Bernie Sanders for President

takeitslowly wrote:

i heard from another ndp voter that trudeau is like bernie sanders, i am so tired of it. canadians are so stupid and ignorant. its hopeless

Well, it's an article of smug faith among certain Canadian liberals(small l) that all of our politicians are to the left of any American politician. You know, the old "Our Conservatives would be Democrats if they were down there!!"

I never really bought that as an absolute formula(Rob Ford is to the left of Elizabeth Warren?), but if you're someone who takes it as unquestionable catechism, it's not gonna compute in your brain that the Democratic primaries could feature a major candidate who is to the left of a Liberal Prime Minister. At most, you might concede that the Democrat and the Liberal are about the same, which is what these Trudeau/Sanders enthusiasts you've met seem to think.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 

It is my understanding that each state has its own process and the actual rules vary. Some states do not even require a membership in the party conducting the primary.

Not only that, states can have their own rules for Presidential elections. States rights, you know.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/268498-gloria-steinem-...

Feminist activist Gloria Steinem on Friday suggested that young women support Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders over rival Hillary Clinton because they want to meet boys. 

monty1 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Just saw this on wikipedia...

 

"Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War; his application was eventually turned down, by which point he was too old to be drafted."

 

In the US(also according to wiki), conscientious objectors must be "opposed to war in any form". This would seem to preclude support for even the most minimally active military. I wonder if anyone has asked Sanders if he still holds to those views.

In that country he's going to be condemned and demonized for saying he's against wars so he'll hedge it somehow.

In fairness, I don't think there are many countries in the world where saying that you are morally opposed to the very concept of a military would be anything but an automatic career-killer. I, personally, would not vote for such a candidate.

voice of the damned wrote:

monty1 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Just saw this on wikipedia...

 

"Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War; his application was eventually turned down, by which point he was too old to be drafted."

 

In the US(also according to wiki), conscientious objectors must be "opposed to war in any form". This would seem to preclude support for even the most minimally active military. I wonder if anyone has asked Sanders if he still holds to those views.

In that country he's going to be condemned and demonized for saying he's against wars so he'll hedge it somehow.

 

In fairness, I don't think there are many countries in the world where saying that you are morally opposed to the very concept of a military would be anything but an automatic career-killer. I, personally, would not vote for such a candidate.

What's my comment got to do with having a military? Are you prowar and trying to make excuses for the US and Canada taking part in phony US led wars in the ME so they can capture this year's cabbage crop?

NorthReport wrote:

Thanks for your comments MegB

Let the ironic male tears fall: The “make rape legal” guys cancel meetups because they don’t feel safe

In hilarious news, Roosh V's "heterosexual, masculine men" will not be gathering in 43 countries this weekend

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/04/let_the_ironic_male_tears_fall_the_make_...

 Roosh V is an attention seeking asshole, he was never serious about a meet up or the legalizing rape, let me remind you he's not an MRA, so why do people continue to feed this guys thirst for negative attention, your letting him manipulate you.

NorthReport wrote:

Gloria Steinem Says Young Women Support Bernie Sanders Because They're Boy Crazy  

 

 If Gloria Steinem is going to turn this into a whole feminism vs. Bernie thing is going to do alot of damage to feminism, because if young women have to choose between feminism and a free college education and a future, guess what they'll pick (hint its not feminism).

Ya, I kind of have to think that even Sanders might understand taking up arms when genuinely and directly attacked.

But to say "let's not throw a dart at a map and then go looking for trouble there" might finally resonate with some Americans.

A lot of people on men's rights subbreddit are backing Bernie Sanders, so much for the theory that MRAs are all rightwing knuckle draggers.

tinyurl.com/zuefqvf

 Note the rightwinger on the subreddit whose so pissed off at how leftwing Men's Rights Subreddit is.

 PS I beat the system, I found a way to post links via tinyurl.com so if anyone else was having a problem copy pasting links to rabble that's the solution.

Quote:

It seems to me to be a mild version of slut shaming,"they are only there for the boys.".

Must be tough being a young woman, and knowing your only possible hope of hooking up with a young man is by supporting Sanders.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Ya, I kind of have to think that even Sanders might understand taking up arms when genuinely and directly attacked.

But to say "let's not throw a dart at a map and then go looking for trouble there" might finally resonate with some Americans.

the trouble with your comment is that the US hasn't been genuinely attacked and isn't going to be. Period. Unless you are going along with their playbook that says they had to go into Afghanistan to destroy that country too, and murder thousands to get Bin Laden.

Say it magoo! 

the pretty paint is starting to wear off some of you NDP'ers now. No wonder I couldn't find any common ground.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Ya, I kind of have to think that even Sanders might understand taking up arms when genuinely and directly attacked.

But to say "let's not throw a dart at a map and then go looking for trouble there" might finally resonate with some Americans.

He is the least belligerent American Presidential hopeful since Jimmy Carter. Since I missed it I was wondering when did you finally admit you are a warmongering NDP supporter.

Obama on the other hand was an imperialist warmonger while he ran for President and Clinton (take your pick of which one) is/was another imperialist. They all talk about American Exceptionalism but so far I haven't heard Sanders use that term.

Since the issue of Sander's foreign policy views has come up, he did back Bill Clinton's military air strikes in Kosovo.

voice of the damned wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Ya, I kind of have to think that even Sanders might understand taking up arms when genuinely and directly attacked.

But to say "let's not throw a dart at a map and then go looking for trouble there" might finally resonate with some Americans.

the trouble with your comment is that the US hasn't been genuinely attacked and isn't going to be. Period. Unless you are going along with their playbook that says they had to go into Afghanistan to destroy that country too, and murder thousands to get Bin Laden.

Say it magoo! 

the pretty paint is starting to wear off some of you NDP'ers now. No wonder I couldn't find any common ground.

 

I didn't see where Magoo was saying that the USA has been genuinely attacked. I think he just meant that Sanders personal view is probably that he WOULD support the use of military-force IF the USA were genuinely attacked. That being in response to my suggestion that, as a applicant for conscientious-objection, Sanders would have to be opposed to fighting even in self-defense.

 

That said, contra Magoo, my understanding is that, at least in the US, a conscientious-objector has to be opposed to ALL wars, and isn't allowed exceptions, even along the lines of national self-defense.

 

Aristotled's point about Sanders' support for the Kosovo strikes is quite relevant here, since Sanders could argue, quite plausibly, that it proves that as POTUS he'd have no agenda to abolish the military, as he had no objection to using it as far back as 1996.

What magoo said has now morphed too far out of reality in several translations. Go back and see how he committed himself to being a supporter of US led wars. Kosovo was 99 and nearly all the Dems supported it but fewer R's supported it because the most important thing about a president getting support for their wars is their party affiliation. And of course it was a phony war too. 

Always look at whether or not the US demonizes the victim country's leader in order to determine the wars validity. 

NorthReport wrote:

Talking about artful smears Hillary needs to back off on her nonsensical suggestions that Bernie would dismantle Obamacare and leaves millions that presently have heathcare without healthcare in the process to acquire universal healthcare.

Bernie helped to write the Obamacare legislation but says there are still 29 million without coverage. 

Why should she back off if she can sell her phony rhetoric to the people?

What needs to happen is that MSM outlets such as MSNBC need to come to the realization that Bernis is a serious contender and stop the outright biased support of Clinton and the bashing on Sanders. They will when they find that they are out of step with the left and not before. Socislism, the word, is now hanging on the balance beam of public opinion. Is it a bad word or has it become an acceptable word in that country. Likely it is still a bad word because they aren't nearly as *progressive as we in Canada. Bernie can't do it without the leftist MSM at least backing off. It's a self fulfilling prophecy for them though.

When all the socalled news shows come back on the air on Monday, we'll probably see then if they are going to climb on the Sanders bandwagon or not. Ratings are far more important than any silly race to be pres. 

* I never use the word in anything other than it's true definition. No US bullshit.