether all voters or likely voters are counted -- [B]a near-landslide margin in a general election[/B] -- makes it clear that the Sanders surge is more than a surge against Donald Trump, but move that makes him competitive with all Republican candidates.[/quote] no legit polls have a +-6 margin of error, they're talking about the incredibly unlikely scenario where hillary is at the +3 margin and sanders is at the -3. i'm a big sanders supported but this blog is really twisting facts around.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;48387326][URL]http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm[/URL] if you want a general overview generally people here like him for being a Scandinavian style social democrat, who is also much more honest and consistent than many of the other candidates. I mean, hillary is pretty much willing to change her position on things if it will help her out, for example, she was against gay marriage until it started to become pretty indefinsible to do so as a democrat (2011, or 2013 I believe. somewhere around then).[/QUOTE] Hilary is the Angela Merkel of the USA.

[QUOTE=HookerVomit;48387277]I really hope Hilary doesn't win. [b]I don't even know how the fuck Trump is even a candidate to begin with.[/b][/QUOTE] Money.

Even my parents who are hardcore republicans think Bernie Sanders has good ideas, and that's saying something. I'm up for anyone but Hillary though. (I don't count Trump, he's more like the comic relief like the shrek donkey or something)

Really unsure about this guy. Socialism is just bad news.

[QUOTE=Squad1993;48390100]Really unsure about this guy. Socialism is just bad news.[/QUOTE] He's not socialist, he likes to pretend to be, but he's ideologically a social democrat. But you should still be unsure of him because he's an idealist and thinks tax and spend, tax and spend is what will save the US.

[QUOTE=Squad1993;48390100]Really unsure about this guy. Socialism is just bad news.[/QUOTE] Of course socialism is terrible, but I wouldn't say Sanders is one of them socialists. He doesn't seem like he's going to try getting rid of the market economy or silly stuff like that.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48390143]He's not socialist, he likes to pretend to be, but he's ideologically a social democrat. But you should still be unsure of him because he's an idealist and thinks tax and spend, tax and spend is what will save the US.[/QUOTE] I don't know what he's identified as in the past as an independent, but I've seen a few interviews where he corrects the interviewer calling him a socialist by interjecting with "democratic socialist". Don't know how that differs from social democrat but w/e.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48390143]He's not socialist, he likes to pretend to be, but he's ideologically a social democrat. But you should still be unsure of him because he's an idealist and thinks tax and spend, tax and spend is what will save the US.[/QUOTE] Well most of his ideas to change the U.S come from other countries that are right now flourishing, it may not save us, but it will drastically improve the quality of life of every citizen in the country. [QUOTE=Ltp0wer;48390369]I don't know what he's identified as in the past as an independent, but I've seen a few interviews where he corrects the interviewer calling him a socialist by interjecting with "democratic socialist". Don't know how that differs from social democrat but w/e.[/QUOTE] Now I know I'm quoting a wiki article but this is generally what Bernie believes what the U.S needs. [quote=Wiki]Social democracy is the idea that the state needs to provide security and equality for its people and should actively reorder society in a way that is conducive to such developments, but that such changes should be brought about gradually, legitimated by a democratically-elected majority. It is native to Europe, where social democrats regularly feature as one of the major parties and have led (or at least participated in) governments in most states at some point in time, most notably in Scandinavia (up to being nicknamed the "Nordic model"). Social democrats typically regard government intervention as a force for good, constraining markets and engaging in redistributive efforts for the benefit of the lower classes in order to establish a more equitable society. [/quote]

[QUOTE=lolo;48391437]Well most of his ideas to change the U.S come from other countries that are right now flourishing, it may not save us, but it will drastically improve the quality of life of every citizen in the country. Now I know I'm quoting a wiki article but this is generally what Bernie believes what the U.S needs.[/QUOTE] This seems like splitting hairs to me, but if he believes that, which I don't think he does, he needs to stop identifying as a democratic socialist and rather as social democrat. There's a difference: [Quote=Wikipedia democratic socialism]Democratic socialism rejects the social democratic view of reform through state intervention within capitalism, seeing capitalism as incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality and solidarity. From this perspective, democratic socialists believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by a transition from capitalism to socialism—by superseding private property with some form of social ownership; and that any attempt to address the economic contradictions of capitalism through reforms will only cause problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy[/quote] There's probably a lot of ideological overlap, but I'm not quite up to speed on the different political systems.

Just donated again. I encourage everyone else to do the same. Even just three bucks goes a long way when thousands of people do it.

I like Bernie because he wants to fuck the rich people, I hate rich people.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48388456]But the thing is that assuming the Republicans win the Presidency, the PPACA would have been around for many years and millions of Americans who used to lack insurance would have it by the end of 2016. People aren't suddenly going to drop their health insurance plans. I understand why the individual mandate is there and why it was almost necessary for it to be there, but by the time the Republicans would get their hands on tuning the act, the number of uninsured would be so low that the net effect of repealing the individual mandate would almost be nil. That would be an easy call for the Republicans to make years down the line; the Democrats wouldn't have had that option when they made it into law.[/QUOTE] that's a fair point, but i'm still unsure. considering how expensive health insurance is, removing the employer/individual mandates might lead businesses and individuals (esp. low income ones) to drop their plans to try to save money.

[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;48391705]This seems like splitting hairs to me, but if he believes that, which I don't think he does, he needs to stop identifying as a democratic socialist and rather as social democrat. There's a difference:[/QUOTE] Both ideas are very similar however Democratic Socialism is looking to outright change from the Capitalism system to a Socialist system, as far as I can tell he is looking to keep the Capitalist system currently in place as I haven't heard him say anything about moving away from Capitalism so I'd say Social Democrat, after all he may have not used the correct term to describe himself in the interview, it's very easy to get those two confused.

[QUOTE=Velocet;48387439]I like him because the only criticism people have against him is the fact that he's older than the rest of the candidates.[/QUOTE] I think that's more sad than anything. Bernie is old as hell and he's more progressive and aware of today's society's desires and needs than the younger candidates are. That's fucking sad. [editline]6th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=icantread49;48391772]Just donated again. I encourage everyone else to do the same. Even just three bucks goes a long way when thousands of people do it.[/QUOTE] I donated $100 to his campaign when it first started. If school wasn't sucking me dry of my life savings I'd have donated more recently as well.

[QUOTE=joes33431;48388431]the reason they put that mandate in is because they wanted to keep people from waiting until they were sick to buy insurance, something that could now be done due to guaranteed issue (i.e. not being denied for pre-existing conditions).[/QUOTE] This might be one reason, but it isn't the main reason. The main reason is that they need to increase the pool of healthy people paying into the system in order to fund all the more expensive people being added. The plan would simply be financially impossible without forcing everyone to contribute.

[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;48390369]I don't know what he's identified as in the past as an independent, but I've seen a few interviews where he corrects the interviewer calling him a socialist by interjecting with "democratic socialist". Don't know how that differs from social democrat but w/e.[/QUOTE] Maybe you should have actually listened to what he said in that video and decided from his stances on the issues rather than making a prejudgment based on a label.

[QUOTE=Explosions;48393541]Maybe you should have actually listened to what he said in that video and decided from his stances on the issues rather than making a prejudgment based on a label.[/QUOTE] Where have I laid judgement? I was just trying to clear up the "he's a socialist" vs "no he's not" as both of those seem a little wrong. Keep in mind I'm rooting for the guy, which is why I watched a bunch of his interviews in the first place.

[QUOTE=Squad1993;48390100]Really unsure about this guy. Socialism is just bad news.[/QUOTE] Not to put too fine a point on it, but Canada has implemented many of the ideas that Bernie wants to for the States. I needn't point out that the average Canadian is happier, better educated, healthier, and generally enjoys a better standard of living than the average American. Sounds to me like you guys could use a little socialism. This big fear of higher taxation and social democracy is the reason the States has so many problems. And it suits the rich 0.1% very well indeed to perpetuate that fear, doesn't it?

[QUOTE=archangel125;48394737]Not to put too fine a point on it, but Canada has implemented many of the ideas that Bernie wants to for the States. I needn't point out that the average Canadian is happier, better educated, healthier, and generally enjoys a better standard of living than the average American. Sounds to me like you guys could use a little socialism. This big fear of higher taxation and social democracy is the reason the States has so many problems. And it suits the rich 0.1% very well indeed to perpetuate that fear, doesn't it?[/QUOTE] America needs some reform but honestly Bernie is a bit of a nutter on some points. Take for instance his proposed tax on share trading to combat high-frequency trading, with the revenue used to fund free community college education. For one, the policy is self-defeating because Bernie obviously thinks high-frequency trading is undesirable hence wanting to tax it to minimise it, but if the tax worked as intended that would mean the revenue to fund free community college education would eventually dry up. It's like how Russia and Venezuela rely on oil for tax revenue, but now that oil prices have gone to the shitter, each country is facing major fiscal problems. Two; share trades are already taxed by the capital gains tax, and if they are done at high-frequency then one would assume the shares would have been held for fewer that 12 months, so they would then be subject to the full marginal income tax rates rather than the discounted long-term capital gains rates. Three; arbitragers and other high-frequency traders provide necessary liquidity to financial markets. And four; it further complicates an already complicated tax system. It's such ill-thought policies like that which America can't afford.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;48387300]It is important to say though, if bernie can't win the democrat nomination it's still important to vote for hillary. As it's very likely that while she isn't that great, she'll likely be better than whomever the republicans put up (of course, it's too early to say.).[/QUOTE] No, I think if it were Jeb vs Hillary then Jeb would totally be the better choice. As for Jeb vs Sanders I personally favor Jeb but I would at least tolerate a socialist like Sanders over someone like Trump, who basically has no diplomatic skills. [editline]6th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Antdawg;48394903]America needs some reform but honestly Bernie is a bit of a nutter on some points. Take for instance his proposed tax on share trading to combat high-frequency trading, with the revenue used to fund free community college education. For one, the policy is self-defeating because Bernie obviously thinks high-frequency trading is undesirable hence wanting to tax it to minimise it, but if the tax worked as intended that would mean the revenue to fund free community college education would eventually dry up. It's like how Russia and Venezuela rely on oil for tax revenue, but now that oil prices have gone to the shitter, each country is facing major fiscal problems. Two; share trades are already taxed by the capital gains tax, and if they are done at high-frequency then one would assume the shares would have been held for fewer that 12 months, so they would then be subject to the full marginal income tax rates rather than the discounted long-term capital gains rates. Three; arbitragers and other high-frequency traders provide necessary liquidity to financial markets. And four; it further complicates an already complicated tax system. It's such ill-thought policies like that which America can't afford.[/QUOTE] Yeah these are some of the things that made me nervous about Bernie. I mean granted he's probably very morally astute but I feel that he's a bit misguided. [editline]6th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48391995]I like Bernie because he wants to fuck the rich people, I hate rich people.[/QUOTE] With this kind of attitude I'm relieved you haven't slit your throat on your own edge yet

Is anyone watching the debate right now on tv???

I'm not a major fan of Bernie, tbh. The whole 'man of the people' thing was used when Obama was first running; it's not any more convincing to me now than it was back then. Bernie's plan for a $15 minimum wage is also one of the most self-destructive ideas for our employment rate that I've ever heard. I'm slightly hoping for Rand to win-- and although we're really amongst a huge bunch of terrible politicians, I still agree with him on more than most other candidates.

Rand is doing great tonight. So is Rubio.