Aside from it being comical that you’re citing opinions Sanders held in 1979, this section was interesting:
I’ll give Sanders some additional respect - he anticipated the rise of Fox News.
Bah. *Network *was released in 1976.
It’s amazing, really, how little social progress we’ve made since then.
We’ve regressed. In 1976 the film was a dystopic, cautionary satire. Today it would be a documentary.
Sanders, like many liberals, fails to see a difference between things that happen because a totalitarian dictator directs them to as part of a master plan to keep the population subservient, and things that happen because the population chooses for them to happen.
Americans choose to vote more on American Idol than Presidential elections. We’d rather watch Walking Dead than a Presidential debate. C-span has lower ratings than Master Chef. There is a HUGE difference between stupidity enforced on us by a dictator and us choosing to be apathetic. One reason we’re apathetic is because the American system of democracy has low stakes. The Constitution guarantees our freedoms and the government’s power is limited. So there’s only so much they can do to screw up our lives. NOw I realize that in Sanders’ dream country, the government could do whatever it wanted. That would obviously make Americans a lot more interested in who gets elected.
Big Government’s power is limited only by the Federal Government, and if we get too apathetic about that, then the Feds lose their power to limit it, and we do end up with governmental overreach.
Here’s something I wonder about though. What if Sanders can actually beat Clinton? He’s drawing big crowds in Iowa. What if he won Iowa? Wouldn’t he then also be likely to win NH, which neighbors his home state?
I don’t think Sanders has any chance in a general election, so I wonder if someone jumps in late, or tries to, to save the party if Sanders upends Clinton and there are no other viable alternatives already in the race?
Sure he does. Don’t forget that the Republican base is going to demand that their nominee be batshit crazy or at least pledge allegiance to batshit orthodoxy. Sanders mops the floor with Ted Cruz or Scott Walker.
Not to mention that Sanders’ LW brand of economic populism is still economic populism. The Tea Party base hates Wall Street as much as Washington – it is conceivable Sanders could even capture some of that vote. (Well, it would be conceivable if he weren’t Jewish.)
Sorry, but no one actually calling themselves a socialist can get elected in this country. The term socialism is extremely unpopular:
Sanders seems like he’s playing the Eugene McCarthy role, with Al Gore, Joe Biden, and Liz Warren wanting to be RFK once LBJ gets toppled.
Would you care to explain just what in the world you mean by this statement?
I mean, I just don’t get it. Sanders is running against a sitting president of his own party? Gore, Biden, and Warren are all champing at the bit for Obama to announce he won’t run for reelection?
Saw a social media post based on a Media Matters report that this dude is being ignored by the mainstream media, when Republicans all get a lot of attention, heavily hinted at the behest of their corporate masters.
I think it’s more because they think he can’t win, and Republicans are insane.
Or maybe both. Could be both.
I think it’s more because Sanders isn’t running to win. He’s being careful not to hurt Clinton, which demonstrates that he is actually just trying to move her to the left. Such a gambit does not deserve much news coverage.
I am not sure you should be trying to read Bernie’s thoughts on the matter.
The fact is that he has a much more likely shot to win than most of the Republicans who are running.
Do you really think Fiorino has a better chance of becoming president than Sanders? I don’t. And she’s just the first who came to mind.
Yet many European countries have higher voting turnout rates than the United States, despite having most of the same constitutional provisions as here.
They have higher turnout because the stakes are higher. Government has more power in most European countries.
I’m…not convinced this is the reason. You might as well say that they have higher turnout because they don’t have campaigns lasting 18 months, complete with endless robocalls and wall-to-wall negative television ads filled with lies and misdirections that make everyone heartily sick of the whole thing by election day.
Also, all these reasons…
…apply to the UK too.
Not really. Most mainstream centre-left and centre-right parties don’t try to “rock the boat”-“Third Way” cucks mostly accept austerity and the Tories or UMP aren’t trying to dismantle universal health care.
Well…it depends on who you ask, really. They SAY they aren’t, anyway.