Silicon Valley Leaders' Plea to Democrats: Anyone but Sanders (nytimes.com) 459
The Silicon Valley venture capitalist Keith Rabois, onstage in January at a tech conference, said his first choice for president was a Democrat, Pete Buttigieg. And, sure, it would be a close call for Joseph R. Biden Jr. over President Trump. But Bernie Sanders? The New York Times: At that, Mr. Rabois, who has been a top executive at or invested in LinkedIn, Square, Yelp and PayPal, balked. Speaking to the crowd, he drew the line at democratic socialism. (Mr. Buttigieg ended his campaign on Sunday night.) "I would certainly vote for Trump over Sanders," Mr. Rabois declared. When it comes to the 2020 Democratic primaries, with California poised to allocate hundreds of delegates this week on Super Tuesday, many tech leaders in Silicon Valley have a plea: Anyone but Sanders.
From venture capitalists to chief executives, the tech elite are favoring moderates like Mr. Buttigieg and Michael R. Bloomberg. And with Mr. Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, leading the field in California and looking like the front-runner for the nomination, the tone among the leadership is growing more urgent. Few tech executives want to end up stuck choosing between Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump. Meanwhile, tech company workers are gathering en masse for Mr. Sanders. While Silicon Valley has long leaned blue, the chasm between centrist Democrats and an animated left wing has created uncertainty. And now two other things are happening. California Republicans see an opportunity. And a new moderate party in the state -- the Common Sense Party -- is rising.
From venture capitalists to chief executives, the tech elite are favoring moderates like Mr. Buttigieg and Michael R. Bloomberg. And with Mr. Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, leading the field in California and looking like the front-runner for the nomination, the tone among the leadership is growing more urgent. Few tech executives want to end up stuck choosing between Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump. Meanwhile, tech company workers are gathering en masse for Mr. Sanders. While Silicon Valley has long leaned blue, the chasm between centrist Democrats and an animated left wing has created uncertainty. And now two other things are happening. California Republicans see an opportunity. And a new moderate party in the state -- the Common Sense Party -- is rising.
Captive workers. (Score:4, Insightful)
Silicon Valley tycoons prefer if your health care is tied to them employing you. A lot of industries bank on "If you don't do this at work you'll lose your health insurance" to get work done.
Meanwhile, donations from employees of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Uber, SpaceX, Tesla, Microsoft and Oracle prefer Bernie Sanders [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This shit is so overblown and people way overcomplicate it. Come up with a system where care is guaranteed and medical bills won't bankrupt you. That's it. Shouldn't be 'free, free, free!' and it also shouldn't put you in the poor house. There are lots of alternatives. M4A is the wrong one, but so is what we have now.
How about we just model the HSA/HDHP plan most employers offer, but do it federally. You pay a max out of pocket based on income up to some reasonable amount. A modest hike in taxes, plus "pay
Re:Captive workers. (Score:5, Insightful)
This shit is so overblown and people way overcomplicate it.
So your solution to not-over-complicate it is to instead of just going to the doctor and being treated... a savings account which you have to manage, with investments, limited caps on annual contributions, tax rebates for employers making contributions to your savings account, with separate out-of-pocket maximums based on proven income and needing to change your "insurance" out of pocket maximum every year at some point... based on your tax return which you can legally delay until like October. Also the doctor still has to bill this government insurance administration and negotiate with the government how much the patient has to pay and collect not only the government insurance contribution but also still bill the patient. And if the patient loses their job in the middle of the year and no longer is earning 6 figures... does their maximum out of pocket go down to reflect their unemployment status? Do they get a new govt insurance card?
Oh yeah... that's way less complicated than just increasing taxes slightly more than your proposal and having a single payer system where the amount you can "afford" to pay towards healthcare is just pulled out of your paycheck when you make that money, not speculative based on a previous year's income. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly, in a career spanning two decades now, I've never heard a manager have to levy an ultimatum to get their employees to do their fucking jobs. Instead, they incentivise performance and everyone is much happier.
What kind of shithole companies have you worked at?
Want to know more about Bernie Sanders: Books (Score:4, Informative)
Books by Bernie Sanders, candidate for U.S. president: (Copied from another comment.)
The Speech: A Historic Filibuster on Corporate Greed and the Decline of Our Middle Class [amazon.com] (A speech given in the U.S. Senate on Dec. 10, 2010. Book printed in 2011.)
Outsider in the White House [amazon.com] (Sept. 28, 2015)
Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In [amazon.com] (Nov. 15, 2016)
Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution [amazon.com] (Aug. 29, 2017)
Where We Go from Here: Two Years in the Resistance [amazon.com] (Nov. 27, 2018)
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking when a bunch of bad people tell me not to do a thing, I want to do that thing even more. Are they campaigning for, or against Sanders?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Captive workers. (Score:3)
Re: Captive workers. (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, "medicare for all" means single-payer health care. It doesn't literally mean we all would have what medicare is now. Secondly, I have Obamacare Bronze insurance and it ain't that great. It cost $400 a month and it has an $8,000 deductible. I had a melanoma removed and it cost me $5,000 out of pocket. The insurance paid for nothing and it still costs $4,800 a year. That's just a lousy deal, it doesn't come close to the insanity some people have to deal with. Why does insulin cost $300 per dose when it was $30 in 1999? Why are there out of patent drugs that cost $10,000 per month? Why are people with serious injuries refusing to ride in an ambulance because they can't afford it?
That is literally the tip of the insane iceberg on how people are being squeezed for every last cent just to literally stay alive, and a lot of us are absolutely ready to vote for "Fidel Sanders" or anyone else who actually seems to give a damn about fixing this nightmare.
Re: Captive workers. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Captive workers. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Captive workers. (Score:4, Insightful)
With plain, unsuplemented Medicare, doctors frequently refuse service...
That'll last just long enough for them to realize that everyone has Medicare and they can either see them or flick fuzz in their empty exam room. And since Medicare is the primary coverage (meaning it has to be billed first), the patient having supplemental insurance doesn't simplify anything for them.
The extra Mom pays for the supplemental insurance plus the cost of Medicare itself is less than I have to pay for inferior coverage.
So nice try, but actual adults do the math. You seem to have a way to go yet.
Re:Captive workers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats asinine. Those unions have to fight, every time the contract is up, for the same protections. The plans are no where near as good as the propoesd medicare for all plan and wasting bargaining power on healthcare means you cannot use that bargaining power on wage increases.
But you know this, you are just trotting out this same old crap every time the conversation comes up.
The Culinary Workers Union sells insurance (Score:2)
There's also a smattering of Unions that oppose it because today their jobs are easy (just get a slightly smaller increase to healthcare costs and members are happy) whereas without that members would expect pay raises.
Re: (Score:2)
The plans are no where near as good as the propoesd medicare for all plan
No current plan is ever as good as any proposed plan a politician is trying to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
No new plan is as good as the status quo the centrist politicians are trying to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he's got a great ch
Re: (Score:2)
Bloomberg doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination. Biden's even a better choice than him.
https://projects.fivethirtyeig... [fivethirtyeight.com]
Bull shit. Insurance Sucks. (Score:2)
First off, it manages to work everywhere* else.
Second, health care sucks even if you have it. It's up there with "first world problems" compared to my peers but you have.
1. Open enrollment. Where you get to roll the die on what plan to pick. Do I plan on breaking an arm? Having a baby? So you monte carlo some life scenarios and hope and pray your year goes exactly like you want. (Also, don't forget to sign up by the drop dead date or you get *nothing*.)
2. Now they've gone to incentivize 'discounts'. So once
Re: (Score:3)
It would be a no-brainer if that was the purpose of government, but that isn't the purpose of government. You have to look at the history of FSAs to understand the real answer to your "I don't understand" question.
The net effect of an FSA is to shift certain medical expenses from post-tax money to pre-tax money. You put a certain amount of your salary into the FSA, and it is not subject to income tax. Your planning problem is to estimate how much you're going to spend on qualifying healthcare expenses ea
Re: (Score:3)
Medical bills aren't a write off there?
Re:Captive workers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unions did not fight for health CARE. They fought for health INSURANCE. Nobody, and I mean nobody "likes" their insurance. Whatever unions got in terms of health insurance, they will certainly demand, and get, in salary once health insurance is killed by single payer.
Have you ever used COBRA? It is massively expensive. Again, nobody likes insurance. It is a necessary evil in our current system.
Bernie Sanders is polling well above Trump, especially in key battleground states.
"Bernie Bros" don't hold a candle to the vitriol of the Hillbots (remember PUMA? "Unify behind Obama? Party Unity My Ass!") or the insane, untalented hacks Bloomberg has hired to sling shit.
Nice try, Bloombot.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, I get it but that's like saying you like a punch to the gut over a kick in the nads. With Medicare for All, you won't have to worry about any of that. With almost any insurance, if you go to an out of network doctor, they won't cover you as they would for an in network doctor. Many emergency rooms have doctors working there who are not in that hospital's network. You can get hit with surprise bills in almost any plan, not matter how good. With medicare for all, that won't ever happen. If you like pe
Re:Captive workers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Captive workers. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Captive workers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get distracted by health care. What the rich elite are really saying, is we stole the democrat party from workers, fuck the workers, we are the bosses, the workers should not have any representation what so ever, they should just fucking obey the bosses in the two bosses parties the Republicans and the Democrats. The majority, the workers, should have ZERO fucking representation and that is what they really are saying.
They are totally opposed to a workers political party, they are totally opposed to the idea of politicians representing workers and they are totally opposed to workers having a voice. They want to continue to fuck workers over and they never want it to end.
Let's not pretend anything other than that, they are rich selfish arseholes, you do not get rich by hardwork you get rich by being greedy by lying, cheating, stealing and killing.
Re:Captive workers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, this keeps being put out there, but can someone give me hard number examples?
Let's say I make $100K over there wherever you are.
How much is taken out of my check monthly/annually to cover this healthcare for all insurance?
From other threads like this, it seems that I've been told that if I want to bypass longer waiting times, and have more choice where I go and what I have done, I could *still*
Re:Captive workers. (Score:5, Interesting)
Most countries provide health care for everyone for less than the per-population amount you already pay in taxes to pay just for Medicare. That's because the US pays twice or more the proportion of GDP on health care as anyone else.
Now I'm not saying all those programs are good, certainly not as good as the best care you get under insurance in the US. But they are provided to everyone.
Re:Captive workers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately it isn't particularly true. Generally the quality of care seems to improve when profit motive is taken out of it. Hence better life expectancy, lower maternal death rates etc in most of the developed world. My personal experience is with Finland vs. the USA and I would much rather use the healthcare system in Finland. The bureaucracy we have to deal with in the US because of insurance companies is just ridiculous, and at worst it keeps the healthcare workers from treating patients.
Re:Captive workers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Hell, when my son was born it was $8,000/night just for the room, I think each diaper cost $25 and a bottle of formula was $50."
How do the poorest people in the US afford to have 3-5 kids?
Re: (Score:3)
They do it by not paying their hospital bill.
The resulting loss is then distributed to those people who do pay their bills, thus raising the cost for them.
Re:Captive workers. (Score:5, Informative)
They are not kidding. In the US, having a child costs about $30,000 on average. For comparison, a friend of mine recently had a child in Finland and their out of pocket costs were 300 Euro, to reserve an extra bed so he could stay with his wife in the hospital.
US healthcare costs are essentially random and up to infinitely expensive. I have paid $2500 for a sprained wrist, and $500 for a lung surgery and a week in the hospital (lord only knows how much my insurance paid). A dentist visit can be $2000 or $50. A short ride in an ambulance is $5000, or sometimes free, but more often $5000. The storyline of "Breaking Bad" with the million-dollar bill for a lung cancer diagnosis is realistic in the US.
Re:Captive workers. (Score:5, Interesting)
In New Zealand it would be about $3,200 taken from your $100,000 paycheck for health purposes.
Workings : In this country about 20% of government spending goes on public health.
Also the ratio of Income Tax to Sales Tax for an individual's tax contribution is about two-thirds income / one-third sales
You would pay about $24,000 income tax total from a $100,000 salary. So two-thirds of 20% of $24,000 = $3,200 of your annual paycheck would go towards public health for everyone
These are very, very rough figures but you get the idea.
It is a bit difficult to quantify exactly as the NZ government gathers all tax income into one big pot. The biggest non-individual source is tax on corporate income, so the big companies (when they can't avoid it) are actually subsidising the people.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't speak for all countries but around here if you are making $100k a year nothing is taken out of your check. In Ontario, Canada health care is payed for by federal payment transfers, income tax and payroll taxes.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Health_Insurance_Plan#Funding There is no direct deduction on your paycheck for OHIP.
Re:Captive workers. (Score:4, Informative)
Health care is paid for out of your income taxes, though, which are higher than in the US. Also, employers with annual payroll over $400,000 have to pay the employer health tax which indirectly does get passed on.
That said, as a Canadian, I'm delighted to pay my taxes, because in return I get to live in a country with decent health care that will never bankrupt me. The tradeoff is totally worth it.
It also indirectly benefits employers because they don't have to subsidize expensive health care insurance policies for their employees; they only need to offer much cheaper plans that top up coverage for things that the provincial plans don't cover like eye exams, dental care, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be an idiot. Yes that is entirely the purpose of that entry. You are paying a LOT for your health care now. It is printed on your W2 form (on mine at least, it says D: and another line for Medicare, I also just added my HSA contribution as a guess though in fact I know I will use that up and go over a bunch this year).
This seems accurate except: the health care cost listed under Bernie's plan may be way underestimated, which I think is the legitimate criticism. It is unfortunate that people arguing on
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I don't think medical should be "free", there has to be a large enough co-pay so that this is not used as a babysitting service or a way to shop around for free cosmetic procedures or drugs.
Your fears are completely fictional, I'm from Norway so I know what a single payer system looks like. A doctor's office is somewhere you go with an appointment, your visit usually lasts 15 minutes and until then you can wait in a drab room with a bunch of sick people and read a few outdated magazines. There's maybe a secretary to buzz you in but nobody's going to attend to your kids before or after the visit and the doctor will expect to talk to an adult too, I've never seen an unaccompanied minor there exc
You're paying that now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is that you'll happily pay double to make sure the other guy gets none?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Centrist Democrats? (Score:4, Informative)
the chasm between centrist Democrats and an animated left wing has created uncertainty
In most countries what we call "centrist Democrats" would be called "conservatives", and the supposed "left wing" would be closer to the center of the whatever liberal or progressive party there might be.
Re:Centrist Democrats? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's nice. However, other countries and their political views matter very little to internal politics of the United States. Just the same as the Republicans' right-leaning policies mean fuck-all to the UK and it's elections.
I don't know why people need to keep saying this, like it means anything at all. Brake Lathe Tony in Michigan doesn't care if liberal politics in Norway are farther to the left than what he already calls the "radical left" in his home country.
Re:Centrist Democrats? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because those countries tend to be extremely ethnically homogeneous. Homogeneity of culture is correlated with higher trust, and that in turn with more liberal political views, because the liberal conservative axis is dependent on how wary you are of possible threats. (Conservatives are more concerned with defending themselves from threats, whereas liberals are less concerned with possible threats). This is why the NRA is primarily conservative, why the country suddenly became more conservative after 9/11.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
https://journals.sagepub.com/d... [sagepub.com]
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-E... [jpost.com]
Furthermore, these countries have little need to spend money on military, since the US effectively provides their defense. This gives them a big chunk of tax money they can allocate to social programs instead.
Re:Centrist Democrats? (Score:4, Insightful)
Homogeneity of culture is correlated with higher trust, and that in turn with more liberal political views,
Your 'diversity is the problem' theory doesn't even pass the smell test. Which is more liberal, New York or Alabama? And which is more diverse? The one study you cite that looks at this even states, right there in the abstract;
"The results suggest that ethnic polarization and ethnic dominance rather than diversity are what matter for personal security measured as homicide rates."
And
"It seems that the heavy emphasis placed on ethnic diversity for explaining social dislocation and violence, in so far as it relates to a country’s homicide rate, seems to be misplaced."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what other countries have for ideologies means exactly fuck all here.....if the US wanted to be EU, we'd not have broken away 100's of years ago.
What left/right mean here vs "over there" means absolutely nothing and I dunno why people keep bringing it up.
We are different, we always have been and we w
Re:Centrist Democrats? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, yes. We know the USA is special.
That doesn't mean you can never learn anything from studying what other (less special) places do.
Re: (Score:3)
We've got a right-wing party that has spent the last 80 years marching further and further to the right.
Our "left-wing" party has been attempting to gather the people who did not follow this march. Which required it to go further and further right in an attempt to appeal to the former-right-wing-party members.
And here we are.
It's unstable, and we're going to get a split in the Democratic party because the coalition they're trying to form is way too broad. The Republican party will continue to march furthe
Re: (Score:3)
Actually living through this shift in politics demonstrates this statement is bullshit.
Republicans created the EPA. Reagan granted "amnesty to illegal aliens". Twice.
A Democrat has introduced single-payer healthcare legislation in every Congress since the 1920s.
But there is a shitty study by Pew that asks a series of Regan-era Republican talking points, with zero Democratic talking points, and asks "how much do you agree with these statements that are incredibly vague and don't directly relate to any poli
Anyone but Sanders? (Score:4, Funny)
I know just the candidate. His name is Donald, and he’s been very good to you, ungrateful scum.
Techbro CEOs ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Ultra Wealthy Agree (Score:2)
Spending a dollar on anyone but themselves sucks!
Of course they do (Score:5, Insightful)
Wealthy people prefer anyone establishment over Sanders. Sanders is actually serious about doing all the things the D's have pretended they were working toward all along.
There is no way the wealthy democrats will vote for him if nominated in the general!!!! Of course while the wealthy represent half the wealth they also only represent a couple thousand votes out of 300 million so who cares? Literally everyone else should be supporting Sanders because his policies benefit you.
And don't let them scare you with umpteen gajillion trillion dollar estimates. Most of the civilized world offers these things and it costs nowhere even remotely close to what they are saying per capita, those estimates pretend there are no cost controls that come with public healthcare. Shhhh... don't tell anyone but a surgery suite including half a dozen nurses making 65-74 a couple surgereons and anesthesiologist and HPEA 15 filtering still only costs about $150/hr not $75,000. That is a 500 fold completely unneccesary increase that we can simply cut at will when the public takes over. $60 Trillion over ten years drops to $120B over ten years at that point. The cost reductions are the math they not only want miscalculated but want to pretend don't exist at all.
But wait... what about everyone who doesn't want to give up their healthcare!!! Ummm you mean insurance, not healthcare, most people can't afford to use their post-obama insurance to get healthcare and premiums have gone up 150%+ in 3 yrs... who the hell wants their existing insurance over a plan which provides actual healthcare?
Re: (Score:2)
Please nominate Bernie, I'm begging you. Please please please please please. Did I say PLEASE?
Re:Of course they do (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful what you wish for. I know smug right wing types think they are very clever and "know" they will win over Bernie, but it's really not that simple. A lot can happen between now and Nov, and it would be close even right now. Throw in an economic collapse and Trump's only talking point (the economy) goes away.
That's why he's so desperate for rate cuts and economic stimulus, it's all he's got. I wouldn't vote for Bernie or for Warren, but I'm not such a deluded snowflake in my right wing echo chamber that I pretend Trump will win. A lot of this certainty seems to stem from his surprise win in 2016, as if "well, he won and surprised everyone so that means he will win again no matter what." Childish thinking.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump has cover for the economy now. Nobody is going to blame him for a Chinese virus. Bernie would be lucky to win two states under any circumstances.
Re: (Score:3)
I seem to remember a whole lot of similar comments about Trump before the last election.
That's a lot of pleases (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Coulter says Warren is the dangerous one. [twitter.com]
She has a point.
Sanders has a history of running in the Vermont Democratic primaries as as Democrat an then distancing himself from the party in the general election. If elected president he'd find himself in the same position as Trump vis a vis the Republican establishment -- there'd be plenty people in Congress whose fate was tied to him, but few genuine allies.
Warren's a problem for Wall Street (Score:3)
Sanders as an Independent would be a huge asset. Independents are a critical voting bloc, and Sanders is in a unique position to reach out to them. Meanwhile the sort of Democrat who's got enough party identity to care is also the kind that will show up to vote against Trump. Where do you think the
Re: (Score:2)
That really hasn't work out so well for the Republicans though. Where their ACA repeal? Where's the president's wall funding? The only thing they've managed legislatively are tax cuts and military spending increases.
Re: (Score:3)
*sigh* What you (and most other people) don't realize is that Sanders will make a Trump win much more likely.
Lots of conservatives don't like Trump, but they definitely won't vote for Sanders. Neither will many moderates.
Going farther to extremes is not going to help the situation. We need a moderate as the Democratic nominee if there's to be any chance of them defeating Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of conservatives don't like Trump, but they definitely won't vote for Sanders
They won't vote for Biden either.
You've held this football many times, Lucy. We know what will happen next if we follow your instructions.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the wealthy don't have more votes, but they definitely have a lot more fucking money, and money is speech according to Citizens United. And wealthy people are willing to spend a non-trivial percent of their wealth to protect the inverse percent.
The rest of what you said? Not going to happen. Good luck getting all the taxes and Medicare for All through a Congress that can't even be bothered to make far easier decisions when it comes to appropriations bills. Should Bernie win, he'll soon realize what
Feeling the Bern.. (Score:3)
...this vulture capitalist is.
So you won't vote for Sanders (Score:2)
But you'll vote for Sanders-clone Warren or Sanders-lite Biden. At least come out and say you'll vote for Bloomberg because he's just like you, Bloomberg at least tells it honestly he bought the Democratic party and will drop a big bag of money for himself if the DNC has no clear winners.
Re: (Score:2)
Were you under the impression that elections aren't bought and sold in every single race? How quaint.
"Tech elite"? (Score:2)
From venture capitalists to chief executives, the tech elite...
Since when are are the "tech elite" not the engineers and such who actually design the technology, but instead the fat cats who own and control them?
Re:"Tech elite"? (Score:4, Insightful)
It has literally never been the case that the "tech elite" were engineers.
I almost feel sorry for the DNC. (Score:2)
Any moderates reading this? (Score:2)
The most common thing I hear is that he can't get his ideas through, but everything is impossible until somebody does it.
Democrats should not fall for this (Score:4, Interesting)
How much Obama compromised to get a couple of Republican votes in healthcare. After all the compromises, they still voted against it. Instead of getting a single payer we got a severely compromised system, not what we really wanted.
Give them socialist. Raise the taxes. Destroy the system if that's what it has to be. Wall Street has already stolen everything from 99.5% of the people. There is nothing left. Some paid shills, and some henchmen politicians, some bought out judges that is all. It is high time to drain the swamp.
Destroy everything and start from the scratch.
The best point I've heard against the Centrists (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, which is it? Are you going to do stuff or not? You can't leave everything as is _and_ get stuff done. That's not how "doing stuff" works.
Rich guy disfavors populist candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Well isn't that interesting? Rich guys aren't for the candidate who is pledging to levy massive taxes on rich guys. I'm super surprised by this unpredictable development.
Like Sanders can even do much of anything (Score:3, Interesting)
Trump has proved that the president has very limited ability anymore to make substantial real changes to the country.
All the people freaking out about Sanders being president should stop worrying, just like all of the worry about Trump as president was way overblown, just like the worry about Obama as president was overblown.
Although there's not exactly a "Deep State" in the way conspiracy people think, there is a massive bureaucracy in place with so much self-interest and internal momentum, that real change is very difficult.
Sanders would be a good choice the same way Trump was a good choice, because it's good to have more people who are outsiders to the traditional political process, and willing to make others mad.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump has proved that the president has very limited ability anymore to make substantial real changes to the country.
But you are asserting that his ineffectiveness as President must be due to the system and not his incompetence or ineffectiveness as a leader. It doesn’t take into account that he faces opposition in many of his measures. However he has wrecked many things like relationships with other countries including allies. He has put into power others that are wholly unqualified (ie Devos and judges) that are affecting the country.
How? Be specific. (Score:3)
Trump is destroying America, in spite of being a moron.
How is he "Destroying America"? Be specific.
Now to come back onto topic, how would SANDERS "Destroy America"? Be specific.
The reality is that neither Trump nor Sanders CAN destroy America, it will keep on keeping on, sometimes not great, sometimes doing pretty well, a mix of everything as life actually is.
Stop with your stupid doom fantasies, get out and enjoy the real world and make life good for yourself, then for others. THAT is real change.
Anyon
I can't figure out if this is FUD or real (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure I care about the opinion of any entrepreneur. The vast majority got huge fortunes from a mixture of talent and lots of luck...but seem to get a sense of entitlement that it's nothing but their talent that got them there. Jeff Bezos, for example, is a sharp guy, but had he not invented Amazon.com, someone else would...same for Microsoft, Tesla, and every company I know of. At least those 3 don't pontificate about elections. Peter Thiel can go fuck himself along with Papa N-word John Schattner and everyone else who likes to threaten the electorate.
That said, who gives a shit of Bernie is elected? He'd be president, not king. Congress passes tax laws, not the president. He has some veto power, but that can be overrided. Why don't more people know this?!?! I am not sure the president has any more say in tax policy than Fox News. Trump had both houses of congress and never got his wall built...and he seemed to REALLY REALLY want to build that wall. The Muslim ban was struck down, the wall was never built, Hillary Clinton is not in jail. I don't take campaign promises seriously, especially when they're about things the president has no authority over.
Are there real actual dangers of Bernie getting elected, or are the ego-maniacal wealthy just threatening the people again? I notice more voices and from less sleazy people this time, but not from anyone I actually respect. Is this 2012 all over again?...or is there something special about Bernie we should know about? Smells a lot like FUD to me.
Re:I can't figure out if this is FUD or real (Score:4, Insightful)
The huge difference I see: Trump is a loudmouth. It's obvious that most of what he says is just rhetorics.
Sander is an idealist. He will actually go and work on those projects he is promising, and he has had decades of political experience. And if he manages a good victory with a solid margin, that's a sign to the rest of the Democratic party which direction to turn in order to win elections.
Oops! (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry (not), just voted for Bernie.
he drew the line at democratic socialism (Score:2)
So I guess he's not a fan of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, government-funded bank bailouts, etc... -- 'cause he's super rich.
Is this an ad for Sanders? (Score:4, Funny)
Do they not value honesty? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, he's honest. Compare that to Trump who is documented to lie at a staggering pace. Trump has held almost every position on almost every issue in the past decade. The choice should be pretty damned easy here, between a pathological liar with no clue what he's doing and an established senator who is brave enough to lay out coherent plans (even if the support in congress does not currently exist for them).
My rule of thumb is.... (Score:3)
...don't listen to tech CEO...ever.
Once again (Score:3)
Billionaires pounding their fists on their desks and shouting "no! we won't have this!"
How many times can the party "of the working man" tell the working man to fuck himself and expect to stay relevant?
Looks like 4 more years for Trump, then maybe 8 of Ivanka, then Barron?
Billionaires... (Score:3)
...don't like Bernie Sanders. That's gotta be a good thing, right?
They make their money by abusing workers, putting people out of jobs, tax avoidance, & lobbying for deregulation, "light touch" enforcement, & de-funding regulating agencies or putting industry cronies in charge of them. Bernie Sanders has promised to take on that kind of anti-social behaviour.
Re: (Score:3)
They make their money by abusing workers, putting people out of jobs, tax avoidance, & lobbying for deregulation, "light touch" enforcement, & de-funding regulating agencies or putting industry cronies in charge of them. Bernie Sanders has promised to take on that kind of anti-social behaviour.
The funny thing about Bernie is he used to rail against billionaires AND millionaires until he became a millionaire.
great endorsement (Score:3)
Well, when the super-rich and the financial industry parasites wet their underwear, then you know that this time there's really going to be some change.
And that's desperately, desperately needed. The rich fuckers don't get - yet - how bad things already are and that we're half a generation away from civil war because the poor can't take it any more and are no longer with having new toys occasionally.
I know a couple people who have basically had their lives stolen away from them by neo-liberal economic politics. Once enough of these people figure out who has their money and how they took it, politicians and billionaires will be swinging from the trees. Not before a couple hundred die in the clashes, of course, but look what our police and military are made from these days - poor, underpaid working-class people. Oops.
of course (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you find that imaginary tale.
The democratic party is all about open borders and healthcare for the world.
Re: (Score:2)
His far left base will freak out. They are throwing a hissy fit that he said he would not have a full moratorium on deportations and might deport violent criminals. Seriously.
On the other hand, the far left may not give as much of a shit about any type of immigrant unless they come illegally via the southern border, so you may be right specifically on H1Bs.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think TFA said that. I read that business leaders in California want a moderate democrat not an avowed socialist, and don't want to end up with the Trump/Bernie choice.
Re: (Score:2)
As if anyone didn't already figure that someone with that kind of money and a high profile business HASN'T bought Congress.
They're all bought and paid for, and if you haven't figured that out, you aren't paying any attention. Democrat, Republican; both corporatist, both serving monied interests while handing platitudes to actual voters while fucking them bigtime.
Re:Bernie is the only honest democratic candidate (Score:4, Interesting)
I no longer identify with any party. The Democratic Party stands in the way and stifles progressive moves, and thoroughly effs up using their wins to get much done, and fails to be a useful opposition party when they are in the minority. I'll vote blue even if Bernie doesn't win, but I will stay home if he loses due underhanded tactics from the party bosses. The crap they pulled 4 years ago (and Hillary's continued butt-hurt) are making it really damn hard to tolerate a party that seems to not want to believe in anything and only wants to be positioned as the "not Trump" party.
Re: (Score:3)
Similarly, I can't make myself identify with either party. And I agree, Bernie absolutely got the shaft from his own party in the last primary.
It really does seems like party leadership is not interested in pursuing the party's platform.
Frightening? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mind you, what he plans to do is very frightening, but I think he gets points for being honest about it.
Frightening? Implementing government programs that have shown to both work and be cost effective in dozens of other countries is frightening? It boggles the mind how extreme even some Democrats think Bernie is when the fact is that by global standards we're the strange outlier with our political Right, Bernie would be at most a touch Left of center in any other country.
Personally, I'd call what he's advocating for refreshing.
Re: (Score:3)
1: The DNC is heading towards a brokered convention. This means that what people voted for means zilcho. Bloomberg now gets the nomination because a brokered convention means that the convention is up for auction.
Nope. A brokered convention means Hillary.