"Freedom" thread or something

A Person wrote: JJLehto wrote: A Person wrote: JJLehto wrote: As for the other stuff, eh that's getting a bit out there for me, though I see truth to it in shades. As I looked more into stuff after our last crisis I was a little disturbed how govs/banking/business/wealthy all do seem to have a bit of a global cabal thing going on, but I dont really cave into the world planning type stuff. I just think tis wealthy peddling influence and self betterment No doubt there is agreement on things such as neo liberal policies and etc It doesn't seem conspiratorial at all to assume people with the power (in terms of money/influence) bend the system to suit their needs. It seems like a natural thing to me, actually. That is not what's out there for me, that indeed is totally sensible.  I mean the whole intl banking cabal Rothschild type stuff, and people getting together to plot the world's course and etc Yeah that kind of thing is on par with flat earth/faked moon landing/9/11 truther nutcase stuff as far as i'm concerned.

JJLehto wrote: Well, I read the interview. He was asked how he'd break em up, said could either pass legislation or use the authority in Dodd Frank.  Made sense to me.  Check my original post. I added a quote from the Sanders campaign where he elaborates, and notes no media source seemed to mention this part...  It was a NY paper and the media coverage has been, obviously, very pro Clinton. Of course it was spun that way.  Well, that's a shame but of course I can't change your opinion. He has been a champion of progressive policies, even when it was not politically acceptable, has gotten a lot done in Congress usually behind the scenes and unsexily, and he's worked with lots of people, including Clinton back in 93 when she praised his personal healthcare idea, Republicans, libertarians. He was on the committee that helped write Obamacare, though he personally wanted far more. He's got a good record and has achieved much, is far more than a likeable guy but oh well.  Clinton will be better than the GOP, which shall try to send us to 1928 and atomic bomb our economy.  We will instead slowly drift into worse and worse economic conditions, slowly choking away the country instead of nuking us. Maybe next recession people will turn more strongly to his ideas

oh its not a question of changing my mind.  I'd support him in a heartbeat if he was the nominee.

especially this year. This election is important... with the spectre of either Cruz or Trump as President.  I supported who is best suited to beat them. Idealism is great.. reality is everything. We need to win this election.

Look at it this way.. true or not.. this flap.  If he can't handle Hillary and her spin... what do you think will happen when the full might of the (could care less about facts) GOP attack dogs decended upon him.

Regardless of what the national polls say now...  he would be portrayed and likely come across as yet another N.E. liberal which is almost fatal for winning national elections.

This is going to be a BRUTAL campaign this fall.  Hillary has more balls than any of them and she will need them, she is tough enough and experienced enough to win a general election.  I don't feel Sanders is.

what matters is winning in November so what progress we have made the last 8 years.. is not rolled back within weeks.


Edited by micky - April 07 2016 at 18:53

I like the guy, really like his ideas, but I do have doubts if he is. Nothing to do with agreeing with him or not.  He doesn't strike me as better in that regard than the fools on the right.

He might have thought that unfair... but to toss the same back at Hillary is childish as well as laughable. No one in the field is more qualified or knows exactly what it means to lead at a national level, and internationally, than her.  Like or her not.. saying she is unqualified is ..well.  doesn't say much for the brain power of the person saying it.

micky wrote:  and likely shot any chance of a VP nod (would have been a smart move for Hillary) with the idiot attack on Hillary as being 'unfit' due to ties to Wall Street.

Edited by JJLehto - April 07 2016 at 18:32

I always have considered myself a pragmatist. Sanders is the better candidate and thus will support him in the primary. General election time, we shall see. As I've said my vote is not locked, I will pragmatically decide based on how things are looking. Like I said, I am lucky to live in reliably blue NJ, if things are heading that way again I shall likely vote Stein, if not I wont. Seems pragmatic to me

Edited by JJLehto - April 07 2016 at 18:09

but Teo was dead on.  Regardless of who is elected gridlock will prevail. Both parties are beholden to big money..

what matters.. what drives my vote.. what should drive others is again what I mentioned earlier. It is a culture war.

We have won on several issues... gay marriage.. check what the general opinions on that were 10 years ago.. we changed heart and minds... and barely (5-4) got it through the Supreme Court.

I agree with T. Ideals are great...  pragmatism is reality.  We can't get all we want in our candidates... I don't have to want to have a beer with Hillary or even like her...but at least with any Democratic nominee we know we will get someone that will fight for minority groups. Not to try to revisit our ugly past as the Republican party sure appears to want to do.


as a side note.. even with the win. Not a good week for Sanders. Horrible, almost Rubioesque, interview which he came off as ..well... all talk and no practical thoughts. Real solutions.

 and likely shot any chance of a VP nod (would have been a smart move for Hillary) with the idiot attack on Hillary as being 'unfit' due to ties to Wall Street. 

Depends on the Republican Presidency. 

Edited by JJLehto - April 07 2016 at 16:01

There is always the option that, say, an atrocious Trump or Cruz presidency would NOT lead to the dreamed-of future revolution #FeelTheBern people talk about, instead leading to just a less radical version of conservative rule. I'm just not seeing the US moving into a European-style system in my lifetime. 

The T wrote: The thing is, any Republican presidency (even a "moderate") terrifies me to a point not even close to what any Hillary or not-too-progressive candidate does.

I don't think the best short term strategy really extends to larger time scales.

JJLehto wrote: The T wrote: Some people can't afford to be idealistic. Helping the GOP (Cruz or Trump or even Kasich) get the possibility to nominate one and maybe more Supreme Court justices will destroy a lot of what said idealism is supposedly about.  A "screw the country if Sanders doesn't get the nomination" is not idealism, it's just ego-centrism with good make-up.  That's been the other line.  Sanders supporters who may not support Clinton are "entitled". I've seen several articles along this line, we're spoiled...we can afford a Trump Presidency. Or "screw the country!"  I will personally wait and see how things are looking come election time. My vote will depend on 1: How polling from NJ looks. If it looks like the Dem will win easily, as if often the case, I'll vote Green. If it's close, I'll vote Dem. Yeah people in swing states don't have this luxury but hey, people tell us to quit moaning about the system so I might as well use the system in place to my advantage 2: How polling looks in general 3: The Repub nominee. With a brokered convention looking likely, let's see. I know the Dems secretly WANT Trump since he's a guaranteed loss, but if its contested, who knows what will happen. Cruz is also hated by the party and unelectable, I am very sure the GOP doesn't want him.  If they make it Kasich, polling has shown he's consistently beat Clinton and he doesn't have many of the issues Trump and Cruz do. So we shall see.  I would also like to say, my family, like tens of millions, have seen a steady decline in well being from 2001, basically, to today. We were lucky to have a parent who was becoming a fairly big name manager at a payroll company in the late 90s...so we did very well at that time, many many families did not have that luxury.  Despite going from 1 job family to 4, cutting out pretty much all not necessary spending, and negotiating bills to ease the burden a bit....we're somehow doing worse today than 15 years ago.  I take some offense to being "spoiled" and can afford to go against the Dems. Seems to me we already can't afford the status quo, and the situation is much worse for many many other Americans. Is Clinton better than the Reps? Yes, (though I can see trump abandoning all his policies since he'll do anything for power and really is a not so secret liberal) but if I back Clinton I want to see the Dems then embrace the progressive movement.  If we back the party, and moment they win it's back to the same, back to ignoring the progressive movement and takes 0 attempt to make hard changes.... That'd be Clinton, then Obama then Clinton II. 3 strikes and you're out. If the party doesn't adapt..they're out.   She and others in the party have been quick to adopt Sanders-esque language or show "Hey hey we really do support this!" Is there validity to it? Time will tell...given many of her $ ties and actions as Secretary of State I find it hard to believe she wont continue supporting trade deals, wall st coddling, war hawkishness etc etc but hopefully there can be a wave of progressives who enter Congress, the left tea party, to balance this

Now that I can type better, yes, this is sensible. Your state luckily is not a swing one so it's less of a problem. Also, I see your point and agree with it. I'm not calling you spoiled (sorry if you though I did, come on) and you don't have a "Bernie or f**k the country" mentality like sadly many Bernie supporters do have. They actually would prefer to see this country in flames just because their preferred choice doesn't win the nomination (choice that I would also preferred, believe me I'm deeper to the left than most Bernie supporters).