This Old Neon Forum

The only thing that can hurt him is voter apathy and name recognition, so if you're a US voter then instead of "liking to believe in him" just believe in him and be sure to cast your vote for the democratic nomination. I hope I'm not making too many assumptions about your party affiliation. I also don't want to become too overbearing in my Sanders zealotry, but try watching this video aimed at those who like Bernie, but don't know if they should support him as opposed to Hillary. It makes his campaign make a bit more sense and presents a clear case that his election is not a pipe dream.

My problem is that I live in California. If I lived in Iowa or New Hampshire or something, it might make a difference. California's primary is not until June, however. By that point in time, it's very possible that the primary election will have already been decided. Bernie may have dropped out of the race by June, or ideally he may be in such a strong winning position that my vote wouldn't matter.

For my vote to matter, the primary election would have to be very very close by the time June rolls around. That isn't likely going to happen because there are dozens of states that get to vote first and have a bigger impact on the outcome. This system really screws Californians. Puerto Rico gets to vote before we do. Ideally, I wish that all states and territories could just vote at the same time.

I want Jesse Ventura to run. Right now, Bernie is the best.

Purely from an entertainment standpoint, a general election of Joe Biden vs Donald Trump would be hilarious.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/ar ... nders-hol/

Their records are pretty similar, but there are some differences between Clinton and Sanders. This article does a really good job pointing them out and elaborating upon them. I like the infographic especially.

Important to note, that graphic is what the rest of the article fact-checks & in part debunks. It's a warning not to blindly trust memes, because they may not be telling the whole story. Although the startling thing for me was just how much of the image is actually more or less accurate.

The part of the infographic I found most interesting was an area that wasn't fact-checked, namely the bit about where the two candidates got their financing from. While Clinton having the support of the bankers, and Sanders having that of unions is to many people going to look like a sign of Sanders being for the people, it would actually worry me. U.S. unions are quite corrupt, and when they do speak for their members, it's usually in favor of idiotic populist policies that would not be good for most people in the nation. Active union workers in the U.S. are a tiny fraction of actual workers, their opinions therefore tend to be very unrepresentative.

Probably the only good thing Reagan did was crush the PATCO union(whose members ironically supported Reagan and were awarded for it after the election, but they wanted more, including being excluded from rules that applied to every other civil service industry). I don't really like calling these particular public sector groups "unions" anyway, but that's what most people call them. Sanders has support from both private and public sector union members.

I also don't particularly like Sanders' position on offshore drilling. Banning it altogether doesn't make much sense. Moreover all of these types of issues would be best evaluated in terms of their impacts on the environment on a case-by-case basis. The trouble is, there are interest groups who are opposed to this stuff in principle. The result of which is simply more use of coal and other more environmentally damaging sources. Hydraulic fracturing is a good example because, while there are instances where it may not be a good idea, 9/10 it is much more efficient than the alternatives. But most of these Greenpeace rubes want to act like their opposition to these endeavors isn't going to just lead to more use of dirtier energy sources.

The issues in the infographic where I would most agree with Sanders are opposition to the death penalty and his tendency not to be pro-interventionist in foreign policy. Not mentioned in the article, but I think it's fair to say Sanders is less of an austerian than any other candidate, he even hired Stephanie Kelton of all people, so that's also a big point in his favor.

TheGreatNads wrote:While Clinton having the support of the bankers, and Sanders having that of unions is to many people going to look like a sign of Sanders being for the people, it would actually worry me. U.S. unions are quite corrupt, and when they do speak for their members, it's usually in favor of idiotic populist policies that would not be good for most people in the nation.

*shrug* Still not as bad as banks. I think the percentage of his funding coming from small donations is more telling anyway.

Rob

The infographic is not perfect, but it is mostly accurate from what I saw.

Opensecrets.org also gives a lot of information about where candidates get their funding, and confirms that Sanders is mostly bankrolled by ordinary people giving him a bit of cash. The other candidates all have backers with much bigger wallets.

http://www.theonion.com/article/bernie- ... cher-50990

Related to that particular topic, this article from The Onion had me dying of laughter a few days ago.

Pluvius wrote:*shrug* Still not as bad as banks.

I take it for granted that pretty much no candidate is going to piss of bankers.

Although generally speaking these days banks in the U.S. aren't the ones calling for austerity or anything like that either.

Pluvius wrote:I think the percentage of his funding coming from small donations is more telling anyway.

Depends on how you look at it. For example, if Clinton receives just as much or more small donations, but also has much more large donations, that's going to shift the %s up. If your only wish is to demonize candidates with large donations, then that scenario would make no difference. But if the point is to ask how many small time donations a candidate is getting, those percentages won't give you that answer.

There's a whole lot of weird going on in this article about John McAfee's presidential bid.

He has his own party, the Cyber Party. I had some cyber parties back in high school.

EDIT: Here's his campaign website!

He's just doing it so that he can gain executive authority to shut down McAfee antivirus for good.