News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

Mischief said:
If he were the candidate, all that the Republicans would have to do is play a tape of Bernie describing himself as a socialist on a loop, and Trump/Cruz/whoever would walk away with the election.
Click to expand...
ledboots said:
You don't understand how many Americans feel about socialism.
Click to expand...
Sanders is not a socialist, he's a social democrat. I do of course realize most Americans don't care much for such subtleties, but having grown up in a social democracy, I can assure you it was nothing like the USSR, Eastern Europe before the fall of the wall, China, Cuba, Vietnam and so on.

Read all about it: SandersIsNotASocialist.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dedalus
Indian Summer said:
Sanders is not a socialist, he's a social democrat. I do of course realize most Americans don't care much for such subtleties, but having grown up in a social democracy, I can assure you it was nothing like the USSR, Eastern Europe before the fall of the wall, China, Cuba, Vietnam and so on.

Read all about it: SandersIsNotASocialist.com
Click to expand...

You and I and some others may understand the distinction, but the vast majority of Americans don't.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Capstan
Mischief said:
You and I and some others may understand the distinction, but the vast majority of Americans don't.
Click to expand...

Vast majority? I think you overestimate.

Anti-socialism/pro-capitalism, as a war-cry, was introduced to the American people in the post-WWII years, when the nation rode high on manufacturing. It was part of the Cold War strategy, targeted most specifically against the Soviet Union, who was portrayed as our arch-enemy. But things change. The Soviet Union broke apart, the Cold War has been over for several decades, a new generation has come along, and people are starting to ask, what has capitalism done for us lately, other than to make most of us poorer than we were? Americans didn't balk when the New Deal was introduced, or when the Interstate Highway System was built, or when we flew to the moon. There are plenty of examples of Americans embracing socialism. In the meantime, there are other terms that are becoming part of the national political vocabulary, like, fascism, oligarchy, autocracy, dynasties, etc., counter-terms to an outdated Cold War battle cry.

IMO, the majority of Americans are not committed to a political ideology, one way or the other, but are concerned about what works. Americans are a practical people. The notion that a candidate can be defeated with a single word is naive, and an oversimplification. Sure, there a few die-hard, fanatical pinko-/commie-fighters who will curse socialism to their dying day, but they are not a majority. Anyone who hangs their ideals on a single word needs to go back to school, and learn how to form sentences. Paragraphs would be better.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Mischief
Socialism is the rallying cry of the Republicans/Tea Partiers.

Sadly, a lot, maybe not the majority, but an awful lot of Americans don't think for themselves.

I asked some people recently why they were supporting Bernie, and they ALL said because their friends were or because everyone on Facebook was. :rolleyes: I asked if there was a certain platform or issue that they supported and I was met with a dead stare and some mumbling about free things. They had no idea what he stood for except 'free' stuff. And a lot of Americans are the same way. If someone tells them to do something, or a friend is doing it, that's good enough for them. They don't want to be bothered with actually researching anything for themselves. That's why social media is so popular, they can see what others are doing and follow along without having to think for themselves.

By the way, I made those people I talked to actually read up on the candidates as much as I could, although they said they were bored after about 5 minutes. :sigh: But I did point out Bernie's anti-animal stuff (they are all huge animal lovers and some run sanctuaries) and they were shocked and were going to tell their friends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mischief and Amy SF
He voted in favor of The Sportsman Act, which was defeated that year, but reintroduced later and passed. :(

S. 2363 would carve out a loophole in the law for wealthy hunters to import sporthunted trophies of threatened polar bears, expose federal lands—including designated wilderness areas—to sport hunting and trapping and strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to protect wildlife, habitat and people from lead poisoning through exposure to toxic ammunition despite the availability of plenty of non-toxic alternatives.
Click to expand...

He voted against there being a limit on premium subsidies for farmers who make over $750,000. I know, not specifically animal related, but it bugs me that he comes from a dairy/farming state, claims to be against the 'rich' people, is not in the pocket of corporations, yet thinks those farmers making three quarters of a million dollars and up should get subsidies while voting in favor of the FARM bill which took away food stamps from actual poor people, and gave money in subsidies to dairy farmers (now it's animal related).

Voted for the Farm Bill version which includes giving money to dairy farmers who don't make a certain amount, gives money to ranchers who lose a large number of animals for various reasons, only allowing students taking certain courses to get food stamps, pays for the Dairy Promotion and Research Program, which "works to increase milk and dairy product demand through promotion, research, and education initiatives", while voting against subsidies or loans for farmers growing sugar cane or sugar beets (repeal sugar subsidies bill). Nope, no favoritism there for dairy farms. :rolleyes:

He made anti-factory farming/pro-small family farms one of his platforms, but when asked what he was going to do about the factory farms, (his wife answered) she said nothing, people like meat. Don't make it a platform and say it's terrible but that you're doing nothing about it because "people like it".
 
I know, some of that is nitpicking, but the Sportsman Act really bothers me, especially since he says he doesn't cater to the millionaires. If he gets elected, what else is he going to do for them? What animals will no longer be protected if millionaire hunters want to kill them, or hunters in general? He has said he supports hunting and fishing many times.


Vermont's Next Generation of Hunters
Steve LaFar, 56, learned to hunt turkeys on his own. His father died before he had a chance to pass along those skills. "I started thinking about that," LaFar said, explaining why he founded the Vermont Turkey & Young Guns Club. "How many kids don't have someone to teach them how to hunt?" LaFar, who was born in Swanton, now has roughly 60 kids, ranging from 8 to 17 years old, signed up for his program. They learn how to hunt safely and learn to respect local farmers who generously allow the use of their land. "It's about our kids. Our youth," LaFar said. Bernie praised LaFar for teaching young Vermonters healthy, rural values and for encouraging them to enjoy the outdoors.
Click to expand...
Vermont's Next Generation of Hunters
 
Last edited:
Well, it definitely looks like it's going to be Clinton now, and probably Trump on the Republican side. Neither seem a great option to me, and both have considerable negative ratings. In a fair race where the media did their job the third party candidates should do well ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
I think Cruz is planting the seeds of a delegate vote switch. If Trump doesn't get the minimum number of delegates to guarantee a nomination, there may be a surprise at the convention.

Indian Summer said:
Well, it definitely looks like it's going to be Clinton now, and probably Trump on the Republican side. Neither seem a great option to me, and both have considerable negative ratings. In a fair race where the media did their job the third party candidates should do well ...
Click to expand...
 
Indian Summer said:
Well, it definitely looks like it's going to be Clinton now, and probably Trump on the Republican side. Neither seem a great option to me, and both have considerable negative ratings. In a fair race where the media did their job the third party candidates should do well ...
Click to expand...

I keep hearing this from Bernie people, but he was in the news 10 times as often as Hillary, they were always reporting on his rallies. On the news shows that interviewed her, they also interviewed him, as well as the Republican candidates, so I don't know where the inequality was. :shrug: Can someone point out all the extra coverage she got that he didn't?
 
Calliegirl said:
I keep hearing this from Bernie people, but he was in the news 10 times as often as Hillary, they were always reporting on his rallies. On the news shows that interviewed her, they also interviewed him, as well as the Republican candidates, so I don't know where the inequality was. :shrug: Can someone point out all the extra coverage she got that he didn't?
Click to expand...
Sanders is not a third party candidate. I was referring to the other political parties that I do believe exist in the US, but we don't get to hear about them very much because the news media, for whatever reasons, only cares for the two big parties currently in the Congress.
 
Indian Summer said:
Sanders is not a third party candidate. I was referring to the other political parties that I do believe exist in the US, but we don't get to hear about them very much because the news media, for whatever reasons, only cares for the two big parties currently in the Congress.
Click to expand...

We don't get to hear about them much because hardly anyone cares about them.
 
Mischief said:
We don't get to hear about them much because hardly anyone cares about them.
Click to expand...

The media don't care about them and don't want to cover them. They have a vested, corporate interest in convincing voters there are only two viable parties they must affiliate with and vote for. If the voters knew more about political parties not beholden to corporations and lobbyists, they'd make a jump en masse to these parties and demand more for them, such as money, media coverage and, very importantly, representation on ballots everywhere. The media are also in collusion with the two big parties to maintain the status quo and a media blackout of other parties so they don't lose voters, and thus power, to other, potentially more attractive, political parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capstan
Amy SF said:
The media don't care about them and don't want to cover them. They have a vested, corporate interest in convincing voters there are only two viable parties they must affiliate with and vote for. If the voters knew more about political parties not beholden to corporations and lobbyists, they'd make a jump en masse to these parties and demand more for them, such as money, media coverage and, very importantly, representation on ballots everywhere. The media are also in collusion with the two big parties to maintain the status quo and a media blackout of other parties so they don't lose voters, and thus power, to other, potentially more attractive, political parties.
Click to expand...


I think you give the media much too much credit for planning things out. The media (which these days includes social media and is thus not a monolith) sells that which interests people. That's why the Kardashians and their ilk take up so much space - because people click on those stories.

People not only get the leaders they deserve, they get the media coverage they deserve/want.

If in depth coverage of complicated issues sold lots of newspapers/millions of people clicked on such reports, that's what we would see. That is not what interests the vast majority of the public though.
 
Mischief said:
I think you give the media much too much credit for planning things out. The media (which these days includes social media and is thus not a monolith) sells that which interests people. That's why the Kardashians and their ilk take up so much space - because people click on those stories.

People not only get the leaders they deserve, they get the media coverage they deserve/want.

If in depth coverage of complicated issues sold lots of newspapers/millions of people clicked on such reports, that's what we would see. That is not what interests the vast majority of the public though.
Click to expand...

So, the journalistic media publishes stories based on profitability? That's bias, plain and simple, in favor of their corporate sponsors. It's not journalism. It's manipulation, to sell products, that abandons objectivity. Catering to what people "want" isn't journalism. It's horseshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
Top Bottom