Recent election polls showing Sanders favored over Trump - Polidicks

There are really no good candidates on the Republican side so far, and for the Democrats, Sanders is ok but nothing great. I'm just personally waiting for someone who's not Republican or Democrat to appear and blow everyone out of the water, though I doubt that will happen. People are so stupid that they think Republican or Democrat are the only options, so even if there was an amazing independent candidate who could do no wrong, he/she wouldn't get any votes because they aren't X or Y. [sp]I honestly think Hilary is going to be elected just because she's a woman and people want that sense of making history again like we had when we first voted in Obama. I'm not implying that's the only reason for them winning (or potentially in Hilary's case), but you can't deny it's a major factor for people.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Derposaurus;48340529]To add to this, if we do elect a woman president and she's garbage then we might even set back that "innovation."[/QUOTE] It's about doing it now, not doing it right.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48341529]Mother of God. Look, just look at the way it skyrockets starting from March. I've never seen something like that. If the guy ups his Internets game and does more campaigning, I am sure he has chance, after all, I'm pretty sure his thoughts are what the low and middle class of the US have always wanted. It's just a matter of getting him to be known by the public. Any smear campaign won't work because the Internets will just shoot it down. I'm crazy for saying this, but a guy like Sanders would totally fuck up our countries (LATAM), bah, it's not like our exports are heavily dependent on the US, but he would totally push to minimize importations from third world countries and push to export to those countries. But I would like him to be President. He's not a prick and doesn't want the US to be "world policing" everywhere. [B]FUN FACT: The UE has a importation-exportation regimen that actually helps countries which are developing. FOR EXAMPLE: Paraguay has 0% tariffs for exportation in more than 20 products! Those products don't pay anything when entering the UE![/B] Did I say UE? Silly me, I meant, EU.[/QUOTE] If you think that's impressive, take a look at Trump's poll. Talk about vertical. [QUOTE=Rahu X;48341613]There are really no good candidates on the Republican side so far, and for the Democrats, Sanders is ok but nothing great. I'm just personally waiting for someone who's not Republican or Democrat to appear and blow everyone out of the water, though I doubt that will happen. People are so stupid that they think Republican or Democrat are the only options, so even if there was an amazing independent candidate who could do no wrong, he/she wouldn't get any votes because they aren't X or Y. [sp]I honestly think Hilary is going to be elected just because she's a woman and people want that sense of making history again like we had when we first voted in Obama. I'm not implying that's the only reason for them winning (or potentially in Hilary's case), but you can't deny it's a major factor for people.[/sp][/QUOTE] Sanders actually is, and has been, independent for what I assume has been his whole career. He caucuses with the Democratic party because it's the only way to get any recognition.

As someone who lives in Canada, this is what that news headline looks like to me: [B]"Reasonable politician with humane views favored in polls over complete lunatic."[/B] Are things really so bad south of the border that this is important news? What am I not understanding?

[QUOTE=archangel125;48341675]As someone who lives in Canada, this is what that news headline looks like to me: [B]"Reasonable politician with humane views favored in polls over complete lunatic."[/B] Are things really so bad south of the border that this is important news? What am I not understanding?[/QUOTE] It just might be. There is resounding support for Trump on social media and news comments (which should be quite telling of the type of person who supports him), usually something along the lines of "finally someone who tells it like it is" or "a candidate who doesn't let the media boss them around." How that translates into real life support, I'm not sure. But it's there and it's apparent.

[QUOTE=Most wanteD;48341737]It just might be. There is resounding support for Trump on social media and news comments (which should be quite telling of the type of person who supports him), usually something along the lines of "finally someone who tells it like it is" or "a candidate who doesn't let the media boss them around." How that translates into real life support, I'm not sure. But it's there and it's apparent.[/QUOTE] That's all kinds of fucked up. How do human beings get so stupid?

I live in Arizona so my Facebook feed may be biased. That being said, we also had a 10k+ Sanders rally, so who knows what's really going on here. :v:

[QUOTE=Rahu X;48341613][sp]I honestly think Hilary is going to be elected just because she's a woman and people want that sense of making history again like we had when we first voted in Obama. I'm not implying that's the only reason for them winning (or potentially in Hilary's case), but you can't deny it's a major factor for people.[/sp][/QUOTE] When her campaign started she was considered too big to fail. I don't think that's really true anymore but I've no doubt those claims are still helping her a lot, perhaps moreso than anything else.

[QUOTE=Most wanteD;48341737]It just might be. There is resounding support for Trump on social media and news comments (which should be quite telling of the type of person who supports him), usually something along the lines of "finally someone who tells it like it is" or "a candidate who doesn't let the media boss them around." [/QUOTE] I think people are starting to realize Bernie is also "someone who tells it like it is" but is coherent and logical, instead of a bad snl skit like Trump.

Is it me? Or is the "whole lot of people behind trump" kinda bullshit. Because every republican i know fucking hates his guts. Also, sort of relevant [IMG]http://media.cagle.com/46/2015/07/07/166117_600.jpg[/IMG] and this [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/mraMTAX.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Rahu X;48341613] [sp]I honestly think Hilary is going to be elected just because she's a woman and people want that sense of making history again like we had when we first voted in Obama. I'm not implying that's the only reason for them winning (or potentially in Hilary's case), but you can't deny it's a major factor for people.[/sp][/QUOTE] I remember when Obama was first elected, then black people around my neighborhood started appearing with Obama shirts. But these Obama shirts had him dressed up like a 'gansta' with "FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT" across the chest and back. I wonder how feminists will react to Hillary getting elected... :zoid:

[QUOTE=DiBBs27;48340332]We just had our first black president now lets have our first woman president!!! Yayyyy!!! Politics? whats that? We are an Innovative country!!!![/QUOTE] We don't have politicians. We have celebrities.

[QUOTE=CreeplyTuna;48344513]I think people are starting to realize Bernie is also "someone who tells it like it is" but is coherent and logical, instead of a bad snl skit like Trump.[/QUOTE] He doesn't tell it like it is. He doesn't believe there's a social security sustainability crisis, and believes that all problems can be solved by simply throwing more taxes at society (that idea of taxing stock transactions is incredibly silly) and an emphasis on 'tax the rich'. He's still an idealist.

Is it me or is this headline incredibly redundant? It's essentially saying: "Recent study found people prefer the common cold over HIV" Like no duh

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48345381]He doesn't tell it like it is. He doesn't believe there's a social security sustainability crisis, and believes that all problems can be solved by simply throwing more taxes at society (that idea of taxing stock transactions is incredibly silly) and an emphasis on 'tax the rich'. He's still an idealist.[/QUOTE] society =/= the rich. And better an idealist than a conservative bag of rocks.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48345381]He doesn't tell it like it is. He doesn't believe there's a social security sustainability crisis, and believes that all problems can be solved by simply throwing more taxes at society (that idea of taxing stock transactions is incredibly silly) and an emphasis on 'tax the rich'. He's still an idealist.[/QUOTE] Perhaps I should have elaborated. I mean to say that Bernie doesn't come off as a just another politician who says whatever they think will get them the most votes, it just so happens that what he's been saying for decades is starting to resonate with many Americans. If you watch his interviews he doesn't skirt around questions, he answers directly and consistently, unlike Hillary and most other politicians.

In other news, bears are still shitting in the woods. Also, hopefully by the end of this Trump will be battered and extra-crispy in the face of Bernie's 11 herbs and spices.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48344576]I remember when Obama was first elected, then black people around my neighborhood started appearing with Obama shirts. But these Obama shirts had him dressed up like a 'gansta' with "FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT" across the chest and back. I wonder how feminists will react to Hillary getting elected... :zoid:[/QUOTE] Majority of feminists or the vocal fanatic tiny few? Because feminists realize that while voting Clinton into office would certainly be a symbolic gesture, Clinton's baggage outweighs the appeal of a first female President. From my time being spent surrounded by feminists and being one myself, Sanders is the right choice.

I will vote for Bernie. I have faith that he will abide by the bill of rights. Meaning most of his anti-gun talk is hot air. But the dudes still better than any candidate i've seen, Ron Paul doesn't look like he's going to run so I gotta go for Bernie. Either way fuck Trump to hell and back

As much as I like some of Bernie's policies, his economic ideas such as raising the minimum wage to $15 is absurd when you really think about it. Our economy is based on the exchange of labor combined with supply and demand. People get paid for their skill set and labor they do for others, raising the minimum wage so high for people fresh out of high school and with no skills or special knowledge at their back would cause more harm, imo. That would be forcing more youth into employment because who the hell would employ more then a handful of people at that kind of hourly wage when robots and kiosks are starting to automate the manufacturing and customer service workforces. Maybe you need people to cook food and run a kitchen, but beyond that handful of people what would you need to employ anyone else for? When grocery superstores are moving towards self check-out stations and slowly making clerks obsolete, what would the typical high school grad know that they can turn into work that isn't just a summer job? Dig ditches for general contractors? A GC will only need a handful of idiots to dig for him, and chances are he's also got a backhoe to use as well. Shit, I'm lucky enough to be worth $13/hr working for a plumbing contractor after going to a vocational school for two years. Now I'm trying to get registered as an apprentice so I can start making more. I read a magazine talking about America's future with automation, and how bars and pubs will become like union halls with people looking for part time work. There are special shops currently on the rise called 'makerspaces' where you can go to pay to get in and learn crafts like welding, cooking, etc. That's the future we are headed too, provided we get a nordic style allowance system to help us survive. But I'm not a learned economist, so what the hell do I know.

[QUOTE=Monkah;48341431]With a chance of winning? No, not really. Also, a few corrections: Rand Paul supports taking the government out of marriage rather than making it a hetero-only club. [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/10/03/morning-plum-rand-paul-versus-ted-cruz-on-gay-marriage/"]src[/URL] "Wants to dismantle the Board of Education" --never knew about this, but sounds absolutely fantastic! The current American education system is beyond garbage. We [I]should[/I] be tearing down the failure that is American public schooling, and hopefully end up rebuilding it better. Your other points are valid, but still aren't enough to make him worse than Clinton.[/QUOTE] He's a libertarian. he would rather leave it to private institutions to build up an education system. Imagine cyberpunk hell. That is the libertarian dream.

[QUOTE=Swilly;48357038]He's a libertarian. he would rather leave it to private institutions to build up an education system. Imagine cyberpunk hell. That is the libertarian dream.[/QUOTE] Don't throw all us libertarians in that group. That's just a right-wing perspective of libertarianism.

[QUOTE=Megadave;48357119]Don't throw all us libertarians in that group. That's just a right-wing perspective of libertarianism.[/QUOTE] There's a left side? Because every form I've seen involve dismantling regulations and protections that have historically helped minorities out more often than those in power in the guise of 'nanny government' only to forget all of the bullshit that we have received and power creep that is inheritence money and tax havens?

Trump might be doing well in the polls now but when the primaries comes about, it won't be for long. In the end, I would vote for Bernie if I lived in the US [editline]2nd August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;48357038]He's a libertarian. he would rather leave it to private institutions to build up an education system. Imagine cyberpunk hell. That is the libertarian dream.[/QUOTE] You think he's a libertarian? After all the pandering he have had to do to the base he is more authoritarian big government right winger like the rest of the bunch.

[QUOTE=Rahu X;48341613] [sp]I honestly think Hilary is going to be elected just because she's a woman and people want that sense of making history again like we had when we first voted in Obama. I'm not implying that's the only reason for them winning (or potentially in Hilary's case), but you can't deny it's a major factor for people.[/sp][/QUOTE] i haven't really seen the whole "its time" momentum that came with obama, women voters are much more divided on the issue than minorities [editline]2nd August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Antdawg;48345381]He doesn't tell it like it is. He doesn't believe there's a social security sustainability crisis, and believes that all problems can be solved by simply throwing more taxes at society (that idea of taxing stock transactions is incredibly silly) and an emphasis on 'tax the rich'. He's still an idealist.[/QUOTE] well...there isn't a social security crisis, congress passed a law banning them from removing any more funds, as it stands it'll be solvant for 20 years, but he's not saying its not broke, he's saying its not about to collapse and he has some pretty concrete facts

[QUOTE=Sableye;48358307]well...there isn't a social security crisis, congress passed a law banning them from removing any more funds, as it stands it'll be solvant for 20 years, but he's not saying its not broke, he's saying its not about to collapse and he has some pretty concrete facts[/QUOTE] So what's going to happen after 20 years then? Bernie says that problems like these can be solved by simply throwing more taxes on the rich, completely forgetting that social security is facing insolvency because of how it is designed. When it was established, five workers would support each retiree, but in the next few decades that ratio will reach two workers supporting each retiree. And his solution to that problem is 'nah just throw more taxes at the millionaires that will sort it out'? People should be responsible for their retirement (here it's mandated) and have their money invested in retirement accounts instead over their working life. So that when they retire, they invest that money in an annuity and then have means-tested social security assist only those who will necessarily need it. the retirement age doesn't need to increase (at least not by so much), and maximum benefits don't need to be cut. Just that people shouldn't be reliant on governments to pay for their retirement.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;48355157]As much as I like some of Bernie's policies, his economic ideas such as raising the minimum wage to $15 is absurd when you really think about it. Our economy is based on the exchange of labor combined with supply and demand. People get paid for their skill set and labor they do for others, raising the minimum wage so high for people fresh out of high school and with no skills or special knowledge at their back would cause more harm, imo. That would be forcing more youth into employment because who the hell would employ more then a handful of people at that kind of hourly wage when robots and kiosks are starting to automate the manufacturing and customer service workforces. Maybe you need people to cook food and run a kitchen, but beyond that handful of people what would you need to employ anyone else for? When grocery superstores are moving towards self check-out stations and slowly making clerks obsolete, what would the typical high school grad know that they can turn into work that isn't just a summer job? Dig ditches for general contractors? A GC will only need a handful of idiots to dig for him, and chances are he's also got a backhoe to use as well. Shit, I'm lucky enough to be worth $13/hr working for a plumbing contractor after going to a vocational school for two years. Now I'm trying to get registered as an apprentice so I can start making more. I read a magazine talking about America's future with automation, and how bars and pubs will become like union halls with people looking for part time work. There are special shops currently on the rise called 'makerspaces' where you can go to pay to get in and learn crafts like welding, cooking, etc. That's the future we are headed too, provided we get a nordic style allowance system to help us survive. But I'm not a learned economist, so what the hell do I know.[/QUOTE] If you're living on minimum wage, upwards mobility is nearly impossible. Fixing minimum wage to be a living wage allows for upward mobility to be a lot easier. 15$ may be high, but the current wages are way out of touch with living costs in most regions. That said, minimum wages need to be locally set rather than federally set. [editline]2nd August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Antdawg;48360618]So what's going to happen after 20 years then? Bernie says that problems like these can be solved by simply throwing more taxes on the rich, completely forgetting that social security is facing insolvency because of how it is designed. When it was established, five workers would support each retiree, but in the next few decades that ratio will reach two workers supporting each retiree. And his solution to that problem is 'nah just throw more taxes at the millionaires that will sort it out'? People should be responsible for their retirement (here it's mandated) and have their money invested in retirement accounts instead over their working life. So that when they retire, they invest that money in an annuity and then have means-tested social security assist only those who will necessarily need it. the retirement age doesn't need to increase (at least not by so much), and maximum benefits don't need to be cut. Just that people shouldn't be reliant on governments to pay for their retirement.[/QUOTE] So what happens when the bank you invested all that money into goes under? Cause you do realize in times of economic turmoil that can happen? [editline]2nd August 2015[/editline] Also, that system of "You should be responsible for it yourself" while entirely reasonable, is unfeasible and would bankrupt thousands of people who don't have a fucking clue about financial details. Taxes, and financial math are not taught in high school in the states or even in Canada, just leaving that to people entirely on their own and assuming it'll work out for the best is entirely too optimistic and unrealistic. Are people who can't afford higher educations just supposed to "KNOW" how to invest and secure their money away properly when the fucking financial insitutitions in either the US or Canada are not really happy to give that advice to anyone, let alone poor people? Banks make money off you and use your money as an investment and are not the be all end all of financial security you make them out to be and are equally fraught with problems of ineptitude. Unless you disagree that the financial crisis of 08 had anything to do with banks.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48360746] So what happens when the bank you invested all that money into goes under? Cause you do realize in times of economic turmoil that can happen?[/QUOTE] What, do you think that money invested in retirement accounts is just left sitting in a bank possibly only collecting measly interest? It's not even left in a bank. My money goes into a managed fund where it's invested in a diverse range of financial instruments (to mitigate risk). Everything from cash, to government and corporate bonds, hybrid securities, real estate and domestic and international shares. I'm on a balanced plan which provides an average return of around 8-9%. Yes economic downturns do happen, people do lose some of their investments. When you're younger you're less adverse to that risk, so you'd typically be in a high-return, high risk account. When you're older you migrate to a cash stable, low-risk account, investing primarily in safer assets such as cash and bonds. It is possible, with exceptionally poor management, that the fund could go under. But it's not a bank. [quote]Taxes, and financial math are not taught in high school in the states or even in Canada, just leaving that to people entirely on their own and assuming it'll work out for the best is entirely too optimistic and unrealistic. Are people who can't afford higher educations just supposed to "KNOW" how to invest and secure their money away properly when the fucking financial insitutitions in either the US or Canada are not really happy to give that advice to anyone, let alone poor people? Banks make money off you and use your money as an investment and are not the be all end all of financial security you make them out to be and are equally fraught with problems of ineptitude. Unless you disagree that the financial crisis of 08 had anything to do with banks.[/quote] Who said each individual had to be responsible for the tax and investment side of things? I don't worry about those, I don't even know which companies my shares are invested in. The only thing I do is choose what kind of a plan I'm in, such as a high-growth plan focusing on shares or a low-growth plan focusing on cash, or somewhere in the middle. But still, a point can be made that the U.S. tax system could be much simpler than it is right now, not just in the rate schedules but also the duplication everywhere.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;48355157]As much as I like some of Bernie's policies, his economic ideas such as raising the minimum wage to $15 is absurd when you really think about it. Our economy is based on the exchange of labor combined with supply and demand. People get paid for their skill set and labor they do for others, raising the minimum wage so high for people fresh out of high school and with no skills or special knowledge at their back would cause more harm, imo. [/QUOTE] Haha no it really isn't I really don't know why but many people in the US still seem to see it like it was in the 70's or 80's but it really isn't. 10% of your population is curently behind bars and can't vote, over 100 000 000 people, 35% have to rely on welfare. YOur fear of automation seems to be the main point in your post and it's a bit ridiculous IMO, throughout history automation and development has always brought opportunities and only the people not willing or able to move on were the ones to be left behind. What you are also forgetting with those makerspaces is that people not 30 years ago USED TO KNOW AND DO THIS SHIT ON THEIR OWN. It's the service industry(which was made possible by the automation of the industry btw) that made this happen. Relearning how to do stuff yourself is a healthy reaction to society getting too dependent on services for miniscule things. I know people who can't even put an IKEA piece together. They hire some IKEA dudes for that..... It's the healthy swingback in the other direction. [editline]3rd August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Antdawg;48360618]So what's going to happen after 20 years then? Bernie says that problems like these can be solved by simply throwing more taxes on the rich, completely forgetting that social security is facing insolvency because of how it is designed. When it was established, five workers would support each retiree, but in the next few decades that ratio will reach two workers supporting each retiree. And his solution to that problem is 'nah just throw more taxes at the millionaires that will sort it out'? People should be responsible for their retirement (here it's mandated) and have their money invested in retirement accounts instead over their working life. So that when they retire, they invest that money in an annuity and then have means-tested social security assist only those who will necessarily need it. the retirement age doesn't need to increase (at least not by so much), and maximum benefits don't need to be cut. Just that people shouldn't be reliant on governments to pay for their retirement.[/QUOTE] Except money product investments are more worthless today than ever, money loses value, banks go to shit, banks fuck over people in the contracts. Fully private responsibility for retirement doesn't work and it never has. That's why you have the contract of the generations which basically says "your work back then enabled us to work today and here is your payoff". The comparison of "1 for 5" vs "1 for 1" is faulty. Productivity increased so so much over the last few decades. The problem is not that one worker can't pay for one retiree, the problem is that most of the productivity lands in the pockets of rich people. [editline]3rd August 2015[/editline] [img]http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/6-25-10inc-f1.jpg[/img]

Financial instruments are more worthless than ever? Who said that? And of course money loses value, that's what inflation does. But financial instruments have higher returns than inflation, especially everything except term deposits (which still do). Also you could have a retirement account where none of your money is invested in a bank and indeed the managed fund isn't controlled by a bank, I don't know why people keep on bringing up banks. I also never said that retirement should be fully private, so I agree with you. Why did you bring that up? The 'contract of the generations' as in American social security is flawed. It's pretty much a Ponzi scheme, suffering from the same sustainability problem. Also the ratios I said were 5 to 1 and 2 to 1, not 1 to 1.