Bernie Sanders- Does He Have A Chance?

[EquALLity]

Eh, blessing in disguise I'd say. He'd probably not be a great president anyways, from what I can tell.

No offense, but you don't seem to know much about politics, so I'm not sure you can make that type of call. After all, you made an entire topic about how you don't care about it at all.

But anyways, this may be a stretch, but if this were Trump, you wouldn't be so angry about the system being fucked. But that's just me.

So? What is your point?

I'd be ok with RNC opposition to Trump, yeah, because Trump is a monster. That's a very different situation.

The reason why they opposed Bernie (when they've been denying that they've been slanted towards Clinton and dismissed accusations as conspiracy theories) is because his campaign was a threat to the establishment (which they are apart of) in that he was trying to make America more democratic. They were fighting against the agenda to make the government more representative of its citizens, and they were doing it in very dirty ways (seriously, attacking his religion?), which is pretty sick.

[Red]

No offense, but you don't seem to know much about politics, so I'm not sure you can make that type of call. After all, you made an entire topic about how you don't care about it at all.

Just going by what brimstone says, since whoever they are clearly has more expertise than me in this field.

So? What is your point?

I'm just saying it really isn't fair to be mad when the system works against you, but be happy when it works against your enemy. It's kind of a double standard if you think about it.

I'd be ok with RNC opposition to Trump, yeah, because Trump is a monster. That's a very different situation.

Firstly, I doubt that Trump believes 90% of what he says, and is most likely does it for the notoriety. And it seems to be working, since you can't browse the internet for 5 minutes without seeing his face. I feel bad for you if you're naive enough to believe he's actually planning on building a wall. Secondly, it's not really all that much of a different situation if you think about. What if Trump's party screwed with the system for similar reasons as to Bernie (as hard as that may be to believe).

The reason why they opposed Bernie (when they've been denying that they've been slanted towards Clinton and dismissed accusations as conspiracy theories) is because his campaign was a threat to the establishment (which they are apart of) in that he was trying to make America more democratic. They were fighting against the agenda to make the government more representative of its citizens, and they were doing it in very dirty ways (seriously, attacking his religion?), which is pretty sick.

Don't really care about the reason..

[EquALLity]

Just going by what brimstone says, since whoever they are clearly has more expertise than me in this field.

"_______ says so" isn't really an argument. If you don't know enough about something like this, then you should just learn more or abstain from having an opinion.

I'm just saying it really isn't fair to be mad when the system works against you, but be happy when it works against your enemy. It's kind of a double standard if you think about it.

I don't think so. It's not necessarily bad that the system is rigged; it's bad because of the consequences of it being rigged and the implications of that.

The consequences of it being against Bernie are him not winning the nomination, and the implications are that the democratic party is undemocratic.
The consequences of it being against Trump could help him lose the nomination, and the implications are that the republican party isn't completely crazy. It also shows they are undemocratic, but if that prevents a monster from controlling the country, then maybe that's ok.

Maybe it wouldn't be ok, because it sets a precedent in which the parties can essentially choose the nominee based on their biases, which aren't always good. So I do think maybe it would be bad if the republican party was 'biased' against Trump, though not as bad, because Bernie is better than Trump.
I don't see any contradiction with that position.

Firstly, I doubt that Trump believes 90% of what he says, and is most likely does it for the notoriety. And it seems to be working, since you can't browse the internet for 5 minutes without seeing his face. I feel bad for you if you're naive enough to believe he's actually planning on building a wall.

I feel bad for you if you're naive enough to believe Trump is this benign candidate who's not actually a serious threat.

I don't know what he's going to do. He did get the republicans to put building a wall in the party platform, though that might just be for publicity.
Like Bill Maher said:

“Do I think President Trump would actually disappear people? No, but I can’t rule it out,” he went on. “With him, I can’t rule anything out. What does he do on day one? Send Megyn Kelly to Guantanamo Bay?

How exactly, if he becomes President, is he going to go back on building a wall? It was one of the biggest parts of his campaign and it helped make him very popular in the republican primaries.
He's Trump though, so I guess he could find a way. But it's not just an issue of policy; it's what he's brought out in people.

Trump's had (and encouraged) violence at his rallies. At the republican convention that just happened, one of his speakers got the crowd to start chanting about Hillary Clinton, "GUILTY! GUILTY! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"
One of his speakers at the convention, not some random supporter, called Hillary Clinton the c-word on Twitter. An adviser of his recently said she should be shot.

Do you really feel comfortable having a person like that as President? No red flags? Seriously?

Secondly, it's not really all that much of a different situation if you think about. What if Trump's party screwed with the system for similar reasons as to Bernie (as hard as that may be to believe).

How can you say this when you've said you don't really know anything about or care about politics at all?

As far as we know, the RNC didn't plot against Trump, and if they did it likely wouldn't be for the same reasons.
If you think Trump isn't serious about most of what he says, then you probably don't think he's serious about getting money out of politics. He just pays lip service to it because it's a populist position.
I don't think the republicans are concerned about him doing that, I think they're concerned because he's so unpredictable and outrageous. He's also very bad for the party in terms of gaining female and minority voters.

Don't really care about the reason..

That reason is why it's better for bias to happen against Trump than it is for it to happen against Bernie.

[Red]

"_______ says so" isn't really an argument. If you don't know enough about something like this, then you should just learn more or abstain from having an opinion.

I'm going to completely rip a page from brimstone to respond to this

If 99.999% of scientists agree that the Earth is round, then you should be at least 99.999% sure about that.
If 60% of economists agree that we should have a certain economic policy, then you should be something like 60% sure of that (which is, not very sure at all).

I'm pretty sure this somehow applies to this situation.

I don't think so. It's not necessarily bad that the system is rigged; it's bad because of the consequences of it being rigged and the implications of that.

The consequences of it being against Bernie are him not winning the nomination, and the implications are that the democratic party is undemocratic.
The consequences of it being against Trump could help him lose the nomination, and the implications are that the republican party isn't completely crazy. It also shows they are undemocratic, but if that prevents a monster from controlling the country, then maybe that's ok.

I'm unsure what the fuck this has anything to do with what we're talking about. I just worded it differently. I don't give a shit about the implications.

Maybe it wouldn't be ok, because it sets a precedent in which the parties can essentially choose the nominee based on their biases, which aren't always good.

I thought biases were never good.

I feel bad for you if you're naive enough to believe Trump is this benign candidate who's not actually a serious threat.

I feel even more bad for you that you actually said that. I wouldn't that suspect reasonable policies on nucular power and GMOs from a president would make them a serious threat. I would suspect the opposite.

How exactly, if he becomes President, is he going to go back on building a wall? It was one of the biggest parts of his campaign and it helped make him very popular in the republican primaries.

yeah because people were stupid enough to buy into it.

He's Trump though, so I guess he could find a way. But it's not just an issue of policy; it's what he's brought out in people.

I dunno, those nucular and GMO policies are really tempting..

Trump's had (and encouraged) violence at his rallies. At the republican convention that just happened, one of his speakers got the crowd to start chanting about Hillary Clinton, "GUILTY! GUILTY! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"
One of his speakers at the convention, not some random supporter, called Hillary Clinton the c-word on Twitter. An adviser of his recently said she should be shot.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

Do you really feel comfortable having a person like that as President? No red flags? Seriously?

Sure, I don't care, even if that goes against the good nature a lot of people say I have.

How can you say this when you've said you don't really know anything about or care about politics at all?

I refer to he authority of brimstone and miniboes. Plus, I'm gonna invest in the nuclear power books miniboes recommended. So now who's gonna have the last laugh, huh? That is, if I'm able to understand the books.

[brimstoneSalad]

Given Trump's choice of running mate, I can make some guesses about the kind of campaign he's going to run, and it's probably not going to be good.

Hillary is not anti-nuclear or anti-GMO as far as I know. And she didn't choose Sanders as her running mate.

[EquALLity]

I'm going to completely rip a page from brimstone to respond to this

Me: "_________ says so isn't an argument."
You: "But ________ says it is."

...

I'm pretty sure this somehow applies to this situation.

So your line of thinking is:
You should trust what 99.9% of scientists say, what 60% of economists say, and all of what brimstoneSalad says.

Do you understand why scientific and economic consensus are actually valuable in the first place, or do you just trust it because brimstone says so?
The reason why scientific and economic consensus are valuable is because scientists and economists are experts of their respective fields and because the majority of them agree on something within those fields.
I know brimstone has a lot of knowledge and is intelligent, but he is neither a political expert nor more than one person.

And just ask yourself- "Would brimstoneSalad want me to take everything he says as the gospel, or critically think about his ideas?"
What do you think?

I'm unsure what the fuck this has anything to do with what we're talking about. I just worded it differently. I don't give a shit about the implications.

No offense, but that's because you didn't seem to actually analyze what I wrote there.

I'm not saying the bias against Bernie is bad in and of itself, it's bad because of the consequences of it and more importantly the implications it has on the party.

I thought biases were never good.

Well, I didn't say that.

I feel even more bad for you that you actually said that. I wouldn't that suspect reasonable policies on nucular power and GMOs from a president would make them a serious threat. I would suspect the opposite.

Why do you feel the need to be so condescending in these discussions?
I was talking about why Trump is bad, not benign like you seemed to be suggesting, and your response is that Bernie is bad too? That doesn't address what I said, even if it were true.

The only reason why you'd probably even expect that is because you apparently trust everything brimstoneSalad says the same as you'd trust a scientific consensus.

yeah because people were stupid enough to buy into it.

Right, stupid, unlike considering a person infallible and trusting everything he says...

I don't even think he's going to build a wall, though he might try. I'm just trying to imagine how he's going to go back on that since it was a huge part of his campaign. The wall isn't the biggest problem.

I dunno, those nucular and GMO policies are really tempting..

Are you suggesting that Trump is better than Hillary because of his position on nuclear energy and GMOs, or just better than Bernie?

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

Your answer didn't address my points directly though. It didn't say anything to explain why you think Trump's positions on nuclear energy and GMOs outweigh the fact that he's brought out the worst of people like that.

Sure, I don't care, even if that goes against the good nature a lot of people say I have.

Yes, I'm surprised it goes against your good nature of letting poor people die and taking children from their families...

I refer to he authority of brimstone and miniboes. Plus, I'm gonna invest in the nuclear power books miniboes recommended. So now who's gonna have the last laugh, huh? That is, if I'm able to understand the books.

I'm pretty sure miniboes was supporting Bernie Sanders.

But that's great if you're reading those books, I'm just not sure what that has to do with this.

[EquALLity]

Given Trump's choice of running mate, I can make some guesses about the kind of campaign he's going to run, and it's probably not going to be good.

Hillary is not anti-nuclear or anti-GMO as far as I know. And she didn't choose Sanders as her running mate.

In contrast to the campaign he's been running so far?
Yeah, Mike Pence is horrible. He's actually a lot like Ted Cruz. He's an evangelical Christian, anti-equal rights, against stem cell research, a war monger (voted for the Iraq War, which Trump attacked Clinton for), a climate denier (Trump has now outright called climate change a hoax, and bragged about calling it a hoax, btw), supports the War on Drugs, etc. etc.

Mike Pence actually has a 0% of rating from the Humane Society Legislation Fund. 0%.
And a 10% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (environmentalists).

Yeah, she isn't. And unfortunately, no, she chose Tim Kaine.
I'm not why she chose an average establishment democrat instead of a progressive like Elizabeth Warren, when a significant portion of Bernie supporters aren't supporting her currently. The Green Party and the Libertarian Party are polling much higher than usual- Gary Johnson has gotten over 10% in national polls (with zero media attention) already, and he might actually get into the debates if he gets to 15%.

[brimstoneSalad]

In contrast to the campaign he's been running so far?

Remember, we all thought he would veer center to appeal to independents. He's done the opposite with this choice of running mate.

I'm glad Hillary didn't pick Sanders; that would have made it harder to vote for her. But I still would have due to the Pence pick.
I think Trump may have shot himself in the foot with that one, with respect to independent voters. Same thing with McCain and Palin.

Hopefully there will be enough turnout for Hillary.

[Red]

Given Trump's choice of running mate, I can make some guesses about the kind of campaign he's going to run, and it's probably not going to be good.

Hillary is not anti-nuclear or anti-GMO as far as I know. And she didn't choose Sanders as her running mate.

damn you burned me. i got nothing.

[Red]

The only reason why I'm responding is because it'd be breaking the rules if I didn't.

Me: "_________ says so isn't an argument."
You: "But ________ says it is."

...

because they are more intelligent than me at something, not because they just say so. Now if they didn't provide evidence, then the authority that I'm referring to can go fuck themselves.

So your line of thinking is:
You should trust what 99.9% of scientists say, what 60% of economists say, and all of what brimstoneSalad says.

Do you understand why scientific and economic consensus are actually valuable in the first place, or do you just trust it because brimstone says so?
The reason why scientific and economic consensus are valuable is because scientists and economists are experts of their respective fields and because the majority of them agree on something within those fields.
I know brimstone has a lot of knowledge and is intelligent, but he is neither a political expert nor more than one person.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

And just ask yourself- "Would brimstoneSalad want me to take everything he says as the gospel, or critically think about his ideas?"
What do you think?

Both. brimstone is probably the smartest mofo I've ever met in my life, right next to my dad,so I'll believe what they say, and do some research about it, and think about ti from there. The only reason I'd take it as fact as first is because brimstone provides evidence and facts.

No offense, but that's because you didn't seem to actually analyze what I wrote there.

I'm not saying the bias against Bernie is bad in and of itself, it's bad because of the consequences of it and more importantly the implications it has on the party.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

Well, I didn't say that.

well what did you say?

Why do you feel the need to be so condescending in these discussions?

Because I honestly don't take these dolan trump and bernie sanders discussions very seriously.

I was talking about why Trump is bad, not benign like you seemed to be suggesting, and your response is that Bernie is bad too? That doesn't address what I said, even if it were true.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

The only reason why you'd probably even expect that is because you apparently trust everything brimstoneSalad says the same as you'd trust a scientific consensus.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

Right, stupid, unlike considering a person infallible and trusting everything he says...

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

I don't even think he's going to build a wall, though he might try. I'm just trying to imagine how he's going to go back on that since it was a huge part of his campaign. The wall isn't the biggest problem.

I'd like to see a wall, it'd make things more interesting. It's not a good thing, but an interesting one.

Are you suggesting that Trump is better than Hillary because of his position on nuclear energy and GMOs, or just better than Bernie?

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier,

Your answer didn't address my points directly though. It didn't say anything to explain why you think Trump's positions on nuclear energy and GMOs outweigh the fact that he's brought out the worst of people like that.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

Yes, I'm surprised it goes against your good nature of letting poor people die and taking children from their families...

I thought we already discussed this.

I'm pretty sure miniboes was supporting Bernie Sanders.

but he supports nucular power.

But that's great if you're reading those books, I'm just not sure what that has to do with this.

I'll actually have more authority on the matter.