Right, because everyone being educated is a far worse outcome than being jobless AND in astronomical loads of debt. I'm picking up more than a hint of resentment in your posts.
Im no pro Israel particularly how they deal with the Palestinians but I don't understand the hate and hypocrisy by nations against Israel.
Supposedly they want to get rid of Israel because of their treatment of Palestinians but they themselves persecute and practice the occasional genocide of Kurds - a majority Muslim group of people. Turkey bombs them, Iraq gas them, etc.
Iran did it too, actually both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons when they were at war. So it seems that nobody wants the Kurds, wile the UN, as usual, do nothing about it.
I think that all of this have to do with territory expansion, Israel want all the biblical territories, that allegedly god promised them, Turkey doesn't want the Kurds and at the same time, want to gain territories at the border with Syria and regain it's Ottoman empire status.
At the same time you'll see ISIS fighting against Syrian Muslim people, there is a strange mix of ancient religious belief in those political agendas.
To understand some of this stuff you have to read some part of the bible (I'm not kidding) in particular the parts regarding Noah and his sons.
To understand some of this stuff you have to read some part of the bible (I'm not kidding)
LOL
All people have to realize is...at this point a nuke attack on Israel will provoke them, the jews, to hit EVERYBODY on their shit list regardless if there's proof or not the weapon originated from Iran (or smuggled into Israel and deployed by Palestinian military group).
I think they'll even hit old enemies like Egypt cuz why give anybody else an edge while you just got nuked.
Even if you're living across oceans it will matter cuz the radiation fallout (decades of half life, etc.) will displace millions of people. You think Europe can handle all that. They'll just smuggle people into north america by way of Mexico and South America.
All people have to realize is...at this point a nuke attack on Israel will provoke them, the jews, to hit EVERYBODY on their shit list regardless if there's proof or not the weapon originated from Iran (or smuggled into Israel and deployed by Palestinian military group).
I think they'll even hit old enemies like Egypt cuz why give anybody else an edge while you just got nuked.
Even if you're living across oceans it will matter cuz the radiation fallout (decades of half life, etc.) will displace millions of people. You think Europe can handle all that. They'll just smuggle people into north america by way of Mexico and South America.
They are the only one to have the capabilities of launching a nuclear strike on another country in that region, so I don't think anyone is planning a nuclear attack on them, as retaliation will be immediate.
If the IAEA has gave the OK I don't see what's the problem is on Iran civilian nuclear program, when there will be evidence that they are testing ICBMs or are in posses of aircraft capable of a nuclear air strike, then the people can start worrying about them.
This is what students mortgage their futures for in California Cal State and the UC system Make sure to look at the last column, that is what these people really cost.
Do you really think the Federal government should just give these people a blank check? Or do you think it's time cut the fat and lower the overhead of higher education? Is Europe paying middle management $300k+ a year in their University systems? Does Europe pay millions a year for sports coaches in their Universities?
when there will be evidence that they are testing ICBMs
They don't need tests cuz they already bought the field tested tech, the know-how from Pakistan, North Korea. They just need to process the raw radioactive material that they can pack into a bomb or grenade (FYI which America already has invented in the last century).
It just takes one weapon, even as a nuke bomb threat, to hostage your country. And if it goes off you think your leaders would wait weeks or a summer season in hopes it was an isolated incident. An accident? That there's no second, third, or fourth attack?
One way Iran can diffuse doubts is if they stop being belligerent to US or Israel. That's not happening so far, at least with the present leaders.
Iran did it too, actually both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons when they were at war. So it seems that nobody wants the Kurds, wile the UN, as usual, do nothing about it.
I think that all of this have to do with territory expansion, Israel want all the biblical territories, that allegedly god promised them, Turkey doesn't want the Kurds and at the same time, want to gain territories at the border with Syria and regain it's Ottoman empire status.
At the same time you'll see ISIS fighting against Syrian Muslim people, there is a strange mix of ancient religious belief in those political agendas.
To understand some of this stuff you have to read some part of the bible (I'm not kidding) in particular the parts regarding Noah and his sons.
It is a Mbit off topic, but if you consider that the decision made by the US have huge consequences around the world, discussing what may happen, in this case, continuing with the same policy, is relevant to which president is elected.
But I have to agree that whichever president is elected, nothing will change unless he have the support from the congress to do so, or from the sponsors.
Relevant meme just popped up on fb, I think it can hear us
Man, i dunno how someone can be this dense.
The primary reason it's a problem that people have degrees and no jobs, is because people with degrees HAVE CRIPPLING DEBT AS A RESULT.
Free education = no crippling debt. And sure, maybe the job market would be just as or more filled with educated people, but that's a far better problem to have than a largely uneducated society.
And maybe, MAYBE, if people didn't have huge debts, they might instead of just being workers, be entrepreneurs, and actually create work places. Or maybe they could look outside their little box and go where the jobs are?
The whole hate against free education is just baffling to me, "OH NOES! WE GOT TOO MANY ENGINEERS!", but with free education, people can actually have the option to expand their skill sets instead of being locked into one thing for the rest of their life, because the whole system is too damn inflexible to adapt to a changing world, without ruin the people who is suppose to run it.
Yes, there is a lot of changes that has to be done to get it to work, but you have to start somewhere, because the problem will just get worse by ignoring it.
Relevant meme just popped up on fb, I think it can hear us
Wait so you're argument is that the status quo for non-degree work won't get filled as a result of the surplus of degrees that come from free education?
This sounds a lot more like, don't educate people because then there will be too much competition for my job, and I don't want to have to you know, actually apply myself and be better than everyone else to earn that job.
Which is exactly why we need the Democratic nominee to be someone who inspires young people and people of color to get out and vote. So we can have better representation in the House and Senate. So we can start shifting things back toward sanity instead of this callous, self-cannibalizing, suffocatingly individualistic society the US has turned into.
>Which is exactly why we need the Democratic nominee to be someone who inspires young people and people of color to get out and vote.
While this would be great, you cant really rely on the youth to win you an election even if they showed up at the polls.
This is all my opinion, I feel like some people are getting upset with me that I think Sanders cant win. It doesn't mean I dont agree with a lot of what he says, its not an indictment of him, its just my opinion that Sanders presidency, or even a win in the primary, is pretty unlikely.
I think Sanders realizes he cant win, he's playing the same role that Ron Paul has played for about two decades now, which is using a primary campaign to bring light to issues he feels strongly about, and unlike Ron Paul its not just crazy economic theory, Bernies issues are focused on otherwise ignored-by-the-media social issues that deserve it.
Like Ron Paul and Donald Trump, Sanders is seeing a bump in his poll numbers, but that doesn't make them serious candiates. Ron Paul broke republican polling records in 2011/2012 during parts of the primary. These candidates get pretty big bumps from early enthusiastic support from the extreme left/rights of the political spectrum, as the people most likely to be paying attention at this point of the primary are those with a bigger interest in the extremes of their respective parties. Paul didn't even come close to winning.
Thats why I don't worry too much about Trump, or unfortunately put to much hope in Sanders, this is pretty much the expected way that these things play out. Again its not an indictment of Sanders, its just what I have seen from paying attention in the last few elections that make me think this.
> So we can start shifting things back toward sanity instead of this callous, self-cannibalizing, suffocatingly individualistic society the US has turned into.
Totally agree. Unfortunately for now the baby boomers are in charge, and there has never been a generation of more selfish, self entitled people. My favorite thing about facebook is the constant posts from Baby Boomers about how spoiled the modern generation of kids are, while they tear US politics, the environment, and the future deficit down around our heads so they can 'get theirs'. They also love to take credit for the things done by the 'greatest generation', which all took place while they were children.
>Which is exactly why we need the Democratic nominee to be someone who inspires young people and people of color to get out and vote.
While this would be great, you cant really rely on the youth to win you an election even if they showed up at the polls.
This is all my opinion, I feel like some people are getting upset with me that I think Sanders cant win. It doesn't mean I dont agree with a lot of what he says, its not an indictment of him, its just my opinion that Sanders presidency, or even a win in the primary, is pretty unlikely.
I think Sanders realizes he cant win, he's playing the same role that Ron Paul has played for about two decades now, which is using a primary campaign to bring light to issues he feels strongly about, and unlike Ron Paul its not just crazy economic theory, Bernies issues are focused on otherwise ignored-by-the-media social issues that deserve it.
Like Ron Paul and Donald Trump, Sanders is seeing a bump in his poll numbers, but that doesn't make them serious candiates. Ron Paul broke republican polling records in 2011/2012 during parts of the primary. These candidates get pretty big bumps from early enthusiastic support from the extreme left/rights of the political spectrum, as the people most likely to be paying attention at this point of the primary are those with a bigger interest in the extremes of their respective parties. Paul didn't even come close to winning.
Thats why I don't worry too much about Trump, or unfortunately put to much hope in Sanders, this is pretty much the expected way that these things play out. Again its not an indictment of Sanders, its just what I have seen from paying attention in the last few elections that make me think this.
> So we can start shifting things back toward sanity instead of this callous, self-cannibalizing, suffocatingly individualistic society the US has turned into.
Totally agree. Unfortunately for now the baby boomers are in charge, and there has never been a generation of more selfish, self entitled people. My favorite thing about facebook is the constant posts from Baby Boomers about how spoiled the modern generation of kids are, while they tear US politics, the environment, and the future deficit down around our heads so they can 'get theirs'. They also love to take credit for the things done by the 'greatest generation', which all took place while they were children.
Honestly, just seeing the voter turnout rise double digits for youth would be enough. This is bigger than Bernie winning an election, it's about instilling confidence into a population that has been trained into voting for 2 candidates. The only thing keeping the two party system alive is the voters believing that they have no other option. I like Bernie because he is the other option.
I don't agree with comparisons to Ron Paul either. We're looking at a different kind of beast that is social media. Kickstarters and sourcing money online are no longer new and scary. Youtube and having an online voice/presence is not new, nor is it reaching a minority. Everyone is plugged in; these are cultural norms. An "internet" candidate in 2008 vs 2016 is going to be vastly different.
Don't forget how extreme Ron Paul was on conspiracy theories either. I mean, the guy thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Bernie Sanders biggest conspiracy theory is that Wall Street likes it when people are poor and they are rich.
The media is going to do it's best to make you believe these guys are the same person. The more you associate Bernie Sanders with Ron Paul, the easier it will be to count him out and give Hillary the nomination.
Honestly, just seeing the voter turnout rise double digits for youth would be enough. This is bigger than Bernie winning an election, it's about instilling confidence into a population that has been trained into voting for 2 candidates. The only thing keeping the two party system alive is the voters believing that they have no other option. I like Bernie because he is the other option.
I don't agree with comparisons to Ron Paul either. We're looking at a different kind of beast that is social media. Kickstarters and sourcing money online are no longer new and scary. Youtube and having an online voice/presence is not new, nor is it reaching a minority. Everyone is plugged in; these are cultural norms. An "internet" candidate in 2008 vs 2016 is going to be vastly different.
Don't forget how extreme Ron Paul was on conspiracy theories either. I mean, the guy thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Bernie Sanders biggest conspiracy theory is that Wall Street likes it when people are poor and they are rich.
The media is going to do it's best to make you believe these guys are the same person. The more you associate Bernie Sanders with Ron Paul, the easier it will be to count him out and give Hillary the nomination.
Don't be that guy who calls people sheep when they don't share your view of the political process. I'll have a conversation with you but deliberate attempts to be smarmy are unnecessary.
>The media is going to do it's best to make you believe these guys are the same person.
I haven't seen the media make the comparison, I don't watch too much news though so they might be. That was my own comparison.
>This is bigger than Bernie winning an election, it's about instilling confidence into a population that has been trained into voting for 2 candidates.
Multiple candidates parties etc. would be ideal, but two parties is not some crazy conspiracy to keep people down. Its a byproduct of how voting and statistics and politics work, and ignoring that and throwing a cliche like 'how people have been trained' is just silly.
Dear friends, after hearing your thoughts and reading your arguments here I would like to let you all know that you're tragically wasting your time and energy with these candidates. Politics is the greatest lie and biggest whore of all time. Whether you're endorsing one candidate or another won't change a thing because politicians are truly the least prepared people to actually do some good in this world. Being a politician equals not having a valuable skill in anything other than knowing how to b.s. A ditch digger is a more skilled and more valuable member of society than a politician. All that these buffoons are doing is peddle the same old rhetoric tailored for a new electoral year, hoping that the hoards of idiots that come out to vote may put them in office.
There are huge problems in this world that will affect everyone -- overpopulation, pollution, rich / poor discrepancy, decline in IQ due to overreliance on technology, governments stuck and functioning on a debt machine... If you're waiting on people like Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, or Bush, or Trump, or Obama, or whoever, to resolve these issues, then we all might as well jump off a cliff right now. These fools won't do anything other than serve themselves and maybe those that have financed them. That's all the know how to do. They do a song and dance to get elected, then wallow in the same marsh with all the other politicians for a few years until it's time for another song and dance. This is why the best thing to do is to not vote at all. The less people vote for these types of garbage, the more the face of politics will have to change in order to properly address problems. Also, educating children, friends, and communities about real world issues is much better than just training them to go and vote like monkeys in this grotesque circus that most people don't comprehend but just like to call a democracy.
Rather than linking a very dense meandering wikipedia page, care to explain what you call "bias" here?
"So he makes it seem like FPP is really bad when the UK voted to stick with it."
Majority vote doesn't mean that the current system is ideal...
We have full-preferentialinstant-runoff voting here in australia, and while we still have a mostly two party system, it does enable a lot of smaller parties to actually have sway in govt.
We still have a two party system, as the system is far from perfect but at least the voting numbers and the people represented actually match far closer to the outcome.
We have traditionally had really good governments until this latest batch of fucking losers .
After all even with a better voting system it still requires an informed public.
A friend who is far more of a politics wonk than me has pointed out that Hillary pretty much has it in the bag because she has support of almost all of the superdelegates. The party pretty much decides who will be their candidate. The silver lining is Trump has no chance of being the Republican candidate either. (Trump has slightly more of a chance than Bernie on how the Republican nomination works)
So he makes it seem like FPP is really bad when the UK voted to stick with it.
FPP is an absolute fucking travesty of democracy that allows parties with considerably less than the majority vote to take the entirety of the power. The UK didn't vote to change to AV because it isn't any better - it's effectively the exact same system and the whole referendum was a sham, which is why hardly anybody even voted in it.
The UK political system is corrupt as fuck and is probably one of the worst examples in the 'civilized' world, given that it's fundamentally ruled by unelected autocrats who literally buy their way into positions of power.
What people had been asking for is proportional representation, but that was never on the cards, because it would have destroyed what has essentially been a two-party system for a great many years and allowed other parties a fairly substantial gain in number of seats (and a correspondingly substantial decline for said ruling two parties).
Don't be that guy who calls people sheep when they don't share your view of the political process. I'll have a conversation with you but deliberate attempts to be smarmy are unnecessary.
>The media is going to do it's best to make you believe these guys are the same person.
I haven't seen the media make the comparison, I don't watch too much news though so they might be. That was my own comparison.
>This is bigger than Bernie winning an election, it's about instilling confidence into a population that has been trained into voting for 2 candidates.
Multiple candidates parties etc. would be ideal, but two parties is not some crazy conspiracy to keep people down. Its a byproduct of how voting and statistics and politics work, and ignoring that and throwing a cliche like 'how people have been trained' is just silly.
The sheep comment was not so much a disagreement on political processes, it's ignoring or being oblivious to active smear campaigns and their end goals. I did overstep though, I apologize for the backhand as it was definitely uncalled for.
I agree with 'trained' being an exaggeration on the current voter population.A better word would have been mis-informed. America has a huge issue with not being well-informed, and the media only exacerbates this problem. For example, the GOP has had a foothold in the deep south since Republicans were called Democrats. People are just poorly informed on what they are voting for when they vote for a certain candidate.
Seeing a rise in Bernie's numbers shows that more voters are becoming better informed about their candidates, and I would even further suspect it's because of how accessible information is today.
But perhaps I'm being overly optimistic about predictions of a changing tide. Maybe a two party system is what the majority of America truly believes in and it's going to be this way for coming generations regardless of how accessible information has gotten.
It's always tempting to assume we're the enlightened ones and everyone else is simply a hoard of ignorant uneducated little shits, but failure to recognize the limits of your own knowledge probably isn't a good sign.
That sad thing is, many of them DO feel like they are educated/informed. Unfortunately, they get their 'information' from internet memes, or extremist sites, who clearly have agendas... or Fox News (again, with an agenda).
When I try to inform people, on Facebook, that their information is false, they either respond with "I still hate the guy", or they just get pissed, and continue to post the same information, in a different context.
But perhaps I'm being overly optimistic about predictions of a changing tide. Maybe a two party system is what the majority of America truly believes in and it's going to be this way for coming generations regardless of how accessible information has gotten.
So funny when you think about it... a nation that so fervently clings to its constitution and the ideals of their founding fathers... LOLOLOL!
And we are exactly that now lol , 2 political parties that drawn partisan lines and that's it. never willing to compromise just to rally teh base vs the other side
That's the problem; in recent years, the 2 parties has (d)evolved into only working in their own interests, and not compromising. Hell, I think when they accidentally agree on something, one side changes their opinion, just to make sure they have NO common ground.
They seem to overlook why we have a system like this. They forgot why compromise is essential for any of this to work.
Serving in congress was never meant to be a career path. Term Limits, Benefit limits , Campaign Finance reform and Lobbying Reform. Do that and watch how fast things get fixed
I agree... unfortunately, the people who are in charge of making that happen, are also the ones who benefit from it existing in its current state. Everything they receive, should be tied to the average citizen somehow, and there should definitely be term limits.
I'm from Denmark. Free education, and if you're 18+, the government pays you to attend school. I'm not saying it comes without a catch, since we pay about half our income in taxes (or more), but what I find interesting is the fact that it's a norm. From an outside perspective, it might seem like a lot, but I think we're so accustomed to it, that the majority of the population happily pays to keep the country the way it is. Whether it be the right way or not, I can't say, as it's the only thing I've tried. I do agree with it though
I'm from Denmark. Free education, and if you're 18+, the government pays you to attend school. I'm not saying it comes without a catch, since we pay about half our income in taxes (or more), but what I find interesting is the fact that it's a norm. From an outside perspective, it might seem like a lot, but I think we're so accustomed to it, that the majority of the population happily pays to keep the country the way it is. Whether it be the right way or not, I can't say, as it's the only thing I've tried. I do agree with it though
Americans have a problem paying for things if its not for themselves
I'm from Denmark. Free education, and if you're 18+, the government pays you to attend school. I'm not saying it comes without a catch, since we pay about half our income in taxes (or more), but what I find interesting is the fact that it's a norm. From an outside perspective, it might seem like a lot, but I think we're so accustomed to it, that the majority of the population happily pays to keep the country the way it is. Whether it be the right way or not, I can't say, as it's the only thing I've tried. I do agree with it though
Would you say Denmark has a higher or lower cost of living than the US? Are wages higher as well to make up for the larger income tax?
Yeah, things are higher, however we have a minimum wage and the wage is higher in general as well, plus there is LOT more support from what I know, compared to the US, when looking at the weakest in the society. So healthcare, free education, and support when jobless. We have more unions as well it seem.
Interesting enough, I heard something about Denmark being one of the only countries, where women earns as much and more then men.
Would you say Denmark has a higher or lower cost of living than the US? Are wages higher as well to make up for the larger income tax?
Cost of living I don't know, a quick google search would say quite similar..
I believe our wages are lower, but very appreciated in terms of 'quality of life'. I think the minimum wage is about 20 dollars an hour though, which I don't know how compares to the US..
That sad thing is, many of them DO feel like they are educated/informed. Unfortunately, they get their 'information' from internet memes, or extremist sites, who clearly have agendas... or Fox News (again, with an agenda).
When I try to inform people, on Facebook, that their information is false, they either respond with "I still hate the guy", or they just get pissed, and continue to post the same information, in a different context.
And people getting their information from top voted comments on reddit where most of Sanders supporters are is supposed to be any better? I mean honestly, am I more informed if I shape my opinions around a tumblr/reddit post vs something with a clear right leaning slant like wallstreet journal op ed? I seriously doubt it.
Still I think you're missing my point, it is tempting for everyone (no matter which side they are on) to think they're informed and that anyone who disagrees with them is simply ignorant. Some of the people in this thread seem to be under the impression no one in their right mind would be against Bernie Sanders if they were educated and informed, therefore they must not be. It's dangerous to start operating under the assumption that you hold the one true truth.
In Sanders case, for anyone who thinks his free trade position is nativist/populist nonsense (the benefits of free trade to the average person are about as uncontroversial among economists as global warming is among climate scientists), who thinks raising the minimum wage at the national level to $15 might be too high and could cause unemployment (especially when there are demonstrably better alternatives like raising the EITC which does a better job of both targeting the poor for assistance and taxing the wealthy). Who knows he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell at passing single payer healthcare and is equally skeptical about his education "plan". Who think that any liberal president including Hillary will more than likely nominate a supreme court justice that will vote down Citizens United seeing as the last vote was split between left/right...
..which are all perfectly reasonable and rational positions to have given the evidence available. And to those people Sanders doesn't have much to offer.
A lot of people are ignorant of course. I just don't think that should be determined by whether or not they support your preferred candidate or are willing to accept a salon.com opinion article as evidence.
Edit: most of this is in response to heyeye's comments, not yours. I'm just clarifying what I originally meant
Whether there are two political parties or several more doesn't make much of a difference. I keep an eye on European politics as a whole, especially on Greece and Romania where I'm originally from. A multitude of parties generally implies more politicians seeing the chance for a power vacuum and being eager to get to the top. In theory it gives the people more options, but if the politicians don't want to work together and put their country first before personal interests, nothing will get done. But I think you guys said it best here: Government should never be about profitable career paths. It should always be about the greater good and serving the public. Unfortunately, in this country and in most places around the world government officials think the other way around.
[FONT="][FONT="]I'm sorry if I offended anyone in my last post by trashing all politicians. I may have been a bit overly dramatic, and sure, not every single person in politics is a lying scumbag. But when you clearly see this lethargic, same-old, finger-pointing, nothing-really-gets-done attitude from most of them while they carry on their comfortable careers, it's quite upsetting. And it breaks my heart a little bit seeing smart, professional, hard-working people whose work I look up to and admire get caught in the political hype. I personally think it's not worth it. As people working in an industry where if you don't deliver you get fired, or if you're not good enough you don't get hired, we deserve a lot more than some empty promises from people that don't really have a true skill in life and have profited most of the time from taking it easy and not getting anything done.
[/FONT][/FONT]
And yes, the Nordic countries definitely have the most responsible governments. It's not too late to emulate them. But again, as you can see, government officials from the U.S. rarely mention this because most of them don't really like to work. [FONT="]In the end I agree the most with what Mashru Mishu said a couple of pages back. The world goes on with a set course of action regardless of who's president in the U.S. And I believe the only way to change the whole world for the better is for the upcoming generations to be more knowledgeable, skilled, virtuous, and courageous than previous ones.[/FONT]
And people getting their information from top voted comments on reddit where most of Sanders supporters are is supposed to be any better? I mean honestly, am I more informed if I shape my opinions around a tumblr/reddit post vs something with a clear right leaning slant like wallstreet journal op ed? I seriously doubt it.
Still I think you're missing my point, it is tempting for everyone (no matter which side they are on) to think they're informed and that anyone who disagrees with them is simply ignorant. Some of the people in this thread seem to be under the impression no one in their right mind would be against Bernie Sanders if they were educated and informed, therefore they must not be. It's dangerous to start operating under the assumption that you hold the one true truth.
In Sanders case, for anyone who thinks his free trade position is nativist/populist nonsense (the benefits of free trade to the average person are about as uncontroversial among economists as global warming is among climate scientists), who thinks raising the minimum wage at the national level to $15 might be too high and could cause unemployment (especially when there are demonstrably better alternatives like raising the EITC which does a better job of both targeting the poor for assistance and taxing the wealthy). Who knows he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell at passing single payer healthcare and is equally skeptical about his education "plan". Who think that any liberal president including Hillary will more than likely nominate a supreme court justice that will vote down Citizens United seeing as the last vote was split between left/right...
..which are all perfectly reasonable and rational positions to have given the evidence available. And to those people Sanders doesn't have much to offer.
A lot of people are ignorant of course. I just don't think that should be determined by whether or not they support your preferred candidate or are willing to accept a salon.com opinion article as evidence.
Edit: most of this is in response to heyeye's comments, not yours. I'm just clarifying what I originally meant
I think you're forming your own conclusions around my statements. I can see how my rhetoric can be misconstrued as it's no secret I have support for Sanders on most of his issues, but this is bigger than supporting him.
I believe seeing this kind of support shows two things: How the internet has opened accessibility of information to allow social media culture to be heavily involved in the candidates, and gives confidence to a population that believes there can only be 2 sides in a democratic republic.
Voting for Hillary, Trump, Deez Nutz, etc.. isn't wrong in any way, nor does it make someone less informed to someone voting for Bernie Sanders.
All that's important is they are actually informed before making their decision. This has not been the case in the past, and there's plenty of factual evidence to support this. I believe a two-party system is detrimental to a democratic republic, and the most effective way to change the system is to have a population confident in believing there is more than 2 choices in an election.
As an aside, I feel like there's a lot of disdain for Reddit because it fosters and even encourages a certain mob mentality of thinking in comments. While I do agree with that statement, I think it's also fair to say Reddit provides a great foundation for spreading and popularizing information, regardless of biases.
I don't feel like anyone is informed, if they only receive information from ANY social media site, unless you are watching videos from the candidate themselves, or the posts are backing up their opinions, with proper sources... just like any news outlet USED to do.
I've seen several interviews with Bernie, and I've seen his official statements, and so far, I agree with much of what he says. I don't feel like it's catered to certain demographics either, as often politicians do.
That's not to say I agree with EVERYTHING he believes/says, but I wouldn't expect to share 100% of views with anyone in the world.
That's the problem; in recent years, the 2 parties has (d)evolved into only working in their own interests, and not compromising. Hell, I think when they accidentally agree on something, one side changes their opinion, just to make sure they have NO common ground.
They seem to overlook why we have a system like this. They forgot why compromise is essential for any of this to work.
What I wouldn't give for a vote of 'no confidence', ie we don't want your shitty candidates, let's try this again. I'm no fan of Richard Dawkins but this quote has always resonated in a way that illuminates the absurdity of our system.
"The population of the US is nearly 300 million, including many of the best educated, most talented, most resourceful, humane people on earth. By almost any measure of civilised attainment, from Nobel prize-counts on down, the US leads the world by miles. You would think that a country with such resources, and such a field of talent, would be able to elect a leader of the highest quality. Yet, what has happened? At the end of all the primaries and party caucuses, the speeches and the televised debates, after a year or more of non-stop electioneering bustle, who, out of that entire population of 300 million, emerges at the top of the heap? George Bush."
Replies
Iran did it too, actually both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons when they were at war. So it seems that nobody wants the Kurds, wile the UN, as usual, do nothing about it.
I think that all of this have to do with territory expansion, Israel want all the biblical territories, that allegedly god promised them, Turkey doesn't want the Kurds and at the same time, want to gain territories at the border with Syria and regain it's Ottoman empire status.
At the same time you'll see ISIS fighting against Syrian Muslim people, there is a strange mix of ancient religious belief in those political agendas.
To understand some of this stuff you have to read some part of the bible (I'm not kidding) in particular the parts regarding Noah and his sons.
LOL
All people have to realize is...at this point a nuke attack on Israel will provoke them, the jews, to hit EVERYBODY on their shit list regardless if there's proof or not the weapon originated from Iran (or smuggled into Israel and deployed by Palestinian military group).
I think they'll even hit old enemies like Egypt cuz why give anybody else an edge while you just got nuked.
Even if you're living across oceans it will matter cuz the radiation fallout (decades of half life, etc.) will displace millions of people. You think Europe can handle all that. They'll just smuggle people into north america by way of Mexico and South America.
They are the only one to have the capabilities of launching a nuclear strike on another country in that region, so I don't think anyone is planning a nuclear attack on them, as retaliation will be immediate.
If the IAEA has gave the OK I don't see what's the problem is on Iran civilian nuclear program, when there will be evidence that they are testing ICBMs or are in posses of aircraft capable of a nuclear air strike, then the people can start worrying about them.
Do you really think the Federal government should just give these people a blank check? Or do you think it's time cut the fat and lower the overhead of higher education? Is Europe paying middle management $300k+ a year in their University systems? Does Europe pay millions a year for sports coaches in their Universities?
They don't need tests cuz they already bought the field tested tech, the know-how from Pakistan, North Korea. They just need to process the raw radioactive material that they can pack into a bomb or grenade (FYI which America already has invented in the last century).
It just takes one weapon, even as a nuke bomb threat, to hostage your country. And if it goes off you think your leaders would wait weeks or a summer season in hopes it was an isolated incident. An accident? That there's no second, third, or fourth attack?
One way Iran can diffuse doubts is if they stop being belligerent to US or Israel. That's not happening so far, at least with the present leaders.
How did we get from education to this?
It's simple:
America--->Foreign Policy--->Middle East.
It is a Mbit off topic, but if you consider that the decision made by the US have huge consequences around the world, discussing what may happen, in this case, continuing with the same policy, is relevant to which president is elected.
But I have to agree that whichever president is elected, nothing will change unless he have the support from the congress to do so, or from the sponsors.
Man, i dunno how someone can be this dense.
The primary reason it's a problem that people have degrees and no jobs, is because people with degrees HAVE CRIPPLING DEBT AS A RESULT.
Free education = no crippling debt. And sure, maybe the job market would be just as or more filled with educated people, but that's a far better problem to have than a largely uneducated society.
The whole hate against free education is just baffling to me, "OH NOES! WE GOT TOO MANY ENGINEERS!", but with free education, people can actually have the option to expand their skill sets instead of being locked into one thing for the rest of their life, because the whole system is too damn inflexible to adapt to a changing world, without ruin the people who is suppose to run it.
Yes, there is a lot of changes that has to be done to get it to work, but you have to start somewhere, because the problem will just get worse by ignoring it.
Disney for example, laid off it's experienced and degreed IT workers in its theme parks and replaced them with workers from India.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0
If all you'll end doing with your free education is a no-wage full time internship, you lose.
Wait so you're argument is that the status quo for non-degree work won't get filled as a result of the surplus of degrees that come from free education?
This sounds a lot more like, don't educate people because then there will be too much competition for my job, and I don't want to have to you know, actually apply myself and be better than everyone else to earn that job.
Yea. Let's do that.
[ame]
>Which is exactly why we need the Democratic nominee to be someone who inspires young people and people of color to get out and vote.
While this would be great, you cant really rely on the youth to win you an election even if they showed up at the polls.
This is all my opinion, I feel like some people are getting upset with me that I think Sanders cant win. It doesn't mean I dont agree with a lot of what he says, its not an indictment of him, its just my opinion that Sanders presidency, or even a win in the primary, is pretty unlikely.
I think Sanders realizes he cant win, he's playing the same role that Ron Paul has played for about two decades now, which is using a primary campaign to bring light to issues he feels strongly about, and unlike Ron Paul its not just crazy economic theory, Bernies issues are focused on otherwise ignored-by-the-media social issues that deserve it.
Like Ron Paul and Donald Trump, Sanders is seeing a bump in his poll numbers, but that doesn't make them serious candiates. Ron Paul broke republican polling records in 2011/2012 during parts of the primary. These candidates get pretty big bumps from early enthusiastic support from the extreme left/rights of the political spectrum, as the people most likely to be paying attention at this point of the primary are those with a bigger interest in the extremes of their respective parties. Paul didn't even come close to winning.
Thats why I don't worry too much about Trump, or unfortunately put to much hope in Sanders, this is pretty much the expected way that these things play out. Again its not an indictment of Sanders, its just what I have seen from paying attention in the last few elections that make me think this.
> So we can start shifting things back toward sanity instead of this callous, self-cannibalizing, suffocatingly individualistic society the US has turned into.
Totally agree. Unfortunately for now the baby boomers are in charge, and there has never been a generation of more selfish, self entitled people. My favorite thing about facebook is the constant posts from Baby Boomers about how spoiled the modern generation of kids are, while they tear US politics, the environment, and the future deficit down around our heads so they can 'get theirs'. They also love to take credit for the things done by the 'greatest generation', which all took place while they were children.
Honestly, just seeing the voter turnout rise double digits for youth would be enough. This is bigger than Bernie winning an election, it's about instilling confidence into a population that has been trained into voting for 2 candidates. The only thing keeping the two party system alive is the voters believing that they have no other option. I like Bernie because he is the other option.
I don't agree with comparisons to Ron Paul either. We're looking at a different kind of beast that is social media. Kickstarters and sourcing money online are no longer new and scary. Youtube and having an online voice/presence is not new, nor is it reaching a minority. Everyone is plugged in; these are cultural norms. An "internet" candidate in 2008 vs 2016 is going to be vastly different.
Don't forget how extreme Ron Paul was on conspiracy theories either. I mean, the guy thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Bernie Sanders biggest conspiracy theory is that Wall Street likes it when people are poor and they are rich.
The media is going to do it's best to make you believe these guys are the same person. The more you associate Bernie Sanders with Ron Paul, the easier it will be to count him out and give Hillary the nomination.
Don't be that sheep, please.
A good article:
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/02/the_bernie_sanders_smear_campaign_has_begun_how_his_opponents_will_try_to_take_him_down/
>Don't be that sheep, please.
Don't be that guy who calls people sheep when they don't share your view of the political process. I'll have a conversation with you but deliberate attempts to be smarmy are unnecessary.
>The media is going to do it's best to make you believe these guys are the same person.
I haven't seen the media make the comparison, I don't watch too much news though so they might be. That was my own comparison.
>This is bigger than Bernie winning an election, it's about instilling confidence into a population that has been trained into voting for 2 candidates.
Multiple candidates parties etc. would be ideal, but two parties is not some crazy conspiracy to keep people down. Its a byproduct of how voting and statistics and politics work, and ignoring that and throwing a cliche like 'how people have been trained' is just silly.
[ame]
There are huge problems in this world that will affect everyone -- overpopulation, pollution, rich / poor discrepancy, decline in IQ due to overreliance on technology, governments stuck and functioning on a debt machine... If you're waiting on people like Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, or Bush, or Trump, or Obama, or whoever, to resolve these issues, then we all might as well jump off a cliff right now. These fools won't do anything other than serve themselves and maybe those that have financed them. That's all the know how to do. They do a song and dance to get elected, then wallow in the same marsh with all the other politicians for a few years until it's time for another song and dance. This is why the best thing to do is to not vote at all. The less people vote for these types of garbage, the more the face of politics will have to change in order to properly address problems. Also, educating children, friends, and communities about real world issues is much better than just training them to go and vote like monkeys in this grotesque circus that most people don't comprehend but just like to call a democracy.
His videos are really biased and ignore key facts. The UK voted on this a few years ago and we voted to stay with FPP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011
So he makes it seem like FPP is really bad when the UK voted to stick with it.
"So he makes it seem like FPP is really bad when the UK voted to stick with it."
Majority vote doesn't mean that the current system is ideal...
We have full-preferential instant-runoff voting here in australia, and while we still have a mostly two party system, it does enable a lot of smaller parties to actually have sway in govt.
We still have a two party system, as the system is far from perfect but at least the voting numbers and the people represented actually match far closer to the outcome.
We have traditionally had really good governments until this latest batch of fucking losers
After all even with a better voting system it still requires an informed public.
FPP is an absolute fucking travesty of democracy that allows parties with considerably less than the majority vote to take the entirety of the power. The UK didn't vote to change to AV because it isn't any better - it's effectively the exact same system and the whole referendum was a sham, which is why hardly anybody even voted in it.
The UK political system is corrupt as fuck and is probably one of the worst examples in the 'civilized' world, given that it's fundamentally ruled by unelected autocrats who literally buy their way into positions of power.
What people had been asking for is proportional representation, but that was never on the cards, because it would have destroyed what has essentially been a two-party system for a great many years and allowed other parties a fairly substantial gain in number of seats (and a correspondingly substantial decline for said ruling two parties).
The sheep comment was not so much a disagreement on political processes, it's ignoring or being oblivious to active smear campaigns and their end goals. I did overstep though, I apologize for the backhand as it was definitely uncalled for.
I agree with 'trained' being an exaggeration on the current voter population.A better word would have been mis-informed. America has a huge issue with not being well-informed, and the media only exacerbates this problem. For example, the GOP has had a foothold in the deep south since Republicans were called Democrats. People are just poorly informed on what they are voting for when they vote for a certain candidate.
Seeing a rise in Bernie's numbers shows that more voters are becoming better informed about their candidates, and I would even further suspect it's because of how accessible information is today.
But perhaps I'm being overly optimistic about predictions of a changing tide. Maybe a two party system is what the majority of America truly believes in and it's going to be this way for coming generations regardless of how accessible information has gotten.
When I try to inform people, on Facebook, that their information is false, they either respond with "I still hate the guy", or they just get pissed, and continue to post the same information, in a different context.
So funny when you think about it... a nation that so fervently clings to its constitution and the ideals of their founding fathers... LOLOLOL!
They seem to overlook why we have a system like this. They forgot why compromise is essential for any of this to work.
Americans have a problem paying for things if its not for themselves
Would you say Denmark has a higher or lower cost of living than the US? Are wages higher as well to make up for the larger income tax?
Interesting enough, I heard something about Denmark being one of the only countries, where women earns as much and more then men.
Cost of living I don't know, a quick google search would say quite similar..
I believe our wages are lower, but very appreciated in terms of 'quality of life'. I think the minimum wage is about 20 dollars an hour though, which I don't know how compares to the US..
Still I think you're missing my point, it is tempting for everyone (no matter which side they are on) to think they're informed and that anyone who disagrees with them is simply ignorant. Some of the people in this thread seem to be under the impression no one in their right mind would be against Bernie Sanders if they were educated and informed, therefore they must not be. It's dangerous to start operating under the assumption that you hold the one true truth.
In Sanders case, for anyone who thinks his free trade position is nativist/populist nonsense (the benefits of free trade to the average person are about as uncontroversial among economists as global warming is among climate scientists), who thinks raising the minimum wage at the national level to $15 might be too high and could cause unemployment (especially when there are demonstrably better alternatives like raising the EITC which does a better job of both targeting the poor for assistance and taxing the wealthy). Who knows he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell at passing single payer healthcare and is equally skeptical about his education "plan". Who think that any liberal president including Hillary will more than likely nominate a supreme court justice that will vote down Citizens United seeing as the last vote was split between left/right...
..which are all perfectly reasonable and rational positions to have given the evidence available. And to those people Sanders doesn't have much to offer.
A lot of people are ignorant of course. I just don't think that should be determined by whether or not they support your preferred candidate or are willing to accept a salon.com opinion article as evidence.
Edit: most of this is in response to heyeye's comments, not yours. I'm just clarifying what I originally meant
[FONT="][FONT="]I'm sorry if I offended anyone in my last post by trashing all politicians. I may have been a bit overly dramatic, and sure, not every single person in politics is a lying scumbag. But when you clearly see this lethargic, same-old, finger-pointing, nothing-really-gets-done attitude from most of them while they carry on their comfortable careers, it's quite upsetting. And it breaks my heart a little bit seeing smart, professional, hard-working people whose work I look up to and admire get caught in the political hype. I personally think it's not worth it. As people working in an industry where if you don't deliver you get fired, or if you're not good enough you don't get hired, we deserve a lot more than some empty promises from people that don't really have a true skill in life and have profited most of the time from taking it easy and not getting anything done.
[/FONT][/FONT]
And yes, the Nordic countries definitely have the most responsible governments. It's not too late to emulate them. But again, as you can see, government officials from the U.S. rarely mention this because most of them don't really like to work. [FONT="]In the end I agree the most with what Mashru Mishu said a couple of pages back. The world goes on with a set course of action regardless of who's president in the U.S. And I believe the only way to change the whole world for the better is for the upcoming generations to be more knowledgeable, skilled, virtuous, and courageous than previous ones.[/FONT]
I think you're forming your own conclusions around my statements. I can see how my rhetoric can be misconstrued as it's no secret I have support for Sanders on most of his issues, but this is bigger than supporting him.
I believe seeing this kind of support shows two things: How the internet has opened accessibility of information to allow social media culture to be heavily involved in the candidates, and gives confidence to a population that believes there can only be 2 sides in a democratic republic.
Voting for Hillary, Trump, Deez Nutz, etc.. isn't wrong in any way, nor does it make someone less informed to someone voting for Bernie Sanders.
All that's important is they are actually informed before making their decision. This has not been the case in the past, and there's plenty of factual evidence to support this. I believe a two-party system is detrimental to a democratic republic, and the most effective way to change the system is to have a population confident in believing there is more than 2 choices in an election.
As an aside, I feel like there's a lot of disdain for Reddit because it fosters and even encourages a certain mob mentality of thinking in comments. While I do agree with that statement, I think it's also fair to say Reddit provides a great foundation for spreading and popularizing information, regardless of biases.
I've seen several interviews with Bernie, and I've seen his official statements, and so far, I agree with much of what he says. I don't feel like it's catered to certain demographics either, as often politicians do.
That's not to say I agree with EVERYTHING he believes/says, but I wouldn't expect to share 100% of views with anyone in the world.
"The population of the US is nearly 300 million, including many of the best educated, most talented, most resourceful, humane people on earth. By almost any measure of civilised attainment, from Nobel prize-counts on down, the US leads the world by miles. You would think that a country with such resources, and such a field of talent, would be able to elect a leader of the highest quality. Yet, what has happened? At the end of all the primaries and party caucuses, the speeches and the televised debates, after a year or more of non-stop electioneering bustle, who, out of that entire population of 300 million, emerges at the top of the heap? George Bush."